Sri T.M.C.Vijay Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

PRESENT : Sri.S.V.N.Raju, B.Sc., B.L..,

Senior Civil Judge.

Tuesday the 25th day of June, 2013.

OS.No.24/2010

Koppurapu Chakrapani, S/o Venkata Narasaiah, aged 66 years, Hindu, cultivation, R/o Showkarpeta Street, Allagadda village Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District ….Plaintiff -Vs-

Vankadari Sreeramulu, S/o Pedda Chengalarayudu, aged 55 years, Hindu, doing business, R/o H.No.17/144 A, Park road, Near Mahanandeeswara Temple, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District.….Defendant

This suit coming on 11.06.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.B.Neelakanteswaram, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri T. Rama Gopal Reddy, Sri V.V. Krishna Reddy and S. Rami Reddy Advocates for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,19,270/- together with costs and subsequent interest based on suit promissory note.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that on 1.10.2011 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.53,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay that amount with interest @ 24% P.A.Later on 13.11.2007 the defendant made part payments of Rs.1000 and made endorsement on the back side of the promissory note.Thereafter the defendant failed to repay balance amount inspite of several demands made by the p. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. He denied the execution of suit pronote and also the consideration there under. He and the plaintiff were residing side by side house and some dispoutes arose between their ladies in connection with a water tap. With a view to take revenge against him the plaitnff fabricated the suit pronte and field this suit. He also fabricated the part payment endorsement with a view to harass him and prayed to dismss the suit with costs.

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

1. Whether the defendant has discharged the entire suit amount?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount?

3. To what relief?

7.To prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the plaintiff Pws. 1 & 2 were examined and Exs. A1 & A2 are marked. The defendant himself examined as Dw.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

ISSUE No.1

8.The main contention of the petitioner is that on 1.5.2004 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.53,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the suit pronote agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 18% p.a. Later on 13.11.2007 the defendant made part payment of Rs.1000/- and faield to pay the balance amount insptie several demands made by him. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that the defendant himself has scribed the suit prontoe and with a view to evade him liability, he denied the execution of suit prontoe and also consideration and part payment endorsement.

--------- , he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit amount from him and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

9.The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant did not repay any amount after making part payments of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- in 2006 and 2009 inspite of several demands made by him and he got issued legal notice to defendant under Ex.A4. The defendant received the legal notice but did not give any reply. Ex.A5 is postal acknowledgement of the defendant. He contended that the defendant did not repay any amount to him as such he is liable to pay the entire suit amount and prayed to decree the suit.

10. As the defendant pleaded that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff in April 2010, the burden of proof lies on him. But the defendant did not step into the witness box to prove that he discharged the debt due to the plaintiff in April, 2010. As the defendant failed to enter in to the witness box an adverse inference can be drawn against him that the case setup by him is not correct.

11. Though the defendant contended that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff in April 2010, but he did not mention how much amount he has paid to the plaintiff and in whose presence he paid to the plaintiff. Though he contended that as the suit pronote was not traced, the plaintiff promised him to return the same after it is traced. Even if that is true the defendant ought to have obtained a receipt from the plaintiff for the amount paid by him. But the defendant did not explain as to why he did not obtain a receipt from the plaintiff. On the other hand the evidence of the plaintiff who was examined as Pw1 clearly reveal that defendant did not repay any amount to the plaintiff subsequent to the part payment endorsements made under Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 on the reverse of Ex.A1 promissory note. Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of plaintiff to prove that the defendant discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff.

12. Though the defendant contended that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff and got issued a reply to the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff, but the same was not exhibited. Thus the defendant has miserably failed to prove that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff under the suit pronote in April, 2010.

13. Accordingly I answer this issue against the defendant.

ISSUE No.2

14. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed

Rs.80,000/- from him on 12.03.2003 and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 16% P.A. Later the defendant made part payments of Rs. 1000/- and Rs.500/- on 10.03.2006 and 08.03.2009 respectively and failed to pay balance amount inspite of several demands made by him including a legal notice got issued by him. The plaintiff who was examined as Pw1 has reiterated the plaint averments.

15. As the defendant admitted execution of the suit promissory note and also the consideration there under and as he pleaded discharge, the burden lies on him to prove the same. As already pointed out by me on Issue No.1, the defendant failed to prove that he discharged entire amount due to the plaintiff.

16. In view of the evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount.

17. Accordingly I answer this Issue infavour the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3

18.As issue no.2 is found infavour of the plaintiff, he is entitled to recover the suit amount.

19. In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.1,85,835/- together with costs and subsequent interest @ 6% P.A from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.80,000/-.

Typed to dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of June, 2013.

Senior Civil Judge,

Allagadda Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the plaintiff For the defendant

Pw1: K. Chakrapani -None-

Exhibits marked

EX.A1: Suit promissory note dt: 12.03.2003 EX.A2:Part payment endorsement for Rs.1000/-

dated: 10.03.2006

EX.A3:Part payment endorsement for Rs.500/- -Nil-

Dated: 08.03.2009

Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dated :10.06.2011 Got issued by the plaintiff Ex.A5: Postal acknowledgement of the defendant

SCJ, ALG

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

PRESENT : Sri.S.V.N.Raju, B.Sc., B.L..,

Senior Civil Judge.

Thursday the 13th day of June, 2013.

OS.No.95/2011

Koppurapu Chakrapani, S/o Venkata Narasaiah, aged 66 years, Hindu, cultivation, R/o Showkarpeta Street, Allagadda village Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District ….Plaintiff -Vs-

Vankadari Sreeramulu, S/o Pedda Chengalarayudu, aged 55 years, Hindu, doing business, R/o H.No.17/144 A, Park road, Near Mahanandeeswara Temple, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District. ….Defendant

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,85,835/- together with costs and subsequent interest based on suit promissory note.

Plaint presented on 12.9.2011 and P.F on 19.1.2011.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Jurisdiction is of Rs.1,85,835/- and its Court Fee of Rs.4,326/- is paid U/Sec. 20 of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of Action for the suit arose at Allagadda.

This suit coming on 11.06.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.B.Neelakanteswaram, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri T. Rama Gopal Reddy, Sri V.V. Krishna Reddy and S. Rami Reddy Advocates for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court order and decree as follows.

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,85,835/- together with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.80,000/-

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.11,643 -00 towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 13th day of June, 2013.

Senior Civil Judge

Allagadda.

Memo of Costs

For the Plaintiff For the Defendant 1.Stamps on Plaint : Rs. 4,326-00 .....

2.Stamp on Vakalath : Rs. 2-00 Rs. 2-00 3.Process : Rs. 40-00 …..

4.Advocate Fee : Rs. 7275-00 not filed

----------------------------------

Total: Rs. 11,643-00 Rs. 2-00

--------------------- ---------------

SCJ, ALG.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

PRESENT : Sri.S.V.N.Raju, B.Sc., B.L..,

Senior Civil Judge.

Thursday the 13th day of June, 2013.

OS.No.96/2011

Koppurapu Rajeswaramma, W/o Chakrapani, aged 55 years, Hindu, cultivation, R/o Showkarpeta Street, Allagadda village Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District….Plaintiff -Vs-

Vankadari Sreeramulu, S/o Pedda Chengalarayudu, aged 55 years, Hindu, doing business, R/o H.No.17/144 A, Park road, Near Mahanandeeswara Temple, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District.….Defendant

This suit coming on 11.06.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.B.Neelakanteswaram, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri T. Rama Gopal Reddy, Sri V.V. Krishna Reddy and S. Rami Reddy Advocated for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,85,835/- together with costs and subsequent interest based on suit promissory note.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.03.2003 for his family expenses and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 16% P.A. Later the defendant made part payments of

Rs.1000/- on 10.03.2006 and Rs.500/- on 08.03.2009 and made endorsements on the back side of the promissory note.

3.Thereafter the defendant failed to repay balance amount inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff including a legal notice got issued by her. Hence the suit.

4.The defendant filed his written statement admitting execution of the suit pronote and the consideration there under. He further admitted that he made part payments of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- to the plaintiff on 10.03.2006 and 08.03.2009 respectively.

5. He contended that he and plaintiff are close relatives. In the month of

April 2010 he paid the entire amount due on the suit pronote. The plaintiff informed that suit pronote was not traced and she would return the same soon after it is traced. The plaintiff also did not issue any receipt.

5.Believing the words of the plaintiff and due to confidence in the plaintiff he waited for some time and when he insisted the plaintiff to return the pronote, she dodged the matter. To the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff he sent a reply with true facts. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit amount as he has already discharged the same and prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

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

1. Whether the defendant has discharged the entire suit amount?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount?

3. To what relief?

7.To prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the plaintiff she was examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. On behalf of the defendant none was examined and no documents are marked.

ISSUE No.1

8.The contention of the defendant is that he discharged the entire amount due under the suit pronote in the month of April 2010. At that time the plaintiff informed him that the suit pronote was misplaced and she would return it soon after it is traced. As the plaintiff is his close relative he trusted the words of the plaintiff and did not insist ever for a receipt. He waited for some time and later he demanded the plaintiff to return the suit promissory note. The plaintiff dodged the matter on some pretext or other. Since, he has already discharged the debt due to the plaintiff, he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit amount from him and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

9.The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant did not repay any amount after making part payments of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- in 2006 and 2009 inspite of several demands made by her and she got issued legal notice to the defendant under Ex.A4. The defendant received the legal notice but did not give any reply. Ex.A5 is postal acknowledgement of the defendant.

She contended that the defendant did not repay any amount to her as such he is liable to pay the entire suit amount and prayed to decree the suit.

10. As the defendant pleaded that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff in April 2010, the burden of proof lies on him. But the defendant did not step in to the witness box to prove that he discharged the debt due to the plaintiff in April, 2010. As the defendant failed to enter in to the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him that the case setup by him is not correct.

11. Though the defendant contended that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff in April 2010, but he did not mention how much amount he has paid to the plaintiff and in whose presence he paid to the plaintiff. He contended that as the suit pronote was not traced, and the plaintiff promised him to return the same after it is traced. Even if that is true the defendant ought to have obtained a receipt from the plaintiff for the amount paid by him. But the defendant did not explain as to why he did not obtain a receipt from the plaintiff. On the other hand the evidence of the plaintiff who was examined as Pw1 clearly reveal that defendant did not repay any amount to the plaintiff subsequent to the part payment endorsements made under Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 on the reverse of Ex.A1 promissory note. Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of plaintiff to prove that the defendant discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff.

12. Though the defendant contended that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff and got issued a reply to the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff, but the same was not exhibited. Thus the defendant has miserably failed to prove that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff under the suit pronote in April, 2010.

13. Accordingly I answer this issue against the defendant.

ISSUE No.2

14. The contention of the plaintiff is, that the defendant borrowed

Rs.80,000/- from her on 12.03.2003 and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 16% P.A. Later the defendant made part payments of Rs. 1000/- and Rs.500/- on 10.03.2006 and 08.03.2009 respectively and failed to pay balance amount inspite of several demands made by her including a legal notice got issued by her. The plaintiff who was examined as Pw1 has reiterated the plaint averments.

15. As the defendant admitted execution of the suit promissory note and also the consideration there under and as pleaded discharge, burden lies on him to prove the same. As already pointed out by me on Issue No.1, the defendant failed to prove that he discharged entire amount due to the plaintiff.

16. In view of the evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount.

17.Accordingly I answer this Issue infavour the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3

18.As issue no.2 is found infavour of the plaintiff, she is entitled to recover the suit amount.

19. In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.1,85,835/- together with costs and subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.80,000/-.

Typed to dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of June, 2013.

Senior Civil Judge,

Allagadda Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the plaintiff For the defendant

Pw1: K. Rajeswaramma -None-

Exhibits marked

EX.A1: Suit promissory note dt: 12.03.2003 EX.A2 & A3 : Part payment endorsements

dated: 10.03.2006 and 08.03.2009

for Rs.1000/-, Rs.500/- respectively Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dated 10.06.2011 -Nil- got issued by the plaintiff Ex.A5: Postal acknowledgement of the defendant

SCJ, ALG

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

PRESENT : Sri.S.V.N.Raju, B.Sc., B.L..,

Senior Civil Judge.

Thursday the 13th day of June, 2013.

OS.No.96/2011

Koppurapu Rajeswaramma, W/o Chakrapani, aged 55 years, Hindu, cultivation, R/o Showkarpeta Street, Allagadda village Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District ….Plaintiff -Vs-

Vankadari Sreeramulu, S/o Pedda Chengalarayudu, aged 55 years, Hindu, doing business, R/o H.No.17/144 A, Park road, Near Mahanandeeswara Temple, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District. ….Defendant -- -

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,85,835/- together with costs and subsequent interest based on suit promissory note.

Plaint presented on 12.9.2011 and P.F on 16.9.2011.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Jurisdiction is of Rs.1,85,835/- and its Court Fee of Rs.4,326/- is paid U/Sec. 20 of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of Action for the suit arose at Allagadda village and Mandal.

This suit coming on 11.06.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.B.Neelakanteswaram, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri T. Rama Gopal Reddy, Sri V.V. Krishna Reddy and S. Rami Reddy Advocates for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court order and decree as follows.

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,85,835/- together with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.80,000/-

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.11,643 -00 towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 13th day of June, 2013.

Senior Civil Judge

Allagadda.

Memo of Costs

For the Plaintiff For the Defendants 1.Stamps on Plaint : Rs. 4,326-00 .....

2.Stamp on Vakalath : Rs. 2-00 Rs.2-00 3.Process : Rs. 40-00 ….. 4.Advocate Fee : Rs. 7275-00 not filed

------------------- ---------------

Total: Rs. 11,643-00 Rs.2-00

--------------------- ---------------

SCJ, ALG.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

PRESENT : Sri.S.V.N.Raju, B.Sc., B.L..,

Senior Civil Judge.

Tuesday the 25th day of June, 2013.

OS.No.24/2010

Koppurapu Chakrapani, S/o Venkata Narasaiah, aged 66 years, Hindu, cultivation, R/o Showkarpeta Street, Allagadda village Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District ….Plaintiff -Vs-

Vankadari Sreeramulu, S/o Pedda Chengalarayudu, aged 55 years, Hindu, doing business, R/o H.No.17/144 A, Park road, Near Mahanandeeswara Temple, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District.….Defendant

This suit coming on 11.06.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.B.Neelakanteswaram, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri T. Rama Gopal Reddy, Sri V.V. Krishna Reddy and S. Rami Reddy Advocates for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,19,270/- together with costs and subsequent interest based on suit promissory note.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that on 1.10.2011 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.53,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay that amount with interest @ 24% P.A.Later on 13.11.2007 the defendant made part payments of Rs.1000 and made endorsement on the back side of the promissory note.Thereafter the defendant failed to repay balance amount inspite of several demands made by the p. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. He denied the execution of suit pronote and also the consideration there under. He and the plaintiff were residing side by side house and some dispoutes arose between their ladies in connection with a water tap. With a view to take revenge against him the plaitnff fabricated the suit pronte and field this suit. He also fabricated the part payment endorsement with a view to harass him and prayed to dismss the suit with costs.

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

1. Whether the defendant has discharged the entire suit amount?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount?

3. To what relief?

7.To prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the plaintiff Pws. 1 & 2 were examined and Exs. A1 & A2 are marked. The defendant himself examined as Dw.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

ISSUE No.1

8.The main contention of the petitioner is that on 1.5.2004 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.53,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the suit pronote agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 18% p.a. Later on 13.11.2007 the defendant made part payment of Rs.1000/- and faield to pay the balance amount insptie several demands made by him. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that the defendant himself has scribed the suit prontoe and with a view to evade him liability, he denied the execution of suit prontoe and also consideration and part payment endorsement.

--------- , he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit amount from him and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

9.The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant did not repay any amount after making part payments of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- in 2006 and 2009 inspite of several demands made by him and he got issued legal notice to defendant under Ex.A4. The defendant received the legal notice but did not give any reply. Ex.A5 is postal acknowledgement of the defendant. He contended that the defendant did not repay any amount to him as such he is liable to pay the entire suit amount and prayed to decree the suit.

10. As the defendant pleaded that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff in April 2010, the burden of proof lies on him. But the defendant did not step into the witness box to prove that he discharged the debt due to the plaintiff in April, 2010. As the defendant failed to enter in to the witness box an adverse inference can be drawn against him that the case setup by him is not correct.

11. Though the defendant contended that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff in April 2010, but he did not mention how much amount he has paid to the plaintiff and in whose presence he paid to the plaintiff. Though he contended that as the suit pronote was not traced, the plaintiff promised him to return the same after it is traced. Even if that is true the defendant ought to have obtained a receipt from the plaintiff for the amount paid by him. But the defendant did not explain as to why he did not obtain a receipt from the plaintiff. On the other hand the evidence of the plaintiff who was examined as Pw1 clearly reveal that defendant did not repay any amount to the plaintiff subsequent to the part payment endorsements made under Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 on the reverse of Ex.A1 promissory note. Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of plaintiff to prove that the defendant discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff.

12. Though the defendant contended that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff and got issued a reply to the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff, but the same was not exhibited. Thus the defendant has miserably failed to prove that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff under the suit pronote in April, 2010.

13. Accordingly I answer this issue against the defendant.

ISSUE No.2

14. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed

Rs.80,000/- from him on 12.03.2003 and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 16% P.A. Later the defendant made part payments of Rs. 1000/- and Rs.500/- on 10.03.2006 and 08.03.2009 respectively and failed to pay balance amount inspite of several demands made by him including a legal notice got issued by him. The plaintiff who was examined as Pw1 has reiterated the plaint averments.

15. As the defendant admitted execution of the suit promissory note and also the consideration there under and as he pleaded discharge, the burden lies on him to prove the same. As already pointed out by me on Issue No.1, the defendant failed to prove that he discharged entire amount due to the plaintiff.

16. In view of the evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount.

17. Accordingly I answer this Issue infavour the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3

18.As issue no.2 is found infavour of the plaintiff, he is entitled to recover the suit amount.

19. In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.1,85,835/- together with costs and subsequent interest @ 6% P.A from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.80,000/-.

Typed to dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of June, 2013.

Senior Civil Judge,

Allagadda Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the plaintiff For the defendant

Pw1: K. Chakrapani -None-

Exhibits marked

EX.A1: Suit promissory note dt: 12.03.2003 EX.A2:Part payment endorsement for Rs.1000/-

dated: 10.03.2006

EX.A3:Part payment endorsement for Rs.500/- -Nil-

Dated: 08.03.2009

Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dated :10.06.2011 Got issued by the plaintiff Ex.A5: Postal acknowledgement of the defendant

SCJ, ALG

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

PRESENT : Sri.S.V.N.Raju, B.Sc., B.L..,

Senior Civil Judge.

Thursday the 13th day of June, 2013.

OS.No.95/2011

Koppurapu Chakrapani, S/o Venkata Narasaiah, aged 66 years, Hindu, cultivation, R/o Showkarpeta Street, Allagadda village Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District ….Plaintiff -Vs-

Vankadari Sreeramulu, S/o Pedda Chengalarayudu, aged 55 years, Hindu, doing business, R/o H.No.17/144 A, Park road, Near Mahanandeeswara Temple, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District. ….Defendant

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,85,835/- together with costs and subsequent interest based on suit promissory note.

Plaint presented on 12.9.2011 and P.F on 19.1.2011.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Jurisdiction is of Rs.1,85,835/- and its Court Fee of Rs.4,326/- is paid U/Sec. 20 of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of Action for the suit arose at Allagadda.

This suit coming on 11.06.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.B.Neelakanteswaram, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri T. Rama Gopal Reddy, Sri V.V. Krishna Reddy and S. Rami Reddy Advocates for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court order and decree as follows.

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,85,835/- together with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.80,000/-

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.11,643 -00 towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 13th day of June, 2013.

Senior Civil Judge

Allagadda.

Memo of Costs

For the Plaintiff For the Defendant 1.Stamps on Plaint : Rs. 4,326-00 .....

2.Stamp on Vakalath : Rs. 2-00 Rs. 2-00 3.Process : Rs. 40-00 …..

4.Advocate Fee : Rs. 7275-00 not filed

----------------------------------

Total: Rs. 11,643-00 Rs. 2-00

--------------------- ---------------

SCJ, ALG.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

PRESENT : Sri.S.V.N.Raju, B.Sc., B.L..,

Senior Civil Judge.

Thursday the 13th day of June, 2013.

OS.No.96/2011

Koppurapu Rajeswaramma, W/o Chakrapani, aged 55 years, Hindu, cultivation, R/o Showkarpeta Street, Allagadda village Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District….Plaintiff -Vs-

Vankadari Sreeramulu, S/o Pedda Chengalarayudu, aged 55 years, Hindu, doing business, R/o H.No.17/144 A, Park road, Near Mahanandeeswara Temple, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District.….Defendant

This suit coming on 11.06.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.B.Neelakanteswaram, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri T. Rama Gopal Reddy, Sri V.V. Krishna Reddy and S. Rami Reddy Advocated for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,85,835/- together with costs and subsequent interest based on suit promissory note.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.03.2003 for his family expenses and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 16% P.A. Later the defendant made part payments of

Rs.1000/- on 10.03.2006 and Rs.500/- on 08.03.2009 and made endorsements on the back side of the promissory note.

3.Thereafter the defendant failed to repay balance amount inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff including a legal notice got issued by her. Hence the suit.

4.The defendant filed his written statement admitting execution of the suit pronote and the consideration there under. He further admitted that he made part payments of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- to the plaintiff on 10.03.2006 and 08.03.2009 respectively.

5. He contended that he and plaintiff are close relatives. In the month of

April 2010 he paid the entire amount due on the suit pronote. The plaintiff informed that suit pronote was not traced and she would return the same soon after it is traced. The plaintiff also did not issue any receipt.

5.Believing the words of the plaintiff and due to confidence in the plaintiff he waited for some time and when he insisted the plaintiff to return the pronote, she dodged the matter. To the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff he sent a reply with true facts. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit amount as he has already discharged the same and prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

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

1. Whether the defendant has discharged the entire suit amount?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount?

3. To what relief?

7.To prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the plaintiff she was examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. On behalf of the defendant none was examined and no documents are marked.

ISSUE No.1

8.The contention of the defendant is that he discharged the entire amount due under the suit pronote in the month of April 2010. At that time the plaintiff informed him that the suit pronote was misplaced and she would return it soon after it is traced. As the plaintiff is his close relative he trusted the words of the plaintiff and did not insist ever for a receipt. He waited for some time and later he demanded the plaintiff to return the suit promissory note. The plaintiff dodged the matter on some pretext or other. Since, he has already discharged the debt due to the plaintiff, he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit amount from him and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

9.The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant did not repay any amount after making part payments of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- in 2006 and 2009 inspite of several demands made by her and she got issued legal notice to the defendant under Ex.A4. The defendant received the legal notice but did not give any reply. Ex.A5 is postal acknowledgement of the defendant.

She contended that the defendant did not repay any amount to her as such he is liable to pay the entire suit amount and prayed to decree the suit.

10. As the defendant pleaded that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff in April 2010, the burden of proof lies on him. But the defendant did not step in to the witness box to prove that he discharged the debt due to the plaintiff in April, 2010. As the defendant failed to enter in to the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him that the case setup by him is not correct.

11. Though the defendant contended that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff in April 2010, but he did not mention how much amount he has paid to the plaintiff and in whose presence he paid to the plaintiff. He contended that as the suit pronote was not traced, and the plaintiff promised him to return the same after it is traced. Even if that is true the defendant ought to have obtained a receipt from the plaintiff for the amount paid by him. But the defendant did not explain as to why he did not obtain a receipt from the plaintiff. On the other hand the evidence of the plaintiff who was examined as Pw1 clearly reveal that defendant did not repay any amount to the plaintiff subsequent to the part payment endorsements made under Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 on the reverse of Ex.A1 promissory note. Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of plaintiff to prove that the defendant discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff.

12. Though the defendant contended that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff and got issued a reply to the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff, but the same was not exhibited. Thus the defendant has miserably failed to prove that he discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff under the suit pronote in April, 2010.

13. Accordingly I answer this issue against the defendant.

ISSUE No.2

14. The contention of the plaintiff is, that the defendant borrowed

Rs.80,000/- from her on 12.03.2003 and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 16% P.A. Later the defendant made part payments of Rs. 1000/- and Rs.500/- on 10.03.2006 and 08.03.2009 respectively and failed to pay balance amount inspite of several demands made by her including a legal notice got issued by her. The plaintiff who was examined as Pw1 has reiterated the plaint averments.

15. As the defendant admitted execution of the suit promissory note and also the consideration there under and as pleaded discharge, burden lies on him to prove the same. As already pointed out by me on Issue No.1, the defendant failed to prove that he discharged entire amount due to the plaintiff.

16. In view of the evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount.

17.Accordingly I answer this Issue infavour the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3

18.As issue no.2 is found infavour of the plaintiff, she is entitled to recover the suit amount.

19. In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.1,85,835/- together with costs and subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.80,000/-.

Typed to dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of June, 2013.

Senior Civil Judge,

Allagadda Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the plaintiff For the defendant

Pw1: K. Rajeswaramma -None-

Exhibits marked

EX.A1: Suit promissory note dt: 12.03.2003 EX.A2 & A3 : Part payment endorsements

dated: 10.03.2006 and 08.03.2009

for Rs.1000/-, Rs.500/- respectively Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dated 10.06.2011 -Nil- got issued by the plaintiff Ex.A5: Postal acknowledgement of the defendant

SCJ, ALG

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

PRESENT : Sri.S.V.N.Raju, B.Sc., B.L..,

Senior Civil Judge.

Thursday the 13th day of June, 2013.

OS.No.96/2011

Koppurapu Rajeswaramma, W/o Chakrapani, aged 55 years, Hindu, cultivation, R/o Showkarpeta Street, Allagadda village Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District ….Plaintiff -Vs-

Vankadari Sreeramulu, S/o Pedda Chengalarayudu, aged 55 years, Hindu, doing business, R/o H.No.17/144 A, Park road, Near Mahanandeeswara Temple, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District. ….Defendant -- -

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,85,835/- together with costs and subsequent interest based on suit promissory note.

Plaint presented on 12.9.2011 and P.F on 16.9.2011.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Jurisdiction is of Rs.1,85,835/- and its Court Fee of Rs.4,326/- is paid U/Sec. 20 of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of Action for the suit arose at Allagadda village and Mandal.

This suit coming on 11.06.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.B.Neelakanteswaram, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri T. Rama Gopal Reddy, Sri V.V. Krishna Reddy and S. Rami Reddy Advocates for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court order and decree as follows.

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,85,835/- together with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.80,000/-

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.11,643 -00 towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 13th day of June, 2013.

Senior Civil Judge

Allagadda.

Memo of Costs

For the Plaintiff For the Defendants 1.Stamps on Plaint : Rs. 4,326-00 .....

2.Stamp on Vakalath : Rs. 2-00 Rs.2-00 3.Process : Rs. 40-00 ….. 4.Advocate Fee : Rs. 7275-00 not filed

------------------- ---------------

Total: Rs. 11,643-00 Rs.2-00

--------------------- ---------------

SCJ, ALG.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

PRESENT : Sri. S.V.N. Raju, B.Sc., B.L.., Asst. Sessions Judge, Allagadda.

Saturday, the 6th day of July, 2013.

Sessions Case.No.524/2012

Name of the Accused:

1.Yerravandla Venkateswarlu, S/o. Y. Pedda Venkataiah, age 22 yrs, 2.Y. Pedda Venkataiah, S/o. Y. Venkatanna, age 50 yrs, 3.Y.Pullamma, W/o. Y.Pedda Venkataiah, 4.Y.Venkataramana, S/o. Y. Chinna Venkataiah age 25 yrs. 5.Y.Nagamaddamma, W/o. Y. Chinna Venkataiah, All are SC Colony, G. Jambuladdinne (v), Allagadda Mandal,

6. Pedda Moogavalla Chinna Maddielty, S/o Nadipi Maddilety, age 55 yrs, Govindapalli (v), Sirivella (M)

7. Mallala Lakshmi Devi, W/o. Venkateswarlu, Kondamayapalli (v), Rudravaram Mandal.

8. Guruvagaldla Subbarayudu, S/o. Muganna, age 30 yrs, Alamur village Panyam Mandal..

Charges: U/Sec 366 (A),376 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Judge: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, all the accused are not found guilty and they are acquitted u/sec 232 Cr.P.C. A1 is acquitted for the offences punishable u/ss. 366 & 376 IPC. A2 to A8 are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 376 r/w 109 IPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Name of the Police Station & : Allagadda Rural Police Station.

Crime No.: 59/2011

The prosecution was conducted by Sri. C.Siva Rami Reddy Addl. Public Prosecutor of Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Allagadda, and the accused were defended by C.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate.

This came up on 5.7.2013 before me and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This is a case filed u/sec 366 & 376 IPC by inspector of police

Allagadda circle in Cr.No.59/2011 of Allagadda rural police station.

2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in charge sheet are that A1 to A5 are residents of SC Colony, G. Jambuladinne village. A.6 to A.8 are residents of Govindapalli, Kondamayapalli and Alumur villages respectively. The victim girl is the daughter of Nageswara Rao who is a resident of G. Jambuladinne village. She is aged bout 15 years studying 10th class. The victim is well acquainted with A.1 and fell in love with him. A.1 used to visit the hostel where the victim was admitted at Allagadda on Sundays and holidays and used to talk with her. On one day he insisted the victim to marry him as there was a proposal for his marriage in his house. In pursuance of the plan hatched by A.1 to elope the victim, A.1 to A.8 went to the house of the victim in the absence of her parents and took her to their village and performed the marriage of the victim with A.1 in Sai Baba Temple,

Nandyal. After the marriage they visited the house of A.6 who is the maternal uncle of A.1 and there nuptials had taken place. Later they came to know that the parents of the victim booked a case against them. On 06.06.2011 when A1 was at Allagadda the police apprehended him.

3. Based on the complaint of the father of victim the police registered a case in Cr.No. 59/2011 u/ss. 366- A r/w 34 IPC. After tracing the victim girl on 06.06.2011 and recording her statement, the offence punishable u/s 376 r/w 34 IPC was also added and altered F.I.R was issued. Lw.17 examined the victim and recorded her statement in the presence of ICDS officials. The S.I. of police Allagadda rural police station sent the victim for medical examination and also examined the parents of the victim and other witnesses in this case and visited the scene of offence and drafted a rough sketch.

4. On 06.06.2011 at 9.00 p.m. the S.I. of police arrested A.1 and sent him for judicial custody after sending him to medical examination.

On 09.06.2011 the S.I. of police arrested A.2, A.4, A6 & A8 and sent them for judicial custody. The other accused got anticipatory bail. The woman medical officer, Community Health Centre, Allagadda issued certificate examining the victim stating that an Act of sexual offence has occurred on the victim and Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government.

Dist. Hospital, Nandyal who examined the victim issued a certificate, stating that her age was 15 yrs. As A.1 had physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage, he is liable to punishment u/s 376 IPC and A.2 to A.8 abetted kidnap and also the rape of the victim and as such they are liable for punishment u/ss 366A & 376 r/w 34

IPC. Hence the charges.

5. The above case was taken on file u/s 366 A & 376 r/w 34 IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Allagadda against the accused and got it registered as PRC No.19/2012. After appearance of all the accused and furnishing copies of documents as required u/s 207

Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Hon’ble

Sessions court, Kurnool as the alleged offences punishable u/sections

366 A & 376 IPC are exclusively triable by a court of Sessions. The

Hon’ble Sessions Court got it registered as S.C No.524/2012 and made

over the case to this court for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

6. After appearance of all the accused before this court and after hearing both sides and considering the material available on record a charge u/s 376, 366 IPC were framed against A1 and charge u/s.366 376 r/w 109 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. As all the accused denied commission of the offences, the case came up for trial.

7. To prove its case on behalf of the prosecution Pws.1 to 10 are examined and Exs. P.1 to P.12 are marked. The evidence of Lws. 11 to 19 was given up by the prosecution on 28.6.2013. As there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, They examination of 313

Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Now the points for consideration are

1. “Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/s 366 & 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

2. Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of A2 to A8 for the offence punishable u/s. 366,376 r/w 109 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10. The case of prosecution is that A.1 fell in love with the victim girl and he used to visit the hostel when the victim was studying at

Allagadda on Sundays and holidays. He hatched a plan to marry her and to have sexual with her. In pursuance of his plan A2 to A8 also came went to the house of Pw.1 in his absence and kidnapped the victim , who is a minor girl. Later got performed her marriage with A.1 in Sai Baba Temple, at Nandyal and thereafter took A1 and the victim to the house of A6 where nuptial ceremony was held. Later based the complaint of the father of the victim the police arrested A1 on 6.6.2011 and later police arrested other accused.

11. The plea of the accused is one of total denial. They contend that they were falsely implicated it.

12. Pw.1 is the victim girl in the case, she deposed that she does not know the accused and the accused never kidnapped her and A.1 did not commit any offence against her. The police obtained her signature on a document. She does not know its contents. Ex.P1 is her signature on her statement recorded by the S.I. of police on 6.6.2011.

This witness was treated as hostile and the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor cross-examined her with permission. Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of Pw.1.

13. Pw.2 Y. Nageswara Rao, Pw.3 Chinna Obulamma are parents of Pw.1, both of them do not depose anything against the accused and they deposed that the accused never kidnapped their daughter and A1 did not commit any offence on Pw.1. Pw.2 admitted his signature on the complaint dated 4.6.2011. Ex.P3 is his signature on the complaint. These two witnesses were declared as hostile and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross-examined them. Exs. P4 &

P5 are 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Pws.2 & 3 respectively. Pw.4 Y. Raju,

Pw.5 Y. Chinna Dasthagiri, Pw.6 K. Obulesu, Pw.9 G. Dastagiri and

Pw.10 M. Chinna Obanna who are eye witness to the offence of kidnap did not depose anything against the accused and all of them deposed that they do not know anything about this case and police never examined them. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross- examined them with permission. Exs.P.6 to P.8 and Exs. P.11, P.12 are 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Pws.4 to 6, Pws.9 and 10 respectively.

Nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of Pws.4 to 6, 9 & 10 which helps the case of prosecution.

14. Pw.7 Govind ,Pw.8 M. Mooga Maddilety are residents of

Govindapalle village, who witnessed the nuptials ceremony of Pw.1 with A.1 also did not support the case of prosecution. Both of them deposed that they do not know anything against about this case.

These two witnesses were declared as hostile and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor cross-examined them with permission.

Exs. P.9 & P.10 are 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Pw.s 7 & 8 respectively.

15. Thus none of the prosecution witness deposed about the involvement of the accused in this case or that the accused kidnapped

PW.1 and A.1 raped Pw.1 even the victim girl and her parents who gave a complaint to the police also did not support the case of prosecution. The evidence of Pws.1 to 10 and Exs. P1 to P12 are no way helpful to the case of prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences levelled against them. Thus the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, I answer these two points against the prosecution.

16. In the result, all the accused are not found guilty and they are acquitted u/sec 232 Cr.P.C. A1 is acquitted for the offences punishable u/ss. 366 & 376 IPC. A.2 to A.8 are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 366,376 r/w 109 IPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6th day of July, 2013.

Sd/-Sri. S.V.N. Raju

Asst. Sessions Judge, Allagadda.

Appendix of Evidence (Witness examined)

For Prosecution For defence

Pw.1 Laxmi Rama Subbamma Pw.2 Y. Nageswara Rao Pw.3 Chinna Obulamma Pw.4 Y. Raju -Nil- Pw.5 Y. Chinna Dastagiri Pw.6 Kothapalli Obulesu Pw.7 G. Govindu Pw.8 M. Mooga Maddilety Pw.9 G. Dasthagiri Pw.10 M. Chinna Obanna Exhibits Marked Ex.P1 is signature on statement of Pw.1 dt: 6.6.2011. Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1. Ex.P3 is signature on the complaint of Pw.2. Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pws.2 Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3 -Nil- Ex.P6 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4 Ex.P7 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5 Ex.P8 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.6 Ex.P9 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.7 Ex.P10 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.8 Ex.P11 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.9 Ex.P12 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.10

Sd/-Sri. S.V.N. Raju

Asst. Sessions Judge, Allagadda.

// BY ORDER //

SUPERINTENDENT.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

PRESENT : Sri. S.V.N. Raju, B.Sc., B.L.., Asst. Sessions Judge, Allagadda.

Saturday, the 6 th day of July, 2013.

Sessions Case.No.524/2012

TABULAR STATEMENT APPENDED TO THE JUDGEMENT

Name of the Police Station: Allagadda (R), P.S & Crime No: 59/2011

Description of the Accused:

Sl.Name of the AccusedFather’s/ Husband’s OccupationReligionResidence NoNameAge 01Yerravandla S/o Y. Pedda 22CooliHinduAll are of SC VenkateswarluVenkataiahcolony, G. 02Y.Pedda VenkataiahS/o.Y.Venkatanna50CooliHinduJambuladdinne village, Allagadda 03Y.PullammaW/o Y. Pedda CooliHindu Mandal, Kurnool Venkataiah District. 04Y. VenkataramanaS/o Y.Chinna 25CooliHindu Venkataiah 05NagamaddammaW/o.Y. Chinna CooliHindu Venkataiah 06Pedda Moogavalla S/o Nadipi 55CooliHinduGovindapalli Chinna MadddiletyMaddiletyvillage, Sirvella Mandal, 07Mallala Lakshmi W/o Venkateswarlu30CooliHinduKondamayapalli Devivillage, Rudravaram Mandal. 08Guruvagaldla S/o.Muganna30CooliHinduAlamuru village, SubbarayuduPanyam Mandal.,

Date of Offence:04-06-2011 Date of filing: 26-04-2012 Date of Complainant :04-06-2011 Date of Arrest of the accused: A.1 Arrested on 06-06-2011, A.2,A.4,A.6 and A.8 are Arrested on 09-06-2011 and A3,A5 and A.7 are on Anticipatory bail.

Date of Apprehension of the accused:03-09-2012 Date of Release on bail: A.1,A.2,A.4,A.6 and A.8 are released on 27-07-2011 and A.3,A.5, A.7 are on Anticipatory bail. Date of Committal: 14-09-2012 Date of Commencement of trial: 11-06-2013 Date of Close of trail: 05-07-2013 Date of Sentence or Order: 06-07-2013

On 29-10-2012 this case was received on being made over to this court for disposal according to law from the court of Prl.Sessions Judge, Kurnool. On 07-02-2013 charges were framed. On 11-06-2013 PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.12 are marked. The evidence of LWs. 11 to 19 was given up by the prosecution On 28-06-2013. As there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, They examination of U/Sec 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with. On 06-07-2013 Judgment was pronounced.

Sd/- S.V.N. Raju,

Asst.Sessions Judge,

ALLAGADDA.

// TRUE COPY // Copy submitted to the Registrar (Judl.), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through the Hon’ble District & Sessions judge, Kurnool. Copy Submitted to:- The Director of Prosecution., A.P., Hyderabad. The Hon’ble District Judge, Kurnool. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool. Copy to the J.M.F.C. Allagadda. In Dis No. /2013, dated:

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

PRESENT : Sri.S.V.N.Raju, B.Sc., B.L. Asst.Sessions Judge, Allagadda

Monday the 22 day of July, 2013.

Sessions Case.No.28/2013

TABULAR STATEMENT APPENDED TO THE JUDGEMENT.

Name of the Police Station: Allagadda (R),P.S & Crime No: 84/2012

Description of the Accused:

Sl. Name of the Father’s/ OccupatioReligionResidence NoAccusedHusband’s n Age Name 01Dara Yerranna S/o 45Cooli HinduAll are R/o D.EpremNallagatla 02Dara S/o 21CooliHinduvillage, Obulesu@Bala YerrannaAllagadda obulesumandal, 3Dara W/o 35CooliHinduKurnool NarayanammaYerrannaDistrict. Date of Offence:04-06-2012

Date of filing: 17-10-2012

Date of Complaint :04-06-2012

Date of Arrest of the accused : 20-06-2012

Date of Apprehension of the accused:20-06-2012

Date of Release on bail : 12-07-2012

Date of Committal: 17-12-2012

Date of Commencement of trial: 09-07-2013

Date of Close of trail: 18-07-2013

Date of Sentence or Order: 22-07-2013

On 29-01-2013 this case was received on being made over to this court for disposal according to law from the court of Prl.Sessions Judge, Kurnool. On 04-04-2013 charges were framed. On 09-07-2013 PWs 01 to 05 were examined and Exhibits P. 01 to P. 06 are marked. The evidence of LWs. 5,7 & 8 were given up by the prosecution As there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, they were not examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. And their examination U/Sec 313.Cr.P.C was dispensed with. On 22-07-2013 Judgment was pronounced.

Asst.Sessions Judge,

ALLAGADDA.

Copy submitted to the Registrar (Judl.), High Court of A.P.,

Hyderabad through the Hon’ble District & Sessions judge, Kurnool. Copy Submitted to:- The Director of Prosecution., A.P., Hyderabad. The Hon’ble District Judge, Kurnool. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool. Copy to the J.M.F.C. Allagadda. In Dis No. /2013, dated: