Sri T.Suyodhan

APKD0C0011042019 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAYACHOTY

Present:- Sri T. Suyodhan.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rayachoty

Monday, this the 22nd day of December, 2025

C.C.No.716 of 2019

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sambepalli Police Station in Cr.No.117/2019. ….Complainant.

Vs.

Devalampalli Pullaiah S/o Subbarayudu, age 38 years R/o Kothapalli H/o Nallaguttapalli Village, Ramapuram Mandal, Driver of TATA Ace car bearing Reg.No.AP-04-U-3073. ….Accused.

This case coming on 30.10.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri K. Nagamallu, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till the evening, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police, Sambepalli Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.117/2019 against the accused for the offence punishable Under Sections.337, 338 of IPC against Accused.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that :

On 27.06.2019 LW1/P. Chanu Khan left his village in his two wheeler Bajaj Pulsar bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AU-8003 along with

LW2/P. Mahaboob Khan as a pillior rider to Rompicherla of Chittoor

District in order to attend the marriage of one Nazeer Basha who is the relative of LW1, LW1 was rode the two wheeler, at about 07.30

AM when proceeding near Devapatla Mitta after passing over

Sambepalli the accused being driver of TATA Ace bearing

APKD0C0011042019 2

Reg.No.AP-04-UA-3073 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, without due care and tried to overtake their two wheeler, lost his control over the speed and dashed against their two wheeler, LW1 and 2 were fallen on the road from the two wheeler and LW1 sustained bleeding injhury towards his left side head and on the right ring finger and swelled near right elbow, left shoulder LW2 sustained swelling injury at his right thigh, bleeding injury at left elbow. LW1, 2, 4 and 5/P. Chanu Khan, P. Mahaboob Khan, N. Khadervalli and N.

Asanji are the eye witnesses of the occurrence.

Basing on the complaint of LW1/P. Chanu Khan., LW8/D.

Ramanjaneyulu., Sub-Inspector of Police., Sambepalli P.S registered a case U/sec.337, 338 of IPC, against Accused. After completion of investigation., LW8/D. Ramanjaneyulu., Sub-Inspector of Police.,

Sambepalli P.S filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence U/secs.337, 338 of IPC, against Accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

After perusing the entire material available on record, accusation

U/secs.337, 338 of IPC, is orally explained to the accused in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

APKD0C0011042019 3

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.W.1 to PW.4 are examined. Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked.The evidence of LW1 to LW.3 and LW7 (P. Chanu Khan, P. Mahaboob

Khan, P. Darbar Khan and S. Alindi, HC.735 of Veeraballi P.S incharge hospital O.P, Rayachoty) are given up by learned APP. LW1 to LW.3 and LW7 are given up as P.W.1 and P.W.2 turned hostile.

7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/sec.313, Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of both parties.

9. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/secs.337, 338 of IPC, against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts ?”

10. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued before this court that the acts of Accused are clearly established with the evidence of PW3 and PW4 though PW1 and PW2 turned hostile.

Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are marked. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

11.The learned defense counsel argued before this court that the Accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offences.

He further argued that no material witness has deposed against the

APKD0C0011042019 4 accused before this court and the accused is entitled for acquittal clearly.

12.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as already stated, prosecution examined PW1 to PW4. PW1 stated that he do not know LW1 to LW4 and also accused. He do not know any facts of this case. He did not witness anything. Police did not examine him.

13.PW2 stated that he do not know LW1 to 3, PW1 and also accused. He do not know any facts of this case. He did not witness anything. Police did not examine him.

14.PW3 stated that on 27.06.2019 at about 8:40 am she have examined LW2 i.e., P. Mahaboob Khan, age about 27 years and the victim was conscious, coherent during her examination and she found the following injuries:

1) Fracture of right shaft of femour bone ie. right lower limb.

Ex.P3 is wound certificate of LW2.

First AID was given to him and referred to RIMS, Kadapa for further examination and treatment. Patient took treatment from

Komma Super specialty hospital, Kadapa. On 27.06.2019 on diagnosis there was a fracture on right shaft of femour and there was surgical correction of long bone which means he was operated on 01.07.2019 and discharged on 05.07.2019. She further stated that

On the same day i.e., 27.06.2019 she examined LW1 at 9: 00 am, the

APKD0C0011042019 5 victim was conscious, coherent during my examination and she found the following injuries:

1) A cut lacerated wound on right temporal region measuring about 3 x 0.5 x 0.5 in size.

2) Abrasion over right elbow joint

3) Abrasion over right ring finger, distal joint region

4) abrasion over left clavicular i.e., let shoulder joint.

5) Abrasion over left cheek region.

Accordingly she issued the wound certificates of LW1 which is already marked asEx.P.4.

She is of the opinion that the injuries of LW1 is simple in nature and the injury of LW2 is grievous in nature, but in her cross- examination she categorically admitted that there is chance of receiving injury of LW2 while carrying any weight.

15.PW4 is Investigation Officer and he deposed on the same lines as per the contents of his charge sheet and in his cross- examination, he also stated that the crime vehicle is car and denied all other suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for defence and nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination of Pws.1 to

PW3 to prove the guilt of the accused. As witnesses, PWs.1 to 3 turned hostile. Here it would be useful to refer to the dictum in the case of Syed Akbar vs State of Karnataka 1 in which it was held by

Honourable Apex court that doctrine of res ispa loquitor Stricto senso

would not apply to a criminal case, as its applicability in an action for 1 Manu/SCC SC 0275/1979 equivalent citation 1979 criminal LJ 1374

APKD0C0011042019 6 injury by negligence is well known. Same was held by a Honourable

Apex court in the case of Nanjum Dappa and another vs State of

Karnataka 2022 Live Law SC489 at Para No.9. Therefore, when all the prosecution witnesses except the investigation officer and the doctor who supported him turned hostile, this court cannot presume the guilt of the accused in view of the above decisions with regard to doctrine of Res ispa loquitor stricto sensu. Further, it was held by

Honorable Apex court in the case of S.L. Goswami vs State of MP

1972 Criminal Law Journal that the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution, and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution's duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the deceased does not appear to be credible, risk probably falls, burden does not become any less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or convert the essential elements in the prosecution case which would negative it. It is not, however, for the accused, even at the initial stage, to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Bearing in mind the above principles which had been laid down in the decisions of Honourable Apex court, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to bring home the

APKD0C0011042019 7 guilt of the accused, because except the evidence of the police personnel and investigation officer none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile in such circumstances. This court cannot rely upon the mere evidence of the police personnel and investigation officer i.e., PW4 as it was held by

Honorable Apex Court in the case of Renuka Prasad versus the

state represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police 2 .

that the statement that the statements made

by the I.Os regarding the motive conspiracy

and preparation comes out as the

prosecution story as discernible from the

Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of various

witnesses who were questioned by the

police during investigation, which

statements are wholly inadmissible under

Section 162 of the Cr.P.C, it was further held

that merely because the investigation

officers spoke of such statements having

been made by the witnesses during

investigation does not give them any

credibility, enabling acceptance unless the

witnesses themselves spoke of such motive

or acts of commission or instances from

which conspiracy could be inferred, as also

the preparation established beyond

reasonable doubt.

Further, confessions made before police are hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and they are not to be proved. Therefore, this court is unable to find either motive, conspiracy, or preparation, or even the crime itself to have been established in court as witnesses turned hostile for the reasons best known to themselves. Only inference possible on the witnesses turning hostile is that either they 2 2025 INSC 657 at para number 14

APKD0C0011042019 8 have persuaded for reasons unknown or coerced into resiling from the statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C or they had not made such statements before police officers, mainly because the story came out of the mouth of the investigation officer. It cannot be believed under legal sanctity given to it higher than that provided to in section 161 Cr.P.C statements and under section 162 of the Cr.P.C.

Therefore, this court cannot rely upon the evidence of PW3 and PW4.

Further, it was held by the Honorable Apex court in the case of

Nanjum Dappa and another vs State of Karnataka 3 Kant At Para

number 12,

that for bringing home the guilt of the

accused, prosecution has to firstly prove

negligence and then establish direct nexus

between negligence of the accused and the

death of the victim. The perusal of the record reveals that the prosecution could not prove the negligence of the accused because the TATA ACE which came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased while he was going on bike and this court could not find that the accused is guilt for the offence he is charged. The prosecution failed to bring home the guilty of the accused for the offence U/secs.337, 338 of

IPC.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/secs.337, 338 of IPC and accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the 3. 2023 latest case law 1954

APKD0C0011042019 9 accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. No property is produced.

Hence, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer Gr-II, pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 22nd day of December, 2025.

Sd/-T. Suyodhan.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined:-

For Prosecution:- For Defence: - NONE -

PW1: N. Asanji. PW2: N. Khadar valli. PW3: Dr. Syed Zeenath Begum. PW4: D. Ramanjaneyulu/S.I of Police. Exhibits marked:- For Prosecution:- Ex.P.1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW5. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW4. Ex.P.3: Wound certificate of LW2. Ex.P.4: Wound Certificate of LW1. Ex.P.5: Statement of LW1. Ex.P.6: FIR. Ex.P.7: Rough sketch. For Defence:- Nil

Material Objects Marked

- NIL -

Sd/-T. Suyodhan.

J.M.F.C/RCTY.

APKD0C0001462024 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RAYACHOTY.

 PRESENT: SRI T. SUYODHAN, 

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) RAYACHOTY. 

MONDAY, THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

O.S.No.37/2024

Between: The Canara Bank, Rayachoty, Rep by its, Branch Manager Sri A. Pavan Kumar S/o A. Lakshmi Narayana, aged about 36 years, Hindu, Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Located at D.No.33/30­A, Trunk road, Rayachoty Town and Mandal, Annamayya District and his successors in office. :: Plaintiff. Versus.

1.Pallapu Veerabadra W/o P. Venkatatesh, aged about 25 years, Business, D.No.5/136, Garugupalli, PemmadaPalle, Rayachoty Mandal, Annamayya District.

2.Orsu Nageswara S/o Rama Chandra, aged about 27 years, Hindu, Business, D.No.5/73, Garugu Palli, PemmadaPalle, Rayachoty Mandal, Annamayya District. :: Defendants 1 and 2.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 19.06.2025 in the presence of Sri K. Madan Mohan Reddy, learned Advocate for plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 are set exparte, upon the perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 under Order­VII, Rule­1 r/w Sec.26 of C.P.C. for recovery of amount for the suit claim of Rs.1,61,695.69/­ paisa along with future interest and costs.

02.As per the brief averments of the plaint :­

It is averred that the plaintiff bank is Canara Bank,

Rayachoty Branch, Trunk Road, Rayachoty, having its Head Office at

J.C. Road, Bangalore, Karnataka State and its regional office at 7

APKD0C0001462024 2 roads, Kadapa situated in Syndicate Bank Building Kadapa town and one of its Branch at Rayachoty, doing banking business. 

It is further averred that the 1st defendant as principal borrower and 2nd defendant as guarantor has approached the plaintiff’s bank for financial assistance of Rs.1,50,000/­ with an application on 22.09.2021 for establishing Buffalo UNIT at 1st defendant’s village. The plaintiff’s bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ of term loan on 22.09.2021. In evidence of the loan the 1st defendant executed an

Hypothecation Agreement for agricultural loans in favour of the plaintiff Bank on 22.09.2021 and agreed to pay the loan amount with interest at 08.75% below the RBI advance rate rising rests. The loan agreement may be read as part and parcel of this plaint.

It is further averred that the 2nd defendant has executed guarantee dt. 22.09.2021 in favour of the plaintiff bank for the loan amount advance to the 1st defendant and agreed to be the surety for the loan of the 1st defendant. The guarantee agreement may be read as part and parcel of the the plaint. 

It is further averred that the amount advanced by the plaintiff bank, the 1st defendant purchased 06 buffaloes as one unit for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­. The said 06 buffaloes were certified by the veterinary Assistance Surgeon, Rayachoty Mandal stating that all the cows are in good health condition along with valuation certificate. The said buffalo unit was insured with the New India Insurance company limited Kadapa by the plaintiff bank. The tags were affixed to each buffalo for identifications.

It is further averred that the 1st defendant withdrew the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ from the plaintiff bank as shown in the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank. The liability of the 2nd defendant is co extensive to that of the 1st defendant and both of the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount.

APKD0C0001462024 3

It is further averred that the defendants paid the loan amount with interest to the plaintiff Bank as shown in the statement account maintained by the Bank. The defendants did not stick on to the payment schedule as agreed upon and the loan has become NPA.

 It is further averred that the defendants are now liable to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,61,695.69/­ paisa as on 31.12.2023 as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank. The statement of account may be read as part and parcel of this plaint.

Hence, the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit for recovery of the balance due to the plaintiff bank from the defendants No.1 and 2 personally and jointly and severally.

04.However, summons were served for defendants No.1 and 2.

Sri P. Nagarjuna filed Vakalath on behalf of defendant No.1 and 2 but defendants No.1 did not appear before the Court. Hence, the defendants No.1 and 2 were set exparte. Due summons were served on to the defendant No.1 and 2 through the Court and post, but in spite of receiving the same, the defendant No.1 and 2 did not appear

before the Hon’ble Court and as there was no representation on behalf

of defendant No.1 and 2 on dt.19.06.2025, the defeated No.1 and 2 were set exparte.

05.In order to prove the contention of the plaintiff herein, the

Chief Manager of plaintiff bank himself got examined as PW­1 and got marked Ex.A­1 to Ex.A­3 on behalf of the plaintiff bank. None were examined and no exhibits were marked on behalf of the defendants

No.1 and 2 as they were set ex­parte.

06.Heard. Perused the enter material available on record.

07.Now the points for consideration are that :

(1) Whether the plaintiff bank being represented by the

Senior Manager is entitled for suit claim of Rs.1,61,695.69/­ paisa against the defendants 1 and 2 with a direction that the defendants 1 and 2 shall pay the suit claim along with future interest at the

APKD0C0001462024 4 contract rate at 08.35% per annum to the plaintiff bank, as prayed for?

(2) To any other relief as prayed for?

08. POINT No.1:

At the outset, the Chief Manager was present and he filed his chief­affidavit in lieu of the averments of the plaint and further during his chief examination, he reiterated the contents of his chief­ affidavit, which are nothing but replica of plaint averments and deposed in the official capacity being the Chief Manager and submitted that the defendants 1 and 2 have availed loan from their bank.

However, on perusal of Ex.A­1 to Ex.A­3, wherein, Ex.A­1, which is nothing but hypothecation agreement dt.22.09.2021 executed by D1 in favor of the plaintiff’s bank, Ex.A­2 is the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff’s Bank in the name of defendants, Ex.A3 is the Statement of account maintained by the plaintiff’s bank in the name of defendant are found on record.

09.Therefore, basing on Ex.A­1 to Ex.A­3, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned term loan to the defendants 1 and 2 as per the terms and conditions of the Reserve Bank of India and after completion of period, the defendants 1 and 2 are liable to pay the loan installments along with interest and subsequently, they have failed to discharge the loan amount to the plaintiff bank and furthermore, the outstanding balance which is shown in the statement of account, which got marked as Ex.A­3 being the live debt within time that the defendants have failed to pay the same with agreed rate of interest to the plaintiff bank and henceforth, the defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit claim to the plaintiff bank.

10.Therefore, in view of Ex.A­1 to Ex.A­3, which have been marked on record and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff bank that the plaintiff bank, who have approached before

APKD0C0001462024 5 this Court against the defendants 1 and 2 and the evidence of PW­1 has been corroborated as per Ex.A­1 to Ex.A­3, which are placed on record and the same is unrebutted as the defendants 1 and 2 were set ex­parte and thereby, the corroborated testimony of PW­1 coupled with

Ex.A­1 to Ex.A­3 strengthen the claim of the plaintiff bank that the defendants 1 and 2 are joint and severally liable to pay the suit claim of Rs.1,61,695.69/­ paisa with contract rate of interest at 08.35% per annum from the date of default till the date of suit and failed to perform their part of contract, thereafter at 8% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum till the date of realization. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is strengthened and corroborated with Ex.A­1 to Ex.A­3, which stands impeachable, strengthen the plea of the plaintiff herein and the plaintiff bank has proved its case with that of the suit claim against the defendants 1 and 2 beyond all preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the plaintiff’s bank has proved its case against the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank.

11. POINT No.2:

In view of the point No.1 answered, wherein the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim of Rs.1,61,695.69/­ paisa basing on the

principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ as well as agreed rate of contract

interest till the date of filing of the suit as well as he is also entitled for future interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realization.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay the decreetal amount jointly and severally for the suit claim of Rs.1,61,695.69/­ paisa and also future interest at the rate of 8% per annum as contractual interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ from the date of filing of the

APKD0C0001462024 6 suit till the date of decree and future interest at 06% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. Costs ordered.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade­II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of December, 2024.

Sd/-T. Suyodhan.

 Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), 

Rayachoty.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Plaintiff:­ Defendants:­

PW­1 : Shaik Masthan.­NIL­

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff:­

Ex.A­1: Hypothecation agreement dt.22.09.2021 executed by D1 in favour of the plaintiff’s bank.

Ex.A­2: Guarantee agreement dt.22.09.2021 executed by D2.

Ex.A­3: Statement of account maintained by the plaintiff’s bank in the name of defendant.

Exhibits Marked on behalf of defendants:­ ­NIL­

Sd/-T. Suyodhan.

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

 Rayachoty.

APKD0C0003982020 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RAYACHOTY.

 PRESENT: SRI. T. SUYODHAN, 

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), RAYACHOTY.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 18 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

O.S.No.101 of 2020

Between:

Dandu Nagulu died and his LRs Dandu Eswaraiah S/o Late Nagulu, Hindu, aged 58 years, Priave Employee, Residence of D.No.36/17­A, Subba Reddy Street, S.N. Colony, Rayachoty Town and Mandal, Kadapa.

:: Plaintiff.

Versus.

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented The District Collector, Kadapa District.

2. The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, Rayachoty town, Kadapa District. :: Defendants.

This suit came up before me on dt.26.08.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Anand Kumar, Counsel for the Plaintiff and defendants were set exparte and on perusal of entire record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T

01.The present suit is filed by plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and staff, followers, agents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property way grant of permanent injunction and for costs of the suit.

02.The  brief averments of the plaint :­

It is averred that, originally the suit schedule property is belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's father was worked as attender in the Deportment of Soil conservation, Rayachoty. During the working period the plaintiff's father was a member of the

Government 4th class Employees Association, Rayachoty. The same

APKD0C0003982020 2 association gave a representation to the revenue authorities house­ sites. Because of their desperate efforts by the association the

Mandal Revenue Office, Rayachoty allotted the house­sites to the above Association in the name of The Government 4th Class

Employees House Building. The plaintiff’s father namely Late Dandu

Nagulu s/o Buddaiah was one of the members of above said society, 19­04­2014 he was died due to ill­health. The plaintiff is legal heir of

Late Dandu Nagulu s/o Buddalah and he is only son. On 18­2­1997 the Mandal Revenue Office, Rayachoty issued D­Form in the name of the plaintiff’s father, Plot No.43 an extent of Ac. 0.03 cents in S.No.

592/2 along with other association members with specific boundaries. The allotted house­sites are situated at south side and very far of Rayachoty­town. At the time of allotment of the house­ sites, the place was not flattened and unqualified to build a house.

It is further averred that, after allotment of the house building society, the Grama Panchayat Office not provided any access to roads, water, drainage and electrical poles in the plots.

Many times the house building society members are requested to the

Grama Panchayat and Municipality authorities for the above emergency needs but they are not supported and not provided anything.

It is further averred that, in the unavoidable circumstances, the Government 4th Employees House Building

Society members are voluntarily allotted places have flattened to

APKD0C0003982020 3 build the houses with own expenditure. Then the plaintiff family was constructed a temporary building on permanent foundation without any government help. The Grama Panchayat or Municipality did not allott the door numbers to the temporary houses. So, there are no any bills of the houses. Since from the allotment of the land the plaintiff family have absolute right and is in exclusive possession and full enjoyment with the plaintiff without any interruption.

It is further averred that, four months back the plaintiff removed temporary building and cleaned up the land for constructing a new building. In the month of March, 2020 the defendant No.2 with his staff without any legal right or notice have made attempts to disturb and engulf the possession and position of the schedule extent. In spite of the plaintiffs repeated requests the defendant No.2 have been flanging some ill legal tempo to usurp. The defendants have been seduced ever since the suit schedule property is neat and clean.

It is further averred that, ten days back the plaintiff and his family was present in the suit schedule property for the purpose of constructing the building, the defendant No.2 with staff trespassed into the suit schedule property and tried to occupy the property. In the mean while the neighboring plot owners came and supported the plaintiff. Then the defendant threatened to the plaintiff and stated that to vacate the place, immediately the plaintiff gave a report to the police, Rayachoty and revenue higher authority

APKD0C0003982020 4 against the defendant No.2 but the police and revenue higher authority did not take any action against the defendants.

It is further averred that, again one week back the defendants and their men without any legal right, have made attempts to disturb and engulf the possession and position of the extent. In spite of the plaintiff repeated requests to the defendants they have been flanging the same with illegal tempo to usurp.

It is further averred that, three days back the defendants and their followers enter in to the suit schedule property without manner of right to disturb and spoil the constructing materials. The defendants and staff did not heed words of the plaintiff and by force partly disturbed and spoiled the foundation. The plaintiff is unable to resist the high handed act of the defendants. The defendants mighty power, hard behavior and have unruly clements and that the plaintiff has no other option except to approach this Court for permanent injunction for constructing the house. Hence, the suit.

3. After due service of summons to the defendants, they failed to appear before this Court accordingly the defendants were set exparte.

4.Heard the learned counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the entire material available on record both in oral and documentary.

5.Now the point for determination is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent

injunction against the defendants and their men not to

interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and

enjoyment over the schedule property as prayed for ?

APKD0C0003982020 5

6.POINT:­ In order to prove the case of the plaintiff herein, he filed his chief­examination affidavit as PW1 in lieu of the averments of the plaint and further reiterated the same. During his examination in chief and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On careful perusal of Ex.A1, it is the attested copy of D­Form, dt.18.02.1997 in favour of PW1’s father, Ex.A2 is the Death certificate of Late Dandu Nagulu and

Ex.A3 is the Aadhar card of PW1. Therefore the uncontradicted testimony of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to Exs.A3 prove that the plaintiff had been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and thereby it is just and necessary for the plaintiff to get the relief of grant of permanent injunction in his favour. Accordingly, the point is answered.

07.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants herein and staff, followers, agents not interfer with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Costs ordered.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade­II, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-T. Suyodhan.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), 

Rayachoty. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Plaintiff: For the defendants:

PW1: D. Eswaraiah. ­ N I L ­. Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Attested copy of D­Form, dt.18.02.1997 in favour of PW1’s father.

Ex.A2: Death certificate of Late Dandu Nagulu.

APKD0C0003982020 6

Ex.A3: Aadhar card of PW1. Document marked on behalf of defendants: Nil.

Sd/-T. Suyodhan.

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

Rayachoty.

A PKD0C0009452025 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RAYACHOTY.

PRESENT: SRI T. SUYODHAN, 

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) RAYACHOTY. 

FRIDAY, THIS THE 19 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

E.P.No.32/2025

O.S.No.12/2025

Between:

Mannuru Vijay Kumar S/o Late Chengaiah, aged 37 years, Government Teacher R/o Bethal Colony, Rayachoty town and Mandal, Kadapa District, Annamayya District.

...Petitioner/Decree­Holder.

And:

 Sunkesula Pedda Mahaboob Subhan S/o S. Molali, aged 37 years, Government Teacher R/o D.No.8/58­5, Masapeta, Rayachoty town and Mandal, Kadapa District and Annamayya District, Now working as Government Teacher M.P.P School at Badisalavanka H/o Thimmasamudram Village and Post, T. Sundupalli Mandal, Kadapa District and Annamayya District.

... Respondent/Judgment­Debtor.

This execution petition stood before me on 12.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence ofSri R. Veerabhadraiah, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Decree­Holder and respondent/Judgment­Debtor set exparte; and upon hearing on both sides and on perusal of entire record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R S

01.The present execution petition is filed by the petitioner/

Decree­Holder under Order­XXI, Rules­48 of C.P.C. with a prayer to attach decree amount every month out of the salary of the Judgment­

Debtor and issue prohibitory order of attachment to the Garnishee i.e., The Mandal Education Officer 1, Rayachoty, Annamayya Dist and to direct him to send the attached amount together with future

A PKD0C0009452025 2 interest to this Hon’ble Court for realization of the E.P. amount to be paid to the Decree­Holder or his counsel, in the interest of justice.

02.As per the brief averments of the execution petition filed along with the accompanying affidavit are that:_ The Decree­Holder submits that the petitioner is the

Decree­Holder and deponent and he filed the present execution petition seeking attachment of the salary for recovery of decretal amount of Rs.6,33,738/­ passed in O.S.No.12/2025. Furthermore, after passing of the decree, he approached the Judgment­Debtor on number of occasions to satisfy the decree passed against him, but he has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other. Further, he submits that the Judgment­Debtor is working as teacher at MPP

School at Badisalavanka H/o Thimmasamudram Village and Post, T.

Sundupallim Mandal, Annamayya District and getting not less than of Rs.78,826/­ per month as salary and after deducted his salary

Rs.51,110/­, the Judgment­Debtor is having sufficient means and capacity to discharge the E.P amount in one lump­sum, but he is evading to pay the same and prays the Hon’ble Court in order to pass appropriate orders, in the interest of justice.

03.However, on the other hand, due notice was served on to the respondent/Judgment­Debtor herein and subsequently, he did not turn up to the Court and failed to file counter. Henceforth, the counter of Judgment­Debtor is treated as NIL and set­exparte.

04.Heard and perused the entire material available on record both in oral and documentary.

05.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the present execution petition filed under Order­XXI, Rules­48 of C.P.C. against the respondent/Judgment­Debtor in order to attach the salary of Judgment­Debtor with a direction to the Garnishee of the Judgment­Debtor to deduct an amount of Rs.10,000/­ per month from the salary of the Judgment­Debtor towards realization of the decreetal amount, can be allowed, as prayed for? 

A PKD0C0009452025 3

07.POINT:

At the outset, the petitioner is the plaintiff and he filed the present petition Under Order 21 Rule 48 of CPC along with his affidavit in order to issue notice to the respondent herein who is the

J.Dr and against whom he obtained a decree as per the orders of this

Court dt.14.05.2025 and the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner for the suit claim along with interest and also costs.

Accordingly the decree was passed and subsequently inspite of passing of the decree in favour of the petitioner, the respondent J.Dr has not repaid any amount and he is working as teacher at MPP

School at Badisalavanka H/o Thimmasamudram Village and Post, T.

Sundupallim Mandal, Annamayya District and thereby he has come with the present application seeking directions of this Court to direct the J.Dr to pay the decretal amount or else to issue notice to the

Garnishee inorder to deduct amount from the salary of J.Dr towards realization of decree by invoking Section.60 of CPC. Further, inorder to prove the contention of the petitioner herein he filed his affidavit along with present petition and due notice was served to the respondent/J.Dr and he did not appear before this Court inspite of service of notice and thereby he was set exparte. Further notice was already issued to the Garnishee of Judgment Debtor herein and he has submitted that the pay particulars herein it has been mentioned that J.Dr is drawing the basic pay for amount of Rs.52,600/­ coupled with DA of Rs.17,710/­, HRA of Rs.8,416/­ in addition to that it is also mentioned that there are deductions in the monthly salary.

Henceforth, wherein the testimony of petitioner which is supported by his affidavit and the certified copy of the decree filed on record, strengthen the contention of petitioner. Henceforth, the present E.P filed and the pay particulars received from the Garnishee clearly goes to show that the respondent/J.Dr is having capacity to pay the decreetal amount out of his salary but he is evading to pay the same to the petitioner herein. Henceforth, the attachable amount of the

J.Dr from his pay, + DA + HRA + amount of Rs.78,726/­ standard

A PKD0C0009452025 4 deduction of Rs.1,000/­ which is Rs.77,726/­ and the attachable portion is 1/3rd which remains to Rs.25,908/­. The garnishe of the

J.Dr also submitted the order of attachment of the J.Dr’s salary in

E.P.32/2025 in O.S.No.12/2025 on the file of Hon’ble Vth Additional

District Judge’s Court, Rayachoty and already Rs.18,000/­ was in

attachment in the attachable portion of Rs.25,909/­. Therefore, this

Court is inclined to further attach an amount of Rs.5,000/­ only per month for a period of 24 months.

Therefore this Court is inclined to allow the present petition to the extent that, the Garnishee of J.Dr shall attach monthly salary of

Rs.5,000/­ for a period of 24 months by invoking Section 60 of CPC.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

08.In the result, the petition is allowed by giving directions to the garnishe of J.Dr to deduct a sum of Rs.5,000/­ for a period of 24 months subject to Sec.60 of CPC subsequent to realization of decreetal amount.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade­II, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-T. Suyodhan.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), 

Rayachoty.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Decree­Holder:­ Judgment­Debtor:­

PW­1 : M. Vijay Kumar.­NIL­

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Decree­Holder:­  Ex.P1: Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.12/2025.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Judgment­Debtor:­ Nil

Sd/-T. Suyodhan.

PJCJ/RCTY

A PKD0C0009452025 5

APKD0C0006322024 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RAYACHOTY.

 PRESENT: SRI. T. SUYODHAN, 

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), RAYACHOTY.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 30 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

O.S.No.166 of 2024

Between:

Devarinti Venkataramana S/o Devarinti Pullaiah, age 51 years, Farmer, Guttakindipalli, Diguvagottiveedu Post, Chinnamandem Mandal, Chinnamandem.

:: Plaintiff.

Versus.

Devarinti Nagaiah S/o D. Pullaiah, age 54 years, Farmer, Guttakindipalli, Diguvagottiveedu Post, Chinnamandem Mandal, Chinnamandem. :: Defendant.

This suit came up before me on dt.12.02.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Eswar, Counsel for the Plaintiff and defendant was set exparte and on perusal of entire record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T

01.The present suit is filed by plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men, kith and kin not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by way grant of permanent injunction and for costs of the suit.

02.The  brief averments of the plaint :­

It is averred that, the suit schedule property is RCC building and Zinc sheet shed belongs to plaintiff. The plaintiff constructed the RCC building and Zinc sheet in the year 2004 in his village as well as other villagers in fact the schedule property site

APKD0C0006322024 2 noted as Gramakantam since long back and the plaintiff is having wife and children and the plaintiff’s family has been residing in the schedule property for 20 years. There is Zinc Sheet shed also constructed for the purpose of sheeps. The Gramapanchayath

Authority allotted D.No.13­28 to the schedule property­RCC building and the plaintiff has been paying house tax to the schedule property and the House Receipt stands in the name of Plaintiff also filed herewith for kind perusal of this Court. House Schedule property

Valuation certificate stands in the name of Plaintiff issued by the

Gramapachayat Authorities filed here with for perusal of this Court

APSPDCL Authorities provided electricity connection to the schedule property house and same electricity bills filed here with for perusal of this court. Photos of the schedule property along with CD filed here with for perusal of this court. The plaintiff family has been residing in the schedule property and is in possession and enjoyment over the schedule property for 20 years without anybody interruption, but the defendant who is western side property Holder and rowdy element has been quarreling with the plaintiff family and trying to dispossess the plaintiff's family from the schedule property.

On 02.07.2024 the defendant came to the schedule property with rowdy elements along with JCB and trying to demolish the schedule property by way of dispossessing the plaintiff family but he has no manner of right to do so. Immediately the plaintiff went to

Chinnamandem P.S and preferred criminal Complaint against the

APKD0C0006322024 3 defendant and the Police advised the Plaintiff to file civil suit against the defendant. Village elders also advised the defendant not do so.

But he paid deaf ear. Hence this suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. 

3. After due service of summons to the defendant and it were returned served but the defendants failed to appear before this Court accordingly the defendant was set exparte.

4.Heard the learned counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the entire material available on record both in oral and documentary.

5.Now the point for determination is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent

injunction against the defendant and his men, kith and kin

not to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and

enjoyment over the schedule property as prayed for ?

6.POINT:­ In order to prove the case of the plaintiff herein, he filed his chief­examination affidavit as PW1 in lieu of the averments of the plaint and further reiterated the same. During his examination in chief and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On careful perusal of Ex.A1, it is the house valuation certificate stands in the name of plaintiff,

Ex.A2 is the house tax receipt, Ex.A3 is the electricity bills, Ex.A4 is the photos of the schedule property and Ex.A5 is plaint plan.

Therefore the uncontradicted testimony of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to Exs.A5 proved that the plaintiff had been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and thereby it is just and

APKD0C0006322024 4 necessary for the plaintiff to get the relief of grant of permanent injunction in his favour. Accordingly, the point is answered.

07.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant herein and his men, kith and ken not interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Costs ordered.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade­II, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-T. Suyodhan.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), 

Rayachoty.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Plaintiff: For the defendant:

PW1: D. Venkataramana. ­ N I L ­. Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff: Ex.A1: House valuation certificate stands in the name of plaintiff.

Ex.A2: House tax receipt.

Ex.A3: Electricity bills.

Ex.A4: Photos of the schedule property.

Ex.A5: Plaint plan. Document marked on behalf of defendant: Nil.

Sd/-T. Suyodhan.

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

Rayachoty.