Smt.Swathi Murari

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHEVELLA, R.R.DISTRICT.

Present: Smt. Swathi Murari Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2020

C.C. No. 106 of 201 6 Between: The State Through PS Chevella.

….....Complainant

AND

MA. Bari S/o MA. Razaq aged 64 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.13-5-146, Karwan, Hyderabad

.....Accused

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Sushella Mayuri, learned APP for the State and Sri G.V.R.V.Reddy, Advocate learned defense counsel and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

::JUDGMENT::

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Chevella has filed a chargesheet basing on the private complaint filed by the complainant Salman Karim Babukhan which was then referred to the Police u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as

CrPC, against the accused for the offence u/s 420 IPC.

2. Facts of the case is that on 06-09-2014 the police Shankarpally received a court referred complaint wherein the complainant by name Salman Karim Babukhan has stated that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land of Ac.12-18gts situated at

Mudimyal village having purchased the same under registered sale deed dt.12-4-2010 from its owner for valuable consideration of Rs.69,09,750/-. While so, in the month of

December, the Bank of Baroda claimed that the accused created an equitable mortgage by depositing all the original documents of title on 19-10-1991 with an intention to create an equitable mortgage by him and executed GPA dt.30-12-1996 and ultimately conveyed the said property. Thereby the accused have committed offence punishable U/s 420 IPC. As per the complainant the following documents have been executed in favour of complainant by the accused in respect of the subject property:-

2

S.No.Doc. No.DateDecriptioExcuted byIn favour of n

1.2517/198230-8-1982Sale Manik Rao & S. MA Bari deed Narayanarao

2.2518/198230-8-1982Sale Manik Rao & S. MA Bari deed Narayanarao

3.2458/198206/08/82Sale SyedThameed MA Bari deed Mahdi, S. Narayana Rao & Manik Rao

4.2459/198208/08/82Sale Mir Gayoor Mustaid MA Bari deed Ali Raja

5.09/01/9630-12-GPAMA Bari/ AccusedAnnaighari 1996Narasimha Reddy, Bodi Madhava Reddy, Malghari.

6.2187/199831-8-1998Sale By the accused Annaighari deed represented by his Shobha Rani GPA holders – Annaighari Narasimha Reddy, BodeMadhava Reddy & Malghari Janardhan Reddy

7.1652/198020-8-1988Sale By the accused Muddala deed represented by his Laxma GPA holders – Reddy Annaighari Narasimha Reddy, BodeMadhava Reddy & Malghari Janardhan Reddy

8.2013/199826-8-1998Sale By the accused Mrs. Malgari deed represented by his Pranathi GPA holders – Annaighari Narasimha Reddy, BodeMadhava Reddy & Malghari Janardhan Reddy

9.5028/199830-10-Sale Mr. Muddala Laxma M/s. Kasila 1998deed Reddy,Mrs. Farms Pvt. Annaiahgari Shobha Ltd. Rani & Mrs. Malgari Pranathi 105040/199802/11/98Sale Mr. Muddala Laxma M/s. Kasila .deed Reddy,Mrs. Farms Pvt. Annaiahgari Shobha Ltd. Rani & Mrs. Malgari Pranathi

11. 5067/199806/11/98Sale Annaiyyagari M/s. Kasila deed NarsimhaReddy, Farms Pvt. BodeMadhava Ltd. Reddy & Malgari Janardhan Reddy

3

124946/199827-10-Sale Mr. Muddala Laxma M/s. Kasila .1998deed Reddy,Mrs. Farms Pvt. Annaiahgari Shobha Ltd. Rani & Mrs. Malgari Pranathi 135066/199806/11/98Sale Mr. Muddala Laxma M/s. Kasila .deed Reddy,Mrs. Farms Pvt. Annaiahgari Shobha Ltd. Rani & Mrs. Malgari Pranathi 144981/199829-10-Sale Mr. Muddala Laxma M/s. Kasila .1998deed Reddy,Mrs. Farms Pvt. Annaiahgari Shobha Ltd. Rani & Mrs. Malgari Pranathi 155056/199805/11/98Sale Mr. Muddala Laxma M/s. Kasila .deed Reddy,Mrs. Farms Pvt. Annaiahgari Shobha Ltd. Rani & Mrs. Malgari Pranathi 165047/199804/11/98Sale Mr. Muddala Laxma M/s. Kasila .deed Reddy,Mrs. Farms Pvt. Annaiahgari Shobha Ltd. Rani & Mrs. Malgari Pranathi 173644/200410/06/04Sale M/s. Kasila Farms Osman Ali .deed Pvt. Ltd.Khan 189473/200629-7-2006Sale Osman Ali KhanKhaja .deed Mukhtaruddi nAhmed Ansari& Prowess Real Estate Invstment Pvt. Ltd. 193533/200723-3-2007AgreemeKhaja Mukhtaruddin .nt of sale Ahmed Ansari & cum GPAProwess Real Estate Invstment Pvt. Ltd. 201330/201028-04-Sale Khaja Mukhtaruddin Salman .2010deed Ahmed Ansari & Karim Prowess Real Estate Babukhan Invstment Pvt. Ltd., Basheeruddin Babukhan & Salman Karim Babukhan

3. Cognizance was taken of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused copies of documents are furnished to him U/sec. 207

4

Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C by explaining substance of accusation for the said offence for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Since the accused denied the allegation, a charge for the offence punishable U/sec. 420 IPC against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language.

5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2 documents are marked on behalf of prosecution. Ex.D1 is marked on behalf of accused. No witnesses have been examined on behalf of the accused.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/S 313 of

Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material against him for which he denied the same.

7. Point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s 420 IPC?

8. Heard both sides

9. Ex.P1 is the private complaint. Ex.P2 is the FIR. Ex.D1 is the letter addressed by PW1 to the SHO, P.S.Chevella dt.05-07-2016 requesting him to withdraw the complaint registered against the accused.

10. The ingredients to prove an offence of cheating u/s 420 IPC are:-

(a) deception of any person

(b) (i) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person - - to deliver any property to any person or - to consent that any person shall retain any property or

(ii) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

POINT:

11. The whole complaint of PW1 is that the accused who executed a GPA in favour of

PW2, PW3 and LW5 in respect of the subject property, have inturn sold it to PW1, who came to know in December, 2009 that the subject property has been motgaged to Bank of

Baroda, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad by the accused and OA 431/1989 is pending before the

5

Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in respect of the same. However, PW1 has put in his best efforts to settle the matter amicably with the accused and thus, the filing of

Ex.P1/complaint has been delayed by nearly 5 years. Further, PW1 has given the number of registered sale deeds and GPA with the document numbers, year of execution and in whose favour they have been executed. However, neither the originals nor certified copies of any of those registered deeds have been filed before this court. As such, all the allegations made by PW1 become baseless.

12. Further, PW1 stated that he became aware of the mortgage over the subject property in December, 2009. However, on perusal the Ex.P1/complaint has been filed in August, 2014. The only explanantion given for such an inordinate delay is that PW1 has been trying to settle the matter out of court with the accused.

13. Further, the following excerpts from the cross-examination of PW1 has lead the court to believe that the allegations made by PW1 have no footing:-

i) “I verified the documents of the accused in respect of the property to an extent of

Ac.12-18gts before I purchased the same. I have seen the GPA said to have been executed by the accused in favour of the LW2 and others. It is recited in the GPA, the

GPA holder can create equitable mortgage in respect of the property covered therein.” ii) “I am not aware whether boundaries mentioned in the said GPA.” iii) “I do not aware whether the GPA holder are agents to the accused.” iv) “I obtained documents from accused, relating to the property an extent of Ac.12- 18gts in the month of August, 2016.”

v) “The document confronted to the witness, the witness admitted the same, whcih is

Ex.D1 dt.05-07-2016 addressed by me to thr Station House Officer, Chevella. It is true I requested the SHO, Chevella to drop the proceedings and closed the case as withdrawn.”

14. PW1 had admitted to have verified the GPA executed by the accused in favour of

PW2, PW3 and LW5 and further admitted that as per the recitals in the GPA, the GPA holders can create mortgage in respect of the property covered therein. Therefore, it is unclear whether the accused has created the mortgage or the GPA holders have acted on

6

their own. It is not possible to verify this claim as certified copy or original of the said GPA has not been filed before this court. PW1 further stated in his cross-examination that the accused appeared before the DRT in OA431/1989 and filed his counter. However, no certified copy of the counter has been filed before this court. Thus, such claim cannot be verified.

15. PW1 further claims that he has paid the mortgage amount of Rs.44,00,000/- to Bank of Baroda on behalf of the accused. However, no receipt or document has been filed

before this court. Surely, the said Bank must have issued a receipt, acknowledgement or

at least a letter about releasing of the property from mortgage. No such document or letter has been filed before this court again.

However, PW1 himself stated in his cross-examination that “I obtained documents from accused, relating to the property an extent of Ac.12-18gts in the month of August, 2016.” which is why PW1 had addressed Ex.D1/letter to SHO, P.S.Chevella requesting him to close the case against the accused.

16. The learned defense counsel has relied on the following judgment:- 1997 CRI.L.J.3997 wherein it is held that when the dispute is purely civil in natuer – a case of breach of trust is both a civil wrong and a criminal offence. On a consideration of the facts in this case, it is predominantly a civil wrong and the ingredients of the criminal offence are wanting.

17. Therefore, as the ingredients of Section 420 IPC would suggest, the accused has not deceived PW1 in any manner, as by his own admission PW1 had verified the GPA before he purchased it, obtained Encumberance Certificate and verified that too, and further,

PW1 read the recital in the GPA which says that the GPA holders can create mortgage in respect of the property covered in the GPA.

18. To sum up, neither the ingredients to prove the offence u/a 420 IPC have been proved nor has PW1 produced any documents before this court to verify his allegations. Thus, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused u/a 420 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

7

19. In the result: accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 420 IPC and he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22 nd day of October, 2020.

Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ComplainantFor Accused

PW1 – Sk. Babu Khan -- NIL –- PW2 – M. Janadrdhan Reddy PW3 - A. Narsimha Reddy PW4 – N. Rajashekar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant For Accused

Ex.P1 is the Complaint.Ex.D1 is the letter addressed by PW1 to the Ex.P2 is the FIRSHO, P.S.Chevella dt.05-07-2016

Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

1

O.S. No.24 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHEVELLA, R.R.DISTRICT.

Present: Smt. Swathi Murari Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

Dated this the 05th day of October, 2020

O.S. No. 24 of 201 4

Between: Deem Krishnaiah S/o Late Ramaiah aged about 35 years, Occ:Agriculture R/o Kummariguda village, Shabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

….....Plaintiff

AND

1) Smt. Peddeti Laxmamma W/o Late Laxminarayana Aged about 42 years, occ: Agriculture

2) Peddeti Mahender S/o Late Laxminarayana Aged about 23 years, occ: Pvt. Employee

3) Peddeti Naresh S/o Late Laxminarayana Aged about 21 years, occ:Student.

4) Peddeti Hasrish S/o Laxminarayana Aged about 19 years, occ:Student.

All are R/o Kummariguda village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

.....Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri P. Praveen Kumar, Advocate for defendants, the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

::JUDGMENT::

1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for the recovery of amount of

Rs.43,676/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization along with cost.

2.The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the husband of defendant no.1 and father of defendants no.2 to 4 by name Peddeti Laxminarayana are known

2

O.S. No.24 of 2014

to each other for the last several years since he and plaintiff both belongs to same village and have close friendship and cordial relationship among them. Due to the said acquaintance the husband of D1 approached the plaintiff on 04-04-2013 and requested hand loan of Rs.35,000/- to meet his urgent family financial requirements and promised to return the same within nine months. Accordingly the plaintiff lent the said amount to husband of D1 on his executing the promissory note acknowledging the receipt of the above said amount of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff. After completion of the nine months time the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the hand loan amount along with interest but the defendant dodged the matter and postponed the same on one or other pretext. Unfortunately on 9-1-2014 the said Peddeti Laxminarayana died leaving behind his family members i.e defendants. On 19-1-2014 the plaintiff demanded the defendants to repay the above said hand loan amount, for which the defendants expressed ignorance about the said loan transaction, though the defendants are aware of the same. On 20-1-2014 a panchayat was conducted before village elders, wherein all the elders of the panchayat resolved that D1 to D4 are liable to repay the hand loan amount of Rs.35,000/- with interest, which was received by late Peddeti

Laxminarayana from the plaintiff. But the defendants did not heed to the words of the panchayat elders and did not pay the hand loan amount. Finally on 05-02-2014 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants calling upon to repay the hand loan amount along with interest. The defendants received the said legal notice but they neither paid the amount in terms of the notice nor gave any reply to the same.

Hence the plaintiff, having no other option approached this court by filing the present suit for recovery of amount of Rs.43,676/- from the date of advancing the hand loan till the date of filing the suit (including interest @ 24% per annum i.e from 04-04- 2013 to 14-4-2014).

3

O.S. No.24 of 2014

3.On the other hand the defendant no.1 filed written statement and defendant no.2 to 4 filed memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant no.1.

4. In written statement the defendants denied the plaint averments and further submitted that plaintiff had taken advantage of the death of D1's husband herein and had filed false suit against them by creating forged and fabricated documents which were purported to gave executed by the husband of D1 and father of D2 to D4.

They further submitted that the Late Laxminarayana at no point of time had received any hand loan from the plaintiff and not executed any pronote in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants further submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed as mis-joinder of the parties as the defendants are neither the executants nor witnesses to the execution of the promisory note. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Having heard both sides and perused the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 17-11-2015:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

2) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

3) To what relief?

6. During trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked on his behalf. The brother of PW1 who is one of the witnesses to

Ex.A1/Promisory note got himself examined as PW2. As the defendants failed to adduce evidence despite availing sufficient time the evidence of defendants was closed. A petition is filed under section 151 of CPC to reopen the evidence of defendants along with the chief examination affidavit of defendant no.2, but the same was dismissed vide orders in IA 129/2017 dt.25-6-2018.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

4

O.S. No.24 of 2014

Issue No.1 and 2:

8.Ex.A1 is the original promissory note, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice,

Ex.A3 is the postal receipts and acknowledgment card and Ex.A4 is delivery report of

D2. Ex.A1 reveals that husband of D1 executed promissory note in presence of two witnesses. One of the witness to Ex.A1 was examined as PW2 in support of the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW1 is nothing but replication of plaint averments and evidence of PW2 reveals that at the time of lending the suit money he signed as a witness on Ex.A1 along with one Anapuram Susheela. Ex.A2 to A4 are subsequent documents in serving the legal notice to the defendants. During the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 nothing was elicited against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.

9.It is the contention of the defendants that the said lad Laxminarayana never executed and any promissory note in favour of plaintiff and they are not party to the

Ex.A1 and said promissory note is a forged one. Hence they are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff.

10. This is a suit filed for recovery of money based on a promissory note against the legal heirs of the deceased borrower. The said legal heirs(defendants) are not witnesses to the transaction. According to the defendants they are not aware of the said transaction. However, no documentary or other evidence has been adduced by the defendants to prove that they are unaware of the transaction between the plaintiff and the deceased borrower. On the other hand, the Ex.A1/promissory note filed by the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff had lent money to the deceased borrower and the presumption goes in favour of the plaintiff that such a transaction had indeed transpired. This presumption was not rebutted by the defendants in any manner. On perusal, though the evidence of the defendants was closed, the defendants were at liberty to file written arguments. However, the defendants did not

5

O.S. No.24 of 2014

file any such written arguments and instead chose to submit that the matter be decided on merits by the court. Accordingly point no.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

Issue No.3:

11.Therefore, as the plaintiff has proved the transaction between him and the deceased borrower, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the estate of the deceased borrower which has devolved upon his legal heirs i.e the defendants. Accordingly point no.3 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

12.In the result, the suit is decreed for an amount of Rs.43,676/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree. Further @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount i.e

Rs.35,000/-. The decreed amount shall be recovered from the estate of deceased

Peddeti Laxminarayana if any devolved upon his L.Rs i.e the defendants. There is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 05 th day of October, 2020.

Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

6

O.S. No.24 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF S FOR DEFENDANT S

PW1 – Deem Krishnaiah-- NIL –- PW2 - D. Balraj

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1 is the original promissory note, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, Ex.A3 is the postal receipts and acknowledgment card. Ex.A4 is delivery report of D2.

FOR DEFENDANT S

-- NIL –

Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

1

O.S. No.94 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHEVELLA, R.R.DISTRICT.

Present: Smt. Swathi Murari Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

Dated this the 30TH day of September, 2020

O.S. No. 94 of 201 7

Between:

1) Malkapuram Sarojanamma W/o Jangaiah Aged about 60 years, Occ:Household,

2) Malkapuram Narsimulu S/o Jangaiah Aged about 40 years, Occ:Agriculture,

3) Malkapuram Bavathish Kumar S/o Narsimulu aged about 13 years, Occ: Student Minor represented by his father Malkapuram Narsimulu S/o Jangaiah, aged about 40 years, Occ: Agriculture

4) Malkapuram Bhagyamma W/o Ganesh, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Household,

5) Malkapuram Ganesh S/o Veeraiah Aged about 40 years, Occ: Agriculture

All are residents of Komaram banda village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Plaintiffs

AND Medipally Prabhakar S/o Ramulu, aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture Resident of Yerroniguda village, H/o Middoni guda, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-501203.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Raghunath Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri C. Ravi Shankar Goud, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

::JUDGMENT::

1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs praying the court to grant perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiffs restraining the defendant , his henchmen, agents,

2

O.S. No.94 of 2017

representatives, any person or persons claiming through him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties I & II.

2.The case of the plaintiffs as per the plaint averments made in the plaint is as follows:-

a)The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are belongs to one family plaintiff no.2 is the son of plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.3 is the minor son of plaintiff no.2. The suit schedule property-I is purchased from one Saraswathi Bai vide registered sale deed 2383/1982 on 28-7-1982, thereafter plaintiff no.1 to 3 names are mutated in revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to them. The father of plaintiff no.4 by name Malkapuram Lingaiah purchased the suit schedule-II property through unregistered sale deed from its original owner Saraswathi Bai and approached the revenue authority for mutation of the same in revenue records. The revenue authority mutated his name vide proceeding no. B/5172/2001. The Said

Lingaiah adopted plaintiff no.5 because he was not having male issues and plaintiff no.4 is the only daughter of Lingaiah and she was given to marry to plaintiff no.5.subsequently after death of Lingaiah plaintiff no.4 and 5 succeeded the suit schedule lands -II vide proceedings no.B/633 of 2015 on 7-5-2015 further they also got separate pattadar passbooks and title deeds for their respectable shares.

b) The defendant who is no way concerned with suit lands on 27-10-2017 with malafide intention trying to occupy the suit property and tried to laying road from the plaintiffs lands forcibly with the help of anti social elements. The plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of defendants and his men at that. But he threatened the plaintiffs that he will occupy the said lands in future. Hence plaintiffs having no other option approached this court seeking to grant perpetual injunction.

3

O.S. No.94 of 2017

3.The defendant appeared in court after due service of summons but did not file his written statement even after the mandatory period of 90 days. Hence, the right to filing of

Written Statement of defendant was forefieted and he was set exparte on 04-06-2018

4.On behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff no.2 was examined as PW1 Ex.A1 to A12 are marked.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property?

Point :

7.The chief examination affidavit of PW1 is a replication of Plaint averments. As regards the documentary evidence, Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the chessala pahani, Ex.A2 to A7 are the certified copies of pahanies from the year 1974 to 2016. Ex.A8 is the original pattadar passbook, Ex.A9 and A10 are the original pattadar passbook of plaintiff no.4 and 5, Ex.A11 is the original proceeding order copy G/5172/2001 in favour of Lingaiah and

Ex.A12 is the original proceeding order copy B/633/2015 dt.7-5-2015.

8. On perusal of Ex.A1 to A3 shows the name of vendor of plaintiffs and Ex.A4 to A12 reflects the names of plaintiffs in revenue records. The defendant neither contested the case nor filed any documents to disprove the case of the plaintiffs.

9.It is settled law that for granting perpetual injunction the plaintiffs shall establish their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Ex.A1 to

A12 reveals that plaintiffs are lawful owners and possessors of suit schedule property as on the date of filing the present suit. On the other hand, the defendant without having any legal right whatsoever over the suit schedule properties I and II interfered with the peaceful

4

O.S. No.94 of 2017

possession . The defendant should have adduced evidence if he had a case. However, as the defendant chose not to adduce any evidence, the chief of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A12 remains un-rebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, this court has no reason to disbelieve the version of plaintiff. In view of the facts and circumstances set out in the plaint and the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs proving possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit, and considering the apprehension of the plaintiffs that the defendant may dispossess them from the suit schedule property the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule properties I and II.

Accordingly point is answered.

10.In the result the suit is decreed by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiffs, restraining the defendant, his henchmen, agents, representatives, any person or persons claiming through him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties I and II.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of September, 2020.

Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF S FOR DEFENDANT S

PW1 – Narsimhulu-- NIL –-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the chessal pahani, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of pahani for year 1974-75. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of pahani for year 1985-86. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of pahani for year 2000-01.

5

O.S. No.94 of 2017

Ex.A5 is the certified copy of pahani for year 2009-10. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of pahani for year 2011-12. Ex.A7 is the certified copy of pahani for year 2015-6 (4 sheets). Ex.A8 is the original pattadar passbook of PW1, Ex.A9 and A10 are the original pattadar passbooks of plaintiff no.4 and 5. Ex.A11 is the original proceeding order copy G/5172/2001 in favour of Lingaiah. Ex.A12 is the original proceeding order copy B/633/2015 dt.7-5-2015.

FOR DEFENDANT S

-- NIL –

Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

6

O.S. No.94 of 2017

i.e Sy.No.1444/e admeasuring Ac.3-14gts of plaintiff No.1 and Sy.No.1444/EE admeasuring of

Ac.5-21gts of plaintiff no.2 and Sy.No.1444/AA2 admeasuring of Ac.1-05gts of plaintiffs No.3, total admeasuring of Ac.10-00gts as Suit Schedule Property-I bounded by; North: Land of

Chandraiah, South Land of Bal Reddy and Bachaiah, East: Land of Kolan Venkat Reddy and West:

Land of M. Ganesh and Bhagyamma (Plaintiffs No.4 and 5) and suit land bearing Sy.No.1444/A1 admeasuring of Ac.6-00gts of plaintiff No.4 and Sy.No.1444/A2 admeasuring of Ac.2-13gts of plaintiff no.5 total admeasuring of Ac.8-13gts situated at Komarambanda village, Shabad Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District as Suit Schedule Property-II bounded by; North: Land of Maheshwaram

Chandraiah, South Land of plaintiffs , East: Land of M. Narsimulu and West: Land of M. Prabhakar (Defendant).

1

O.S. No.225 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHEVELLA, R.R.DISTRICT.

Present: Smt. Swathi Murari Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

Dated this the 01st day of October, 2020

O.S. No. 225 of 201 8

Between:

1. R. Mounika D/o Narsimlu Aged about 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.2-41, Sankepally village, Shankerpally Mandal, Vikarabad District, T.S.

2. R. Mahesh S/o Narsimlu Aged about 22 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.2-41, Sankepally village, Shankerpally Mandal, Vikarabad District, T.S.

3. R. Madhu S/o Narsimlu Aged about 19 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.2-41, Sankepally village, Shankerpally Mandal, Vikarabad District, T.S.

...Plaintiff

AND

1. R. Narsimlu S/o Late Swamy aged about 42 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o H.No.2-41, Sankepally village, Shankerpally Mandal, Vikarabad District, T.S.

2. Karnati Karthik S/o Shekar aged about 32 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.20-17, Vinobhanager Charchi Bazar, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda Dist TS.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Padala Krishna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendants are set exparte the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

::JUDGMENT::

1.The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs praying the court to pass preliminary decree for partition of suit schedule property land into 4 equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff with metes and bounds respect of suit schedule property i.e all that the agricultural land in Sy.No.48/A/2,admeasuring Ac.01-33gts, situated at Sankepally village, Shankerpally Mandal,Vikarabad District.

2

O.S. No.225 of 2018

2.The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint averments made in the plaint is as follows:-

a)The plaintiffs are non other than the children of defendant no.1 and grand father of plaintiffs and father of defendant no.1 by name Swamy is the owner of suit schedule property. Originally one Chentakendi Narayana was the pattadar of land in Sy.No.48/A, admeasuring Ac.7-13gts situated at Sankepally village of

Shankerpally Mandal. Swamy and his two brothers Chandraiah and Channaiah independently purchased the above land each Ac.1-33gts under the “sada binama”. After the death of said Swamy i.e grandfather of plaintiffs the suit property was mutated in the name of defendant no.1 only with mates and bounds but share of the plaintiffs did not effect on their names in revenue records. The defendant no.2 is the third party and in collusion with D2 the defendant no.1 sold the suit lands to D2 without the knowledge of plaintiffs by suppressing the factum of the legitimate share of the plaintiffs and without partitioning the suit lands under the register sale deed bearing document no.6374/2017 dt.29-12-2017 to which the plaintiffs are not parties as such the said sale deed is not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs and it is null and void document.

b) Thereafter in the first week of October 2018 the plaintiffs demanded the defendant no.1 for effecting partition of the suit schedule property into 4 equal shares in between the plaintiffs but he bluntly refused. Hence the plaintiffs approached the court for partition of the suit land into 4 equal shares as the plaintiffs are entitled 1/4th share each in the suit schedule land as the suit lands are ancestral lands.

3.After due service of summons D1 failed to appear before the court. Hence he was set exparte on 17-12-2018. Summons to D2 was issued through News paper publication and D2 did not appear before the court. Hence he was set exparte on 29-1- 2019.

3

O.S. No.225 of 2018

4.On behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff no.1 is examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A11 are marked.

5.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs filed written arguments. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit lands and her share of 1/4 th in the suit schedule property as prayed for?

Point :

7.The chief of PW1 is replication of plaint averments. As regards the documentary evidence, Ex.A1 to A8 are the CCs of pahanies for the year 1954 to 2017. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed bearing document no.6374/2017 dt.29-12- 2017, Ex.A10 is the original market value certificate and Ex.A11 is the original

Encumbrance certificate dt.3-10-2018.

8. On perusal of Ex.A1 to A8 pahanies shows the name of grand father of plaintiffs and father of plaintiffs i.e D1 as the owner and possessor of the suit schedule lands in sy.no. 48/A. Ex.A9 is copy of sale deed which is executed by D1 without the knowledge of plaintiffs and without partitioning the suit lands. Ex.A10 shows the market value of suit lands and Ex.A11/E.C shows the names of D1 and D2 in respect of alienation of suit lands.

9. In this case D1 set exparte for non appearance despite due service of summons. D2 set exparte for non-appearance despite News paper publication. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the judgment of Kasaram Jayamma & another Vs. Jajal

Lashmamma & another 2008 (3) ALT 104 (D.B) wherein it was held that the “a coparcener need not specifically seek setting aside of alienation of joint family property by kartha of Hindu joint family – It is sufficient to file a partition suit questioning those alienations as not binding on him.

4

O.S. No.225 of 2018

10. To disprove the contention of the plaintiffs the defendants did not choose to contest the case and they were set exparte, as such the contention of the plaintiffs cannot be discarded in absence of any oral or documentary evidence of defendants against the plaintiffs. Moreover, the suit lands are ancestral lands and same is reflecting in Ex.A1 to

A8. Hence the plaintiffs are entitled 1/4th share each in suit lands being the grand children of Late Swamy. Accordingly point is answered.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed preliminarily decreed by allotting 1/4 share each to the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1. Further, the registered sale deed bearing document no.6374/2017 dt.29-12-2017 is declared as not binding on the plaintiffs to the extent of the share of the plaintiffs. There is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 01 st day of October, 2020.

Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

5

O.S. No.225 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF S FOR DEFENDANT S

PW1 – Monika-- NIL –-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1 is CC of pahani for the year 1954-55, Ex.A2 is CC of Chesala pahani for the year 1966-67, Ex.A3 is CC of pahani for the year 1980-81, Ex.A4 is CC of pahani for the year 1989-90, Ex.A5 is CC of pahani for the year 2002-03, Ex.A6 is CC of pahani for the year 2015-2016, Ex.A7 is CC of pahani for 1-B the year 2016-17 Ex.A8 is CC of pahani for the Fasli year 2017. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of the sale deed bearing document no. 6374/2017 dt. 29-12- 2017. Ex.A10 is the original market value certificate dt.3-10-2018. Ex.A11 is the original Encumbrance certificate dt.3-10-2018.

FOR DEFENDANT S

-- NIL –

Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

1

O.S. No.04 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHEVELLA, R.R.DISTRICT.

Present: Smt. Swathi Murari Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

Dated this the 30th day of September, 2020

O.S. No. 04 of 201 8

Between: N. Shekar Reddy S/o Narsimha Reddy aged about 32 years, Occ:Agriculture R/o H.No. Surangal village, Moinabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

...Plaintiff

AND Md. Majeed S/o Kareem Sab, aged about 58 years, occ:Driver, R/o Surangal village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Guruva Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendant is set exparte, the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

::JUDGMENT::

1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for the recovery of amount of

Rs.1,23,500/- with future interest @ 36% per annum on principal amount i.e Rs.

50,000/- along with cost of the suit from the date of suit till the date of realization.

2.The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint averments is that the plaintiff and defendant belong to same village and are known to each other. The defendant approached the plaintiff on 15-11-2013 and requested to advance a sum of

Rs.50,000/- for hand loan for the purpose of his family necessities. Accordingly the plaintiff arranged the said amount on the same day and defendant executed a non- judicial stamp paper by receiving the said amount in favour of plaintiff promising to repay the same along with 36% interest with in two years. Further, the plaintiff demanded the defendant number of times for repayment of loan amount, but the 2

O.S. No.04 of 2018

defendant did not pay the same and intentionally avoided the payment of due amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a legal notice through his counsel to the defendant demanding him to pay the loan amount along with interest. The plaintiff sent the notice on 19-12-2017 by way of registered post to the defendant. The said notice was returned on 23-12-2017 as with a reason that the party is left the said address. Hence the plaintiff, having no other option approached this court by filing the present suit.

3.Despite due service of summons, the defendant failed to appear before the court. Hence the Defendant was set exparte on 08-02-2018.

4.On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as PW1. Ex.A1 to A3 are marked on behalf of PW1.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination that arose is: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount with future interest @ 36% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization as prayed for?

Point :

7. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim, got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the original unregistered bond paper executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.15-11-2013, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice and original postal receipt addressed to the defendant dt.19-12-2017 and

Ex.A3 is the returned envelope of the unserved copy of the legal notice dt.23-12- 2017.

8.The chief of PW1 is the replication of plaint averments. As regards the documentary evidence, on perusal of Ex.A1 it is clear that the defendant, having received Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff by executing on non judicial stamp paper in his favour. Ex.A2 is the legal notice dt.19-12-2017 issued by plaintiff calling upon 3

O.S. No.04 of 2018

the defendant to repay the hand loan amount. Ex.A3 is the returned postal cover, which shows that the defendant did not receive the postal cover as per the endorsement of postal authority.

9. According to the plaintiff, he lent the suit amount of Rs.50,000/- on 15-11-2013 whereas he sent the legal notice to the defendants on 19-12-2017. As per Article 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the limitation period to institute a suit for money lent is three years from the time the amount is lent. In this case the limitation period started from 15-11-2013 when the amount was lent and the period for institution of suit expired on 14-11-2016. The present suit was instituted on 03-01-2018 which is beyond the period of limitation. Thus, this suit is barred by limitation.

10.In the result, the suit is dismissed as it is barred by limitation. There is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of September, 2020.

Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF S FOR DEFENDANT S

PW1 – N. Shekar Reddy-- NIL –-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1 is the original unregistered bond paper executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.15- 11-2013, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice and original postal receipt addressed to the defendant dt.19- 12-2017. Ex.A3 is the returned envelope of the unserved copy of the legal notice dt.23-12-2017.

FOR DEFENDANT S

-- NIL –

Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chevella, R.R.District.