Sri T.V. Subba Rao

1 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Thursday, the Fifth(5 th ) day of July, 2018.

Present:- Sri T.V.Subba Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore

Original Suit No. 235/2012

Duvvuru Amrutha. … Plaintiff.

//Vs.//

1. Gandavarapu Subba Reddy.

2. Gandavarapu Sai Baba Reddy(Died)

3. Gandavarapu Sreenivasulu Reddy

4. Duvvuru Sreenivasulu Reddy ... Defendants.

This suit coming on 3.7.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri N.Sreenivasulu Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Smt G.Seshamma,

Advocate for D-1, D-2 and D-4, subsequently, D-2 died during pendency of the suit, Sri Piduru Nageswara Rao, Advocate for D-3, later D-3 remained exparte; and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, praying the court to grant permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land in whatsoever manner.

2.(I)The case of the plaintiff in brief is as per the averments of the plaint is that the defendants 1 to 3 are younger brothers of one Gandavarapu

Venkata Ramana Reddy. They constituted members of a Hindu undivided joint family. They got orally partitioned their joint family properties in the year 1974 and since then, they have been residing separately and enjoying their respective share of properties. The said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy got the

2 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

following properties in the said partition for his share:

SPSR Nellore District – Koduru Bit-I bearing:

S.No. Extent Classification

270/A, B1Ac.2.37 centsWet 271/AAc.1-00Wet 271/CAc.0.38Wet 272Ac.0.92 Wet TotalAc.4.67 cents

(ii)The 1st defendant got an extent of Ac.4.00 of wet land in Koduru

Bit-I (Chennapallipalem Village) in the said oral partition. He has got only one daughter namely Pelleti Sukanya. He obtained pattadar pass book in respect of the said land in her name, being the only daughter. Defendants 2 and 3 took cash in the said joint family oral partition, as the 2nd defendant being an employee at Hyderabad and 2nd defendant subsequently resigned for his job and entered into business. The 3rd defendant also carried on the said business along with 2nd defendant at Hyderabad. Defendants 2 and 3 married own sisters and living at Hyderabad. The defendants 2 and 3 acquired vast immovable and movable properties in Hyderabad city after the said partition.

(iii)Plaintiff is the eldest daughter of said Gandavarapu Venkata

Ramana Reddy. Alluru Aruna and Varidireddy Ahalya are the 2nd and 3rd daughters of the said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy. He had no sons.

(iv)Thereafter, the said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy purchased Ac.6.39 cents in S.Nos.309, 307/B, 307A, 329B, 329C, 311/1E, 311/1C1, 311/1B and 311/1A of Kodur Bit-I Village, T.P.Gudur Mandal under the

Registered Sale Deed dated 20.3.1976 from one Gandavarapu Sethurami

Reddy. The said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy also purchased Ac.1-50 cents in S.No.329/B of Kodur Bit-I village from one Gandavarapu Subba Reddy (not 1st defendant), Son of Venku Reddy and Gandavarapu Sethu Rami Reddy

3 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

subsequently. The said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy orally gifted

Ac.0-48 cents out of Ac.2.22 cents in S.No.329B of Kodur Bit-I Village, to one

Pelleti Sukanya, daughter of 1st defendant herein out of love and affection. The said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy obtained pattadar pass book and land title deed in respect of the said lands held by him. The said Venkata

Ramana Reddy gifted Item No.1 of plaint schedule land of ac.4.67 cents to the plaintiff herein by executing a Registered Settlement Deed dated 28.10.2010 out of love and affection and delivered possession of the same to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has accepted the said gift. Since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land and paying land revenue. Prior to that plaintiff’s father purchased item No.2 of plaint schedule land from one

PokkireddySundararami Reddy subsequent to 1976 and the same was gifted to plaintiff at the time of her marriage in the year 1983. Since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule land and she obtained pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the said item no.2 of plaint schedule land.

(v)Plaintiff submitted an application before the Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur

Mandal for issuance of pattadar pass book and land title deed in respect of plaint schedule land. It is pending for disposal. Plaintiff has been paying land revenue over the plaint schedule land.

(vi)Recently, plaintiff’s husband Lakshminarayana Reddy filed a suit in

O.S.133/2011 against 2nd defendant and his daughter Gandavarapu Shanthi on

the file of Hon’ble V Additional District Judge’s Court, Nellore for cancellation of

Registered Gift deed dated 12.3.2004 executed by the said Lakshminarayana

Reddy in favour of the said Shanthi in respect of vacant site of about 88 ankanams of in Plot Nos.16 and 17 comprised in CAS.No.664/1A, 664/B, 665 of

Kondayapalem, Nellore Bit-I and for delivery of possession of the said land.

4 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy filed a suit in O.S.525/2011 against 1st defendant and one Gandavarapu Sanath Kumar Reddy on the file of Principal

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nellore for cancellation of Registered Settlement

Deed dated 24.3.2011 executed in favour of 1st defendant in respect of Ac.1-10 cents in S.No.329/B of Koduru Bit-I. The said suits are pending disposal.

Aggrieved of the same, the defendants colluded together and caused obstruction to the plaintiff in cutting and harvesting the paddy crops in the plaint schedule land in the month of April, 2012. With the assistance of village elders, the plaintiff could able to cut and sell the paddy crop in plaint schedule land. The defendants are proclaiming that they will obstruct the plaintiff from cultivating and enjoying the plaint schedule land in future. They have no right to do so. The defendants are rich and powerful people and they are backed by large number of unruly supporters. The 1st defendant is the resident of Mahalakshmipuram, Kodur Bit-I, where the plaint schedule land is situated. The plaintiff’s father Venkata Ramana

Reddy, though residing in the same village, due to his old age of 78 years unable to resist the high handed acts of defendants and their men and agents.

(vii)2nd defendant is the major share holder in Engineering college situated at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, Physiotherapy college at Hyderabad, and heritage Polypack Private Limited (Card board manufacturing), Raghava

Containers Private Limited (Card board manufacturing), Universal Pesto Chem

Industries Limited (manufacturing unit of pesticides) at Industrial area,

Gaddapotharam, Medak District. He is also owning and possessing agriculture and non-agriculture lands situated at Borampet Dindigal, Hyderabad etc., He is also owning and possessing a house in Kamalapuri colony, Yusuffguda,

Hyderabad. The 3rd defendant is also having shares in the above mentioned business and lands. The 4th defendant is the henchman of the defendants 1 to 3.

The plaintiff apprehends breach of peace and danger to her property. Hence the

5 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

suit.

3.(I)The 2nd defendant filed written statement, admitting some of the allegations and denying some of the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the father of plaintiff, this defendant and defendants 1 and 3 constituted as undivided Hindu joint family as they inherited Ac.4.67 cents and other properties from their ancestors. As D-2 and D-3 settled at Hyderabad due to their employment, the father of plaintiff namely Venkataramana Reddy and 1st defendant used to look after the properties inherited from their ancestors and the properties purchased from out of the yield of the ancestral properties in the name of Venkata Ramana Reddy, father of plaintiff as Kartha of joint family, being the elder member and the properties thus purchased will become part of joint Family properties. So, he and his other brothers are all in joint and constructive possession of the joint family properties and none can claim exclusive rights over such properties even if any document is created in respect of joint family properties as no rights can devolved under such documents which are invalid and inoperative under the eye of law. As there are disputes in between the husband of plaintiff Lakshminarayana Reddy and the daughter of this defendant

Santhi, situated in Nellore City, the plaintiff and her father created the documents in collusion with other sisters of the plaintiff to take vengeance against D-2.

(ii)The suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable against the co- sharers as no division took place at any point of time as alleged and he is reserving the right to file suit for partition in respect of the joint family properties.

(iii)In the circumstances, the relief of permanent injunction is an equitable one and the same cannot be granted to a person who approaches the court without clean hands by suppressing the true facts. Further, mere apprehension is not a ground for grant of permanent injunction. The cause of action as pleaded is not true and correct and prays to dismiss the suit with costs

6 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

as the same is not maintainable.

4.An adoption memo filed by D-1 and D-4, adopting the written statement of D-2 as their written statement.

5.D-3 also filed adoption memo, adopting the written statement of D-2 as his written statement by stating that the father of plaintiff Gandavarapu

Venkata Ramana Reddy obtained loans in Nellore Agricultural Co-operative bank

Limited in respect of entire family property as Kartha of Hindu undivided joint family property. He along with D-1 and father of plaintiff managed the Hindu undivided joint family properties jointly till the date of death of their mother

Sankaramma in the year 1991.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the court framed the following issues:

1.Whether the suit schedule properties have been in exclusive

possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent

injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

3. To what relief, plaintiff is entitled?

7.During the course of trial, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-21 on behalf of plaintiff. .

8.During pendency of the suit, a memo is filed by the counsel for plaintiff stating that the 2nd defendant in this suit died on 11.10.2014. Since, it is a suit for grant of permanent injunction filed against defendants 1 to 4.

There is no need to implead the legal representatives of 2nd defendant. The suit may be continued without impleading the legal representatives of 2nd defendant. The said memo is on record and this court proceeded further to dispose of the matter as per law.

9.During pendency of the suit, while recording the evidence on behalf of plaintiff was in progress, Sri Piduru Nageswara Rao, Advocate for

7 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

D.3 reported no instructions for D-3. Consequently, D-3 was set exparte on 24.4.2018 and the same is recorded and proceeded further as per law to dispose of the matter.

10.Another memo field by plaintiff counsel is on record which is filed on 3.7.2013 that the husband of plaintiff will adduce evidence on behalf of plaintiff in the above suit. The plaintiff is not proposing to examine herself as witness in the above suit and the same is on record.

11.The husband of plaintiff was examined as Pw.1 and Pw.2 plaintiff is examined on behalf of plaintiff and Exs.A-1 to A-21 were got marked. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of defendants 1,3 and 4.

12.(I)Pw.1 is the husband of plaintiff.

(ii)Ex.A-1 is the Registered Settlement Deed dated 28.10.2010 executed by Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy, Ex.A-2 is Pattadar pass book issued inf avour of plaintiff, Ex.A-3 is Land title deed issued in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A-4 is cist receipts (11 in no.) issued in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A-5 is Enquiry Notice dated 2.2.2012 issued by Tahsildar,

T.P.Guduru Mandal to Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy and three others, Ex.A-6 is Endorsement dated 29.3.2012 in RCB.No.259/12 issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal to Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy and three others, Ex.A-7 is Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 11.4.2011 for fasali 1419 (2009-2010) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandald relating to Sy.No.346-C of Koduru Bit-I Village, Part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands, Ex.A-8 is Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 11.4.2011 for fasali year 1419 (2009-2010) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal,

8 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

relating to Sy.No.332-1A of Koduru Bit-I Village, part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands, Ex.A-9 is Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 11.4.2011 for fasali year 1419 (2009-2010) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal, relating to Sy.No.332-1B of Koduru Bit-I Village, part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands, Ex.A-10 is Certified Copy of No.1(B) extract dated 11.4.2011 issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal, relating to Sy.No.332-A of Koduru Bit-I Village, part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands, Ex.A-11 is Certified Copy of No.1(B) extract dated 11.4.2011 issued by Tahsildar,

T.P.Guduru Mandal, relating to Sy.No.332-1B of Koduru Bit-I Village, part of

Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands, Ex.A-12 is Certified Copy of No.1(B) extract dated 11.4.2011 issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal, relating to

Sy.No.346-C of Koduru Bit-I Village, part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands, Ex.A-13 is Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 12.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to

Sy.no.270-AB1 of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of part of Item No.1 of plaint schedule lands, in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A-14 is Certified Copy of

No.3 Adangal dated 12.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by

Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to Sy.No.271-A of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of part of Item No.1 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A-15 is Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 12.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to

Sy.no.271-C of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of part of Item No.1 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A-16 is Certified Copy of No.3

Adangal dated 12.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by

Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to Sy.No.272 of Koduru Bit-I Village in

9 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

respect of Item No.1 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A-17 is Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 14.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to

Sy.no.332-1A of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A-18 is Certified Copy of No.3

Adangal dated 14.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by

Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to Sy.no.332-1B of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A-19 is Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 14.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to

Sy.no.332-2 of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A-20 is Certified Copy of No.3

Adangal dated 14.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by

Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to Sy.no.346-C of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff and EX.A-21 is Certified Copy of 1(B) extract dated 28.12.2017 issued by

Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in favour of Pelleti

Sukanya.

13.Pw.1 was not cross-examined by D-1,D-3 and D-4 counsel and thereby, the cross-examination of Pw.1 by D-1,D-3 and D-4 is treated as

Nil. Further, on 8.6.2018, when the evidence of Pw.1 was coming up for cross-examination, Sri Piduru Nageswara Rao, Advocate for D-3 reported no instructions for D-3 and consequently, D-3 called absent and he was set exparte on 24.4.2018 and the evidence of Pw.1 shows the same.

10 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

14.ISSUE NO.1:

The husband of plaintiff as Pw.1 in his chief-examination on affidavit, reiterated the plaint averments and deposed that he is the husband of plaintiff and giving his evidence on behalf of plaintiff as he is looking after the plaint schedule land and well acquainted with the facts of the case.

15.Defendants 1 to 3 are younger brothers of one Gandavarapu

Venkata Ramana Reddy. They constituted members of a Hindu undivided joint family. They got orally partitioned their joint family properties in the year 1974 and since then, they have been residing separately and enjoying their respective share of properties. The said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy got the following properties in the said partition for his share:

SPSR Nellore District – Koduru Bit-I bearing:

S.No. Extent Classification

270/A, B1Ac.2.37 centsWet 271/AAc.1-00Wet 271/CAc.0.38Wet 272Ac.0.92 Wet TotalAc.4.67 cents

(ii)he further deposed in the evidence of Pw.1 that the 1st defendant got an extent of Ac.4.00 of wet land in Koduru Bit-I (Chennapallipalem Village) in the said oral partition. He has got only one daughter namely Pelleti Sukanya. He obtained pattadar pass book in respect of the said land in her name, being the only daughter. Defendants 2 and 3 took cash in the said joint family oral partition, as the 2nd defendant being an employee at Hyderabad and 2nd defendant subsequently resigned for his job and entered into business. The 3rd defendant also carried on the said business along with 2nd defendant at

Hyderabad. Defendants 2 and 3 married own sisters and living at Hyderabad.

The defendants 2 and 3 acquired vast immovable and movable properties in

11 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

Hyderabad city after the said partition.

(iii)Plaintiff is the eldest daughter of said Gandavarapu Venkata

Ramana Reddy. Alluru Aruna and Varidireddy Ahalya are the 2nd and 3rd daughters of the said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy. He had no sons.

(iv)Thereafter, the said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy purchased Ac.6.39 cents in S.Nos.309, 307/B, 307A, 329B, 329C, 311/1E, 311/1C1, 311/1B and 311/1A of Kodur Bit-I Village, T.P.Gudur Mandal under the

Registered Sale Deed dated 20.3.1976 from one Gandavarapu Sethurami

Reddy. The said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy also purchased Ac.1-50 cents in S.No.329/B of Kodur Bit-I village from one Gandavarapu Subba Reddy (not 1st defendant), Son of Venku Reddy and Gandavarapu Sethu Rami Reddy subsequently. The said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy orally gifted

Ac.0-48 cents out of Ac.2.22 cents in S.No.329B of Kodur Bit-I Village, to one

Pelleti Sukanya, daughter of 1st defendant herein out of love and affection. The said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy obtained pattadar pass book and land title deed in respect of the said lands held by him. The said Venkata

Ramana Reddy gifted Item No.1 of plaint schedule land of Ac.4.67 cents to the plaintiff herein by executing a Registered Settlement Deed dated 28.10.2010 out of love and affection and delivered possession of the same to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has accepted the said gift. Since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land and paying land revenue. Prior to that plaintiff’s father purchased item No.2 of plaint schedule land from one Pokkireddy

Sundararami Reddy subsequent to 1976 and the same was gifted to plaintiff at the time of her marriage in the year 1983. Since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule land and she obtained pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the said item No.2 of plaint schedule land.

12 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

(v)Plaintiff submitted an application before the Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur

Mandal for issuance of pattadar pass book and land title deed in respect of plaint schedule land. It is pending for disposal. Plaintiff has been paying land revenue over the plaint schedule land.

(vi)Recently, plaintiff’s husband Lakshminarayana Reddy filed a suit in

O.S.133/2011 against 2nd defendant and his daughter Gandavarapu Shanthi on

the file of Hon’ble V Additional District Judge’s Court, Nellore for cancellation of

Registered Gift deed dated 12.3.2004 executed by the said Lakshminarayana

Reddy in favour of the said Shanthi in respect of vacant site of about 88 ankanams of in Plot Nos.16 and 17 comprised in CAS.No.664/1A, 664/B, 665 of

Kondayapalem, Nellore Bit-I and for delivery of possession of the said land.

Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy filed a suit in O.S.525/2011 against 1st defendant and one Gandavarapu Sanath Kumar Reddy on the file of Principal

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nellore for cancellation of Registered Settlement

Deed dated 24.3.2011 executed in favour of 1st defendant in respect of Ac.1-10 cents in S.No.329/B of Koduru Bit-I. The said suits are pending disposal.

Aggrieved of the same, the defendants colluded together and caused obstruction to the plaintiff in cutting and harvesting the paddy crops in the plaint schedule land in the month of April, 2012. With the assistance of village elders, the plaintiff could able to cut and sell the paddy crop in plaint schedule land. The defendants are proclaiming that they will obstruct the plaintiff form cultivating and enjoying the plaint schedule land in future. They have no right to do so. The defendants are rich and powerful people and they are backed by large number of unruly supporters. The 1st defendant is the resident of Mahalakshmipuram, Kodur Bit-I, where the plaint schedule land is situated. The plaintiff’s father Venkata Ramana

Reddy, though residing in the same village, due to his old age of 78 years unable to resist the high handed acts of defendants and their men and agents.

13 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

(vii)2nd defendant is the major share holder in Engineering college situated at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, Physiotherapy college at Hyderabad, and heritage Polypack Private Limited (Card board manufacturing), Raghava

Containers Private Limited (Card board manufacturing), Universal Pesto Chem

Industries Limited (manufacturing unit of pesticides) at Industrial area,

Gaddapotharam, Medak District. He is also owning and possessing agriculture and non-agriculture lands situated at Borampet Dindigal, Hyderabad etc., He is also owning and possessing a house in Kamalapuri colony, Yusuffguda,

Hyderabad. The 3rd defendant is also having shares in the above mentioned business and lands. The 4th defendant is the henchman of the defendants 1 to 3.

The plaintiff apprehends breach of peace and danger to the plaint schedule property. It is just and necessary that defendants and their men and agents be restrained by grant of permanent injunction from interfering or middling in whatsoever manner with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule lands and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

16.When the matter was coming up for cross-examination after giving ample time and opportunity to the defendants on 20.4.2018, Pw.1 was present,

D-1 and D-4 called absent, no representation for D-1 and D-4. The cross- examination of Pw.1 by D-1 and D-4 is treated nil.

17.On the same day, the evidence of Pw.1 shows, Sri Piduru

Nageswara Rao, Advocate for D-3 filed a memo reporting no instruction for D-3 and the said memo is recorded. The cross-examination of Pw.1 by D-3 is treated nil.

18.The chief-affidavit of Pw.2 who is elder sister of plaintiff and she is the owner of the plaint schedule property. The other averments as stated by

Pw.1 in his chief-examination and in support of the contents of the plaint as pleaded by her, reiterated the plaint averments and ultimately prayed to dismiss

14 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

the suit as prayed for.

19.The cross-examination of Pw.2 by D-1 and D-4 counsel is treated as nil. In the further chief-examination of Pw.2, she deposed that she is 2nd attestor and 2nd identifying witness before Sub-Registrar under Ex.A-1 Registered Sale

Deed dated 28.10.2010 shown to her. She identified her signature in Ex.A-1 and as identifying witness before Sib-Registrar to the above Ex.A-1. She also identified the signature of her father in Ex.A-1 as executant in Ex.A-1 shown to her.

20.Her cross-examination was treated nil as defendants called absent, no representation for them. The counsel for D-3 reported no instructions for D-3 on 20.4.2018, thereby, there is no cross-examination of Pw.2 by D-3 counsel.

21.No witnesses is examined and no documents are marked on behalf of D-1,D-3 and D-4. On this point, a relevant judgment in a case between

Vidyadhara Rao //vs.// Manikya Reported in 1999(3) ALT page No.1, wherein in it is held --

“Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box

and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be

cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise

that the case set up by him is incorrect”.

Further Sec.114 Illustration (g) of Indian evidence Act that “evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced to be unfavourable to the person who withhold it”.

22. As per the principal laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the above referred Judgment, in the instant suit also, the defendants did not turn up into the witness box to state their own case on oath and did not offer themselves to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the pleas taken up by them is incorrect.

Hence, the written statement contents pleaded by defendants 1,3 and 4

15 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

shall be presumed to be incorrect.

23.The uncross-examined testimony of Pws.1 and 2 can be relied upon in toto as there is no cross-examination to them made by D-1,D-3 and

D-4. The uncross-examined testimony of Pw.1 and Exs.A-1 to 21 amply proves and establishes the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff was gifted the plaint schedule property by her father under Ex.A-1 Registered Settlement

Deed and she accepted the said gift and has been enjoying the same from the date of gift. Pw.1 who is husband of plaintiff has also stated the same in support of the case of the plaintiff which clearly shows that the plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land as on the date of filing of the suit and prior to date of filing of the suit with incidental title thereof. The defendants have not adduced anything contra to it and failed to prove contra to it.

Issue No.1 is decided accordingly in favor of plaintiff and against

defendants 1,3 and 4..

24.ISSUES NO.2:-

In view of the findings recorded in Issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for.

Issue No.2 is decided accordingly in favor of plaintiff and against

defendants 1,3 and 4.

25. ISSUES NO.3:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff, restraining the defendants 1, 3 and 4 and their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s

16 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land in whatsoever manner.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, after transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 5th day of July, 2018.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Nell ore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW.1: Duvvuru Lakshmi Narayana Reddy PW.2: Varidireddy Ahalya

For Defendants: – None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex. A-1:Registered Settlement Deed dated 28.10.2010 executed by Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy,

Ex.A-2:Pattadar pass book issued in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A-3:Land title deed issued in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A-4:Cist receipts (11 in no.) issued in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A-5:Enquiry Notice dated 2.2.2012 issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal to Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy and three others.

Ex.A-6:Endorsement dated 29.3.2012 in RCB.No.259/12 issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal to Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy and three others.

Ex. A-7:Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 11.4.2011 for fasali 1419 (2009-2010) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal relating to Sy.No.346-C of Koduru Bit-I Village, Part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands,

Ex.A-8:Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 11.4.2011 for fasali year 1419 (2009-2010) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal, relating to Sy.No.332-1A of Koduru Bit-I Village, part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands.

Ex.A-9:Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 11.4.2011 for fasali 1419 (2009-2010) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal, relating to Sy.No.332-1B of Koduru Bit-I Village, part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands,

Ex.A-10:Certified Copy of No.1(B) extract dated 11.4.2011 issued by

17 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal, relating to Sy.No.332-A of Koduru Bit-I Village, part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands,

Ex.A-11:Certified Copy of No.1(B) extract dated 11.4.2011 issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal, relating to Sy.No.332-1B of Koduru Bit-I Village, part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands,

Ex.A-12:Certified Copy of No.1(B) extract dated 11.4.2011 issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Guduru Mandal, relating to Sy.No.346-C of Koduru Bit-I Village, part of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands,

Ex. A-13: Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 12.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to Sy.No.270-AB1 of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of part of Item No.1 of plaint schedule lands, in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A-14:Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 12.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to Sy.No.271-A of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of part of Item No.1 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A-15:Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 12.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to Sy.No.271-C of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of part of Item No.1 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A-16:Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 12.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to Sy.No.272 of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of Item No.1 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A-17:Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 14.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to Sy.No.332-1A of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A-18:Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 14.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to Sy.no.332-1B of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff,

Ex. A-19: Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 14.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to Sy.No.332-2 of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A-20:Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal dated 14.9.2012 for fasali year 1422(2012-2013) issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal relating to Sy.no.346-C of Koduru Bit-I Village in respect of Item No.2 of plaint schedule lands in favour of plaintiff .

Ex.A-21:Certified Copy of 1(B) extract dated 28.12.2017 issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in favour of Pelleti Sukanya.

For Defendants: - NIL-

18 OS .No.235/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Nellore

1 OS .No.233/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Thursday, the Fifth(5 th ) day of July, 2018.

Present:- Sri T.V.Subba Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore

Original Suit No. 233/2012

Varidireddy Ahalya. … Plaintiff.

//Vs.//

1. Gandavarapu Subba Reddy.

2. Gandavarapu Sai Baba Reddy(Died).

3. Gandavarapu Sreenivasulu Reddy

4. Duvvuru Sreenivasulu Reddy ... Defendants.

This suit coming on 3.7.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri N.Sreenivasulu Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Smt G.Seshamma,

Advocate for D-1, D-2 and D-4, subsequently, D-2 died during pendency of suit and Sri Piduru Nageswara Rao, Advocate for D-3, later D-3 remained exparte ; and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, praying the court to grant permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land in whatsoever manner.

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as per the averments of the plaint is that the plaintiff’s father namely Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy had three brothers i.e. defendants 1 to 3 and they have partitioned their properties orally. The said Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy had three daughters and has no male issues. The plaintiff is youngest daughter of Gandavarapu Venkata

Ramana Reddy. The father of plaintiff gifted the plaint schedule property to the

2 OS .No.233/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

plaintiff under Registered Settlement Deed dated 28.10.2010. Recently, the elder sister’s husband of plaintiff namely Lakshmi Narayana Reddy filed a suit in

O.S.133/2011 on the file of Hon’ble V Additional District Judge, Nellore and

another suit in O.S.No.525/2011 filed by plaintiff’s father against first defendant and one Gandavarapu Sanath Kumar Reddy on the file of Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Nellore and the said suits are pending. Due to that, the defendants are

obstructing the plaintiff from cultivating and harvesting the crops. Hence the suit.

3.(I)The 2nd defendant filed written statement, admitting some of the allegations and denying some of the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the father of plaintiff, this defendant and defendants 1 and 3 constituted as undivided Hindu joint family as they inherited Ac.4.67 cents and other properties from their ancestors. As D-2 and D-3 settled at Hyderabad due to their employment, the father of plaintiff namely Venkataramana Reddy and 1st defendant used to look after the properties inherited from their ancestors and the properties purchased from out of the yield of the ancestral properties in the name of Venkata Ramana Reddy, father of plaintiff as Kartha of joint family, being the elder member and the properties thus purchased will become part of joint Family properties. So, he and his other brothers are all in joint and constructive possession of the joint family properties and none can claim exclusive rights over such properties even if any document is created in respect of joint family properties as no rights can devolved under such documents which are invalid and inoperative under the eye of law. As there are disputes in between the husband of plaintiff Lakshminarayana Reddy and the daughter of this defendant

Santhi, situated in Nellore City, the plaintiff and her father created the documents in collusion with other sisters of the plaintiff to take vengeance against D-2.

(ii)The suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable against the co-

3 OS .No.233/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

sharers as no division took place at any point of time as alleged and he is reserving the right to file suit for partition in respect of the joint family properties.

The relief of permanent injunction is an equitable one and the same cannot be granted to a person who approaches the court without clean hands by suppressing the true facts. Further, mere apprehension is not a ground for grant of permanent injunction. The cause of action as pleaded is not true and correct and prays to dismiss the suit with costs as the same is not maintainable.

4.An adoption memo filed by D-1 and D-4, adopting the written statement of D-2 as their written statement.

5.D-3 also filed adoption memo, adopting the written statement of D-2 as his written statement by stating that the father fo plaintiff Gandavarapu

Venkata Ramana Reddy obtained loans in Nellore Agricultural Co-operative bank

Limited in respect of entire family property as Kartha of Hindu undivided joint family property. He along with D-1 and father of plaintiff managed the Hindu undivided joint family properties jointly till the date of death of their mother

Sankaramma in the year 1991.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the court framed the following issues:

1.Whether the suit schedule properties have been in exclusive

possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent

injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

3. To what relief, plaintiff is entitled?

7.During the course of trial, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.A-1 to A-5 were got marked on behalf of plaintiff.

8.Heard the arguments of counsel for plaintiff.

9.During pendency of suit, Sri Piduru Nageswara Rao, Advocate for D.3 reported no instructions for D-3. Hence, D-3 was set exparte. No

4 OS .No.233/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of D-1 and D-4.

10.D-2 died during pendency of the suit. Consequently, memo filed by counsel for plaintiff to the effect that the 2nd defendant in this suit died on 11.10.2014. Since, it is a suit for grant of permanent injunction filed against defendants 1 to 4. There is no need to implead the legal representatives of 2nd defendant. The suit may be continued without impleading the legal representatives of 2nd defendant.

11.Pw.1 is the plaintiff, pw.2 is the daughter of plaintiff.

12.Ex.A-1 is Registration extract of sale deed dt. 29.3.1976 executed by G. Sethurami Reddy in favour of Gandavarapu Venkata

Ramana Reddy, Ex.A-2 is Registered Settlement Deed dt. 28.10.2010 executed by Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy in favour of wife of Pw.1 i.e., plaintiff. ,

Ex.A-3 is Certified Copy of No.3 Adangal issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property for the fasali 1419,

Ex.A-4 is Cist receipt dt. 28.3.2011 issued in favour of Pw.1’s wife i.e., plaintiff and Ex.A-5 is Certified Copy of 1-B extract dated 28.12.2017 issued by

Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal.

13.ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2:

I have taken up together Issue Nos.1 and 2 for my consideration.

14.Pw.1 in his chief-examination on affidavit, reiterated the plaint averments and prayed to grant injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

15.Though, Pw.1 was cross-examined at length by the counsel for defendants, but nothing was elicited in favour of defendants.

16.Pw.2, the younger sister of plaintiff is examined on behalf of plaintiff supported the version of plaintiff in all material aspects. The cross-examination

5 OS .No.233/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

of Pw.2 was not made, though sufficient time granted, thereby, the cross- examination of Pw.2 was treated nil by this court.

17.The evidence on record and Exs.A-1 to A-5 amply proves and establishes that the plaint schedule property was settled on the plaintiff by

Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy in favour of his daughter who is plaintiff who is examined as Pw.2.

18.Since the land under Ex.A-1 Registered Sale Deed is a land cultivated by plaintiff and his mother herein and land revenue receipt under

Ex.A-4 and Ex.A.3 No.3 Adangal filed which shows the possession of plaintiff and its previous owner’s name in pattadar and possessor column over the plaint schedule property. The counsel for plaintiff submitted that since the land is in dispute in court, no adangal stands in the name of plaintiff was issued by

Revenue Department, as the suit is pending in the civil court and thereby, the

Adangals issued stands in the name of donor of plaint schedule land filed by the plaintiff shall be considered as possession of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit.

19.The presumption under Sec.110 of Indian Evidence Act relates to vacat land is ‘possession follows title’. In this suit, Ex.A-1 Registered Sale Deed, the title of the plaintiff namely Ahalya, Wife of V.Janardhan Reddy as owner of the plaint schedule land. Though, the adangal copy stands in the name of plaintiff is not filed by the plaintiff by following the said presumption . But considering

Ex.A-4 tax receipt and Ex.A-3 adangal copy stands in the name of of donor can be considered as possession of plaint schedule land by the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit as of her possession.

20.No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of defendants. On this point, it is also just and relevant to refer and extract a

Judgment in a case between Vidyadhara Rao //vs.// Manikya Reported

6 OS .No.233/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

in 1999(3) ALT page No.1, wherein in it is held --

“Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box

and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be

cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise

that the case set up by him is incorrect”.

Further Sec.114 Illustration (g) of Indian evidence Act that “evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced to be unfavourable to the person who withhold it”.

21. As per the principal laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the above referred Judgment, in the instant suit also, the defendants did not turn up into the witness box to state their own case on oath and did not offer themselves to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the pleas taken up by them is incorrect.

There is no contra material shown by the defendants to show that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties.

22.In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff proved and established that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit with incidental title thereof and accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for. Since, the defendants failed to prove contra to it.

Issue Nos.1 and 2 are decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff and

against defendants.

23.ISSUES NO.3:-

In view of the findings recorded in Issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for.

7 OS .No.233/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

Issue No.3 is decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against

defendants.

24. ISSUES NO.4:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff, restraining the defendants 1,3 and 4 and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property in whatsoever manner.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, after transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 5th day of July, 2018.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

Pw.1: Varidireddy Janardhana Reddy Pw.2: Alluru Aruna

For Defendants: – None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1: Registration extract of sale deed dt. 29.3.1976 executed by G. Sethurami Reddy in favour of Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy,

Ex.A-2: Registered Settlement Deed dt. 28.10.2010 executed by Gandavarapu Venkata Ramana Reddy in favour of wife of Pw.1 i.e., plaintiff ,

Ex.A-3: Certified Copy of Adangal issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal in favour of Pw.1’s wife i.e., plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property for the fasali 1419,

Ex.A-4: Cist receipt dt. 28.3.2011 issued in favour of Pw.1’s wife i.e., plaintiff.

Ex.A-5: Certified Copy of 1-B extract dated 28.12.2017 issued by Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal.

For Defendants: - NIL-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Nellore

8 OS .No.233/2012 dt. 5.7.2018

1 S.C.No. 14/2016 dt.20.7.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE:

NELLORE

(COURT OF SESSION: NELLORE DIVISION: NELLORE)

Friday, the Twentieth(20th) day of July, 2018.

Present: Sri T.V.Subba Rao,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nellore.

SESSIONS CASE No.14/2016

(P.R.C.No.27/2015 of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class court, Nellore, connected to Crime No.247/2015 of V.Satram Police Station, SPSR Nellore District)

Name of the STATE: Sub-Inspector of police, Complainant:V.Satram police station, Nellore.

Name of the Accused:Bellamkonda Govindu, S/o Venkataiah, aged 60 years, Vaddera by Caste, Molakalapudi Vilalge, Venkatachalam Mandal.

Nature of Offence:House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment U/Sec. 451 of IPC; Attempt to rape – punishable under Section 376 r/w 511 I.P.C.;

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:FOUND NOT GUILTY

Sentence or Order: In the result, Accused is FOUND NOT GUILTY for the offences punishable U/Secs.451 and 376 r/w 511 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months time as contemplated U/Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted Smt D.L.Narayanamma, by:Additional Public Prosecutor

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court

NELLORE.

Name of the Defence Sri Veluru Ravi, Counsel:Advocate for accused.

2 S.C.No. 14/2016 dt.20.7.2018 :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, V.Satram Police Station filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section.3451 and 376 r/w 511 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the averments of the charge sheet in brief is as follows:

(I)The place of occurrence is took place at Molakalapudi Village,

Venkatachalam Mandal within the limits of Venkatachalm Mandal.

(ii)That on 17.11.2015 afternoon, Government officials came to

Molakalapudi village and shifted the villagers to Sarvepalli School for shelter regarding floating of flood water in the village. Pw,1, Pw.2 and Lw.2/Valipi

Ankamma and the villagers gone to Sarvepalli. The other witnesses namely

Lw.2/Valipi Ankamma , Pws.4 and 5 and the villagers and accused are staying in the village.

(iii)The accused taking advantage in the absence of Pw.1, Pw.2 and

Lw.2/Valipi Ankamma and the villagers on 17.11.2015 night, the accused trespassed into the house of Lw.2/Valipi Ankamma in an arrogant mood, embarrassed her and attempt to commit rape upon her for his sexual lust.

Then Lw.2/Valipi Ankamma afraid about the attitude of the accused and tried to save her from the hands of accused. The accused grew wild against

Lw.2/Valipi Ankamma, slapped on her cheek and he fallen on the cock. Then, the cock raised cries and Lw.2/Valipi Ankamma also raised cries loudly. On hearing the cries, the neighbours and Pw.5 wake up and came to the house of

Lw.2/Valipi Ankamma. The accused ran away from the place. On 18.11.2015 morning Pw.4 visited the house of Lw.2/Valipi Ankamma for arranging food.

3 S.C.No. 14/2016 dt.20.7.2018

Then Lw.2/Valipi Ankamma informed to Pw.4 about the attitude of the accused and Pw.4 made phone call to Pw.1. Later, Pws.1 to 3 came to village after decrease of flood water and learnt the occurrence through Lw.2/Valipi

Ankamma.

(iv)On the report of Pw.1, Pw.6 registered a case in Cr.No.247/2015 under Sec. 376 r/w 511 of IPC of V.Satram Police Station on 22.11.2015 at 8.30 hours and investigating into. During course of investigation, Pw.6 Head constable visited the scene of offence and examined Pws.1 to 5 and

Lw.2/Valipi Ankamma and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence.

(v)Lw.8/D.Venkteswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of police, V.Satram

Police Station took up investigation done by Pw.6 and found it on correct lines.

During the course of investigation, as per the statements of Pws.1 to 5 and

Lw.2/Valipi Ankamma, Lw.8/Sub-Inspector of police, V.Satram Police Station added section 451 of IPC.

(vi)On 16.12.2015 at 8.30 hours, Lw.8/S.I of police, V.Satram Police

Station arrested accused at Molakalapudi village and sent for remand. In view of investigation, the opinion of the Sub-Inspector of police that there is sufficient material to proceed against accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 376 r/w 511 of IPC. Hence the charge.

3.The learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore took cognizance of the case against accused in P.R.C.No.27/2015.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to him by the said IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class Court, Nellore as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

4 S.C.No. 14/2016 dt.20.7.2018

5.Since the offence punishable U/Sec. 376 r/w 511 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions, Nellore Division for disposal according to law.

6.The Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Nellore Division numbered the case in S.C.No.14/2016 and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law.

7.On appearance of accused before this court and after hearing both sides before charge, a charge U/Sec.451, 376 r/w 511 of IPC was framed against accused, read over and explained to him in telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opened the case and explained the case facts and trial schedule was fixed. Pws.1 to 64 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were got marked on behalf of the prosecution .

9.After closure of evidence of prosecution side, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C in respect of the incriminating material appearing against accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses examined, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the arguments of Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and the counsel for accused.

11.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the

offence punishable U/Sec.451 and 376 r/w 511 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

12.(I)Pw.1 is the defacto-complainant, daughter and victim of

Lw.2/Valipi Ankamma. Pws.2 to 4 are eye witnesses and circumstantial 5 S.C.No. 14/2016 dt.20.7.2018 witnesses. Pw.5 is the scene of offence panchayatdar and pw.6 is the Head

Constable who registered the case, visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence.

(ii)Ex.P-1 is the report of Pw.1 dated 22.11.2015, Exs.P-2 to P-5 are the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of Pws.2 to 5, Ex.P-6 is the First Information

Report in Cr.No.247/2015 of V.Satram Police Station and Ex.P-7 is Rough sketch of scene of offence.

13.POINT:

None of the witnesses including defacto-complainat supported the case of prosecution. Pw.5 one of the panchayatdars of scene of offence is also not supported the case of prosecution. Though, the learned APP with the permission of the court cross-examined Pws.1 to 5 did not not elicit anything in favour of prosecution Further, Pws.1 to 4 gone to the extent that they did not state before police as per their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements under Exs.P-2 to

P-5. In the absence of material witnesses evidence, the evidence of Pw.6, the first Investigating Officer/Head Constable is no way useful to the prosecution case to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him.

Accordingly, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Secs.451 and 376 r/w 511 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is entitled for acquittal.

Point is decided accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

14.In the result, Accused is FOUND NOT GUILTY for the offences punishable U/Secs.451 and 376 r/w 511 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand 6 S.C.No. 14/2016 dt.20.7.2018 cancelled after expiry of six months time as contemplated U/Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 20th day of July, 2018.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NELLORE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:

PW.1:Bandi Arunamma

PW.2:Valipi Seshaiah

PW.3:Bandi Meena

PW.4:Valipi Lakshmamma

Pw.5:Valluru Srihari

PW.6M.Krishnaiah, the then head Constable, V.Satram Police Station.

For Defence: - NIL-

Documents marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-1: Report of Pw.1 dated 22.11.2015,

Ex.P-2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of Pw.2 dt.22.11.2015

Ex.P-3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of Pw.3 dt.22.11.2015

Ex.P-4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of Pw.4 dt.22.11.2015

Ex.P-5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of Pw.5 dt.22.11.2015

Ex.P-6: First Information Report in Cr.No.247/2015 of V.Satram Police Station

dt. 22.11.2015

Ex.P-7: Rough sketch of scene of offence dt.22.11.2015 7 S.C.No. 14/2016 dt.20.7.2018

Material Objects marked:-

-NIL-

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NELLORE.

Copies submitted to:-

1. The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, HYDERABAD, through the Principal District & Sessions Judge, NELLORE.

2. The Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, NELLORE.

Copies to:-

3. The District Collector, NELLORE

4. The Superintendent of Police, NELLORE (Two copies)

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, NELLORE.

6. The IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

7. The Sub-Inspector of police,V.Satram Police Station, SPSR Nellore District.

1 O.S.No. 127/2017 dt. 16.7.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NELLORE

Monday, the Sixteenth(16 th ) day of July, 2018

Present: Sri T.V.Subba Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 127/2017

State Bank of India, Allipuram Branch, Allipuram,

rep., by its Branch Manager. .. Plaintiff

Vs.

1. M/s Sri Venkateswara Self Help Group, Pedda Cherukuru, represented by its President & Secretary, Kantepalli Lakshmi Kantamma & Tateparthi Venkata Ramanamma.

2. Kantepalli Lakshmi Kantamma.

3. Tateparthi Venkata Ramanamma.

4. Cherukuru Sankaramma.

5. Garikapati Sulochanamma

6. Kongi Subbamma

7. Induripalli Padmamma.

8. Pasapalli Vanaja

9. Chatla Bharathi.

10. Kathi Ananthamma

11. Cherukuru Krishnamma. .. Defendants

This suit coming on 12.7.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Srinivasa Murthy. Advocate for Plaintiff and and the defendants 1 to 11 having remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- -

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.3,54,101/- with costs and subsequent interest allegedly due under Inter se Agreement dated 25.10.2007.

2 O.S.No. 127/2017 dt. 16.7.2018

2.(I)The plaintiff is State Bank of India constituted as per the provisions of State Bank of India Act, 1955, having one of its branches at

Allipuram, represented by its Branch Manager, Nellore .

(ii)It is the case of the plaintiff bank that 1st is a Self Help Group under name and style of ‘Sri Venakteswara Self Help Group” consisting of defendants 2 to 11 as its members. The said group was formed with intent to carry on savings and credit and other economic activities for mutual benefit of the members of the said group. 1st defendant represented by defendants 2 to 11 as its members have approached the plaintiff-bank, for grant of loan of

Rs.3,00,000/-, for which, the plaintiff-bank agreed for the same and granted the said loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.10.2007. Defendants 2 to 11 as members of the 1st defendant group have passed a Resolution dated 25.10.2007, authorizing the defendants 2 and 3 to execute all the loan documents on behalf of the group. Plaintiff-bank granted the said loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.10.2007. Defendants 2 and 3 on behalf of 1st defendant group have executed an Inter se Agreement dated 25.10.2007 in favour of the plaintiff- bank and the said Inter se Agreement was signed by all the members of the group. Defendants 2 and 3 on behalf of the 1st defendant group have also executed an Arrangement letter dated 25.10.2007 in favour of plaintiff-bank, undertaking to repay the said amount with interest at 12% p.a. with half yearly rests in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs.5,000/- plus interest commencing from January, 2008. Defendants 2 and 3 have also executed

Articles of Agreement for financing Self Help Groups undertaking to repay the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest.

(iii)The defendants made some part payments acknowledging the debt and thereafter, committed default in payment of the loan amount. The 3 O.S.No. 127/2017 dt. 16.7.2018 defendants 2 and 3 on behalf of the 1st defendant group executed Revival

Letters dated 10.7.2010 and 5.7.2013 in favour of plaintiff-bank, acknowledging the above referred debt, keeping the above debt alive.

(iv)Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff-bank officials, the defendants failed to do so. As such, the plaintiff-bank got issued legal notice dated 22.12.2014 to the defendants calling upon the defendants to pay the amount due under the above referred loan transaction. But the defendants neither sent any reply nor paid the amount due.

(v)An amount of Rs.3,54,101/- is due and payable as on 17.2.2016 as per the statement of account and the plaintiff-bank is entitled to subsequent interest from 18.2.2016. Hence the suit.

(vi)The provisions of Act IV of 1938 and Act 45 of 1987 and Act II of 1990 and Usurious Loans Act are not applicable to the suit debt , since the plaintiff-bank is exempted from its purview and the same is constituted under the State Bank of India Act.

3.As per record, the defendants were set exparte.

4.The chief-affidavit of Pw.1 was filed and got marked Exs.A-1 to

A-8 on behalf of the plaintiff. Ex.A-1 is the Loan Application executed by 1st defendant group represented by defendants 2 to 4 in favour of plaintiff-bank

dated 10.10.2007, Ex.A-2 is Resolution passed by members of 1st defendant

group dated 25.10.2007, Ex.A-3 is Arrangement letter dated 25.10.2007 executed by 1st defendant group represented by defendants 2 to 4, Ex.A-4 is

Inter se Agreement dated 25.10.2007 executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff-bank, Ex.A-5 is Articles of agreement for financing self help groups executed by 1st defendant group represented by defendants 2 to 4, Ex.A-6 is

Revival letter dated 10.7.2010 executed by defendants 2 and 3 on behalf of 1st 4 O.S.No. 127/2017 dt. 16.7.2018 defendant group, Ex.A-7 is Revival letter dated 5.7.2013 executed by defendants 2 and 3 on behalf of 1st defendant and Ex.A-8 is Statement of account.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

6. Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff-bank is entitled for a decree as prayed for?”

7.POINT:- The defendants were set exparte, the Branch Manager of plaintiff-bank was examined as Pw.1 and he reiterated the plaint averments and he was not cross-examined and no witness is examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the defendants.

8. The plaint, unrebuttal and unchallenged evidence of Pw.1 and

Exs.A-1 to A-8 proved and established the suit claim against the defendants.

Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendants as prayed for in the plaint.

Point is hereby answered in favour of plaintiff-bank and against the defendants 1 to 11.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs. 3,54,101/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants 1 to 11 with costs and subsequent interest at 12% p.a., on the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 16th day of July, 2018.

Principal Senior Civil Judge

NELLORE.

5 O.S.No. 127/2017 dt. 16.7.2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

Pw.1: V.Siva Kumar Exparte.

Branch Manager of the plaintiff-bank.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1:Loan Application executed by 1st defendant group represented by defendants 2 to 4 in favour of plaintiff-bank dated 10.10.2007, Ex.A-2:Resolution passed by members of 1st defendant group dated 25.10.2007, Ex.A-3:Arrangement letter dated 25.10.2007 executed by 1st defendant group represented by defendants 2 to 4, Ex.A-4:Inter se Agreement dated 25.10.2007 executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff-bank, Ex.A-5:Articles of agreement for financing self help groups executed by 1st defendant group represented by defendants 2 to 4, Ex.A-6: Revival letter dated 10.7.2010 executed by defendants 2 and 3 on behalf of 1st defendant group, Ex.A-7: Revival letter dated 5.7.2013 executed by defendants 2 and 3 on behalf of 1st defendant and Ex.A-8:Statement of account

For Defendants: – NIL –

Principal Senior Civil Judge

NELLORE

6 O.S.No. 127/2017 dt. 16.7.2018

1 O.S.No.269/2017 dt. 13.7.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NELLORE

Friday, the Thirteenth(13 th ) day of July, 2018.

Present: Sri T.V.Subba Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.269/2017

Boggavarapu Venkata Lakshmi narasimham .. Plaintif

Vs.

Baanaala Venkateswarlu.. Defendant

This suit coming on 11.7.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Phani Ratnam,Advocate for the Plaintif and the defendant having remained exparte and upon hearing counsel for the plaintif, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- -

J U D G M E N T

The plaintif filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of suit amount based on Ex.A-1 suit promissory note dated 28.5.2016 for

Rs.4,00,000/- with costs and subsequent interest.

2.The case of the plaintif is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintif on 27.5.2016 from the plaintif for his necessities and in consideration thereof, he executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintif with his own handwriting in the presence of attestors, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintif or to his order on demand. Inspite of several oral repeated demands and got issued legal notice dated 12.6.2017, the defendant did not repay the amount due under promissory note, though he received notice and sent reply notice dated 21.6.2017. The plaintif sent rejoinder dated 27.6.2017 to the counsel for the defendant and the counsel for the defendant sent reply for the said rejoinder. The defendant 2 O.S.No.269/2017 dt. 13.7.2018 is a business man and he is not eligible for any benefits under Central

Acts of VII of 1977, Act 45 of 1987 and Act II of 1990. Hence the suit.

3.As per record, the defendant was set exparte.

4.The plaintif filed his chief-affidavit as Pw.1 and got marked

Ex.A-1 to A-6. Ex.A-1 is the Original suit promissory note dated 27.5.2016 for Rs.4,00,000/-, Ex.A-2 is Office copy of legal notice dated 12.6.2017,

Ex.A-3 is Served copy of Reply notice dated 21.6.2017, Ex.A-4 is Rejoinder notice of plaintif dated 27.6.2017, Ex.A-5 is Reply notice dt. 29.6.2017 and Ex.A-6 is Postal acknowledgements (3 in number).

5.Heard the plaintif counsel.

6.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendant as prayed for?

7. POINT:

The plaintif as Pw.1 in his chief-examination on affidavit, reiterated the plaint contents stating that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintif on 27.5.2016 from the plaintif for his necessities and in consideration thereof, he executed Ex.A-1 Demand promissory note in favour of plaintif with his own handwriting in the presence of attestors, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintif or to his order on demand. Inspite of several oral repeated demands and got issued Ex.A-2 legal notice dated 12.6.2017, the defendant did not repay the amount due under promissory note, though he received notice under Ex.A-6 Postal acknowledgements and sent Ex.A-3 reply notice dated 21.6.2017. The plaintif sent Ex.A-4 rejoinder dated 27.6.2017 to the counsel for the defendant and the counsel for the defendant sent reply notice dated 29.6.2017 under Ex.A-5 3 O.S.No.269/2017 dt. 13.7.2018 for the said rejoinder and accordingly, , plaintif proved and established that he is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

Accordingly, Point is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.5,25,067/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs and subsequent interest at 12% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 13th day of July, 2018.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Pw.1: B.Venkata Narasimham - Exparte -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1: Original suit promissory note dated 27.5.2016 for Rs.4,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif.

Ex.A-2: Office copy of legal notice dated 12.6.2017.

Ex.A-3: Served copy of Reply notice dated 21.6.2017.

Ex.A-4: Rejoinder notice of plaintif dated 27.6.2017.

Ex.A-5: Reply notice dt. 29.6.2017.

Ex.A-6: Postal acknowledgements (3 in number).

For Defendant: – NIL –

Principal Senior Civil Judge

NELLORE

4 O.S.No.269/2017 dt. 13.7.2018