Smt T.Malleswari, B.Com., L.L.B.,

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: T.MALLESWARI, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Friday, this the Eight day of May Two thousand and Fifteen

O.S.NO. 342 OF 2009

Between:

1. Smt. Rahamath Bee (died)

2. T.K. Chand Basha (died)

3. T.K. Shafiulla aged about 41 years

4. T.K. Ahamad, aged about 38 years.

Nos.3 and 4 plaintiffs are the sons of T.M. Khadar Basha, Muslim.

5. Smt. Parvin W/o late T.K. Chand Basha, aged about 43 years, House wife,

6. Minor Sameer, aged about 17 years.

7. Minor Rehane, aged about 15 years.

Nos.6 is the son and No.7 is the daughter of late T.K. Chand Basha and they are minors rep., by their mother and guardian Smt. Parvin.

All are residing at Samireddipalli village, No.14, Kandriga post, Yadamari mandal, Chittoor district.

Nos.3 to 7 plaintiffs are added as L.Rs. of deceased 1 and 2 plaintiffs as per orders in I.A. 117 and 118/2011 dated.04.08.2011. … Plaintiffs

And: 1.C. Jabbar (died)

2. C.Dasthagiri S/o late C. Khadar Basha, Muslim, aged about 53 years, cultivation.

3. C.Syed Ali S/o late C. Khadar Basha, Muslim, aged about 35 years, car driver.

4. Smt. Pathima Bee, W/o late C.Jabbar, aged about 45 years.

5. C. Mujeeb S/o late C. Jabbar, aged about 23 years.

6. Minor C.Aisha , aged about 13 years, D/o late C. Jabbar rep., by her mother and guardian Smt. Pathima Bee.

All are residing at Samireddipalli village,No.14 Kandriga post, Yadamari mandal, Chittoor district.

(Nos.4 to 6 are brought on record being the L.Rs of deceased 1st defendant as per orders in I.A. 601 of 2013 dated.15.09.2014.)… Defendants 2

This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. V. 

Ramanarayana Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri.M. Subramanyam 

Reddy, Advocate for defendants and upon hearing both sides, perusing the record, this court delivered the following:

 J U D G M E N T

` This suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and followers from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

02. The averments of the plaint succinctly are as follows:

1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption. Originally there was a tiled house in item No.1 of the suit schedule property and the parents of the first plaintiff Imam saheb and Khadar bee were residing in the suit schedule property during their life time along with the 1st plaintiff . The parents of the first plaintiff died long back leaving behind the first plaintiff to succeed to the suit schedule property. Even after the marriage of the first plaintiff she resided at her parents house at the suit village. After the death of parents of first plaintiff , first plaintiff and her family members residing in the plaint schedule property and enjoying the same without any interruption. The revenue authorities after recognizing her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule house the then MRO Yadamari granted a possession patta in ROC.No.C/847/98 dated.30.5.1998 in favour of first plaintiff. The first plaintiff removed the old tiled house in item No.1 of the suit schedule property with an intention to construct a house under Indiramma housing scheme with the aid of Government. Defendants have no manner of right, title or possession over the suit schedule property and they have their separate house on the eastern side of item No.1 of the suit schedule 3 property. There are some misunderstandings between first plaintiff and defendants with regard to common sandhu dhova which is situated in between their houses since long time. Therefore the defendants have bore grudge against the first plaintiff and crating troubles in enjoying the suit schedule property . The defendants have made a false representation to the housing board for allotting necessary raw materials with an intention to stop the construction work in item no.1 of the suit schedule property .

Plaintiff further submits that there is an old open bath room existing in item No.2 of the suit schedule property. The first plaintiff died intestate on 17.12.2010 leaving behind her the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as her legal representatives and they have succeed ed to the entire estate of the deceased 1st plaintiff. The second proposed plaintiff died on 24.4.2011 leaving behind him his wife and children I.e plaintiffs 5 to 7 as his legal heirs and they have succeeded to the entire estate of 2nd plaintiff T.K.Chand basha along with other plaintiffs. 

The 1st defendant died intestate on 10.10.2013 leaving behind him his wife , his son and daughter as his legal heirs to succeed his entire estate. The wife and and children of D1are brought on record being the legal heirs of deceased first defendant. They have no manner of right , title or possession over the suit schedule property.

Plaintiff further submits that on 17.6.2009 while first plaintiff along with his son laid foundation in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and at that time defendants along with their men high handedly trespassed into the suit schedule property and obstructed from raising foundation and also created nuisance. The plaintiffs along with his family members and villagers resisted the high handed acts of the defendants and they went away proclaiming that they renew their attempts in future also. Plaintiff is apprehending that defendants may at any time prevent 4 the plaintiff from raising construction. Therefore plaintiff is obliged to file the suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property .

Written statement filed by the 3rd defendant and adoption memo filed for Defendants 1 and 2 . D3 in his written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and submits that one Imam saheb and Babu saheb are sons of 

Mammu saheb and they were living in the suit schedule property by constructing two thatched houses. The boundaries of the said property has been changed since the ownership of the adjacent properties are changed . Imam saheb and Babu saheb had half share each in the written statement schedule properties and other properties. Shake Imam saheb sold his undivided half share in the written statement schedule property and other landed properties to his brother Babu saheb by virtue of registered sale deed dated. 22.9.1944. Therefore Babu saheb became absolute owner of the entire site with houses mentioned in the written statement schedule and he had been continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. 

While Babu saheb was in possession and enjoyment of the property some disputes arose with regard to the properties sold by Imam saheb to Babu saheb. Smt. Khadar bee W/o Imam saheb, Jaina bee , Asha bee, Chand bee, Katheeja bee and Rahamat bee (1st plaintiff) the daughters of Imam saheb raised disputes and claimed share in the properties of Imam saheb which were sold to Babu saheb. The said disputes were resolved on 10.07.1958 and in pursuance of the settlement the wife and daughters of Imam saheb have executed a Regd. Relinquishment deed dated. 

23.12.1958 for valid consideration relinquishing their right in the written statement schedule property and other properties in favour of Babu saheb. At the time of execution of Relinquishment deed first plaintiff was minor and married and therefore her husband T.M. Khader basha as guardian on her behalf executed 

Relinquishment deed .

5

Defendant further submits that after the death of Babu saheb his properties devolved on his sons C. Jabba saheb and Khadar basha . Khadhar basha died and his share of properties devolved on his sons C. Dasthagiri and 

C.,Syed Ali. From the date of sale deed dated.22.09.1944 executed by Imam Saheb and registered relinquishment deed dated. 23.12.1958 executed by the wife and daughters of Imam saheb, Babu Saheb had been in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property and after his death his legal heirs have been in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule properties. 

The revenue authorities have issued patta for a portion of the site with the consent of defendant in the names of wives of the defendants 2 and 3 to avail benefits under the Indiramma housing scheme. Plaint schedule property is part and parcel of written statement schedule property. Plaint schedule property is not in existence as narrated in the plaint schedule.

Defendant further submits that the tiled house situated in the item No.1 of the suit schedule property was constructed by Babu saheb after the sale deed dated.22.9.1944 and relinquishment deed dated.23.12.1958. Plaintiffs never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties . The plaintiff is not entitled of permanent injunction against the defendants . Hence defendants pray the court to dismiss the suit with costs. 

03. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial by my predecessor:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit , if so, such possession is threatened by the defendants ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

3. To what relief plaintiff ?

6

04. On behalf of plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked 

Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. On behalf of defendants, Dws.2 to 4 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to B6. 1St defendant was examined as DW.1 and during further cross examination of DW.1 he died hence his evidence was eschewed.

05. Heard both sides, Perused the record .

06. ISSUES NO.1)

The case of plaintiff is that first plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. In item No.1 of the suit schedule property there is a tiled house. After the death of first plaintiff's parents , first plaintiff lived in the suit schedule property with her family members. By recognizing the first plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule house the then MRO Yadamari granted a possession patta in ROC No. C/847/98 dated. 30.5.1998 in favour of first plaintiff.

In support of plaintiffs case Ex.A1 to A8 are marked. Ex.A1 is rough sketch. Ex.A2 is the possession patta issue by MRO Yadamari in favour of first plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the certificate issued by the VRO Gollapalle village, Yadamari mandal. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of sale deed executed by Markondeyulu chetty in favour of Krishnaiah chetty . Ex.A5 is the original registered Mehar sale deed dated. 9.12.1954 executed by Imam saheb in favour of his wife Kadhar bee . Ex.A6 is the served copy of caveat filed by D3 against first plaintiff. Ex.A7 is the certificate issued by VRO Gollapalli village . Ex.A8 is the original Regd. Sale deed dated. 

01.04.1928 executed by Babu saheb in favour of Imam saheb.

On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that Babu saheb and Imam saheb are brothers and sons of Mammu saheb. On 22.9.1944 Imam saheb sold his undivided half share in the written statement schedule property and other 7 properties to his brother Babu saheb . By virtue of pre existing half share and by virtue of sale deed dated. 22.9.1944 Babu saheb became the absolute owner of the entire site with houses mentioned in the written statement schedule . Again on 10.07.1958 the wife and five daughters of Imam saheb have executed Regd. 

Relinquishment deed in favour of Babu saheb by relinquishing their right in the written statement schedule property and other properties in favour of Babu saheb . 

Since first plaintiff was minor and married at the time of execution of relinquishment deed, therefore the husband of the first plaintiff T.M. Khadar basha acted as guardian on her behalf and executed the relinquishment deed. Ever since from the date of sale deed dated.22.9.1944 and relinquishment deed dated.23.12.1958 Babu saheb had been in possession and enjoyment of written statement schedule property. After the death of Babu saheb the defendants as his legal heirs have been enjoying the written statement schedule properties. 

In support of defendants case Ex.B1 to B6 are marked. Ex.B1 is original registered sale deed dated. 22.09.1944 executed by Imam saheb in favour of Babu saheb. Ex.B2 is the original registered relinquishment deed dated. 23.12.1958 executed by the first plaintiff and others. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of registered relinquishment deed dated. 23.12.1958 . Ex.B4 is the certificate issued by V.R.I of 184 Gollapalle village, Ex.B5 is the house tax demand notices . Ex.B6 is the house tax receipts.

Ex.A2 shows that first plaintiff was given possession certificate by the

MRO Yadamari for an extent of Ac.0.01 cent in survey No. 24 of 184 Gollapalle village . In Ex.A2 the boundaries are mentioned in plot numbers, hence it cannot be said that Ex.A2 is related to the suit schedule property. Ex.A3 & Ex.A7 cannot come to the rescue of plaintiffs unless the person who issued Ex.A3 is examined and proves its contents. As the plaintiffs failed to examine the VRO of Gollapalle Ex.A3 & A7 cannot be used to prove plaintiffs case. Ex.A4 is also not useful to prove the 8 plaintiffs case merely the house of Imam saheb shown as southern boundary to the property covered under Ex.A4. Further, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants are the parties to Ex.A4. Hence Ex.A4 cannot be relied upon. The boundaries mentioned in Ex.A5 are not tallied with the plaint schedule boundaries. In the plaint schedule two separate boundaries are shown for item No.1 and 2 of the schedule properties but whereas in Ex.A5 , common boundaries are shown for two houses. Therefore for the reasons discussed above, it cannot be said that Ex.A5 is related to suit schedule properties. Ex.A6 is the caveat filed by the defendant No.3 herein against the first plaintiff herein in respect of house vacant site. Ex.A6 is not related to the suit schedule property. Hence the same is also not useful to prove the plaintiff's case. Ex.A8 shows that Babu Saheb sold his share of properties in favour of his brother Imam saheb . However , the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A8 for the two houses are not tallied with the plaint schedule boundaries. Further Ex.A8 contents shows that Babu saheb sold 1/3rd share in the said houses . It is not the case of either plaintiffs or defendants that Babu saheb sold his 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties to Imam saheb. Plaintiffs in their pleadings no where stated that Babu saheb sold his entire properties to his brother Imam saheb. 

Without pleadings evidence cannot be adduced and any amount of evidence adduced in the absence of pleadings cannot be looked into . For these reasons 

Ex.A8 cannot confer any right, title or possession to the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

During cross of DW.2 stated that in the year 1944 Imam saheb had executed Ex.B1 in favour of Babu saheb. DW.2 denied the suggestion that first plaintiff was alloted possession certificate for the suit schedule property under 

Ex.A2. During cross of DW.3 nothing was elicited in support of plaintiffs case. 

During cross of P.W.1 stated that the joint family properties were enjoyed by both 

Imam saheb and Babu saheb jointly . Imam saheb sold his half share in joint family 9 properties to Babu saheb. There was a tiled house in the suit schedule property and they have paid tax to the said house. Admittedly, no tax receipts are filed by the plaintiffs to show that they have paid tax to the house situated in the suit schedule property. During cross of P.W.2 stated that the boundaries to the suit 

schedule properties is East : Vanka, West : House of Shanmuga chetty , North : 

House of Venkataswamy and Krishnaiah chetty, South : House of Doraswamy 

rcddy. Plaintiffs in the plaint shown two schedules and shown two different boundaries for two items of the plaint schedule properties. P.W.2 given boundaries commonly to item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties as if item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are situated within common boundaries. P.W.2 further stated that he do not know whether Imam saheb sold his half share to 

Babu saheb under Regd. Sale deed dated.22.9.1944. He do not know about 

the relinquishment deed dated.23.12.1958 in favour of Babu saheb. The 

properties sold by Imam saheb to Babu saheb are in possession and enjoyment 

of Babu saheb and after the demise of Babu saheb their children are in 

possession and enjoyment . On one hand P.W.2 stated that he do not know about the sale deed executed by Imam Saheb in favour of Babu Saheb, but during further cross examination , admitted that the properties sold by Imam Saheb to Babu Saheb are in the possession and enjoyment of Babu Saheb. However, from the evidence of P.W.2 it can be inferred that the properties were sold by Imam Saheb to Babu 

Saheb and the said properties are in the possession and enjoyment of Babu Saheb and his family members. P.W.3 in his cross examination stated that Babu saheb sold his entire property to Imam saheb in the year 1928 and again in the year 1944 

Babu Saheb purchased the half of the property which was sold to Imam saheb. For the reasons discussed earlier this Court has come to a conclusion that Ex.A8 Regd. 

Sale deed dated. 1.4.1928 is not related to the suit schedule property . Hence , 

P.W.3 evidence is not useful to prove the plaintiffs case. The boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 for item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are also not tallying 10 with the boundaries given by P.W.2 and 3.

Ex.B1 shows that Imam Saheb sold his half share in house and landed properties to his brother Babu Saheb. Ex.B1 shows that Imam saheb sold his half share in two house properties to Babu saheb on 22.09.1944 within the following boundaries, east : Land of Putti chetty , south : Land of N. Swamy reddy, west : 

Vacant site of Rangaiah , north: Lane. Said Babu Saheb acquired half share in the suit schedule property by way of Ex.B1 and in remaining half share he acquired right being co­parcener on par with Imam saheb. Thus Babu Saheb became the absolute owner of suit schedule property. It is undisputed fact that suit schedule property is the ancestral property of both Imam saheb and Babu saheb. P.Ws.1 and 2 during their cross examination categorically stated that both Imam Saheb and 

Babu Saheb divided their joint family properties and living separately. From the admission of Pws.1 and 2 also it can be inferred that in view of Ex.B1 sale deed 

Babu Saheb became absolute owner of suit schedule property. Ex.B2 and B3 are one and the same . Ex.B2 shows that the wife and children of Imam Saheb executed relinquishment deed in favour of Babu Saheb for the properties mentioned in Ex.B1 by receiving consideration of Rs.100/­ . The boundaries mentioned in Ex.B1 and B2 are one and the same . The first plaintiff herein was also a party to Ex.B2 and on behalf of first plaintiff her guardian cum husband by name Khadar Basha affixed his signature on Ex.B2. The boundaries mentioned in the written statement schedule are tallying with the Ex.B1 and B2 boundaries. The first plaintiff being a party to 

Ex.B2 affixed her signature through her husband hence Ex.B2 is binding on first plaintiff. Though not admitting Ex.A5 to be true but assume for argument sake that 

Imam saheb got right, title and possession over suit schedule property and he sold the same to his wife Khader bee under Ex.A5, said Khadar bee and her children relinquished their right over suit schedule property under Ex.B2. Therefore in view of Ex.B2 also plaintiffs cannot claim their title and possession over suit schedule 11 property. Further, even till today the plaintiffs did not challenge Ex.B1 and B2 documents . Therefore, the possession of the defendants over the written statement schedule property is categorically established in view of Ex.B1 and B2 documents. 

Ex.B5 and B6 shows that Babu saheb paid house tax . Ex.B4 is not useful to prove the defendants case since defendant failed to prove the contents of Ex.B4 by examining the concerned person who issued it. DW.4 in his cross examination stated that he do not know in which survey number the suit village is situated . He do not know from whom Babu saheb purchased the house and landed properties. 

From the evidence of DW.4 it is clear that he do not know anything about the suit schedule property. Hence his evidence is not useful to prove the defendants case.

The learned counsel for plaintiff has relied on the following citations in support of his case. 

2008 (1) ALT 430

Alla Seshukumar and another Vs. Alla Radha Krishna

Wherein the Honourabe High Court of A.P observed that – when a person, who has no title over the property is in settled possession of the property, he is entitled for injunction even against the true owner and the true owner cannot forcibly evict him from the property.

2011 (3) ALT 229

G. Venkat Ratnam Vs. Kollipara Jhansi Lakshmi and others

Wherein the Honourabe High Court of A.P observed that – In a suit for perpetual injunction­ simpliciter, the question of title cannot be decided, and at the most, it can be referred to, for a limited purpose.

The burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule properties are situated within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 

In a suit for permanent injunction which is an equitable relief . Plaintiff must prove his case on his own strength but he shall not depend on the flaws or weakness in the defendants case. From the foregoing discussion this court has come to a conclusion that plaintiffs failed to establish their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. Hence, it can be said that plaintiffs are not in possession 12 and enjoyment of suit schedule properties. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiffs.

08. ISSUE NO.1 :

In view of finding on issue No.1, it is established that the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for grant of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule properties. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiffs. 

09. ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected, signed and 

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8th day of May, 2015.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiffs:

P.W.1 : T. K. Shafiulla 

P.W.2 : S.V. Ragava Reddy

P.W.3 : K. Rajasekhar reddy

Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants:

D.W.1 : C. Jabbar (closed)

D.W.2 : C. Syed Ali

D.W.3 : P. Rafi

D.W.4 : K. Damodara reddy

Exhibits Marked on behalf of Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 is rough sketch. 

Ex.A2 is the possession patta issue by MRO Yadamari in favour of first plaintiff. 

Ex.A3 is the certificate issued by the VRO Gollapalle village, Yadamari mandal. 

Ex.A4 is the certified copy of sale deed executed by Markondeyulu chetty in favour 13 of Krishnaiah chetty .

Ex.A5 is the original registered Mehar registered sale deed dated. 9.12.1954 executed by Imam saheb in favour of his wife Kadhar bee .

Ex.A6 is the served copy of caveat filed by D3 against first plaintiff.

Ex.A7 is the certificate issued by VRO Gollapalli village . 

Ex.A8 is the original Regd. Sale deed dated. 01.04.1928 executed by Babu saheb in favour of Imam saheb.

Exhibits marked on Behalf of Defendants:

Ex.B1 is original registered sale deed dated. 22.09.1944 executed by Imam saheb in favour of Babu saheb.

Ex.B2 is the original registered relinquishment deed dated. 23.12.1958 executed by the first plaintiff and others. 

Ex.B3 is the certified copy of registered relinquishment deed dated. 23.12.1958 .

Ex.B4 is the certificate issued by V.R.I of 184 Gollapalle village, 

Ex.B5 is the house tax demand notices .

Ex.B6 is the house tax receipts.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

14

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: SRI.S.KRISHNAN KUTTY, B.A, LL.B.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

FAC/ I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Friday, this the Eight day of May Two thousand and Fifteen

O.S.NO. 342 OF 2009

Between:

1. Smt. Rahamath Bee (died)

2. T.K. Chand Basha (died)

3. T.K. Shafiulla aged about 41 years

4. T.K. Ahamad, aged about 38 years.

Nos.3 and 4 plaintiffs are the sons of T.M. Khadar Basha, Muslim.

5. Smt. Parvin W/o late T.K. Chand Basha, aged about 43 years, House wife,

6. Minor Sameer, aged about 17 years.

7. Minor Rehane, aged about 15 years.

Nos.6 is the son and No.7 is the daughter of late T.K. Chand Basha and they are minors rep., by their mother and guardian Smt. Parvin.

All are residing at Samireddipalli village, No.14, Kandriga post, Yadamari mandal, Chittoor district.

Nos.3 to 7 plaintiffs are added as L.Rs. of deceased 1 and 2 plaintiffs as per orders in I.A. 117 and 118/2011 dated.04.08.2011. … Plaintiffs

And: 1.C. Jabbar (died)

2. C.Dasthagiri S/o late C. Khadar Basha, Muslim, aged about 53 years, cultivation.

3. C.Syed Ali S/o late C. Khadar Basha, Muslim, aged about 35 years, car driver.

4. Smt. Pathima Bee, W/o late C.Jabbar, aged about 45 years.

5. C. Mujeeb S/o late C. Jabbar, aged about 23 years.

6. Minor C.Aisha , aged about 13 years, D/o late C. Jabbar rep., by her mother and guardian Smt. Pathima Bee.

All are residing at Samireddipalli village,No.14 Kandriga post, Yadamari mandal, Chittoor district.

(Nos.4 to 6 are brought on record being the L.Rs of deceased 1st defendant as per orders in I.A. 601 of 2013 dated.15.09.2014.)… Defendants 15

This suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and followers from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented and filed on 29.06.2009

The cause of action for the suit arose on when the 1st plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property from their ancestors and the MRO Yadamari issued a house site patta in Roc. No. C/847/98 dated.30.5.1998 and when the 1st plaintiff started construction of the house in the place of old house and also raised foundation walls therein and on 17.6.2009 at about 10.00 a.m, when the defendants and their men trespassed into the suit schedule property and made obstruction, the 1st plaintiff and the collies from preventing foundation and continues de­die­in­diem at Samreddipalle village, No. 14 Kandriga post, Yadamari mandal, Chittoor district within the jurisdiction of this court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION

Market value of the plaint schedule mentioned property is Rs.31,200/­

Notional value in respect of the suit schedule property for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 3,200/­

Court fee paid thereon under section. 26(c) of APCF and SV Act is Rs. 276/­

This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. V. 

Ramanarayana Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri.M. Subramanyam 

Reddy, Advocate for defendants and upon hearing both sides, perusing the record, this court's doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed ; and

2. That the plaintiffs do pay to the defendants a sum of Rs. 3,028/­ being the costs of the suit. 

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 8 th day of June, 2015.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

FAC/ I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

16

Statement of costs DescriptionPlaintiffsDefendants 

CertifiedAwarded

1) Stamp on Plaint:Rs. 276­00­­

2) Stamp on Vakalat:Rs. 2­00Rs. 2­00

3) Advocates Fees: Rs. 3,000 ­00 Rs. 3,000­00

4) Service of Process:Rs. 425­00 ­­

5) process pre. Fee Rs. 1­00 Rs. 1­00

6) Typing Charges:Rs. 25­00 Rs. 25­00 TOTAL: Rs. 3,729­00 Rs. 3,028­00

S C H E D U L E

Chittoor District – Bangarupalem sub District – Yadamari mandal No. 184, Gollapalle revenue village – Vacant site in Gram natham land situated in Sami reddipalle village in S.No. 24.

Item No. 1. within the following boundaries :

West : vacant site of Shanmugam chetty East : Common sandu dova of plaintiff and defendants. North : Sandu Dova – further north house of Krishnaiah chetty South : House of Doraswamy reddy.

Measuring : East to West : 19. ½ feet. North to south : 34.1/2 feet Value Rs.15,200/­

Item No.2 : Old open bath room with vacant site measuring East to west 69 feet and north to south 10 feet – within the following boundaries.

West : House of Doraswamy Reddy East : Land of Ramamoorthy and Dakshinamurthy South : Vacant site of Doraswamy Reddy. North : Vacant site and bath room of defendants with way

There is no documents available in respect of item No.2 of suit property.

Value Rs.16,000/­

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

FAC/ I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CHITTOOR

Present : Smt. T.Malleswari, B.Com., L.L.M., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Friday, the 08th (EIGHTH) day of May, 2015.

O.S.No. 196 of 2014

Between :

Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Chittoor branch rep., by its Regional Manager, N. Manickyam chetty, aged 55 years, S/o Narasimhulu , Hindu working as Regional Manager, holding his Regional office at Naidu buildings, Chittoor. … Plaintiff

And :

1.D.Udaya Kumar, aged about 38 years, S/o K. Dakshinamoorthy

2.D. Bhaskaran, aged about 45 years, S/o K. Dakshinamoorthy.

Both are Hindus, business, residing at 1­29, Bhajana koil street, Murakambattu village and post, Chitotor mandal and district. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 28.04.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Subramanyam Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, and of Sri. M. Balasubramanyam, Advocate for defendants, upon perusing all material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.57,878/­ being the principal and interest due on a promissory note and loan agreement dated.28.3.2007 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank for Rs.70,000/­ repayable with interest at 13% p.a., with quarterly rests and also as per bank rules and for costs.

02. The brief averments of plaint are that :

The plaintiff bank is a body corporate constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 having its head Office at Naidu 

Buildings, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

The 1st defendant has approached the plaintiff bank for a loan for the purpose of brick making unit. On 28.03.2007 considering the request of 1st defendant, plaintiff bank has sanctioned a loan of Rs.70,000/­ and 1st defendant availed the same and executed a promissory note and loan agreement for the loan amount of Rs.70,000/­ in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the loan limit with interest at 13% pa with quarterly yearly rests and also as per bank rules.

2nd defendant has stood as guarantor for due repayment of the loan amount by the 1st defendant and on 28.03.2007 2nd defendant has executed letter of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff which is a continuing guarantee and his liability is co­extensive with that of 1st defendant. Thereafter, 1st defendant has committed default in payment of loan installments.

In spite of repeated demands and notices the defendants have failed to pay the outstanding loan amount and have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. Hence, the plaintiff bank is obliged to file the suit to recover the outstanding loan amount from the defendants with further interest and costs.

Written statement filed by the 1st defendant and adoption memo filed by D2. Defendant in his written statement stated that it is true that he has availed a loan of Rs.70,000/­ from the plaintiff bank for manufacturing bricks and also admits the execution of promissory note and loan agreement for the loan amount of Rs.70,000/­ and on 28.03.2007 in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the interest at 13% p.a, with quarterly rests and also as per bank rules. This defendant has not admitted for monthly interest rests and now the amount claimed by the plaintiff bank with monthly rests is against the contract and that he is not liable to pay the amount as claimed by the plaintiff bank. Defendant has not executed any acknowledgement of debt on 17.12.2009 and on 22.08.2012 . The said acknowledgements are forged and fabricated. The bank authorities obtained the signatures of D1 and D2 on blank printed forms with adhesive stamps and now without stamps the documents have pressed into service with bad motive. Defendants further submits that he has repaid a sum of 

Rs.41,973/­ on 27.10.2007 by encashment of F.D. This defendant has also paid amount subsequently and that defendants are not liable to pay suit amount. There are no merits in the suit. Hence prays to dismiss the suit. 

04. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:

1. Whether the acknowledgment of debt dated.17.12.2009 and 22.08.2012 are forged and fabricated ?

2. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from defendants 1 and 2 ?

3. To what relief ?

05. In order to prove the claim of plaintiff, plaintiff bank 

Manager was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 . On behalf of defendant, 1st defendant himself was examined as D.W.1. No documents are marked on behalf of defendants. 

06. Heard both sides, perused the record.

07. Issue No.1:

The contention of the defendants is that D1 has not executed any acknowledgement of debt on 17.12.2009 and on 22.08.2012. Ex.A4 and A5 acknowledgement of debt by the 1st defendant on 17.12.2009 and on 22.08.2012 respectively shows that D1 has acknowledged the debt to the plaintiff bank by affixing his signature. No contrary evidence was adduced by the defendants to rebut Ex.A4 and A5 documents. Therefore, 

Ex.A4 and A5 categorically establishes the acknowledgements made by D1 in respect of the suit amount to the plaintiff bank. Therefore it can be said that the acknowledgment of debt dated.17.12.2009 and 22.08.2012 are made by the first defendant by acknowledging his liability and that the said acknowledgments are not forged and fabricated. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the defendants. 

08. ISSUE NO.2:

Defendant is admitting the loan availed by him for an amount of Rs.70,000/­ from the plaintiff bank and execution of promissory note and loan agreement in favour of plaintiff bank. The only contention of the defendant is that he has agreed for payment of interest at quarterly rests and also as per bank rules. He never agreed to pay interest at monthly rests. The amount claimed by the plaintiff bank with monthly rests is against the contract. Ex.A3 loan agreement shows that Ex.A3 was executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff bank by agreeing to pay the loan amount of Rs.70,000/­ with interest at 13% p.a with quarterly rests. 

Ex.A3 also shows that D1 has agreed to pay the interest as per R.B.I Rules . 

Ex.A8 shows that plaintiff bank has claimed interest on monthly rests but not quarterly rests. Irrespective of the fact whether plaintiff bank claimed interest monthly or quarterly it does not affect the case of defendant. The plaintiff bank is not claiming interest excessively as mentioned in the Ex.A3 loan agreement. It is also not the case of defendants that plaintiff ban k is claiming interest excessively than mentioned in Ex.A3. When that is so payment of interest monthly or quarterly will not affect the liability of the defendant to pay the suit amount. Except the claiming of interest at quarterly rests the defendant is admitting the availing of loan of 

Rs.70,000/­ from plaintiff bank and execution of Ex.A3 loan agreement and Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintiff bank. The further contention of defendant is that the interest claimed by the plaintiff bank from 20.6.2014 to till date for an amount of Rs.14,553/­ is not correct and that plaintiff bank is not entitled to claim the interest from 20.06.2014 onwards. The suit is filed on 24.06.2014, therefore plaintiff bank is not entitled to claim interest after filing of the suit I.e, after 20.06.2014. 

Hence interest claimed by the plaintiff bank subsequent to 20.06.2014 is impermissible under Law. P.W.1 also in his cross examination categorically admitted that the interest from 20.06.2014 to up to date for an amount of 

RS.14,553/­ claimed by the plaintiff bank is subsequent to filing of the suit. 

During cross of DW.1 nothing was elicited . DW.1 denied the suggestion that plaintiff bank claiming interest correctly and that he is liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff bank. Therefore from the above discussion it is clear that plaintiff bank is not entitled to claim the interest subsequent to filing of the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff bank is entitled to recover interest from 01.05.2013 to 20.06.2014 on prl. amount of 

Rs.43,325/­ . The accrued interest on principal sum of Rs.43,325/­ from 01.05.2013 to 20.6.2014 comes to an amount of Rs.13,698/­. Accordingly the principal amount would come to an amount of Rs.57,023/­ (Rs.43,325/­ + Rs.13,698/­) . Hence the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.57,023/­ being the principal amount. 

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff . 

8. ISSUE NO.3)

In the result, suit is decreed with costs for an amount of 

Rs.57,023 /­ payable by the defendant together with further interest at 6% p.a from the date of suit till the date of realization on sum of Rs.57,023/­.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8th day of May, 2015.

Sd/Smt.T.Malleswari. I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Documents marked :

For Plaintiff :For Defendant:

P.W­1 : R. Sandeep Kumar Reddy DW.1 : D. Udaya Kumar

Exhibits marked :

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1 is the Promissory note by 1st defendant dated 28.03.2007.

Ex.A.2 is the loan Agreement by 1st defendant dated 28.03.2007. 

Ex.A.3 is the letter of guarantee by 2nd defendant dated 28.03.2007.

Ex.A.4 is the acknowledgment of debt by 1st defendant dated.17.12.2009.

Ex.A.5 is the acknowledgment of debt by 1st defendant dated.22.08.2012.

Ex.A.6 is the Office copy of notice with postal receipts dated.17.09.2013.

Ex.A.7 is the copy of reply notice by the defendants dated.23.09.2013.

Ex.A.8 is the extract of account.

For Defendant :Nil.

Sd/Smt.T.Malleswari. I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

// True copy //

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

FAC/I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CHITTOOR

Present : PRESENT: SRI.S.KRISHNAN KUTTY, B.A, LL.B.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

FAC/ I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Friday, the 08th (EIGHTH) day of May, 2015.

O.S.No. 196 of 2014

Between :

Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Chittoor branch rep., by its Regional Manager, N. Manickyam chetty, aged 55 years, S/o Narasimhulu , Hindu working as Regional Manager, holding his Regional office at Naidu buildings, Chittoor. … Plaintiff

And :

1. D.Udaya Kumar, aged about 38 years, S/o K. Dakshinamoorthy

2. D. Bhaskaran, aged about 45 years, S/o K. Dakshinamoorthy.

Both are Hindus, business, residing at 1­29, Bhajana koil street, Murakambattu village and post, Chitotor mandal and district. … Defendants

The suit is filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.57,878/­ being the principal and interest due on a promissory note and loan agreement dated.28.3.2007 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank for 

Rs.70,000/­ repayable with interest at 13% p.a., with quarterly rests and also as per bank rules and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 23.06.2014

Plaint filed on : 24.06.2014

Value of the suit is Rs. 57,878 /­

Court fee paid thereon U/Sec. 20 of APCF and SV Act is Rs. 2,546/­ 

The cause of action for the suit arose on 28.03.2007 at Chittoor district within the jurisdiction of this court. 

This suit is coming on 28.04.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Subramanyam Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, and of Sri. M. 

Balasubramanyam, Advocate for defendants, upon perusing all material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows: ­ 

I) that the defendants do pay a sum of Rs.57,023 /­ payable by the defendant together with further interest at 6% p.a from the date of suit till the date of realization on sum of Rs.57,023/­.

ii) that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 6,024/­ towards the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 8th day of May, 2015. 

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

FAC/ I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

DescriptionPlaintiffDefendants (awarded)(certified)

1) Stamp on Plaint:Rs. 2,546­00 ­­

2) Stamp on Vakalat:Rs. 2­00 Rs. 2­00

3) Advocates Fees: Rs. 3,340­00Rs. 3,340­00

4) Service of Process:Rs. 110­00 ­­

5) process pre. Fee Rs. 1­00Rs. 1­00

6) Typing Charges:Rs. 25­00Rs. 25­00

TOTAL: Rs. 6,024­00 Rs. 3,368­00

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

FAC/ I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS : CHITTOOR

PRESENT: - Sri. P.Govardhan B.Sc., B.L., IV Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I class, Chittoor. FAC. Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

TUESDAY THE 14 th DAY OF AUGUST 2012.

CC NO: 344 of 2010 Between:

The State rep.by Proh & Excise Inspector (i/c A.E.S)Enforcement wing

CHITTOOR.

... Complainant.

And:

1. T.Rajasekhara Reddy Aged 55 years S/O Late T. Govinda Reddy NO: 62 patnam village, Thavanampalle Mandal.

2. T. Umapathi Reddy @ Umapathi Aged 40 years S/O Dorawamy Reddy, Gandlakothuru Village, Yadamari Mandal.

3. A.Shivaji S/O Narasimhulu Aged 50 years R/O Kajooru, Chittoor town.

…..Accused.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me on 13.07.2012 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri.K.P. Kumaraswamy, advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The accused is tried for the charge u/sec. 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act.

2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are :-

That on 5.5.2010 on receipt of information to the Asst.

Commissioner of proh & Excise Enforcement, Chittoor the sub-Inspector of police, Enforcement wing Chittoor and the proh & Excise inspector Chittoor rural station along with his 2 staff and mediators left the police station and at about 9.15

A.M. by the government hired vehicle bearing NO: AP03 TV 0060, AP03 TV 4278 and AP03 TV 0083. At about 10.00

A.M. they reached a tiled roof poultry farm shed belong to one T. Rajasekar Reddy the accused NO:1 situated in

Sy.NO: 755/1, 62 patnam village of Thavanampalle mandal and noticed a woman T.Shakuntala wife of A1 engaged at work. Then after brief enquiry they issued search proceedings to the poultry owner i.e. wife of A1 in the presence of mediators and searched the south faced plywood built room on the eastern end of the said farm. On thorough search of the premises he found a huge quantity of white plastic cans stored on north west and south east sides and on verification of the cans found 292 cans each can 35 liters of capacity filled with rectified spirit in total 10,220 lts of spirit of which 148 placed on north west side and 144 placed on south east. Then they learnt that A2 and A3 jointly conducting illegal activities such as buying, storage and selling spirit without any licence or permit. Then they found pumping motor and other implements in the room.

Then they separated the entire 292 cans into 10 blocks i.e.

1 to 9 consist of 30 cans each and 10th consist of 22 cans.

Then he took 375 ml bottle duly sealed and labeled for chemical analysis. Later a search list has been prepared to that effect and issued to A1 and his wife on the spot. Then the proh & Excise sub-Inspector PW3 arrested the accused

NO: 1 for possession, storage of rectified spirit without any 3 license under the cover of panachanama drafted in the presence of mediators. Then he registered a case in Cr.NO:

38/10-11 u/sec 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was registered and the samples were sent to the chemical examiner Chittoor for analysis and on receipt of the analysis report that the samples are rectified spirit and are diluted rectified spirit and thereby the accused 1 to 3 alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/S.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968.

Hence the charge.

3. This case has been taken on file u/sec. 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act 1968 against the accused. On appearance of accused they were furnished with copies of necessary documents relied on by the prosecution in compliance with sec. 207 Cr.P.C and was examined u/sec 239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence u/Sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and a charge was framed read over and explained to them in Telugu ,for which they denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4. During the course trial P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 and M.Os.1 to 10 were marked. On closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution accused were examined u/S.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material found in the prosecution evidence, for which accused stated that it is false and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard the arguments of both sides.

7. The point that falls for determination is :

4

8. Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/S.34-

A of A.P. Excise Act?

9 POINT:- It is the evidence of P.W3 who is the Excise Sub

Inspector, Chittoor that he proceeded to Sy.No.755/1, 62

Patnam village poultry shed of A1 and in the presence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 and the Excise officials he noticed A1 and on suspicion they inspected the poultry shed, noticed 292 spirit cans in the premises. Therefore, in the presence of A1 the said spirit cans were seized and divided the same into 10 divisions and lifted one sample from each division. Ex.P3 is the signature of P.w3 in the mahazar and Ex.P4 is the rough sketch of scene of offence. Basing on the material P.w3 registered FIR as case in Cr.No.38/2010-11 for the offence u/S.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. Ex.P6 is the letter of advice,

Ex.P7 is the analysis report under which opinion was given that the sample Nos. 276 to 1279 are the rectified spirit and

S.Nos. 1280 to 1285 are diluted rectified spirit.Ex.P8 is the search proceedings served on the wife of A1. Ex.P9is the search list showing the property seized.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the Excise officials have not enquired the owner of the premises even though Sy.No.755/1 stands in the name of

Jayamma. P.W3 admits that Sy.N.755/1 stands in the name of Jayamma, and the said Jayamma was not cited as witness and no investigation as against the said Jayamma was done by the Excise officials. Even tough Ex.P8 search proceedings 5 was served on the wife of A1, in fact the same was not issued on the name of wife of A1. Admittedly no search proceedings were served on A1 and it was elicited from the cross-examination of P.w3 in that regard.

11. The learned counsel for the accused further contends that basing on the mahazar i.e. Ex.P10, A2 and A3 were shown as accused but no seizure was effected from A2 and

A3.As could be seen from Ex.P10 mahazar A1 was arrested and alleged seizure was made from the premises of A1 i.e.

poultry shed but except mentioning that A1 with the aid of

A2 and A3 had transported the spirit cans no seizure was effected from A2 and A3 and even A2 and A3 were not apprehended at the place of arrest while lifting the samples or at the time of seizure. It was elicited from the cross- examination of P.w3 and 4 that the blocks of spirit were not of similar properties, as such here is no basis for lifting of samples by dividing the spit cans into 10 divisions. It was elicited from the cross-examination of P.w3 that they have not lifted separate samples from each can and he also admitted that he cannot say about the contents of each can whether it contains rectified spirit or diluted rectified spirit.

12. It is the further contention of the accused that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the revenue officials who have categorically deposed that the Excise officials obtained their signature in mediators report at Excise station and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are their respective signatures, it casts any amount of doubt an the evidence of P.ws.3 and 4 about the arrest of A1 and 6 effecting seizure of contraband. Many infirmities were pointed in the evidence of P.ws.3 and 4 with regard to procedure which has to be followed at the time of lifting samples and just before the commencement of search the

Excise officials have not given notice to the said Jayamma who was said to be the owner of the Sy.No.755/1. Even the photographs of the shed were not taken by the Excise officials. The Excise officials even have not secured the presence of independent witnesses from the locality where the seizure took place. Further the revenue officials who were secured as mediators have not supported the version of Excise officials. Therefore, the self serving testimony of

Excise officials is not enough to hold the accused guilty of the charge leveled against them. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13. In the result, accused 1 to3 are found not guilty of the offence u/S.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and they are acquitted of the same u/S.248(1) Cr.P.C. their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of 6 months from the date of judgment.

M.Os.1 to10 which are sample bottles are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after his transcription,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 14th day of August, 2012.

Sd/- P.Govardhan.

IV Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I class. Chittoor. FAC.Judl.Magistrate of I class of Excise,Chittoor 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR 

PROSECUTION 

DEFENCE

PW1 : V.Ramakrishna ­­nil­­

P.W2: R.Eswara Kumar

PW 3 : Mohiddin Basha

PW 4 : N. Bhaskar Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION 

Ex.P.1: Signature of mediators report Ex.P2: Signature of mediators report Ex.P3: Signature on the mahazar Ex.P4 : Roughsketch of scene of offence’ Ex.P.5 : FIR Ex.P.6 : Letter of advice Ex.P.7 : Analysis report Ex.P.8: Search proceedings Ex.P.9 : Search list Ex.P.10: Mahazar dated 5.5.2010 at 12 noon

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

­NIL­

 M.Os. Marked : M.Os1 to 10 : samples

Sd/- P.Govardhan.

IV Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I class. Chittoor. FAC.Judl.Magistrate of I class of Excise,Chittoor. //true copy// 8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR EXCISE , CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: - Sri. P.Govardhan B.Sc., B.L., IV Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I class, FAC. Judl.Magistrate of I class for Excise, Chittoor.

TUESDAY, THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST,2012.

CC NO: 35 of 2009 Between:

The State Rep.by the Sub-Inspector of Police.Bangarupalem Police Station …. Complainant. And: Thoti Murugesan, 57 years, s/o. T.Venkataiah. r/o. H.No.1758, RTC colony, Puttur. Driver of APSRTC bus bearingNo.AP11 Z4383 Alipiri Depot. Tirupati. ..….Accused.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me on 03.08.2012 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri N.Siddaiah, counsel for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The accused is tried for the charges u/secs. 304-A, 338,337 IPC concerned in Cr.NO: 24/2006 of Bangarupalem P.S.

2. The facts leading to the above charges as culled out from the evidence adduced in brief may be stated as hereunder :-

a) That on 6.3.2006 at about 1.15 p.m. at Guntha thopu, near

Palamakujlapalli ivillage of Bangarupalem Mandal on Bangarupalem-Palamaner NH 4 road, the accused being the driver of APSRTC bus bearing Regn. No.AP11 Z 4383 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner, while proceeding towards

Bangarupalem from Palamaner side, lost control over the vehicle, dashed against a front going auto bearing Regn. No.AP04 U 8479 from behind, as a result the auto turned turtle on the road and the occupants of the auto sustained injuries. Among them one injured person viz. Allam Ramakrishnaiah died after some time on the 2 way to the hospital for expert treatment, while the remaining injured persons under went treatment at Government Hospital, Bangarupalem. Thus the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable u/Ss. 304-A IPC, 338 and 337

IPC.

3. This case has been taken on file u/secs. 304-A IPC, 338 and 337 IPC against the accused and he was furnished with copies of necessary documents relied on by the prosecution in compliance with sec. 207 Cr.P.C and was examined u/sec 251 Cr.P.C. expaining the substance of accusation leveled against him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4. During the trial the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs P.1 to P18.

5. On closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution the accused was examined u/sec 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material found in the prosecution witnesses, for which the plea of the accused is total denial of truthfulness of such material and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard the arguments of both sides.

7. The point for consideration is, whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences u/ss. 304-A IPC, 338 and 337 IPC ?

8. POINT:- P.W1 is the one of the travelers in the auto and reached

Gunthathopu cross at Thatimakulapalli, at the point of time the bus came from backside and dashed the auto, as a result the auto toppled. Asper the evidence of

P.W1 all the inmates of the auto received injuries and they were shifted to

Government Hospital, Bangarupalem. One of the injured viz. Radhakrishna died on the way to CMC Hospital Vellore. P.w1 deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent manner of bus driver, but he did not identity the driver of the bus . P.w3 deposed that he can identify the driver of the bus and he further stated that the name of driver is Murugesan. He further deposed that the RTC bus came on their opposite direction and hit their auto. However, P.w3 in his cross- examination deposed that there are 8 persons along with him traveled in the auto and it was elicited from his cross-examination that the accident might have 3 occurred due to his negligence also. He further deposed the capacity of the auto is only 3 passengers. EventuallyP.w3 turned hostile to the case of prosecution after his cross-examination. P.W4 is one of the injured had deposed that he sustained injury on his head and right shoulder and also also on hisright leg and the driver of auto a and other passengers sustained injuries. P.w5 and P.w6 deposed in the same lines of P.W$ that they sustained injuries in the auto but P.w4 to Pw6 never identified the driver of bus but they have deposed that due to negligence of bus driver the accident occurred.

9. P.W7 deposed that on 7.3.2006 on the requisition from S.I.of police,

Bangarupalem he inspected the crime vehicles and issued Ex.P5 report .

10. P.W9 is one of the eye witnesses who deposed that she was also in the auto and when they reached Gunthathopu, RTC bus came from behind the auto from Palamaner towards Bangarupalem at high speed and hit the auto, as a result the auto topped. She sustained injury over her right leg. She deposed that due to negligent act of the bus driver the accident occurred but she did not notice the driver of RTC bus driver. P.W10 deposed on the same lines of P.W9. Admittedly more than 3 passengers were present in the auto , as such due to overload the impact of collision or mistake on the part of the driver of auto cannot be ruled out.

It is a matter of common sense that any violation of norms fixed in respect of passengers to be allowed in the vehicle, that will result into the accident as the vehicle will be overloaded. In this case an accident had occurred as per the evidence of witnesses due to collision with bus. However the reason for the accident can also be due to over load.

11. There is no dispute with regard to aspect that the accident occurred due to collision of bus with the auto. However, with regard to identification of the accused that he is the person who caused accident, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is no way helpful and all the witnesses failed to identity the accused.

P.W8 deposed with regard to injuries to the deceased and to the the injured persons and issuedExs.P9 to P13. However, P.w11 who conducted investigation failed to collect circumstantial evidence including the photographs of scene of offence. Ex. P18 S.R. was marked but the eye witnesses failed to identify the 4 accused as the driver of bus. On the other hand, the conductor of the bus was never examined by the prosecution, and he is the best witness to depose about identity of the accused and about driving of the accused. Even though number of persons sustained injuries, eventually they have not deposed about presence of accused at the scene of offence and about rash and negligent act of the accused in driving of crime vehicle. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence leveled against the accused.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

12. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences u/S.304-A, 338,337 IPC and he is acquitted of the same u/S.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of 6 months from the date of judgment.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, after his transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 7th day of August, 2012.

Sd/- P.Govardhan.

Judl.Magistrate of I class for Excise. Chittoor. FAC. IV Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I class,Chittoor.

Appendix of evidence witnesses examined. For prosecution: for defence:

P.W1: Jayachandra. --nil--

P.W2: C.Adinarayanaswamy.

P.W3: Jayanatha Reddy.

P.W4: Shakeela.

P.W5: P.Ranamma.

P.W6: Nirmala

P.W7: D.S.N.Murthy.

P.W8:DrT.Leela.

P.W9: Lakshmi.

P.W10: D.Santhi.

P.W11:Prabhakar.

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P1: signature of P.w1.

5

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.PC. Statement of P.w1.

Ex.P3: 161 CrP.C. Statement ofP.w2.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C.statment of P.W3.

Ex.P5: MVI report.

Ex.P6: Postmortem certificate.

Ex.P7: Wound certificate of P.w5.

Ex.P8: wound certificate of P.W6.

Ex.P9: wound certificate of P.w4.

Ex.P10: wound certificate of T.Gangulamma.

Ex.P11: wound certificate of D.Shanthi.

Ex.P12: wound certificate of Lakshmi.

Ex.P13: wound certificate of P.W3.

Ex.P14: FIR.

Ex.P15: inquest report over the dead body of deceased.

Ex.P16: scene observation proceedings.

Ex.P17: rough sketch.

Ex.P18: S.R. Of RTC bus.

Ex.P11: wound certificate of L.w9

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence.

--nil--

M.Os.marked :--nil--

Sd/- P. Govardhan.

Judl.Magistrate of I class for Excise. Chittoor. FAC. IV Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I class,Chittoor.

//true copy//

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR 

EXCISE, CHITTOOR.

Present:Sri P.Govardhan, B.Sc., B.L., IV Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, FAC Spl.Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class for Excise, Chittoor,

Tuesday the First (1st) day of May, 2012.

C.C No. 191 of 2010

Between: The Sub­Inspector of Police, Bangarupalem P.S.,

...Complainant.

And: K.Reddeppa, aged 39 years, S/0 Gangulappa, D.No.1­4­468/2A, Ameer Nagar, Kummarathopu, Tirupati, Driver of Garuda APS RTC Volvo Bus AP­11­Z­6041 of Tirupati I Depot.

... Accused.

This case is coming before me on 27­4­2012 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri V.Chandra 

Mouli, advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub­Inspector of Police, Bangarupalem filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.134/09 for the offence U/sec. 337 and 338 IPC.

2. The brief allegation of the chargesheet are as follows:

On 13­9­2009 at 3 A.M. the accused being the driver of the APS RTC 

Volvo bus bearing registration no.AP 11­Z­6041 of Tirupathi I Depot, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner on Bangarupalem – Chittoor N.H­4 road at 

Bodabandla cross and while negotiating curve, he could not control the bus, as a result it dashed against the opposite coming lorry bearing registration No.AP 07 X 6989. Hence PW.1 who is the driver of the lorry, PW.2 who is the cleaner of the lorry and other inmates in the bus i.e., N.Giridharkrishna and PW.3 were injured. 

On the report of PW.1, a case in Cr.No. 134/2009 U/sec. 337 IPC was registered, 2 subsequently after receipt of wound certificate the Section 338 IPC was added. 

After completion of investigation the chargesheet was registered for the offences 

U/sec. 337 and 338 IPC.

 3. This case has been taken on file U/sec. 337 and 338 IPC against the accused and he was furnished with copies of necessary documents in compliance with Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and was examined U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C. and he pleaded not guilty for the offence and claimed for trial.

4. During the trial the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and got marked Exs P.1 to P.10.

5. On closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. putting the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the plea of the accused is total denial of truthness of such material and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard the arguments of both sides.

7. Now the points that arises for determination are:

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences U/sec. 304­A, 338, 337 and 279 IPC.

8. POINT :­

Pws.1 and 2 are said to be the persons who were present in the lorry at the time of accident and N.Giridharakrishna and PW.3 are the persons who travelled in the bus at the time of accident, therefore, Pws.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The earliest version with regard to the accident is 

Ex.P.1 report lodged by PW.1, he stated in Ex.P.1 that near Bodabandla cross the 

RTC volvo bus hit the lorry which was stationed on the left side of the road, as a result the front portion of the lorry was damaged and they sustained injuries. 

When PW.1 entered into the witness box, he deposed that on 13­9­2009 he 3 started from Guntur with a load of Mirchi and when he reached Bodabandla by 3 

A.M. the volvo bus came on the opposite direction and hit the lorry which was stationed there. He further deposed that he sustained injuries on his head and hand and passengers and driver of the volvo bus also sustained injuries. PW.1 further deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driving of the RTC volvo bus driver. PW.1 is totally silent with regard to the driver of the RTC bus. PW.2 never deposed that the lorry was stationed there and the bus hit against the lorry and he deposed that when the lorry reached 

Bodabandla, the RTC bus came and hit the lorry. Both Pws.1 and 2 have deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the volvo bus, however they are silent with regard to the identity of the driver of the bus. PW.3 who is said to be the person who received injuries in the bus has never deposed any incriminating evidence about the accused and eventually turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even though PW.4 who is the Doctor has deposed about 9 injuries sustained by PW.1, PW.1 is totally silent with regard to the involvement of APS RTC volvo bus in the accident and his evidence with regard to the identification of the driver, is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. Only the Investigating Officer i.e., PW.5 who had done the entire investigation has deposed that the driver of the APS RTC bus was not found at the scene of offence where as PW.6 who is very much present at the time of investigation done by PW.5, has deposed that the accused surrendered before him and he released him on bail. Further neither PW.5 nor PW.6 have seized the concerned documents of the bus to establish the identity of the driver who drove the bus. On the other hand the scene of offence was not properly depicted and the photographs inrespect of the scene of offence were never filed into the court and the investigation agency has not taken steps to file the concerned documents to 4 establish about the person who drove the bus. Without establishing those aspects it can not be unilaterally held that the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to Pws.1,2 and 3 and N.Giridharkrishna. 

Accordingly the point is answered. 

9. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/sec. 337 and 338 IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/sec.255(1) 

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1st day of May, 2012.

Sd/­ IV Addl.Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, FAC Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class for Excise, Chittoor. Appendix of Evidence, Witnesses examined for:

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1:S.Appa Rao, ­ Nil ­

PW.2: S.Manickya Rao,

PW.3: V.Lokesh,

PW.4: Dr.A.Latha,

PW.5: C.Prabhakar Reddy,

PW.6: G.Rajendra Prasad Naidu.

Exhibits marked for:

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Statement of PW.1, 

Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P.3: Statement of PW.3

Ex.P.4: Wound Certificate, 

Ex.P.5: Police intimation,

Ex.P.6: FIR in Cr.No.134/09 of Bangarupalem P.S.,

Ex.P.7: rough sketch, 

Ex.P.8 to 10: Wound Certificates of PW.2, LW.3 N.Giridharkrishna and PW.3.

Defence: ­ Nil ­

Id/­

IV A.JMFC,

CTR.

5