Sri Srinivasulu Brungi

1/18

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

Monday, this the 22nd day of April, 2024

Present:-B.Srinivasulu,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Hanumakonda.

O.S.No.807 of 2017

Between:

1.Paripati Kondal Reddy, S/o: Venkat Reddy, Aged: 66 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o: H.No: 3-7-880, Vavilalapally, Karimnagar City and District. … Plaintiff

AND

Madireddy Ramchandra Reddy, S/o: Venkat Reddy, Aged: about 42 years, Occu: Business, R/o: H.No: 1-9-735/2, Basith Nagar, Postal Colony, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal. … Defendant

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 11.03.2024 in the presence of Sri.P.V.Vidyadhar Raj,Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff; and of Sri R.Muralidhar, Learned counsel for the Defendant; and upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the defendant, his yesmen, hooligans, workers, agents etc., and all those persons acting for and on behalf of the defendant from any way interfering/disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and in any way interfering with the construction work being carried out in 2/18 the suit schedule property in any manner and (c) To award costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are that the suit schedule property is purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.2128/1985, dated: 16.10.2015 from its erstwhile owner

Dandu Mysaiah, S/o: Sayanna by paying the valid sale consideration amount with actual delivery of possession. Eversince the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit schedule property with all attendant rights of ownership, title and possession without any hindrance of whatsoever nature. The Plaintiff used to supervise and clean the greenery, bushes grown in the suit schedule property from time to time. The Plaintiff has obtained layout regularization in respect of the suit schedule property by paying the requisite fee from the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority vide Proceeding No.L.R.S/C1/868/2010/1391, dated: 02.12.2011.

3.Subsequently the Plaintiff also obtained building permission from the Municipal Corporation, Warangal for the construction of the house vide permission No.G/45597/2013(229), dated: 31.01.2014. Due to paucity of funds, the plaintiff could not commence the construction work over the suit schedule property. The defendant claimed to be the alleged adjacent plot possessor, do not have any semblance of right or concern 3/18 over the suit schedule property, tried to interfere on 07.11.2017 while the plaintiff has been undertaking the labour work for levelling the suit schedule property by filling it with gravel and also on 05.12.2017 and 10.12.2017. Hence, the suit for perpetual injunction.

4.Written Statement filed by the defendant. Denied the averments of the Plaint specifically. The defendant is not having plot No.12 to an extent of 300 Sq.yards which has municipal No.2-10-905/3, the old shed has been dilapidated it is not existing and the Plot No.12 to an extent of 300 Sq.yards is within the Sy.No.552 which is situated at Waddepally

Village, Hanamkonda now which is called as S.B.H Colony with the following boundaries, East: Plot No’s.14 and 15, West: Plot No.10 of this defendant i.e., Municipal H.No.2-10-905/4 (dilapidated) and further west of Plot No.10, Plot No.8 is situated wherein a shed has been raised along with compound wall which has been numbered by the Municipal

Corporation as H.No: 2-10-905/2, North: Plot No.12 i.e., (H.No: 2-10- 893/5) and South: 30’ existing C.C. Road, this defendant has purchased the aforesaid property i.e., plot No.12 with H.No: 2-10-905/3 to an extent of 300 Sq.Yards from Hari Indira, W/o: Rajendra Prasad vide Registered

Doc.No.5999/2001, dated: 10.12.2001.

4/18

5.The vendor of this defendant has purchased the same from Dandu

Buchaiah vide registered Doc.No.2103/1985, dated: 14.10.1985, thus the defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of 300 Sq.yards in Plot

No.12 and the house bearing No.2-10-905/3 and the house bearing No.2- 10-905/3 though it is an open plot now as the earlier shed has been dilapidated. Even according to the Plaintiff, the defendant Plot No.12 is situated on the western side of Plaintiff’s plot. The defendant also filing a location sketch map showing the alignments of plots inorder to show the existing physical features on the spot including the suit schedule plot as well as the defendant’s plot and also the surrounding plots. Alignment of other plots which clearly shows that this defendant is not interfering or encroaching into the suit plot as per location sketch showing the alignment of plots.

6.To the defendant ‘s Plot No.12 on the Northern side of Plot No.13,

H.No.2-10-893/5 is situated. The owner of the Plot No.13 purchased under Doc.No.3106/2002 and its link document is a Registered

Doc.No.2416/1993, dated: 11.08.1993 and in the said documents on the southern side of the Plot No.13 Plot No.12 is shown. Similarly on the

Western side Plot No.10 is situated the owner of the Plot No.10 purchased under a Doc.No.6001, Dated: 10.12.2001 and Link

Doc.No.2105 of 1985, dated: 14.10.1985 in the boundaries of his 5/18 document on the eastern side, plot No.12 is shown. For Plot No.12 on the eastern side, Plot No’s.14 and 15 are situated, Plot No.15 owner purchased vide document No.3303/1999, dated; 16.07.1999 in his document on the Western side boundary shown as Plot No.12 and 13.

7.Even Plot No.14 owner while showing the schedule in the suit, he has also shown the plot No.12 on the western side boundary and on the

Northern side he has shown Plot No.15. Coming to the southern side for the plot No.12 there is existing 30” C.C Road, even on the spot all these physical features are existing and it is very much clear in the location sketch map which is filed along with the written statement. Nearby the suit land after Plot No.15, Plot No.16 is situated and the owner of the plot

No.16 constructed a 3 stored building leaving a 10’ Private lane on the eastern side taking municipal permission vide R.O.C.No.G1/33632/2014,

dated: 30.01.2015 and 231 B.A.No.246/14-15. As seen from the location

sketch map, the 10’ lane is meant for Plot No.15 only.

8.According to the defendant there was no existing 30’ road for the petitioner’s plot, at the time of purchase but a road was shown as proposed in between Plot No.14 and Plot No.17 by their vendor Dandu

Mysaiah, i.e., Vendor for these two plots in two Sy.No’s.564 and 605.

After filing this this suit and when Advocate Commissioner was 6/18 appointed, the commissioner in his report vide Para No.1 of Page No.3 observed that “it appears that the gravel (Moram) recently filled for formation of road”. Without proposed 30 feet road, the Petitioner’s plot is there as shown in the location sketch map.

9.The Plaintiff has failed to file any approved layout plan. The defendants Plot No.12 is in another Sy.No.552 and sold by another vendor i.e., Hari Indira with H.No. 2-10-905/3. The defendants eastern side plot No.14 belongs to the Plaintiff and its eastern side plot is with

Plot No.17 vide Doc.No.2124/1985. These two plots are (14 and 17) are situated in Sy.No.564 and 605 and the vendor of these two plots is one and the same i.e., Sri.Dandu Mysaiah. At the time of registration (in the year 1985) eastern side road to Plot No.14 and Western side road to Plot

No.17 was shown in between these two plots as 30’ Proposed Road.

(Even though there is a 30’ Road on the southern side).

10.But the road was not existing one at that time and even now also and the plaintiff after filing this suit is trying to form a road to his east and on the plea of a road to his east, the plaintiff is now trying to encroach into his western side defendants plot No.12 and which is in another Sy.No.552, sold by another vendor i.e., Hari Indira duly constructing a house there in with H.No.2-10-905/3. At the time of L.R.S 7/18 to the Plaintiff in the year 2011, the eastern side plot No.17 was vacant to show as proposed road. The defendant did not interfere on 07.11.2017 as contended by the Plaintiff and did not disturb the works of the Plaintiff, this defendant also did not dispossess the plaintiff, as such, the question does not arise at all. Similarly, the defendant did not had any men or hooligans to stop the work on 05.12.2017 and 10.12.2017, all the allegations are incorrect and false.

11. The main intention of the Plaintiff for filing the suit against this defendant is to grab the land of the defendant to his west in plot No.12 on the plea of a road to his east and by obtaining some or the other order from the Hon’ble Court except that the Plaintiff has no right or claim and possession over plot No.12 and at the same time, all the allegations made against the defendant are absolutely false and incorrect. The defendant has filed separate suit vide O.S.No.814/2018 on the file of the V-Addl.Junior Civil Judge as the Plaintiff and one

A.Kanthaiah are interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment over plot No.12 obtained ad-interim injunction vide I.A.No.845/2018 and the suit is pending.

12.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

8/18 (1)Whether the Plaintiff is owner and possessor of suit plot bearing

No.14 to an extent of 300 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.564 and 605?

(2) Whether the defendant plot No.12 in Sy.No.552 with house bearing

No.2-10-905/3?

(3) Whether there is 30 feet road existing on the east of suit plot?

(4) Whether the Plaintiff is trying to grab the plot of the defendant under the guise of road?

(5) Whether the defendant interfered over the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property?

6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

7) To what relief?

13.Inorder to prove the suit claim, on behalf of the Plaintiff himself is examined as P.W-1 and on his behalf, Exs.A-1 to A-5 documents are marked. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the supporting witnesses.

14.On behalf of the defendants, Defendant himself examined as D.W-1 and Exs.B-1 to B-13 documents are marked. D.Ws.2 and 3 are the supporting witnesses.

15.Heard the Learned counsel for the Plaintiff and the Learned counsel for the defendant. Perused the record.

9/18

16.ISSUE NO’S.1 AND 2: Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the purchase transactions of the Plaintiff and the defendant. This plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property way back in the year 1985 under Ex.A-1/Sale Deed. The suit schedule property under Ex.A-1 was

East: 30 feet wide Road, West: Plot No.12, North: Plot No.15, South: 30 feet wide road. Plot No.12 belongs to the defendant. He purchased from

Hari Indira under registered sale deed in the year 2001 and in turn the his vendor purchased under Doc.No.2105 of 1985, dated; 14.10.1985 i.e.,

Ex.B-6. Exs.B-1 and B-6 are title documents of D.W-1. Ex.A-1 is the title document. The Plaintiff documents are of 1985.

17.The Learned counsel for the Plaintiff argued that no document has been filed by the defendant with regard to the house number as pleaded by the defendant. The Learned counsel for the defendant argued that the said house was dilapidated 2-10-893/5. The Learned counsel for the

Plaintiff argued that the said house is only created one. Admittedly upon perusing the evidence and upon hearing the arguments of both sides,

Plaintiff purchased the suit plot i.e., Plot No.14 to an extent of 300.00

Sq.yards out of Sy.No.564 and 605 situated at Waddepalli Village,

Hanamkonda City and Mandal way back in the year 1985.

10/18

18.This suit is filed in the year 2017. Ex.A-1 vendor is Dandu Mysaiah and Ex.B-6 Vendor is Dandu Buchaiah i.e., Same Surname and made the land as plots. Dandu Buchaiah and Dandu Mysaiah are sons of Sayanna.

As such, Dandu Buchaiah and Dandu Maisaiah are brothers and residents of Siddharthanagar, Kazipet. Ex.A-1 Sale Deed executed on 16.10.1985.

Ex.B-6 executed on 14.10.1985.

19.Upon perusing the Ex.A-1/Sale Deed location sketch Map for Plot

No.14 which shows that the proposed 30 feet road towards East and

South. Road shown as proposed 30 feet road and West Plot No.12 i.e., defendant plot, North Plot No.15. It is also not disputed by both the parties with regard to the existence of both plots. Admittedly, for both the plots there is no approved layout. Upon perusing the Ex.B-6, dated:

14.10.1985 vendor is Dandu Buchaiah. Purchaser is R.Vijaya. Upon perusing the suit boundaries, East: Plot No.12, West: Plot No.8, North: Plot

No.11 and South 30 feet wide road.

20.Upon perusing the map in which also mentioned 30 feet wide road towards south. The main dispute is not with regards to the title and location of the plots, but the defendant denies the existence of 30 feet road to the Petitioner’s plot. As per the documents i.e., Ex.B-2 document and Ex.A-1 document, both are having title over their respective plots and 11/18 14 and 12 and boundaries also correct one. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff and issue No.2 is answered in favour of the defendant.

21.As per the defendant counsel arguments, there is existing 30 feet road. The advocate commissioner also observed laying of gravel. The advocate commissioner report can be taken into consideration as he visited the suit schedule property and filed the report. Upon perusing the

Advocate Commissioner report, he clearly observed that East side is the suit schedule property and mud road is existing opposite to the suit schedule plot. He clearly observed that eastern side towards the suit schedule property is mud way about 30 feet wide and he observed three floors residential building to the opposite side of the Plot No.14 (towards eastern side after 30 feet road) i.e., H.No.2-10-905/1/A. The said building west side entry gate open to 30 feet mud way/mud road. The said 30 feet road not properly laid/formed. The gravel (Moram) recently filled for formation of road. He also observed the said Moram road leads to Plot

No’s.14, 15 and 16. He also observed road width starting about 30 feet and it ends with 10 feet width i.e., 30 feet road for Plot No.14 and 24 feet width for Plot No.15 and 10 feet width in front of Plot No.16. In Plot No.16, house construction is in progress.

12/18

22.He also observed the Plot No.14(Schedule Plot) not ground/road level plot. The schedule plot occupied/covered with bushes and plants towards west side to the schedule plots are filled with Moram and those plots are in ground level. He observed south side road is cement road and east side road is 30 feet mud road. The objection of the respondent is that there is no road towards east to the schedule property. Way back in the year 1985 mentioned in the document that 30 feet road towards east side. Mere non formation of the cement road does not divest the way towards the east side. As such, it is crystal clear that there is road access to the suit schedule property towards East side and south side i.e., 30 feet wide road. The existence of the Plots in the locality is not disputed, but the defendant objected and pleaded that there is no way. Man may lie, but documents do not lie i.e., Ex.A-1 is of 1985 document for the suit plot.

Even the document link document relied upon by the defendant also shows proposed road towards south. Accordingly, issue is answered in favour of the Plaintiff that there is 30 feet road existing on the east of the suit plot.

23.ISSUE NO’S.4 TO 6: The Learned counsel for the Plaintiff argued that title of P.W-1 is not disputed one. The Plaintiff also not disputed the title of the defendant for Plot No.12 and Plot No.12 is Western side to the suit plot. Even this plaintiff’s plot also shown in the documents of this 13/18 defendant. The defendant under the guise of the suit trying to encroach the Plaintiff’s plot. Both parties have admitted i.e., P.W-1 admitted that he do not have any claim over the suit plot No.12. Similarly, D.W-1 also admitted that he do not have any claim over the suit Plot No.14. The other evidence is formal. This suit is filed earlier to O.S.No.814/2014.

Plaintiff has paid amount to regularize the plot and obtained proceedings under Ex.A-2 and also obtained building permission and also given complaint with regard to the interference.

24.The Plaintiff is absentee landlord and a resident of Karimnagar, whereas, the defendant is residing here. The defendant also pleads that there is 30 feet road towards East of the suit plot. But the evidence on record is crystal clear that there is 30 feet existing mud road. Moreover, road formation i.e., towards East way back in the year 1985 under Ex.A-1 and under Ex.B-2.

25.Ex.B-2 executed by Dandu Buchaiah in favour of Hari Indira. Hari

Indira is the vendor of D.W-1. Even Ex.B-2 also shows 30 feet proposed road. The Plot No.’s.14 and 15 are shown as Eastern side boundaries in

Ex.B-2 document. Though the Learned counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant plot is in Sy.No.552, whereas, Ex.A-1 plot belongs to the Plaintiff in different survey numbers, but boundaries are tallied. As 14/18 such, this document cannot be accepted. As relied upon by the Learned counsel for the defendant in Ex.B-10 he did not shown eastern side road and also not shown the entire plots. Ex.B-10 is contrary to the Advocate commissioner report. As per the Advocate Commissioner report, for Plot

No.14, South and East is 30 feet Road. There is also no dispute for Plot

No.16 and there is house construction in progress,

26.This defendant objected that there was no existing 30’ road for the petitioner’s plot at the time of purchase, but a road was shown as proposed in between Plot No’s.14 and 17 by their vendor Dandu Mysaiah.

Both the plots are extent of 300 Sq.Yards. P.W-1 denied the suggestion that there is no 30 feet road towards east of the suit plot. Upon perusing the cross examination of D.W-1, he admitted that he do not have any right over the suit schedule property i.e., house plot No.14 admeasuring 300

Sq.Yards in Sy.No.564 and 605.

27.In Ex.B-2 there is no house number. D.W-1 admitted in the cross examination that he do not know due to 40 feet road has converted as 60 feet road, the plot No’s.1 to 9 persons have adjusted their plots mutually.

He do not know due to adjustment of No’s.1 to 9, the other plots No.10, 11, 12,13 extents also reduced. In Ex.B-10 only Plot No.1 to 16 are shown. In Ex.B-12 Colour Photos also do not knows its entire extent. The 15/18 main differences between P.W-1 and D.W-1 is with regard to the Eastern side road to the suit plot and in the document also mentioned that there is road to the suit plot towards east side and also southern side and the same is also corroborated with the Advocate Commissioner’s report.

29.The Arguments of the Learned counsel for the defendant that gravel (Moram) filled recently for the formation of the road cannot be taken into consideration as the Advocate Commissioner measured the road and it is 30 feet road and it is existing. P.W-1 is absent Landlord. When P.W-1 is not residing at Hanamkonda, then the question of trying to interfere into the defendant’s plot does not arise at all. Whereas, the defendant is residing there and he is also having another plot towards western side to the plot i.e., house also near to the plot No’s.10 and 12 and he is residing at Hanamkonda, whereas, P.W-1 is a resident of Karimnagar town and retired employee. If any injunction is granted, there is every likelihood of interference.

30.P.W-1 purchased under registered sale deed way back in the year 1985 and also obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation and due to paucity of funds, not raised any construction. Further, D.W-1 pleads that house bearing No.2-10-905/4 and 2-10-905/3 for plot No’s.10 and 12, but not filed any document from the Municipal Corporation. The 16/18 evidence of D.Ws.2 to 4 is formal. Hence, from the above discussion, the defendant is trying to interfere over the suit schedule plot and the

Plaintiff never interfered over the defendant’s plot. The defendant is interfering into the suit plot by claiming that there is not 30 feet road towards east of the suit plot. Hence, from the above discussion, this court answered the issue I.e, Plaintiff never tried to encroach into the defendant plot under the guise of the road and the defendant is interfering over the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the suit plot and the Plaintiff is in possession over the suit plot and the Plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction.

31.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant by restraining his yesmen, workers, agents etc., acting for and on behalf of the defendant from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2024)

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

17/18

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS: P.W-1:P.Kondal Reddy D.W-1: Madireddy Ramchandra Reddy P.W-2: J.Bupathi Reddy D.W-2: P.Shyam Sunder Reddy P.W-3: B.Raji Reddy D.W-3: Gunda Prakasham D.W-4: Vinay Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A-1: Original Sale Deed vide Doc.No.2128/1985, 16.10.1985. Ex.A-2: Proceedings issued by Vice Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, dated: 02.12.2011. Ex.A-3: Original Building permission dated: 31.01.2014. Ex.A-4: Encumbrance dated: 13.11.2017 Ex.A-5: Original Copy of Police complaint received dated: 13.11.2017

FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.B-1: C.C of Doc.No.5999/01, dated: 10.12.2001 Ex.B-2: C.C of Doc.No.2103/85, dated: 10.10.1985 Ex.B-3: C.C of Doc.No.2416/93, dated: 11.08.1993 Ex.B-4: C.C of Doc.No.3106/02, dated: 12.06.2002 Ex.B-5: C.C of Doc.No.6001/01, dated: 10.12.2001 Ex.B-6: Original Doc.No.2105/85, dated: 14.10.1985 Ex.B-7: C.C of Doc.No.3303/99, dated: 16.07.1999 Ex.B-8: C.C of Doc.No.2124/85, dated: 16.10.85. Ex.B-9: C.C of Injunction order, dated: 14.08.2018 Ex.B-10: Location Sketch Map (Market subject to objection) Ex.B-11: Colour photographs along with CD Ex.B-12: C.C of Tax Receipts dated: 30.10.2001 on the name of Indira Ex.B-13: Property Assessment Tax receipts of Warangal Municipal Corporation of Indira, dated: 01.10.2001. (Exs.B-11 to B-13 are wrongly marked as Exs.B-12 to 14 by omitting Ex.B-11 in the deposition which are marked as Exs.B-12 to B-14 in the deposition of D.W-1)

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA.

1/16

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

Tuesday, this the 16th day of April, 2024

Present:-B.Srinivasulu,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Hanumakonda.

O.S.No.187 of 2023 (Old.O.S.No.279 of 2014)

Between:

Sri Lakkireddy Raji Reddy, S/o: Malla Reddy, Aged: 62 years, Occu: Coolie, R/o: H.No: 2-74/2, Madikonda Village, Mandal: Hanamkonda, District: Warangal. … Plaintiff

AND

1. Smt.Lakkireddy Buchamma, W/o: Raji Reddy, Aged: 58 years, Occu: Household, R/o: C/o: N.Sanjeeva Reddy, Plot No.42.55, K.K.M Colony, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Bachupalle, District: Ranga Reddy.

2. Sri.Kothapeta Narsimha Reddy, S/o: K.Nagi Reddy, Aged: 28 years, Occu: Private Employee, R/o: H.No: 2-65, Anakur Village, Mandal: Vanaparthy, District: Mahabubbagar. … Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 20.03.2024 in the presence of Sri.Dussa Janardhan,Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff; and of Sri.E.Venugopal Rao, Learned counsel for the Defendant No.2; and the defendant No.1 having remained set exparte; and upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title that the

Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the house property bearing No.2-74/2,

New Municipal Corporation No.30-2-74/2, admeasuring 180.00 Sq.yards or 150.49 Sq.Mts, situated at Madikonda Village and Gram Panchayath, 2/16

Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, Revenue and Registration

District, (b) To declare the registered sale deed vide Doc.No.9432/2013,

dated: 06.11.2013 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the

defendant No.2 as null and void, (c) Pass a decree by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, workmen and all other persons acting on their behalf from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property and (d) To award costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are that the plaintiff has purchased an open plot admeasuring 180.00 Sq.yards in Sy.No.1043 of madikonda

Revenue Village from its original land lord Sri.Avala Narotham Reddy,

S/o: Janardhan Reddy under a simple sale deed, dated: 15.11.1996.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff constructed the house in the said plot without the permission of the Gram Panchayath in the year 1999-2000 by investing about more than Rs.2,00,000/-. Later, the said house property was got mutated in the name of the defendant No.1 who is none other than the legally wedded wife of the Plaintiff and house number was allotted on her name bearing H.No: 2-74/2 by the Gram Panchayath, Madikonda in the year 2000 itself. Since the Plaintiff and the defendant No.1 have been residing in the same house and the Plaintiff is paying house tax regularly to the suit schedule property.

3/16

3.That out of the wedlock of the Plaintiff and the defendant,they were blessed with one female child by name K.Radika. Later, the Plaintiff and the defendant No.1 performed the marriage of their daughter Radhika with N.Sanjeeva Reddy on 12.05.2013 as per hindu rites and caste customs prevailed and since then Radhika has been residing along with her husband at her in-Laws house. Defendant No.1 has been suffering from Chest Cancer disease since last three years and she has been taking treatment continuously and in the third week of August, 2013, she left society of the Plaintiff and residing with her daughter at Ranga Reddy

District.

4.In the first week of April, 2014, the Plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.9432/2013,

dated: 06.11.2013 in favour of the defendant No.2 pertaining to the suit

schedule house property bearing H.No.2-74/2 of Madikonda Village without the consent and knowledge of the Plaintiff and at the instance of their daughter and son in Law of the Plaintiff and defendant No.1. After knowing the malafide activities of the defendant No.1, the Plaintiff approached the registrar office and obtained the true attested copy on 04.04.2014 and confirmed about the illegal alienation of the suit schedule house property by the defendant No.1 and execution of the registered sale deed vide Doc.No.9432/2013, dated: 06.11.2013 in 4/16 favour of the defendant No.2 to deprive the rights of the Plaintiff on the suit schedule property.

5. Defendant No.1 is only the nominee of the suit schedule property, whereas, the Plaintiff is only the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and himself purchased the house site plot and constructed the house out of his earnings only. The defendant No.1 has no manner of right to alienate the same to the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 is the close relative of the Son in Law of the Plaintiff and defendant No.1.

6.Hence, the defendants, daughter and son-in-law of the Plaintiff colluded with each other and got created a sale deed to alienate the same to third party to deprive the right and interest of the Plaintiff. After obtaining the certified copy of the registered sale deed, the Plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant No’s.1 and 2 on 16.04.2014 demanding them to cancel the registered sale deed vide

Doc.No.9432/2013. The said notice was served to the defendant No.2, whereas the defendant No.1 refused to receive the said notice. But the defendants neither replied for the legal notice nor cancelled the registered sale deed within the stipulated period. Hence, the suit for declaration that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit house 5/16 property and also for declaration that registered sale deed vide

Doc.No.9432/2013, dated: 6.11.2013 executed by the defendant No.1 infavour of defendant No.2 is null and void and for permanent injunction.

7.Defendant No.1 was set exparte. Defendant No.2 filed written statement. Denied the averments of the Plaint. Admitted that the defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of the suit house property bearing No.2-74/2 of Madikonda Village. Also admitted that the Plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are resided in the said house and sold the said property to this defendant for a valid consideration and delivered vacant possession. Denied that the Plaintiff is paying the house tax regularly.

Defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor and having title and as per record, as such, the question of filing this present suit for declaration and seeking declaration of the registered sale deed of this defendant No.2 as null and void and granting permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff does not arise. Moreover the Plaintiff basing on the alleged simple sale deed is not entitled for any relief as prayed.

8.The cause of action as pleaded in only created and is imaginary for the purpose of this suit. The plaintiff suppressed the material facts on record and approached the court with unclean hands. The Plaintiff is having sufficient knowledge that the defendant is in peaceful possession 6/16 and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, under the guise of filing the suit trying to grab the property of this defendant. Originally, the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the House No.2- 74/2 and now 30-2-74/2 situated at Madikonda Village and as such she executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 and after purchase, the defendant No.1 got mutated his name before the

Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal. The Plaintiff is having knowledge about the proceedings. At the time of registration of the sale deed, the defendant No.1 handed over the original tax payment receipts, original plan with regard to the permission of G.P for construction, electricity bills and ownership certificate issued by the Gram Panchayath,

Madikonda.

9.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

(1) Whether the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule housing property, as on the date of filing of the suit?

(2) Whether the defendant No.1 in collusion with the defendant No.2 executed a registered sale deed vide Doc.no.9432/2013, dated: 06.11.2013 and interfered with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff at any point of time?

(3) Whether the registered sale deed vide Doc.No.9432/2013, dated: 06.11.2013 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 be declared as null and void?

7/16 (4) If so, whether the Plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

(5) If so, to what relief?

10.Inorder to prove the suit claim, the Plaintiff himself examined as

P.W-1 and in his examination in chief has reiterated the averments of the

Plaint and Exs.A-1 to A-14 documents are marked. P.W-2 is the supporting witness.

11.On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.2 is examined as D.W-1 and no documents are marked.

12.The Learned counsel for the Plaintiff filed written arguments and the

Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 argued orally at length.

13.ISSUE NO’S.1 TO 4: The Learned counsel for the Plaintiff vehemently argued that admittedly defendant No.1 is a house wife and her husband i.e., P.W-1 is the earning member of the family. D.W-1 is a close relative of P.W-1 and Defendant No.1’s Son-in-Law. Defendant

No.1 is the wife of P.W-1. Defendant No.1 not choose to contest the suit.

Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 to disprove their testimonies. Exs.A-1 to A-14 documents proves that the

Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

8/16

Ex.A-8 is an invalid document and defendant No.1 has no right to execute the sale deed. Defendant No.1 executed the registered sale deed in favour of D.W-1 without the consent and knowledge of P.W-1.

14.P.W-1 is neither an attestor nor executant of Ex.A-8. Further argued that D.W-1 is the relative of Son-in-Law of P.W-1 and Defendant No.1.

There is collusion among the three persons i.e., daughter of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and her husband and D.W-1. D.W-1 in his cross examination has admitted that the suit schedule property is in occupation of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is residing in the suit property.

The evidence of P.W-2 is also proves about possession of the Plaintiff.

Except Ex.A-8 document, no document on the name of D.W-1. Without having any right, Defendant No.1 executed the sale deed in favour of

Defendant No.2 i.e., D.W-1. Defendant No.1 taking advantage of her name in the municipal records created Ex.A-8. D.W-1 is not a bonafide purchaser.

15.Ex.A-8 is a sham and bogus document and executed without any consideration. There is also pleading that Defendant No.1 left the company of P.W-1 and both are not residing together. Inorder to harass the husband, Defendant No.1 executed the sale deed infavour of

Defendant No.1. Moreover, D.W-1 is not residing at Warangal District.

9/16

Sale deed executed under Ex.A-8 is only sham and bogus document. The property was kept on the name of Defendant No.1 as she is the legally wedded wife of P.W-1. Plaintiff has discharged his initial onus.

16.Contra to this, the Learned counsel for the Defendant No.2 at length argued that there is collusion among the Plaintiff and the Defendant

No.1. As such, the defendant No.1 did not participated in the suit proceedings. Admitted fact as per the record is that Defendant No.1 is suffering from Cancer disease and she sold the property under Ex.A-8 in favour of D.W-1 for a valid consideration to meet the medical expenses.

D.W-1 is a bonafide purchaser for a valid consideration. In the presence of P.W-1 only the name of the Defendant No.2 entered into the municipal records. Inorder to meet the medical expenses, defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property stands on the name of Defendant No.1. Accordingly, Defendant No.2 purchased the said property. The sale transaction is within the knowledge of the Plaintiff and by taking advantage that in Ex.A-8 as P.W-1 is not a signatory, filed this present suit.

17. Defendant No.1 and P.W-1 are colluded with each other and inorder to harass the bonafide purchaser, this suit is filed. The suit property stands on the name of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is the absolute 10/16 owner, as such, Ex.A-8 is true and valid document and supported by consideration and with defacto delivery of possession. The Plaintiff is not entitled for any permanent injunction and declaration of ownership and also seeking to declare Ex.A-8 document as null and void.

18.After hearing the rival submissions at length, admitted fact is that the Plaintiff is the husband of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 is the purchaser of the suit schedule property under Ex.A-8 document. It is also elicited in the evidence that Defendant No.2 is the relative of the Son-in-

Law of P.W-1 and Defendant No.1. Out of the wedlock, P.W-1 was blessed with a daughter by name Radhika and she is residing along with her husband at Ranga Reddy District. Defendant No.2 is the relative to

Radhika through her husband. Defendant No.2 is a resident of

Vanaparthy district, erstwhile Mahabubnagar District. It is also admitted fact that Defendant No.1 is a house wife. P.W-1 is the earning member of the family and Ex.A-1 suit plot purchased by the Plaintiff way back in the year 1996. As per Ex.A-1, the said suit plot vendor is one

A.Narothan Reddy. The extent of the suit plot is 180 Sq.Yards in

Sy.No.1043. As per Ex.A-2, house property i.e., the suit house stands in the name of Defendant No.1.

11/16

19.The Plaintiff also admitted that the suit schedule property stands on the name of Defendant No.1. Ex.A-5 is the Marriage invitation Card of

Radhika i.e., the daughter of P.W-1 and the Defendant No.1. Under Ex.A- 6, legal notice issued by P.W-1 to Defendant No’s.1 and 2. Ex.A-8 is the sale deed executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2. The said sale deed executed on 06.11.2013. Ex.A-11 is the Demand notice for property tax for the period from April, 2013 to March, 2014 stands in the name of Defendant No.1. Ex.A-13 is the Asara Pension I.D Card

dated: 12.08.2022 for residential address bearing No.30-2-174,

Madikonda Warangal. Ex.A-14 is the Residence certificate issued by the

Tahasildar, Hanamkonda to show that P.W-1 is residing in the house bearing No.2-74/2.

20.Admittedly, the defendant No.2not filed any document to show that the suit schedule property mutated in his name. Upon perusing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, they categorically deposed that they are in possession over the suit schedule property. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of P.W-1. Upon perusing the cross examination, it is elicited that he is not paying the municipal taxes to the suit property.

From the beginning the suit schedule property stands on the name of

Defendant No.1 and her daughter’s marriage was performed in the year 2013. Defendant No.1 is residing separately from the year 2013 12/16 onwards. P.W-2 is a tenant of the suit premises. He also deposed that

Defendant No.1 is nominal owner of the suit schedule property.

21.Upon perusing the cross examination of D.W-1, he categorically admitted that he is a private employee and presently working at JCB

Shown Room at Mahabubnagar. He do not know the Defendant No.1 parents village. He is brother in Law relation to the daughter’s husband of Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff. Defendant No.1 daughter name is

Radhika. Defendant No.1 is residing with her daughter, which he came to know. It is true that Defndant No.1 is suffering from Cancer. Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 having only child i.e., Radhika. He do not know the suit schedule property purchased by the Defendant No.1 from whom.

The suit schedule property is in occupation of the Plaintiff.

22.He did not file any suit against the Plaintiff herein and the Plaintiff himself filed the suit against him. He do not know whether the suit house plot purchased by the Plaintiff or not. It is pleaded by the Plaintiff that D.W-1 is brother in Law relation to Radhika’s husband and nominally

Ex.A-8 is executed. It is also admitted fact that D.W-1 is a private employee working at Mahabubnagar town and resident of Anakur Village,

Wanaparthy Mandal, erstwhile Mahabubnagar District. Ex.A-8 executed by defendant No.1 when she left the company of her husband. In the 13/16 suit property, P.W-1 is alone residing. Under Ex.A-1, P.W-1 purchased the house plot and later he constructed the house. It is also admitted fact that Defendant No.1 is a house wife.

23.Immediately in the month of November, 2013, Ex.A-8 was executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of D.W-1. If Defendant No.1 is a bonafide purchaser for a valid sale consideration, he will have the link document i.e., Ex.A-1. Moreover, without the consent and knowledge of the Plaintiff, the suit schedule property alienated by the Defendant No.1 in favour of D.W-1. The evidence on record discloses that the Defendant

No.1 and Radhika and her husband colluded with each other and created

Ex.A-8 in favour of D.W-1.

24.Nominally, the suit schedule property stands on the name of

Defendant No.1. As such, by taking advantage of the same, she executed Ex.A-8 Sale Deed in favour of D.W-1. Non contesting of the suit by the Defendant No.1 also shows that she executed the sale deed in favour of D.W-1 without any valid consideration. Mere mutation of the suit property on the name of the Defendant No.1 does not give her any absolute right to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of D.W-1.

P.W-1 is not an attestor or executant of Ex.A-8. P.W-1 is in possession over the suit schedule property. The same is admitted by D.W-1 in her 14/16 cross examination. D.W-1 did not file any scrap of paper to show his possession over the suit schedule property. D.W-1 admitted that he is working at Mahabubnagar and if possession was delivered to him, certainly, he will let out the premises to third parties. But P.W-1 is residing in the suit schedule property from the beginning. Hence, from the above discussion, the Plaintiff is declared as the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property as he purchased the plot under

Ex.A-1 and constructed a house on the name of his wife i.e., Defendant

No.1.

25.Accordingly, the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the Defendant No.1 in collusion with her daughter Radhika and her husband created Ex.A-8 in favour of D.W-1 and Ex.A-8 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 is not binding on the Plaintiff and it is declared as null and void and the plaintiff is further entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for.

26.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by declaring the Plaintiff as the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property bearing H.No.2-74/2, Municipal corporation No.30-2-74/2 situated at

Madikonda Village, Hanamkonda Mandal.

15/16

Further, the registered sale deed vide Doc.No.9432/2013, dated; 06.11.2013 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.1 (D.W-1) is declared as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff.

Further as the Plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property, as such, he is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for.

Accordingly, the suit is decreed with costs.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 th day of April, 2024)

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: P.W-1:L.Raji Reddy D.W-1: K.Narsimha Reddy P.W-2: Y.Venkateshwarlu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A-1: Original Simple Sale Deed dated: 15.11.1996 executed by Avala Narotham Reddy in favour of the Plaintiff. Ex.A-2: Original Tax Receipt vide No.19201 issued by the Gram Panchayath, Madikonda, dated: 20.03.2013. Ex.A-3: Income Certificate vide L.Dis.No.F?2328/2009, dated: 30.05.2009 issued by the Tahasildar, Hanamkonda on the name of L.Rahdika, D/o: Raji Reddy. Ex.A-4: Voter ID Card of the Plaintiff on the House No.2-74/2. Ex.A-5: Wedding Card of the Marriage of the daughter of the Plaintiff and the defendant No.1. Ex.A-6: Office Copy of the Legal Notice got issued by the Plaintiff to the defendant No’s.1 and 2, dated: 16.04.2014 Ex.A-7: Returned Unserved Legal Notice cover, dated: 24.04.2014.

16/16

Ex.A-8: C.C. of Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.9432/2013, dated: 16.11.2013 executed `by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2. Ex.A-9: Valuation Certificate of the house property bearing H.No: 2074/2 issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Warangal, dated: 15.04.2014. Ex.A-10: Demand Notices (12 No’s) dated: 17.09.2010. Ex.A-11: Municipal Corporation Demand Notice No.1130020175, dated: 12.02.2014. Ex.A-12: Tax Receipt, dated: 09.12.2010. Ex.A-13: Original Asara Pension ID Card. Ex.A-14: Residence Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Hanamkonda.

FOR DEFENDANTS: - NIL -

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA.

1/15

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

Friday, this the 19th day of April, 2024

Present:-B.Srinivasulu,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Hanumakonda.

O.S.No.104 OF 2021

Between: Buragoni Siddiramulu, S/o: Lingaiah, Aged: 59 years, Occu: Retired Government Employee, R/o: H.No: 2-235/4, Bank Colony, Bheemaram,

Hasanparty, Warangal Urban. ...Plaintiff

AND

Sarampelli Devender Reddy, S/o: Chenna Reddy, Aged: 43 years, Occu: Private Employee, R/o: H.No: 2-6-1206, KLN Reddy Colony, Near Laxmi NarayanaHospital,Hanamkonda,WarangalUrbanDistrict.

...Defendant

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 08.04.2024 in the presence of Sri C.Vidyasagar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff; and of Sri.M.Sampath, Learned counsel for the Defendant; and upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff Under Order VII Rule 1 R/W

Section.26 of Civil Procedure Code to pass a decree for a sum of

Rs.30,12,133-00 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs twelve thousand one hundred and thirty three Only) in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant holding his liability to pay the said amount together with future interest @ 24% per annum and (b)To award costs of the suit.

2/15

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are that out of acquaintance, the defendant borrowed Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only) on 04.02.2019 and executed a Promissory note and agreed rate of interest is 24% per annum and promised to pay the said amount along with interest within short period. The defendant has executed a demand promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff on the same day. The defendant has issued a cheque bearing No.000025, dated: 03.05.2021 for an amount of Rs.28,38,000/- towards discharge of his liability. When the

Plaintiff presented the cheque, it was dishonoured. The Plaintiff also filed the cheque dishonour case which is pending. Hence, the suit for recovery of money. Further, the defendant is also trying to alienate the suit property.

3.Written statement filed by the defendant. Denied the allegations and loan transaction as pleaded by the Plainiff. In the written statement mainly pleads that there is no acquaintance between the Plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant never executed any promissory note and also not issued any cheque towards discharge of the Promissory note amount.

The defendant and Pollapalli Vijender Reddy are acquainted with each other. In view of the said acquaintance, the defendant has approached the said Pollapally Vijender Reddy about 10 years ago and represented that he is in need of amount for his urgent necessities and agreed to pay 3/15 the same within short time keeping in view of acquaintance and considering the repeated request of the defendant, agreed to give amount to the defendant.

4.Accordingly, the said Pollapalli Vijender Reddy has lend the amount to the defendant and immediately after receipt of the said amount the defendant has executed a promissory note in favour of Pollapally Vijender

Reddy in the presence of the witnesses agreeing to repay the said borrowed amount along with interest. Thus a transaction took place in between the defendant and Pollapally Vijender Reddy and he is under obligation to discharge the debt in favour of Pollapally Vijender Reddy along with interest accrued thereon.

5. After six months, the defendant has to repay the borrowed amount as agreed to keep up his promises, but pollapally Vijender Reddy failed to hand over the blank promissory notes which are misplaced and after traced out will hand over the blank promissory notes to the defendant. The defendant several times approached Pollapally Vijender

Reddy to hand over the blank promissory notes, but he gave evasive reply. Inspite of several requests made by the defendant, the Pollapally

Vijender Reddy dodging to hand over the blank promissory notes. Due to the harassment of Pollapally Vijender Reddy, the defendant has filed a 4/15 suit before the II-Addl.Junior Civil Judge at Warangal vide O.S.No.582/2021 for not to interfere into the day to day life of the defendant herein.

6.The said Pollapally Vijender Reddy and the Plaintiff herein are close relatives in view of the said relationship, they colluded with each other and Pollapally Vijender Reddy has handed over the blank promissory notes of the defendant to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has removed the revenue stamps of the said blank promissory notes and affixed and created an alleged new promissory note and write forgery name of the defendant “Devender Reddy” under revenue stamps and filed the present suit and the defendant reserves his right to send to send the alleged name on the revenue stamps of the defendant to the forensic expert opinion. The Plaintiff created the present suit promissory note as it clearly appears that the format of the promissory note is of the year 2002 and it clearly shows that there is overwriting. The Plaintiff suppressed the material facts and filed the present suit.

7.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:-

(a) Whether the suit pronote executed by the defendant in favour of

P.Vijender Reddy and the said blank pronote used by this plaintiff for filing of the suit as alleged in the written statement?

(b) Whether the suit pronote is true and valid one?

5/15

(c) Whether consideration passed to the defendant under suit promissory note?

(d) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for suit amount?

(e) To What relief?

8.Inorder to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff himself examined as PW- 1 and P.W-2 is the attestor. In the examination in chief of P.W-1 Exs.A-1 to A-3 documents are marked.

9.On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as

D.W-1 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 documents are marked.

10.ISSUE NO’S.1 TO 3: Heard both. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that indirectly or directly there is admission about execution of the promissory note by the defendant. Once execution is admitted, onus is on the defendant to prove that no consideration is passed under Ex.A-1/Demand Promissory note. The Plaintiff himself examined as P.W-1 and also examined the attestor P.W-2 and proved the execution.

11.D.W-1 also admitted in the cross examination that cheque issued by him to discharge the loan amount. Ex.A-1 is dated: 04.02.2019 and 6/15 cheque was issued on 03.05.2021. It is also admitted by D.W-1 that he constructed house and the total construction cost was Rs.40,00,000/-.

Further admitted that the bank provided loan of Rs.34,71,000/- and his margin amount is Rs.39,85,000/-. He started construction of the house in the year 2019. Ex.A-1 is dated: 04.02.2019. There is pleading in the plaint that defendant has borrowed amount towards construction of the house.

Exs.B-1 to B-3 documents also supports the case of the Plaintiff.

12.D.W-1 also admitted that he did not issue any notice to P.Vijender

Reddy prior to filing of the complaint under section.138 of N.I Act by demanding for return of pronote and cheque after receiving message about the dishonor of the cheque from the bank. No document has been filed by D.W-1 to show that he discharged the loan amount to P.Vijender

Reddy. Further admitted that Plaintiff filed a complaint under section.138 of N.I Act against him and the same is pending. D.W-1 is a driver by profession and he constructed a house in the year 2019. Monthly E.M.I through S.B.I is Rs.28,000/-.

13.Inorder to construct the house, he borrowed amount from the plaintiff. He also admitted the signature on the cheque and the said cheque was issued towards discharge of the loan amount.

7/15

14.Contra to this, the learned counsel for the defendant strongly argued that Ex.A-1/Promissory note is not executed by the defendant in favour of the Plaintiff. In the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, their evidence is impeached. Ex.A-1 on the face of it is forged one. Ex.A-1 is printed proforma which is in Telugu. 2002 year altered as “19”. Further the defendant executed the Promissory note in favour of one Vijender

Reddy. Some stamps were removed from over the promissory note and created this promissory note. The Promissory note signatures is Devender

Reddy, which does not belongs to this defendant.

15.Ex.A-1 is materially altered one. The defendant also filed

O.S.No.582 of 2021 under Ex.B-3 against the said Vijender Reddy. The

case of the defendant is consisting. It is for the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A-1 and passing of consideration. In the Court hall also on the date of the cross examination, P.W-1 son in law was present in the court hall. Ex.A-1 scribed by him and also not stated by P.Ws.1 and 2.

P.Vijender Reddy present in the court hall while P.W-1 entered into the witness box.

16.Amarender Reddy is the brother in law of Vijender Reddy.

Amarender Reddy is the son in law of P.W-1. In the cross examination of

P.W-1, he admitted that he do not know whether Vijender Reddy and the 8/15 defendant having any transactions or not. He do not know whether the defendant discharged any amount to Vijender Reddy or not. Further admitted that there is correction of year portion in Ex.A-1. Defendant brought Ex.A-1 and got scribed it. Further admitted that Ex.A-1 is printed proforma is of “2002”. No income tax returns are filed by P.W-1. In the cross examination of P.W-2 elicited that he did not witness who scribed

Ex.A-1. But he strangely stated that the Plaintiff or the defendant, one of them scribed Ex.A-1. In Ex.A-1 is printed as numerical “2” and on it numerical “1” is written.

17. Ex.A-1 is materially altered and no consideration passed under it.

But the evidence of P.W-2 impeached in his cross examination. The

Plaintiff is not entitled for the suit claim under Ex.A-1 as no consideration passed under Ex.A-1.

18.Contra to this the learned counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the defendant has taken false plea. By examining P.Ws.1 and 2, plaintiff has proved that Ex.A-1 is executed by P.W-1. Moreover, D.W-1 in his pleadings has admitted about the passing of consideration ie., execution of the promissory note in favour of P.Vijender Reddy and the said promissory note used by P.W-1. In other words, the defendant has admitted about the execution of the Promissory note. Once execution is 9/15 admitted, onus shifts to the defendant that he did not receive any consideration under the suit promissory note. The said presumption is a rebuttable presumption.

19.After hearing both rival submissions at length, there is pleading by the plaintiff that D.W-1 has obtained loan inorder to construct house.

D.W-1 has admitted that he started construction of the house in the year 2019, D.W-1 is a driver by profession. Though D.W-1 has obtained loan from State Bank of India, but margin money is Rs.39,85,000/-. Ex.A-1 promissory note is dated: 04.02.2019. In the Plaint also categorically pleaded by P.W-1 that the defendant has borrowed amount towards construction of the house. Exs.B-1 to B-3 also shows that the defendant has availed loan towards construction of the house.

20.Margin money is Rs.39,85,000/-. As per the case of the Plaintiff, the defendant has brought the Promissory note. The defendant also pleaded in the written statement that he is having monetary transactions with

P.Vijender Reddy. The said Vijender Reddy has advanced the loan amount, but no single receipt was filed by the defendant to show that he discharged the loan amount. It is true initial onus is always on the

Plaintiff to prove the execution of the promissory note. Mere filing of the injunction suit against Vijender Reddy that too injunction suit is not a 10/15 ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Admission is the best piece of evidence.

21.The defendant has admitted that immediately after receipt of amount, he has executed promissory note in favou of P.Vijender Reddy in the presence of the witnesses. The names of the said witnesses also not mentioned by the defendant. With regards to 2002 printed proforma of the promissory note, as per the evidence and pleadings, the defendant has brought the promissory note. As per P.W-1, Ex.A-1 was got scribed by the defendant from someone. As such, Ex.A-1 is scribed by the defendant. The printed proforma is of the year 2019 and 2002 does not affect the case of the plaintiff.

22.Moreover, the loan transaction occurred at the house of P.W-2. P.W- 1 also deposed about the execution of the promissory note in favour of

P.W-1. In the cross examination also P.W-1 stated that the defendant brought Ex.A-1 and scribed it. As such, material alteration as pleaded by the learned counsel for the defendant is not tenable one. P.W-2 also stated that he do not know who scribed Ex.A-1. It is the case of the defendant that Promissory note signatures removed from another promissory note and affixed on Ex.A-1.

11/15

23.But defendant has not issued any notice to the said P.Vijender

Reddy. The defendant has admitted his signature on the cheque. P.W-1 also filed complaint under Ex.A-3. P.W-1 also issued notice under Ex.A-2 for dishonor of the cheque. Exs.B-1 and B-2 also 2019 documents when he obtained loan in the year 2019 towards house construction. The

Plaintiff has proved that the defendant has obtained loan inorder meet his expenses of house construction. The defendant has also meager income as he is a driver by profession. There is no pleading that the defendant has not obtained any loans towards the construction of the house. The defendant has taken inconsistent pleas. But the Plaintiff has proved execution and the defendant also admitted that the signatures on the promissory notes belongs to him. Then onus shifts to the D.W-1 that

Ex.A-1 is not supported by consideration.

24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mallavarapu

Kasivisweswara Rao – Appellant versus Thadikonda Ramulu Firm

and Others – Respondents in Civil Appeal No.5597/2001, dated:

16.05.2008 has held that, as per section 118(a) of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, the court is obliged to presume, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such 12/15 facts and circumstances which would lead the Court to believe the non- existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal. Once execution of promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttal. The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence.

25.Though the said presumption is a rebuttable presumption, but the evidence on record is crystal clear that the defendant himself brought the promissory note and got scribed. As such the pleading that Ex.A-1 is materially altered cannot be accepted. Moreover, Exs.B-1 and B-2 also supported the case of the Plaintiff that he obtained loan for the construction of the house. Further, the defendant himself has filed the suit against P.Vijender Reddy and one Tokala Santhosh Reddy. In the written statement also he pleaded that blank pronotes and also denied the cheque signatures. But there is also pleading that P.Vijender Reddy has obtained the blank cheques. Ex.A-3 is C.C of Complaint for the offence U/sec.138 of Negotiable instruments Act pending before the III-

Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hanamkonda. Ex.A-2 is the Office copy of Legal notice issued by the Plaintiff herein.

13/15

26.Upon perusing Ex.A-3, which is filed u/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C for the offence u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque was issued by the defendant and the same was dishonoured. If at all the Promissory note executed by the defendant, then how the cheque was issued in favour of P.W-1. Further, he categorically admitted that the cheque signatures belongs to him. As per the defendant he is having loan transaction with Pollapally Vijender Reddy about 10 years back, whereas the cheque issued by the defendant in favour of P.W-1 after execution of

Ex.A-1. If cheque is old one, certainly the name of the defendant will not be visible on the cheque.

27.Even the cheque number also mentioned in the pleadings and also in the evidence of P.W-1. There is no denial of the bank account and the issuance of cheque by the defendant herein. Only to avoid the loan amount, the defendant has taken improbable pleas inorder to avoid the loan amount which discloses his nature by filing the suit under Ex.B-3 by this defendant/Sarampelli Devender Reddy against Pollapalli Vijender

Reddy and Thokala Santosh Reddy vide O.S.No.582 of 2021. The defendant admitted his signatures on Ex.A-1 and he failed to discharge his onus, whereas, the Plaintiff by examining himself and by examining P.W-2 attestor and Exs.A-1 to A-3 document and Exs.B-1 to B-3 documents has 14/15 proved that Ex.A-1 is true and valid document and supported by consideration. Accordingly, the suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of P.W-1 and not in favour of Pollapally Vijender

Reddy. Suit promissory note is true and valid one and supported by consideration.

28.ISSUE NO.4: As issue No’s.1 to 3 answered in favour of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim.

29. ISSUE NO.5: in the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.30,12,133/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs twelve thousand one hundred and thirty three Only).

Principal sum is declared as Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Only)

upon which interest @6% per annum is awarded from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of realization of the decreetal amount.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19 th day of April, 2024)

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: B.SiddiramuluD.W-1: S.Devender Reddy P.W-2: Chada Srinivas Reddy 15/15

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A-1: Original Promissory Note, dated: 04.02.2019 Ex.A-2: Certified Copy of Legal Notice, dated: 14.05.2021 Ex.A-3: Certified Copy of complaint under 200 of Cr.P.C. filed U/sec.138 of N.I Act

FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.B-1: C.C of Memorandum of deposit of Title Deeds vide Doc.No.24163 of 2019 Ex.B-2: Arrangement letter for Home loan of S.B.I, Warangal dated: 19.09.2019 Ex.B-3: C.C of Plaint in O.S.No.582 of 2021 on the file of the Prl.Junior Civil

Judge, Warangal.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA.

1 S.C.No.143/2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

HANAMKONDA.

Monday, this the 22nd day of April, 2024

Present: B.Srinivasulu,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Hanamkonda.

Sessions Case No.143 OF 2021

(P.R.C.No.351/2019 on the file of III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Warangal in Crime No.20/2019 of P.S, Inavole)

1. Name and description: The State of Telangana of the Complainant. through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S, Inavole.

2. Name and description of the accused : A-1) Pallakonda Kumaraswamy, S/o: Mallesham, Aged: 38 years, Erukala, R/o: Inavole Village of Warangal Urban District. A-2) Kola Durga Prasad, S/o: Rajaiah, Aged: 34 years, Caste: Mala, R/o: H.No: 14-1-103/1, Ramavaram Village of Bhadradri (Kothagudem) District. A-3) Md.Kareem Hussain @ Baba, S/o: Ali Hussain, Aged: 22 years, Muslim, R/o: Rangampet, Warangal.

3. Offences with which charged : U/sec.498(A), ( C), (D) r/w 34 of IPC.

4. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge: Accused found not guilty.

6. Sentence or Order: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section.498(A), (C), (D) r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Further, as per Rule 234(3) of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990, all the forged currency notes brought before the trial court shall be handed over to the police for being forwarded to the Issue Department of the Reserve Bank of India, with a brief report of the case. Accordingly, office is directed to hand over the fake currency notes under Exs.P-2 to P-4 to the Police for compliance of Rule 234(3) of Criminal Rules of Practice. Accused also not claimed M.O’s.1 to 10. M.O’s.1 to 10 shall be confiscated to state after appeal time is over.

7. Prosecution conducted by : Sri G.Bhadradri Addl. Public Prosecutor.

2 S.C.No.143/2021

8. Accused defended by: Sri.Y.Sree Raghava Rao, Advocate for Accused No’s.1 and 2. (2) G.Ratna Reddy, Advocate

for Accused No.3.

This case coming up before me on 04.04.2024 final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Bhadradri ,Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Y.Sree Raghava Rao, Counsel for the accused No’s.1 and 2; and of Sri.G.Ratna Reddy, Counsel for the Accused No.3; and the matter 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, P.S, Inavole has laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.20/2019 for the offence under section.489(A), (C), (D) r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.

2.This is a case of counter feiting Currency Notes and bank Notes and using it as genuine, forged and prepared the counterfeit currency notes by the accused with the help of a Laptop, printer, colour catridges at the house of the Accused No.1 at Inavole Village.

3.Prosecution case in brief that: That a complaint was presented by P.W-1 on 19.02.2019 to the Station House Officer by stating that on credible information about preparing of fake currency notes, H.C.1438 and P.C.1272 went to the house of Accused no.1 at

Inavole village at 5.30 PM and noticed the accused along with Lap

Top, Printers and apprehended the accused, secured the presence of mediators and interrogated the accused and recorded their confessional statements and seized the Lap Top and also fake currency notes of Rs.11,100/- with denomination 3 x 500/- =1500/-, 3 S.C.No.143/2021 44x200=8,800/-, 8 x 100=800/- and one H.P Desk Jet 2132 Printer – cum-Scanner with cables, 2) Sony Lap Top with cable, 3) Lenova

Laptop with cable, 4) 2-Exam Pads, 5) 1-Steel Forecep, 6) 2-

Fevisticks, 7) 2 colour pens, 8) 12-HP Tri colour Catridges, 9) One

Cutter blade, 10) 24-Royal executive Bond papers in the presence of mediators i.e., P.W-3 and L.W-5/Pabbati Shyam under a cover of confession cum seizure panchanama along with the accused.

4.Basing on the complaint, the Station House Officer registered a case in Cr.No.20/2019, issued FIR and took up investigation and sent the seized Counterfeit currency notes to the F.S.L for expert opinion and after due investigation, laid charge sheet.

5.The case was taken on file by the III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Warangal, against the accused No’s.1 to 3 for the offence

under sections.489(A), (C), (D) r/w 34 of IPC.

6.On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished the copies of case documents to the accused as required under

Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As the offence charged against the accused, is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after compliance of Sec.209 Cr.P.C., committed the case vide P.R.C.No.351/2019 to the Hon'ble Principal

Sessions Court, Warangal.

4 S.C.No.143/2021

7.The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, assigned the

Sessions Case No.143/2021 and made over to the Court of

Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal for disposal according to law and issued summons to the accused for their presence.

8.Upon hearing both sides, the accused was examined under section 228(2) Cr.P.C. Charge under sections.489(A), (C), (D) r/w 34 of

IPC was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the Court fixed the trial schedule and issued summons to the witnesses to record their evidence.

9.During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 and M.O’s.1 to 10 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. Property is in interim custody of the police.

10.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No’s.1 to 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.PC with regard to the incriminating material on record against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

11.Heard the learned Addl.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for accused.

5 S.C.No.143/2021

12.Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution has proved that on 19.02.2019 the accused had prepared fake currency notes using M.O’s.1 to 10 and Exs.P-2 to P-4 fake currency notes were seized by the Police at the house of Accused No.1?

(b) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections.489(A), (C), (D) r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

13. POINT: P.W-1 is the complaint who worked as Sub-Inspector of

Police, Inavole. He deposed that on 19.02.2019 at 5.30 PM, on credible information, he along with H.C.No.1438 and P.C.No.1272 went to the house of Pallakonda Kumaraswamy i.e., Accused No.1, R/o:

Erukalawada, Inavolu Village without house number and found three members i.e., accused herein. In the house of the accused, they noticed H.P Desk Jet Printer, Sony Laptop and Lenova Laptop, Two exam pads, Steel Patkara, Two colour Pens, one Tri colour Catridge,

One cutting plair, 24 Royal execute bond papers and fake currency.

Then the secured the presence of mediators P.Ws.4 and 5 and in their presence seized the above material under a cover of panchanama

14.Accused confessed that he possessed the above articles inorder to prepare fake currency of Rs.500, 200 and 100 Rupees notes, seized the fake currency notes 08 No’s (100/- Rupee Notes), 03 No’s(500

Rupee Notes) and 44 No’s (200 Rupee Notes), prepared confession cum seizure report of Accused No’s.1 to 3. Ex.P-1 is the seizure 6 S.C.No.143/2021 report. Ex.P-2 is the fake currency notes of Rs.200/- (200 x 44), Ex.P-3 is the fake currency notes of Rs.100/- (100x 8), Ex.P-4 is the fake currency notes of Rs.500/- (500 x 3). M.O-1 is the H.P Desk Jet

Printer, M.O-2 is the Sony Laptop, M.O-3 is Lenova Laptop, M.O-4 is

Exam Pads (02 No’s), M.O-5 is steel Patkara (01 No’s), M.O-6 is the fevistick (02 No’s), M.O-7 is the colour pens, M.O-8 is H.P 803 Tri

Colour Catridge, M.O-9 is the Cutter Blade (01 No), M.O-10 is the

Royal Executive bond papers (24 No’s).

15. All the articles were seized by affixing panch chits, returned to the Police Station and then he presented a written complaint to the

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.6), who registered a case as in

Cr.No.20 of 2019, recorded his statement by the Circle Inspector of

Police and produced the accused before the Incharge Station House

Officer along with the seized property.

16.P.W-2 is the Police Constable, P.S, Inavole who accompanied P.W- 1 and he also deposed like P.W-1 in his examined in chief.

17.P.W-3 is the mediator for scene of offence panchanama and he turned hostile. P.W-4 is the mediator for confession and seizure panchanama turned hostile. P.W-5 is another mediator for seizure panchanama and he also turned hostile.

7 S.C.No.143/2021

18.P.W-6 is the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Inavolu

Police Station and he deposed that on 19.02.2019 at 7.00 PM, P.W-1 presented a written complaint under Ex.P-5 and basing on the said complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.20 of 2019 for the offences under sections.49\89-A, 489-C, 489-D r/w 34 of IPC and issued Ex.P-7/

F.I.R. P.W-1 also produced the case property in the station along with the panchanama, sent the F.I.R to all the concerned and handed over the CD file to L.W-10 for further investigation.

19.P.W-7 is the then Inspector of Police, Parvathagiri. He deposed that on 19.02.2019, he took the CD file from P.W-6 and verified his investigation, examined P.Ws.1, 2 and L.W-2 and recorded their 161

Cr.P.C Statements. On the same day, affected the arrested of the accused produced before the court for Judicial remand. On the next day, he visited the scene of offence situated at the house of the accused No.1, conducted Ex.P-8/scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.W-3 and L.W-5/Pabbati Satyam, Later, he applied before the Hon’ble Court for Police custody of the accused for a period of three days for interrogation and after completion of three days, produced the accused before the court. He forwarded the Exs.P-2 and

P-3 to the FSL, Hyderabad on 27.03.2019 and obtained report. Ex.P-9 is the FSL report dated: 07.05.2019. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet for the offences punishable under

Section.489(A), ( C) (D) r/w 34 of IPC.

8 S.C.No.143/2021

20.Heard the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the state. The

Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W-1 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W-2 with regard to the search and seizure. The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 is also discloses that the accused prepared fake currency notes. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and 6 and 7 to disprove their testimonies. The testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 and 6 and 7 i.e., Police officials cannot be discarded as they are public servants and they do not have any bias or animosity against the accused. The accused are fradulently preparing fake currency which is harmful to the indian society. It also effects the economy and hence prayed for stringent conviction.

21.Contra to this, the Learned counsel for the accused argued that admittedly no document has been collected by P.W-7 and P.W-1 that the said house belongs to Accused No.1. Hostile of the mediators is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Presumption of innocence is a human right. Moreover, there is no evidence that by using the said colour printer and Laptop, fake currency notes were prepared by the accused. It is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

9 S.C.No.143/2021

22.After hearing the rival submissions, it is true as per the case of prosecution, Accused No’s.1 to 3 apprehended by the police on 19.02.2019 at 17.30 hours while preparing fake currency notes. As per the prosecution, police seized the fake currency notes under Ex.P- 1/Seizure Panchanama and Ex.P-2/Fake Currency notes of Rs.200 (200 x 44), Ex.P-3/Fake Currency notes of Rs.100 (100 x8), Ex.P-4/Fake

Currency notes of Rs.500 (500x 3). The said fake currency was prepared by the accused by using M.O.1, M.O-2, M.O-3, M.O-8 and

M.O-10.

23.Upon perusing the Ex.P-9/F.S.L Report, these items are not sent to the FSL expert. The Police has sent only take currency notes for examination. Accordingly, FSL Report shows that by examining all the notes are counterfeit currency. These notes are compared from the corresponding specimen Rs.500/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.100/- notes. But there is no evidence that from the seized articles, these notes are prepared i.e., Exs.P-2 to P-4 fake currency notes were prepared by the accused from M.O’s.1 to 3, 8 and 10.

24. This is the lacunae in the case of the prosecution. Hostile of the mediators is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further,

P.W-1 in his cross examination admitted that he did not collect any document from the Gram Panchayath that the said house belongs to 10 S.C.No.143/2021 the Accused No.1. Accused No.1 house is surrounded by residential houses and no effort was made by the prosecution to examine the neighouring house owners of the locality. Further, all the articles i.e.,

M.O’s.1 to 10 are freely available in the local market.

25.In Ex.P-1/Panchanama, there is no signature of the accused.

Neighbours of Accused No.1 not secured as mediators which is admitted by P.W-2. P.W-3 is the mediator for scene of offence panchanama turned hostile. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the main witnesses for confession and seizure of the articles from the possession of the accused and fake currency completely turned hostile. Upon cross examination by the Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited to disprove their testimonies.

26.The evidence of P.W-6 is formal. P.W-7 is the Investigating officer who filed charge sheet. He admitted that P.W-1 in his complain and statement not metnioned the fake currency note numbers. P.W-2 not mentioned in his 161 Cr.P.C Statement about the fake currency note numbers. In Ex.P-1 also not mentioned that the articles seized are duly packed and affixed official seal on it. Ex.P-1 does not contains the signatures of the accused. Seized property sent to the

FSL on 17.03.2019 and it was received by FSL on 27.03.2019. Ex.P-1 is the joint seizure of the property. He did not obtain the Gram

Panchayath ownership certificate to show that the house belongs to 11 S.C.No.143/2021 which accused and he did not collect any electricity bill and water bill.

Admittedly, P.W-7 also not collected any scrap of paper.

27.Even he did not collect the ownership certificate from the Gram

Panchayath or electricity bill or water bill from any Government authority. As per the prosecution, the said house belongs to the

Accused No.1. Neighbours of Accused No.1 also not cited as witnesses. Though the prosecution has examined the police officials who conducted raids, but the prosecution has failed to prove that the said fake currency notes are prepared with the help of M.O’s.1 to 10.

Hostile of the mediators for the scene of offence panchanama and confession and seizure panchanama is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.

28.If two views are possible, the view in favour of the accused should be taken into consideration. Presumption of innocence is a human right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash Gour and others – Appellants vs. State of Assam in Criminal Appeal No.1068/2006 dt.15-12-2011 = 2012(2) SCC 34 has held that presumption of innocence has to be recognised as a human right which can not be wished away. It is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. If any any doubt arises, it will goes in favour of the accused and accordingly, Accused No’s.1 to 3 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

12 S.C.No.143/2021

29.In the result, Accused No’s.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections.489-A, 489-C and 489-D r/w 34 of

IPC and they are acquitted of the same under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Further, as per Rule 234(3) of Criminal Rules of Practice and

Circular Orders, 1990, all the forged currency notes brought before the trial court shall be handed over to the police for being forwarded to the Issue Department of the Reserve Bank of India, with a brief report of the case. Accordingly, office is directed to hand over the fake currency notes under Exs.P-2 to P-4 to the Police for compliance of Rule 234(3) of Criminal Rules of Practice. Accused also not claimed

M.O’s.1 to 10. M.O’s.1 to 10 shall be confiscated to state after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2024).

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW-1 : E.Narsimha Rao PW-2 : V.Nagraj PW-3 : G.Santosh PW-4 : Md.Shabbir PW-5: A.Prabhakar PW-6: P.Chakradhar Rao PW-7: K.Sridhar Rao 13 S.C.No.143/2021

For the Defence: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Seizure Report Ex.P-2 : Fake Currency notes of Rs.200/- (200 x 44) Ex.P-3 : Fake Currency notes of Rs.100 (100 x8) Ex.P-4 : Fake Currency notes of Rs.500 (500 x3) Ex.P-5: Written complaint Ex.P-6: Signature of P.W-3 on the Panchanama. Ex.P-7: F.I.R Ex.P-8: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P-9: FSL Report.

For the Defence: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O-1: H.P Desk Jet Printer M.O-2: Sony Laptop M.O-3: Lenova Laptop M.O-4: Exam Pads (02 No’s) M.O-5: Steel Patkara M.O-6: Fevistick (02 No’s) M.O-7: Colour Pens M.O-8: H.P 803 Tri colour Catridge. M.O-9: Cutter Blade M.O-10: Royal Executive Bond papers (24 No’s)

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA.

1 of 8 O.S.No.137/2021

IN THE COURT OF 1-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

HANAMKONDA

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of June, 2022

Present:- Sri B.Srinivasulu,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

FAC.1-Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda.

O.S.No.137/2021

Between:

Lingampally Shravan, S/o: Jalapathi Rao, Age: 39 years, Occu: Business, H.No.2-4-799/1, R/o: Ram Nagar, Hanamkonda Mandal of Warangal District.… Plaintif

And

Thallapally Sanjay Kumar, S/o: Ragaiah, Age: 44 years, Occu: Business, R/o: 7-1-378/2, Padmakshi Colony, Hanamkonda of Warangal Urban District, presently residing at R/o: 4-27, Gumpula Village, Odela Mandal, Peddapalli District. … Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 17-06-2022 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri Rajoju Venu Gopal, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte;f upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT :: ::

1.The suit is fled for recovery of Rs.48,63,400/-(Rupees Forty

Eight Lakhs Sixty Three thousand and Four hundred Only) against the person and property of the defendant (b) to award future interest at 24% per annum from the date of fling of the suit, principal and suit amount till its full realization (c) to award costs of the proceedings.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant has cheated the plaintiff under the guise of providing employment as

Junior Assistant in the Judicial Department. The defendant has collected Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) on 03.12.2018 and Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) on 05.02.2019 and

Rs.9,00,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs only) on 02.04.2019 and by taking the said amounts, inorder to make the plaintiff to believe him, took 2 of 8 O.S.No.137/2021 the plaintiff to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad by showing the letter issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the

State of Telangana, dated: 15.04.2019, which was addressed to the

Superintendent, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for Medical examination and later the defendant also showed the certifcate of

Physical ftness dated: 08.05.2019 issued from Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad and supplied the Photocopy of the same to the

Plaintiff. Further, the defendant having not satisfed with the aforesaid mentioned amounts which were received by him, again demanded Rs.13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs ffty thousand Only) stating that the appointment order was under process. As such, the

Plaintiff has given a cash amount of Rs.13,50,000/-, in total

Rs.47,50,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Fifty thousand Only). After receipt of the said amounts, the defendant has given an appointment order, dated: 05.09.2019 to the Plaintiff, that he has been appointed as Junior Assistant (withheld). Thereafter, the Plaintiff came to know about the fraud played by the defendant and on the demands made by the Plaintiff to return all the amounts paid by him, the defendant has issued 15 cheque vide No’s.173037 for Rs.15,00,000/-, (2)

Cheque No.208362 for Rs.4,50,000/- (3) Cheque No.173034 for

Rs.5,00,000/- (4) Cheque No.016478 for Rs.4,00,000/- (5) Cheque

No.208376 for Rs.1,00,000/-, (6) Cheque No.208371 for Rs.2,50,000/-, (7) Cheque No.208368 for Rs.1,50,000/-, (8) Cheque No.208380 for

Rs.1,50,000/-, (9) Cheque No.208373 for Rs.2,50,000/-, (10) Cheque

No.173010 for Rs.1,00,000/-, (11) Cheque No.173036 for

Rs.2,00,000/-, (12) Cheque No.208363 for Rs.1,50,000/-, (13) Cheque

No.208365 for Rs.1,50,000/-, (14) Cheque No.208364 for

Rs.1,50,000/-, (15) Cheque No.016465 for Rs.2,50,000/-. The Plaintiff further submitted that the defendant knowing that his account is 3 of 8 O.S.No.137/2021 blocked, has given all the above said 15 cheques with a malafde intention. After receiving of the 15 Cheque return memo’s from the

Bank, the Plaintiff has approached the defendant and demanded for repayment of his amounts, but the defendant gave evasive replies.

That the Plaintiff has also issued legal notice to the defendant.

Hence, the suit for recovery of money.

3.The defendant remained exparte.

4.The point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of

Rs.48,63,400/- as prayed for?

5.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Inorder to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1.

In his examination in chief, he reiterated the contents of the Plaint and Exs.A-1 to A-20 documents are marked on his behalf. Ex.A-1 is the Original Cheque bearing No.173037, dated: 02.07.2021 of IDBI

Bank, Hanamkonda Branch, Warangal for Rs.15,00,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo. (2) Ex.A-2 is the Original

Cheque bearing No.208362, dated: 09.07.2021 of ICICI Bank,

Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.4,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo, (3) Ex.A-3 is the Original Cheque bearing

No.173034, dated: 09.07.2021 of IDBI Bank, Hanamkonda Branch,

Warangal for Rs.5,00,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return

Memo, (4) Ex.A-4 is the Original Cheque bearing No.016478, dated:

09.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for

Rs.4,00,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo, (5)

Ex.A-5 is the Original Cheque bearing No.208376, dated: 15.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.1,00,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo, (6) Ex.A-6 is the Original 4 of 8 O.S.No.137/2021

Cheque bearing No.208371, dated: 15.07.2021 of ICICI Bank,

Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.2,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo, (7) Ex.A-7 is the Original Cheque bearing

No.208368, dated: 15.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch,

Warangal for Rs.1,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return

Memo, (8) Ex.A-8 is the Original Cheque bearing No.208380, dated:

15.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for

Rs.1,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo, (9) Ex.A-9 is the Original Cheque bearing No.208373, dated:

15.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for

Rs.2,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo, (10)

Ex.A-10 is the Original Cheque bearing No.173010, dated: 15.07.2021 of IDBI Bank, Hanamkonda Branch, Warangal for Rs.1,00,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo, (11) Ex.A-11 is the Original

Cheque bearing No.173036, dated: 16.07.2021 of IDBI Bank,

Hanamkonda Branch, Warangal for Rs.2,00,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo, (12) Ex.A-12 is the Original Cheque bearing No.208363, dated: 16.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal

Branch, Warangal for Rs.1,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo, (13) Ex.A-13 is the Original Cheque bearing No.208365,

dated: 16.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for

Rs.1,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo, (14)

Ex.A-14 is the Original Cheque bearing No.208364, dated: 16.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.1,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo, (15) Ex.A-15 is the Original

Cheque bearing No.016465, dated: 16.07.2021 of ICICI Bank,

Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.2,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo, (16) Ex.A-16 is the Original Appointment

Letter issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, dated:

5 of 8 O.S.No.137/2021 05.09.2019, (17) Ex.A-17 is the Ofce Copy of Legal Notice, dated:

04.08.2021, (18) Ex.A-18 is the Original Postal Receipt, dated:

04.08.2021, (19) Ex.A-19 is the CC of copy of sale deed vide

Doc.No.7261/2010, dated: 31.12.2010, (20) Ex.A-20 is the Dharani

Property particulars, dated: 26.07.2021 online print. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the supporting witnesses.

7.Point: P.W-1 in his examination in chief reiterated the contents of the Plaint with regard to the amounts paid by him to the defendant for getting appointment as a Junior Assistant in the Judicial

Department and also about the fraud played by the defendant by creating the Appointment Letter, dated: 05.09.2019 for the said job.

8. P.Ws.2 and 3 evidence also supporting the evidence of the Plaintiff with regard to the fraud played by the defendant and thereby cheated the Plaintiff.

9.Further, till today, no application has been fled to either to set aside the exparte order, dated: 29.03.2022 nor chosen to contest the case.

10.Upon perusal of the averments of the plaint and from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 along with Exs.A1 and A20 documents, it is evident that the defendant under the guise of providing employment as Junior Assistant in the Judicial Department, made the Plaintiff to believe his words and collected a total amount of Rs.47,50,000/-.

Later the Plaintiff came to know about the fraud played by the defendant and demanded the defendant to return the amounts paid by him, but the defendant avoided the repayment in-spite of 6 of 8 O.S.No.137/2021 demands made by the plaintiff and on his persistent demand, the defendant issued 15 cheques towards discharge of his liability and when the said cheque was presented in the bank, the same was returned with an endorsement “Account Blocked”. The defendant failed to repay the due amount to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant remained expate.

11.After hearing and perusing the evidence of PW1, a prior legal notice, dated: 04.08.2021 was also issued to the defendant by demanding repayment of the amounts paid by him. As stated above, the defendant did not choose to contest the suit and remained exparte. Till today no application is fled to set aside the exparte order.

12.The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff as discussed above, which remained undenied and also unrebutted by the defendant to disprove the case of plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant.

Accordingly, the Point is answered.

13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.48,63,400/- (Rupees Forty eight lakhs sixty three thousand and four hundred only) against defendant. Principal amount is declared as Rs.47,50,000/- (Rupees Forty seven lakhs ffty thousand Only) upon which interest @ 12% per annum is awarded from the date of fling of suit to till date of realization of decree.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of June, 2022)

Sd/-

FAC. I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

7 of 8 O.S.No.137/2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: Lingampalli Shravan- None – PW2: K.V.Ramana Chary PW3: Bopparaju Shiva Kiran

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A-1: Original Cheque bearing No.173037, dated: 02.07.2021 of IDBI Bank, Hanamkonda Branch, Warangal for Rs.15,00,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo

Ex.A-2: Original Cheque bearing No.208362, dated: 09.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.4,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo

Ex.A-3: Original Cheque bearing No.173034, dated: 09.07.2021 of IDBI Bank, Hanamkonda Branch, Warangal for Rs.5,00,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo

Ex.A-4: Original Cheque bearing No.016478, dated: 09.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.4,00,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo

Ex.A-5: Original Cheque bearing No.208376, dated: 15.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.1,00,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo

Ex.A-6: Original Cheque bearing No.208371, dated: 15.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.2,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo,

Ex.A-7: Original Cheque bearing No.208368, dated: 15.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.1,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo,

Ex.A-8: Original Cheque bearing No.208380, dated: 15.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.1,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo

Ex.A-9: Original Cheque bearing No.208373, dated: 15.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.2,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo

Ex.A-10: Original Cheque bearing No.173010, dated: 15.07.2021 of IDBI Bank, Hanamkonda Branch, Warangal for Rs.1,00,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo

Ex.A-11: Original Cheque bearing No.173036, dated: 16.07.2021 of IDBI Bank, Hanamkonda Branch, Warangal for Rs.2,00,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo

Ex.A-12: Original Cheque bearing No.208363, dated: 16.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.1,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo 8 of 8 O.S.No.137/2021

Ex.A-13: Original Cheque bearing No.208365, dated: 16.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.1,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo

Ex.A-14: Original Cheque bearing No.208364, dated: 16.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.1,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo

Ex.A-15: Original Cheque bearing No.016465, dated: 16.07.2021 of ICICI Bank, Warangal Branch, Warangal for Rs.2,50,000/- along with counter foil and cheque return Memo

Ex.A-16: Original Appointment Letter issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, dated: 05.09.2019,

Ex.A-17: Ofce Copy of Legal Notice, dated: 04.08.2021,

Ex.A-18: Original Postal Receipt, dated: 04.08.2021,

Ex.A-19: CC of copy of sale deed vide Doc.No.7261/2010, dated: 31.12.2010, Ex.A-20: Dharani Property particulars, dated: 26.07.2021 online print

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil

Sd/-

FAC. I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA.