Sri T.Venkata Subba Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KURNOOL.

Present: Sri T.V.Subba Rao, B.Com, B.L.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Monday the 9th day of April, 2012

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.574/2009

1. M.Munwar Baig.

2. A.Chandramouleeswara Rao.… Plaintiffs.

-Versus-

1. The Sub Registrar, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

2. The Thasildar, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

3. The District Collector, Kurnool. … Defendants.

This suit coming on 30.3.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Ramasubba Reddy and Sri A.Prabhakara Reddy, Advocates for plaintiffs and of Assistant Govt.Pleader for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The suit is filed for declaration of the plaint schedule property as alienable and its alienations are not prohibited to be registered by the first defendant and to grant consequential injunction directing the defendant nos.1 and 2 for deletion of plaint schedule property from the list of the properties prohibited to be registered and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: Originally Ac.3.40 cents in Sy.No.302/1 belonged to Perugu Venkata Ranga Reddy and Vengal

Reddy. Their respective legal heirs partitioned their properties under registered partition deed bearing nO.2553/1963 dt .26.12.1963. As per the said partition deed the legal heirs of Venkata Ranga Reddy got Ac.1.70 cents and the legal heirs of Vengal Reddy got Ac.1.70 cents of plaint schedule property. The legal heirs of Venkata Ranga Reddy allotted the land to Ravindra Reddy, in the partition that took place among them. Similarly the legal heirs of Vengal Reddy allotted their share to Dhanunjaya Reddy, in the partition took place among them. Latter Dhanunjaya Reddy sold the land of Ac.1.70 cents allotted to him to

Ravindra Reddy under registered sale deed bearing no.7101/97 on 2.12.1997.

Thereby Perugu Ravindra Reddy became absolute owner of plaint schedule 2 property. The defendant no.2 issued title over the plaint schedule property.

Defendant nos.2 and 3 entered name of Ravindra Reddy as its absolute owner in the records of rights. Said Ravindra Reddy sold plaint schedule property to

K.G.Govinda Reddy on 20.4.2004 under the registered sale deed bearing

NO.4203/04. Dr.K.G.Govinda Reddy in turn sold plaint schedule property to first plaintiff under registered sale deed bearing No.5667/07 dt.7.4.2007. The first plaintiff and predecessors in title have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule proprty without any obstructions, as of right and to the knowledge of everybody including the defendants since time immemorial. The revenue records of plaint schedule property started with the ancestors of

Ravindra Reddy. Further the defendant nos.2 and 3 are having recognized the rights and title of predecessor in title over plaint schedule property by making necessary changes in the record of rights, cannot take any other plea. The legal principle of estoppel prohibits them from denying the title of first plaintiff and his predecessors in title. The first plaintiff agreed to sell plaint schedule property to the 2nd plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.5,04,000/. Both plaintiffs approached the first defendant for verification of the expenditure involved for registration of the sale deed alienating the plaint schedule property in favour of 2nd plaintiff by first plaintiff in the month of February 2009. The first defendant informed that plaint schedule property is listed as prohibited property for registration. The list of assigned lands, prohibited to be registered is sent by the 2nd defendant to the first defendant under Section 5(1) of A.P. Assigning lands A.P. Prohibition lands 1977 in the month of March, 2007. The act of defendant no.2 in categorizing the plaint schedule property as assigned land and consequent prohibition of registration of alienation is arbitrary, capricious and without any basis. It is an illegal act. It is a private property acquired by the first plaintiff as submitted herein before. It is not an assigned land or government land. The plaintiff got issued legal notice dt.11.4.2009 as required under Section 80 CPC though it was received by all the defendants there is no reply from them. Therefore, the suit is filed to declare that the plaint schedule property is alienable and its alienations are not prohibited to be registered by the first defendant and for consequential 3 deletion of plaint schedule property from the list of the properties prohibited to be registered. The 3rd defendant is impleaded as a representative of the state.

3.D2 filed written statement . A memo was filed by D1 and D3 adopting the written statement of D2.

4.D2 in the written statement denied the material allegations mentioned in the plaint and submitted that the plaint schedule lands falls in the village limits of Dinnedevarapadu village. The Sy.No.302 to an extent o Ac.3.48 cents stands dots ( …. ) in the printed R.S.R. of Dinnedevarapadu village. In the printed R.S.R. each survey number shows pattadar names were recorded in the 16th column. Where the pattadar name was not incorporated in 16th column of printed R.S.R. against the survey number concerned and dots ( ……) are noted that means it is a Govt.land. It is clear the Sy.No.302 to an extent of Ac.3.48 cents is Govt.land. Out of that Ac.0.08 cents was acquired for railway line, the remaining ac.3.40 cents was kept vacant. The ancestors of Perugu Venkata

Ranga Reddy and Vengal Reddy were occupied the land and cultivated. As such their names were recorded in revenue records like Adangal etc., whereas in registered partition deed bearing No.2553/1963 dt.26.12.1963 the suit schedule property was not shown in partition as said by the plaintiffs. So, the suit schedule land is Govt.land occupied by their ancestors. Later it was sold to various people like Ravindra Reddy under sale deed dt.2.12.1997. The said

Perugu Ravindra Reddy sold plaint schedule property to one Dr.K.G.Govinda

Reddy on 20.4.2004 under registered document NO.4203/04. Dr.K.G.Govinda

Reddy in turn sold to the first plaintiff under registered sale deed No.5667/07 dt.7.4.2007. All the above transactions are null and void in the eye of law since one of the vendors have acquired the title over the suit schedule land and in each document the seller and the buyer have agreed and noted in the document itself stating that it is not a Govt.land. Hence, all the transactions are null and void.

It is further submitted that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section 1 of Section 9 of A.P. Assigned lands (POT) Act 1977 as amended by the A.P.Assigned lands (POT) amended Act 2007, vide G.O.Ms.No.208 Rev 4 (ASS.POT) Dept. dt.22.2.2007 the Dist.Collector or the authorized officer not below the rank of MRO/Tahsildar shall furnish the particulars of lands assigned in his jurisdiction in Form no.3 to the Registering Officer concerned with in 45 days from the date of commencement of the Assigned lands (POT) amended Act 2007. Accordingly, the then MRO/Tahsildar sent a list of assigned/Govt.lands vide this office Rc.B.112/2007 dtd.14.3.2007. It is further submitted that the defendant no.2 acted as per rules. The suit schedule land was identified as

Govt.land as per printed R.S.R. of Dinnedevarapadu village which is a most important record and mother record of all the lands. Soon after receiving the instructions from the Dist.Collector as per G.O.Ms.No.208 Rev.(ASS POT) Dept.,

dated 22.2.2007, the then Tahsildar prepared the list of particulars of lands

assigned/Govt.lands and sent to the first defendant for not registering those lands. The particulars were sent to the Sub Registrar, Kurnool basing on the

R.S.R. of Dinnedevarapadu village which is an important record for the lands classification i.e. whether the lands is patta, A.W., Wakf, Endowment,

Poramboke etc., so the suit schedule lands is originally Govt.land as per the printed RSR of Dinnedevarapadu village. There is no cause of action to file the suit. The alleged cause of action invented for the purpose of the suit. Notice under Section 80 of CPC not issued to him by the plaintiffs which is the mandatory provision. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against him with exemplary costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the mandatory injunction as prayed?

3. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, PW1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. DW1 was examined on behalf of the defendants. Exs.A1 to A13 are marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. Exs.B1 to B8 are marked on behalf of the 5 defendants. Heard the arguments of Sri A.Ramasubba Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and Asst.Government Pleader for defendants.

PW1 is the first plaintiff. DW1 is the 2nd defendant. Ex.A1 is

Agreement of sale dt.21.2.2009. Ex.A2 is Registered Sale deed dt. 7.4.2007.

Ex.A3/ Registered Sale deed dt.21.4.2004. Ex.A4 is Registered Sale deed dt.

2.12.1997. Ex.A5 is Xerox copy of Registered Partition deed dt. 26.12.1963.

Ex.A6 is Title deed. Ex.A7 is Patta pass book. Ex.A8 is Certified copy of Page 45 and 258 of Record of holding issued by D1 relating to plaint schedule property.

Ex.A9 is Office copy of legal notice dt.11.4.2009. Exs.A10 to A12 are

Acknowledgment cards. Ex.A13 is Certified copy of Registered Partition deed dt.26.12.1993. Ex.B1 is Attested copy of printed RSR. Ex.B2 is Attested copy of manuscript RSR. Ex.B3 is Attested copy of ROR. Ex.B4 is Attested copy of

Adangal pahani for the fasli 1419. Ex.B5 is Attested copy of G.O.Ms.No.208.

Ex.B6 is Attested copy of Letter Rc.E2/329/2008 dt.16.10.2008. Ex.B7 is Attested copy of letter to Sub-Registrar. Ex.B8 is Attested copy of Assignment land particulars.

7.Before turning to the determination of the issues the admissibility of Ex.A5 Registered partition deed dt.26.12.1993 (Xerox) copy marked subject to objection has to be decided. It is clear to the naked eye that Ex.A5 is Xerox copy of partition deed. Subsequently the plaintiff counsel filed Ex.A13 certified coy of Registered Partition deed dt.26.12.1993 which was marked with consent of the then Asst.Govt.Pleader. Since the certified copy of Registered partition deed is marked under Ex.A13, the admissibility of Ex.A5 xerox copy of partition deed has no much relevancy and further Ex.A5 Xerox copy of partition deed does not fell under the purview of Section 65 of Evidence Act, which is also not denied by the plaintiff counsel. Hence Ex.A5 Xerox copy of partition deed dt.26.12.1993 is not admissible in evidence and Ex.A13 certified copy of paritition deed dt.26.12.1993 which is marked with the consent of both sides is admissible in evidence. The admissibility of Ex.A5 Xerox copy of partition deed dt.26.12.1993 is answered against the plaintiff. Subsequently vide docket 6 orders dt.20.3.12 the plaintiff counsel filed the clear legible typed copy of

Ex.A13 along with a memo after giving notice to Asst.Government Pleader.

8.ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2: I have taken up together the issues 1 and 2 for my consideration.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the plaint schedule property is alienable and its alienations are not prohibited to be registered by D1 and for mandatory injunction to delete the plaint schedule properties from the prohibited list to be registered by D1 and D2. So as to enable the plaintiffs to get it registered, plaintiffs claiming title over the plaint schedule property stating that one Perugu Venkata Ranga Reddy and Vengal

Reddy partitioned their respective properties under Registered Partition deed dt.

26.12.1993 among them the land in Sy.No.302/1 to an extent of Ac.3.40 cents is one of the items. In the partition, the legal heirs of Venkata Ranga Reddy got

Ac.1.70 cents and the legal heirs of Vengal Reddy got Ac.1.70 cents in the plaint schedule property. The legal heirs of Venkata Ranga Reddy allotted the land to Ravindra Reddy in the partition took place among them. Similarly the legal heirs of Vengal Reddy allotted their share to Dhanujaya Reddy in the partition took place among them. Dhanujaya Reddy Reddy sold the land of

Ac.1.70 cents allotted to him to Ravindra Reddy under a Registered sale deed dt.2.12.1997, thereby Perugu Ravindra Reddy became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

9.Defendants 2 and 3 entered the name of Ravinda Reddy as its absolute owner in the Records of Rights. Ravindra Reddy sold plaint schedule property to K.G.Govinda Reddy under Regd. Sale deed dt.20.4.2004 in turn sold the schedule property to first plaintiff under a Regd.sale deed dt.7.4.2007. First plaintiff and predecessors in title have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any obstructions as of a right and to the knowledge of everybody including the defendants since time immemorial. The revenue records of plaint schedule property started with the ancestors of

RAvindra Reddy. Further the defendant nos.2 and 3 are having recognized their 7 right title of predecessors in title over the plaint schedule property by making necessary changes in the record of rights, cannot take any other plea. The legal principle of estoppel prohibits them from denying his title and his predecessors in title. The prayer prayed in the suit is declaring the plaint schedule property as alienable and its alienations are not prohibited to be registered by the first defendant and for mandatory injunction directing D1 and

D2 for deletion of the plaint schedule property from the list of the properties prohibited to be registered.

10.The case of the defendant is total denial of the plaintiff case, defendants are claiming the plaint schedule land is a government ;land pleading the ancestors of Perugu Venkata Ranga Reddy and Vengal Reddy might have occupied the plaint scheudle property and thereby as they in possession and enjoyment of the same their names are entered into adangals etc and revenue records shows their names, it does not confer the right and title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. The sale deeds put-forth by the plaintiffs are void documents. According to defendants as no title owners under them. The defendants are claiming that suit schedule land is in the list of in-alienable lands in D1 Sub-Registrar’s office, it cannot be alienated and registered in favour of the others as it is a government land.

11.The first plaintiff who is examined as PW1 stated in his chief examination on affidavit reiterated the plaint contents. The 2nd defendant who is

MRO, who is examined as Dw1 reiterated the written statement contents. PW1 and DW1 were cross-examined by opposite parties, but nothing was elicited in favour of each of the parties over the plaint schedule property. Plaintiffs have to show their title over the plaint schedule property, it has to be looked into how far the plaintiffs proved that the plaint schedule land is a private land.

12.The defendants contended that the Registered Partition deed in

Ex.A13 does not contain the suit schedule property. But a perusal of Ex.A13 coupled with its legible copy filed by plaintiff shows that the land in Sy.No.302/1 8 pyki admeasuring 1.70 cents was allotted to (1) Perugu Narayanamma(2) Adi

Reddy (3) Seetharami Reddy (4) Ravindra Reddy (5) Rajeswara Reddy (6)

Chandrasekhar Reddy (7) Rajasekhar Redy (8) Lakshmamma, minor guardian mother Perugu Narayanamma (9) Perugu Lakshmidevamma (10)

Dhanunjaya Reddy (11) Seethamma Minor guardian Perugu Lakshmidevamma as legal heirs of Perugu Venkata RAnga Reddy and the said document further shows the land for an extent of Ac.1.70 cents in Sy.No.302/1 was allotted to

Perugu Lakshmi Devamma, Dhanunjaya Reddy and Sithamma. In the suit for declaration of title of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule land the plaintiffs has to show their title over the land including their predecessors in title. The plaintiffs neither filed nor marked the documents relating to the following as mentioned in the para 3 of the plaint. To prove their title, the legal heirs of Perugu Venkata

Ranga Reddy allotted the land to Ravindra Reddy in the partition that took place among them, similarly the legal heirs of Venkgal Reddy allotted their share to

Dhanunjaya Reddy in the partition that took place among them. Later

Dhanunjaya Reddy sold land Ac.1.70 cents allotted to him to Ravindra Reddy under Registered sale deed dt. 2.12.1997. The above documents are crucial documents in order to convey the title to K.G.Govinda Reddy from Ravindra

Reddy. K.G.Govinda Reddy in turn sold the land to first plaintiff and from him to 2nd plaintiff. The documents dt.2.12.2007 executed by Perugu Ranga Reddy in favour of Dhanunjaya Reddy is filed and marked Ex.A4 which show that he sold

Ac.1.70 cents in Sy.No.302/1 stating that he acquired the land from his ancestors. Ex.A3 registered sale deed dt. 20.4.2004 under which K.G.Govinda

Reddy sold 240 cents in Sy.No.302/1 to P.Ravindra Reddy. Ex.A2 is Registered sale deed dt. 7.4.2007 executed by K.G.Govinda Reddy in favour of Munwar

Baig first plaintiff. Ex.a1 is agreement of sale dt.21.2.2009 executed by first plaintiff in favour of 2nd plaintiff relating to the plaint schedule land. The above documents Exs.A2 to A4 and Ex.A13 clearly shows that the plaint schedule land is private land. It is to the first plaintiff and his predecessors in title. Exs.A6 and

A7 also lends support to show that plaint schedule ands is a private land.

9

13.The defendant version is that the plaint schudle land is a government land. The only version of the defendant is in the RSR column NO.16 contains dots (…….) were mentioned which conveys the meaning that the land is a government land. The plaintiff counsel argued no law conveys such a meaning that dots (………) in RSR conveys meaning of ownership. Plaintiff counsel relied upon a judgment on this point reported in 2011(2) ALD 487, wherein in paras 3 to 5 and 7 the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. was pleased to held as under:

The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1.78 cents in Sy.No.174 of the above mentioned village. In support of his claim that he is the owner of the property, the petitioner has filed pattadar pas book and title deeds apart from the extract of record of holding purportedly maintained under B.S.O.No.31. When the petitioner sought to present a sale deed for registration in respect of the above mentioned land, the same was not entertained on the ground that in the list of prohibited lands communicated by respondent nos.1 and 3 to respondent no.4, the entire land of Acs.10.72 cents in Sy.No.174 was shown as assigned land. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent no.3 wherein it is inter alia admitted that pattadar pas book and title deed were issued in favour of the petitioner. It is further averred that the petitioner has obtained the same by misleading the revenue authorities. Respondent no.3 has maintained that the land in Sy.No.174 is classified as ‘Government AW’ in Re-settlement Register (RSR) of 1908 and the pattadar column was kept blank with dots. Except stating that the RSR has described the land as Government AW, no other revenue record has been referred to in the counter-affidavit nor has been produced by the respondents at the time of hearing.

On many occasions, this Court had considered the effect of entry in the RSR. In a recent judgment, which was rendered on the basis of the previous judgments, in WP.No.6016/2010, dated 2.7.2010, this court has held as under:

In the present case, except for stating that entries in the village Account RSR of Doddipalli village indicate the lands in Survey Nos.1969/2, 1972, 1969/1B and 1971 as Government lands, there is no other basis for the revenue authorities to stake a claim over the lands. To the contrary, the evidence on record, being registered transactions dating back to 1942, 1938, 1959 and 1972, as the case may be, clearly negates the unilateral claim of the revenue authorities that this land is Government land. It is of course for the Government to assert and prove its title if it chooses to do so, in a properly constituted proceeding

before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Without

doing so, it is not open to the revenue authorities or the registration authorities to deny persons claiming rights over such land on the basis of mere revenue entries. The action of the respondents in treating the subject land as Government land and the action of the registration authorities in refusing to receive and register documents in respect of this land is therefore unsustainable in law.” 10

I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. In view of the settled legal position that mere entry in RSR will not constitute proof of title and in the absence of any other revenue record showing the land as Government land, it cannot be said that there is a dispute regarding title. At any rate, mere registration of a conveyance deed does not create title in the transferre. If the Government feels that the property belongs to it, it can always avail appropriate remedy to assert its title and claim the property. Mere registration of the sale deed would not come in the way of the Government in asserting its right and availing appropriate remedy.

14.In the above referred judgments when the writ petitioner claimed to be the owner of the land, respondents who pleaded that the land is assigned waste land. In the RSR there are dots (…….). Accordingly there is assigned waste land, but they admitted they issued pattadar pass book and title deeds to the petitioner. The Government has not filed any other document to show their right, title and possession, except relying upon dots in the RSR, which cannot be basis to decide the title of the respondent. The High Court has not accepted the version of the government and has not supported the contentions of the respondents, directed Sub Registrar to entertain the sale deed and registered the same. As the government failed to show that the land claiming under the properties of the list of prohibited lands communicated by District Collector and

Tahsildar is Govt.land. The same case here as the defendants have not shown any other proof except relying upon the dots (…….) in the RSR. They also admits that they issued pattadar pass book and title deed. Defendants in the written statement itself admitted that the predecessors of Perugu Venkata

Ranga Reddy and Vengal Reddy occupied the land and their legal heirs might have sold it. When the defendants admitting the same the presumption is vendees including the plaintiffs must to be in possession of the plaint schedule land to the knowledge of the defendants and all others. The plaintiff counsel argued under Rules of 1977 under A.P. Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfer)

Act of 1977, Rule 3 prescribes certain procedure for eviction and for taking possession of alleged assigned lands. The Rule is mandatory. It is says that

Authorised Officer shall issue a notice in Form-I to the person who acquired any assigned land in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act. In this case, no such notice was served on the plaintiffs or any members of their 11 families and the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs of their family members. In the absence of it alleged taking of possession is if any illegal and in the absence of it the possession of the defendant over the land is claimed is not tenable. The

Title deed pass books referred above clearly shows the title and possession of the Ramachandra Reddy the vendor of the first plaintiff who is predecessors in title of the plaint schedule property to the first plaintiff. In the absence of compliance of Rule 3 referred above the possession of D2 and D3 over the land in question cannot be accepted. When the Rule 3 is not complied and when the possession of plaintiffs and their predecessors in title is admitted court have no alternative except to grant injunction in their favour. On this point relevant judgment is reported in 1996(1) ALT page 209, wherein the Hon’ble A.P. High

Court was pleased to held that even in case of assigned lands, even if the

Mandal Revenue Officer pleads that he resumed the land, even if it is found that the purchaser is in possession, as found in this case by the Commissioner’s

Report and by injunction order, the plaintiffs are entitled for injunction. Another judgment on this point reported in 2006(5) ALT, page 23, wherein the case of the defendants is that the suit lands are assigned lands and the assignment was with a condition not to alienate. Mere plea that the suit land is assigned land with a condition of non alienation, will not help the defendants unless the defendants prove actual assignment with non alienation condition by way of record. Here in this suit no record filed by the defendant to show that the suit land is government land except relying upon dots (…….) in RSR which are no basis to prove title of the government over the suit land. The judgment referred above which were relied upon by the plaintiff counsel reported in 2011 (2) ALD page 487 is applicable to the case on hand. Hence, followed. The plaintiffs proved and established that the suit land is a private land and alienable.

Whereas the defendants failed to prove that it is an assigned waste land and it is not alienable. Hence, plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for. Defendants failed to prove contra to it. Issue nos.1 and 2 are decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants .

12

15.ISSUE NO.3: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring the plaint schedule property as alienable and its alienations are not prohibited to be registered by the first defendant and further granting consequential mandatory injunction directing D1 and D2 for deletion of plaint schedule properties from the list of properties prohibited to be registered.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 9 th day of April, 2012.

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Kurnool. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs:For Defendants: PW1 M.Munwar Baig.DW1 D.Hussain Saheb. Exhibits marked For Plaintiffs: Ex.A1/ Agreement of sale dt.21.2.2009. Ex.A2/ Registered Sale deed dt. 7.4.2007. Ex.A3/ Registered Sale deed dt.21.4.2004. Ex.A4/ Registered Sale deed dt. 2.12.1997. Ex.A5/ Registered Partition deed dt. 26.12.1963. Ex.A6/ Title deed. Ex.A7/ Patta pass book. Ex.A8/ Certified copy of Page 45 and 258 of Record of holding issued by D1 relating to plaint schedule property. Ex.A9/ Office copy of legal notice dt.11.4.2009. Exs.A10 to A12/ Acknowledgment cards. Ex.A13/ Certified copy of Registered Partition deed dt.26.12.1993.

For Defendants:

Ex.B1/ Attested copy of printed RSR. Ex.B2/ Attested copy of manuscript RSR. Ex.B3/ Attested copy of ROR. Ex.B4/ Attested copy of Adangal pahani for the fasli 1419. Ex.B5/ Attested copy of G.O.Ms.No.208. Ex.B6/ Attested copy of Letter Rc.E2/329/2008 dt.16.10.2008. Ex.B7/ Attested copy of letter to Sub-Registrar. Ex.B8/ Attested copy of Assignment land particulars.

13

ASCJ, KNL.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: KURNOOL.

Present: Sri T.V.Subba Rao, B.Com., B.L., Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool

Friday the 13th day of April, 2012

SESSIONS CASE NO.342/2010

Name of the Accused1. Balaji Kotte Raghava Rao @ Raghu, S/o.Late Kotte Kondappa, age 30 years.

2. Balija Laxmidevi W/o.Late Kotte Kondappa, 65 years.

3. Balija Sailaja Kumari @ Kumari D/o.Late Kotte Kondappa, 35 years.

4. Balija Kotte Obulapathi S/o.Late Kondappa, 40 years.

All are Owk town.

ChargesU/Sec. 498-A of IPC against A1 to A4, U/sec.307 of IPC against A1 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu.

Plea of the AccusedThey pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty.

Sentence or OrderA1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and A1 is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.307 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/S.235(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The un-marked property shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Name of the Police Dhone Town P.S. in Cr.No.31/2010 Station and Crime Number

The case on behalf of the prosecution was conducted by

Smt.R.M.Sampath Kumari, Additional Public Prosecutor and the accused were defended by Sri A.Venkata Reddy and Sri S.Govardhan Reddy , Advocates.

This case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone and numbered as P.R.C.No.27/2010. The learned Magistrate committed the same to Sessions Division, Kurnool. In turn, the Hon’ble District and Sessions

Judge, Kurnool numbered it as S.C.No.342/2010 and made over the case to this

Court for disposal according to law.

2

This case coming on 4.4.12 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Smt.R.M.Sampath Kumari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri A.Venkata Reddy and Sri S.Govardhan Reddy, Advocates for accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The S.I. of Police, Dhone Town police station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.31/2010 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC.

Balija Kotte Raghava Rao @ Raghu is A1 hereinafter called as A1, Balija

Laxmidevi is A2 hereinafter called as A2, Balija Sailaja Kumari @ Kumari is A3 hereinafter called as A3, Balija Kotte Obulapathi is A4 hereinafter called as A4.

Balija Sadanagari Radhika is PW1 hereinafter called as PW1, Balija Sadanagiri

Anasuyamma is PW2 hereinafter called as PW2, Balija Narasimhulu is PW3 hereinafter called as PW3, Kamma Nara Kambaiah is PW4 hereinafter called as

PW4. B.Peddaiah, ASI of Dhone town is PW5 hereinafter called as Pw5.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Pw1 is resident of

Kothapeta, Dhone town. Her parents have five daughters among them she is fourth one. About 5 years ago i.e. on 20.8.2004 PW1 was given in marriage with

A1 of Owk town and their marriage was performed at Mahanandi as per their caste and customs in the presence of elders. During the marriage, the cash of

Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the accused towards dowry. After the marriage Pw1 went to owk for marital life with A1. A1 is working as a private teacher at the village. After one month of their marriage, Pw1 and her husband A1 were lived happily. After that A1 started harassing Pw1 physically and mentally due to reason of she is ugly. PW1 was also harassing by her mother-in-law (A2) and her sister-in-law (A3) who residing beside her house in Owk town, due to she was not working properly in the house. On the instigation of A2 to A4, A1 used to harassing the Pw1 by beating and saying that he will make second marriage as she is ugly. The same was informed to her mother-Pw2 who made panchayat with the knowing persons i.e. PWs.3 and 4, but the accused were continuously 3 harassing Pw1. Due to their constant harassment, about two months ago the

Pw1 returned to her parental house i.e. Dhone. Many times PW1 requests to her husband –A1 over a phone that to take her with him to Owk for marital life. On 18.2.2010 at about 1 800 hours A1 went to her house in Dhone town, Pw2 requested A1 to take her daughter with him and looking after her well. At about 2130 hours when Pw1 and A1 were at the bed room, A1 picked up quarrel with

PW1 on the reason that she is ugly and has no issues and allow him to make second marriage. Then PW1 rejected his demand, on that her husband/A1 saying that he will see her end and so saying, he made an attempt on her life by tightening with sari around her neck, then PW1 touched the doors due t o suffocation. On hearing the door sound, PW2 went into the room. On seeing that A1 leaved her and went away outside of the house. On 19.2.10 at 1100 hours PW1 presented a report to PW5 who registered a case in Dhone town P.S.

as Cr.No.31/10 U/s.498-A and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into the case.

A1 and A2 were arrested by PW5 on 6.3.10 and sent them to remand. Hence A1 to A4 have committed an offence and they are liable to be punished U/sec.498-A and 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Dhone took cognizance

U/Secs.498-A and 307 of IPC against the accused. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division, Kurnool as the offence

U/Sec.307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions Division. In turn the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

4.After appearance of the accused before this court and on hearing charges U/Sec.498-A of IPC against A1 t o A4 and U/Sec.307 of IPC against A1, were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked on behalf of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was 4 examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, for which A1 to A4 denied the same and reported no defence, but Ex.D1 was got marked on behalf of the accused.

6.Heard the arguments of learned Addl.Public Prosecutor and accused counsel.

7.The points for determination are:

1. “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

2. “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 for the offence punishable U/Sec.307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

3. To what relief?

8.PW1 is the victim and defacto complainant and wife of A1, Pw2 is the mother of PW1, PWs.3 and 4 are persons who said to be conducted panchayat. PW5 is the then ASI of Police, who registered the case and investigated into the case, arrested A1 and A2.

PWs.1 to 5 have stated in their evidence as stated hereunder:

9.PW1 has stated that she is resident of Dhone, KVS Colony, they are five daughters to her parents and she is the fourth daughter to her parents.

A1 Raghava Rao @ Raghu is her husband, Laxmidevi (A2) is the mother of A1,

A3 Sailaja KUmari is the elder sister of her husband, A4 Obulapathi is elder brother of A1. She studied X class, her marriage with A1 was arranged and performed by both side elders in Mahanandi on 20.8.2005 as per caste and customs and rites. A1 to A4 belongs to Owk village. She reached the matrimonial aboard of A1 after marriage. At the time of her marriage her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- to her in-laws. After marriage she lead marital life with A1. . She stated that in her house she, A1 and her mother-in-law were residing together. After marriage for about one month, her husband looked after her properly. Thereafter her husband started beating her used to harass, stating that she did not beget children and she is not a beauty. A2 to A4 also harassed and ill-treated her. Her mother-in-law A2 ill-treating her stating she 5 does not know how to attending the household work. A4 used to beat her. She stated that A3 is residing beside their house and instigated A1 and A2, A1 to

A4 ill-treated her. .A4 is a private employee and residing near to their house. A1 to A4 harassed her and sent her to her parents house. On 18.2.2010 her husband (A1) came to her parents house at about 9.30 pm . In the bed room her husband (A1) with the scrap of her wearing sari tried to kill her by rounding it and tightening it her neck. She raised hue and cries and thrown away her husband and came outside. A1 intended to kill her with an intention to marry again and attempted to murder her. She further stated that as it was late in the night time, she went to P.S. on 19.2.10 along with her mother and she gave written complaint Ex.P1 to police, which bears her signature. She further stated that when she was giving complaint S.I. and other police were present in P.S., police examined her and her mother and other witnesses.

10. PW2 has stated that her husband died about 11 years back, she got five daughters, PW1 is her fourth daughter, PW1 was given in marriage to

A1 belongs to Owk on 20.8.2005 and gave Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry to the in-laws of PW1. After marriage PW1 and you A1 lived in Owk. A1 looked after

PW1 properly for about a month after marriage. Subsequently you A1 used beat, ill-treat PW1 stating that she was not a beauty. A2 to A4 also used to beat PW1 stating that she is not a beauty. A1 brought PW1 to her house and dropped at her house inspite of her requests. A1 and A2 did not willing to take PW1 to the aboard of A1, a panchayat was conducted to pacify the matter, Narasimhulu,

Kambaiah, she and Ramakrishna Reddy who is her brother-i-law, PW1 and A1 to

A4 attended the panchayat, after panchayat they took PW1 to the house and after three months again A1 dropped Pw1 at her house . They sent a word to A1 to take Pw1. Then A1 on 18.2.10 at about 3.00 p.m came to their house and agreed to take PW1 in the same night after taking meals. She asked him to take her in the next day morning as it was late night. Both went into the bed room at about 8.30 p.m., she was lying in the hall of house, she heard the noise of doors of bed room, she went into the bed room, PW1 informed her that A1 rounded the scarf of her wearing sari and tightening it to her neck intending to 6 kill her. On seeing her A1 went outside of the bed room, if she failed to go into the bed room, A1 would have kill PW1. Though it was late night, same night they went to P.S. police take the complaint and asked them to come on the next day, police examined her and her daughter.

11.PW3 has stated that he is resident of Mettupalli village. He does not know PWs.1 and 2, he knows A1 to A4 who belongs to Owk. He does not know the marriage particulars and matrimonial life of Pw1. He does not know anything about the case. He was not attended any panchayat. Police did not examine him.

12.PW5 has stated that he is resident of Owk village. He knows PW2

Anasuyamma and her daughter RAdhika PW1. He does not know about the marriage details of Radhika with A1. He know A1 to A4. He does not know how

Radhika and A1 lead marital wife after their marriage. He has not conducted any panchayats in between A1 to A4. He does not know whether PW1 gave police report against A1 to A4. Police did not examine him.

13. PW5, who previously worked as ASI of Dhone Town P.S., has stated that on 19.2.10 when he was on station duty at 10.00 a.m. Balija Sadanagari Radhika –PW1 came to P.S. and gave written complaint containing the contents as mentioned in Ex.P1 shown to him. Basing on the said complaint he registered a case in Cr.No.31/10 U/secs.498-A and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and submitted FIR Ex.P4 to all concerned. He examined and recorded the statement of complainant

RAdhika PW1 in P.S. On 20.2.10 at about 9.00 a.m. he visited the scene of offence situated in the bed room in the house belongs to mother of PW1 which is behinds to Sriram Talkies. In the scene of offence he examined and recorded the statement of Anasuyamma, therefrom he went to Owk and searched for accused, but they were not available in the house. In the Owk he examined

Balija Nali Narasimhulu and recorded his statement. There from he visited

Mettupalli village and there he examined Kamma Nara Kambaiah and recorded his statement. On 6.3.10 he arrested A1 and A2 in Dhone new bus-stand at 7 about 4.20 p.m. and brought them to P.S. with the assistance of lady P.C.. After completion of legal formalities with assistance of lady constable, he sent them to remand. He learnt you A3 and A4 obtained anticipatory bail. He handed over for further investigation to S.I. of Police. After completion of investigation S.I.

filed charge sheet, PWs. 3 and 4 stated before him as Exs.P2 and P3.

14.PW1 is the victim and defacto complainant and wife of A1, Pw2 is the mother of PW1, PWs.3 and 4 are persons who said to be conducted panchayat. PW5 is the then ASI of Police, who registered the case and investigated into the case, arrested A1 and A2.

Ex.P1 is the complaint of PW1 dt.19.2.10, Exs.P2 and P3 are 161 cr.P.C. statements of PWs.3 and 4. Ex.P4 is FIR. Ex.D1 is relevant portion in 161

Cr.P.C. statement of Pw1.

15.It is not in dispute that Pw1 is the wife of a1, A2 is the mother of A1 and mother-in-law of Pw1, A3 is daughter of A2 and sister of A1, A4 is son of A2 and brother of A1.

I have taken up together the point nos.1 and 2 for my consideration.

The case of prosecution is that the marriage of PW1 was performed with A1 in Mahanandi at about 5 years back on 28.2.2004 and immediately the said marriage in between A1 and Pw1 was consummated and Pw1 was leading marital life with A1 in the house of A1 in Owk, there A1 to A4 used to illtreat and harassed Pw1 and panchayat was held to that effect and as per the terms of the panchayat A1 took PW1 to Owk again started ill-treating and PW1 turn to her parents house in Dhone. On 18.2.10 a1 came to her in-laws house in Dhone and in the night at about 9.30 pm in the bed room A1 tried to kill Pw1 by rounding and tightening with scarf of sari of PW1 t o her neck, she escaped and gave report to police by going to police station along with her mother. PWs.1 to 5 stated in their evidence as above. The accused counsel contention is there are no independent witnesses supported to the case of the prosecution, though the prosecution story is that a panchayat was held in the presence of 8 panchayatdars, the alleged panchayatdars cited and examined as PWs.3 and 4 did not support to the case of the prosecution. They did not say they conducted any panchayat. In the cross-examination by Addl.P.P. they gone to the extent they did not state before police as per their 161 Cr.P.C. statements and thereby the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are daughter and mother and interested witnesses in the case remains on record. As they are the interested witnesses their evidence can be scrutinized before consideration. The prosecution attributing against A1 to A4 that A1 to A4 that A1 to A4 harassed Pw1 physically and mentally on the ground that she is ugly and not attending the domestic works. The relevant portion of the chief examination of PW1 is extracted hereunder which reads thus:

“I lead marital life with A1, in her house myself, A1 and my mother-in-law were residing together, after marriage for about a month, my husband looked after me properly. Thereafter my husband started bearing me used to harass, stating that I did not beget children and I am not beauty. A2 to A4 also harassed and ill-treated me, my mother-in-law A2 ill-treating me stating that I do not know how to attend house hold work, but I know house hold work. A4 used to beat me, A3 is residing beside our house. A3 instigated A1 and A2, A1 and A3 ill-treated me. A4 is residing near to our house, who is a private employee. A1 to

A4 harassed me and sent me to my parents house.”

The above version of PW1 in the chief examination itself goes to show that A3 and A4 are residing separately and A1 and A2 along with PW1 were residing under the same roof at the relevant time. The version of PW1 is that A3 instigated A1 and A2 and A1 to A4 ill-treated her and A4 used to beat her.

16.The accused counsel argument is the Investigating Officer has not examined and cited the neighbours of the house of A1 in Owk, in the absence of any independent witnesses near to the house of A1 in the owk, it is difficult to rely upon sole testimony of PW1. Regarding the alleged ill-treatment attributed by Pw1 against A1 to A4. The version of accused counsel is total denial of prosecution case.

9

17.In the cross-examination PW1 admitted that my marital life with A1 was arranged through one Narasimhulu, Owk. The house of A1 where we lived after marriage is own house of my in-laws . I resided with A1 in Telugugeri,

Owk, A4 is resident of Turakageri, Owk. It is true the marriage of A3 was performed prior to my marriage and she was given in marriage in Bhupanapadu village of Panyam Mandal. I know in-laws of A3 having properties in

Bhupanapadiu village. As per the own version of Pw1 refereed above in the cross-examination Pw1 admitted before marriage A1 and his family members came to her house to see me and after their satisfaction only A1 married me.

When the marriage of Pw1 and A1 is an arranged marriage there may not be in question raised by A1 ill-treating PW1 on the ground that she is not beauty, normally as argued by the accused counsel, unless some positive proof is put- forth by the prosecution in that regard. Hence, the version of Pw1 that a1 ill- treated PW1 on the ground she is not beauty cannot be accepted. The other ground put-forth by Pw1 for ill-treatment is she does not know the domestic work, though she knows the same is formal in nature. Except the evidence of

PW1, there is no other evidence in this regard also. In the opinion of this court even assuming that the said version of PW1 is corrected to the extent that PW1 was ill-treated by A2 on the ground of not knowing the domestic work whether it fell under the purview of 498-A of IPC or not, is a million dollar question.

Normallyifanydaughter-in-lawofany house does not know the domestic work, the in-laws may ask her to learn the work, it does not mean that daughter-in-law is harassed by in-laws.

18.PW2 is not an eyewitness to any of the charges leveled against A1 to A4. Hence her evidence do not lends support to the evidence of Pw1 to prove the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt. There are several material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of pWs.1 and 2 when compare to each other. In the cross-examination, PW1 stated I informed about the harassment of accused to one Narasimhulu, Krishnakumar my elder brother by courtesy. They both conveyed panchayat. I was not attended the panchayat and thereby I do not know what was happened in the panchayat. The witness 10 again says I do not know whether a panchayat was conducted or not and who attended the panchayat. I gave Ex.P1 complaint in Owk P.S. I have not given any complaint from the date of marriage to the date of Ex.P1. But I have given only Ex.P1 complaint. I did not state on the said date the bed room was bolted from inside. Due to attempt of A1 to kill me I suffered suffocation. I did not state

before police or in the complaint on hearing my cries my mother did not opened

the door and came inside of the bed room. I did not state before police as in

Ex.D1 relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. As per Ex.D1 “due to suffocation Pw1 knocked the bed room doors and her mother PW2 came inside of the bed room”. She denied that she did not state the same before police.

Even assuming that PW1 stated the same before police. She admitted in the cross-examination of Pw1 that the bed room doors were bolted inside when her husband tried to kill her. If it is so without removing the bolt from inside simply knocking of the doors from inside of the bed room do not facilitate the mother of

PW1 who is PW2 to come inside of the bed room. Hence, it is difficult to believe the version of PWs.1 and 2 in this regard. It appears PWs.1 and 2 woven up the story against A1 for the reasons best known to them. PW2 stated a panchayat was conducted to pacify the matter by Narasimhulu and Kambaiah and

Ramachandra Reddy who is her brother-in-law, PW1 and A1 to A4 were attended the panchayat, but PW1 stated that she was not attended the panchayat. The version of PWs.1 and 2 is not tallying with each other regarding the names of the panchayatdars and the persons who attended the panchayat.

Further PW1 admitted she was ill-treating since after one month of marriage with A1, but she has not given any report to police till the date of Ex.P1. Though 5 years period elapsed from the date of marriage normally no fool can wait for 5 years if in-laws and husband are harassing without giving any complaint. It also raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. PW1 stated in her evidence that she gave complaint in Owk police station. But she is saying on the other hand her husband tried to kill her in her mother’s house bed room in Dhone. Accused counsel argued when Ex.P1 complaint was given in Owk police station as admitted by PW1, how it came to the Dhone police station, as PW5 stated he received Ex.P1 complaint from PW1 and registered it. There is self 11 contradictory evidence of PW1 regarding giving of complaint. Hence, a cloud casts on the prosecution case in view of the above reason. In view of the above discussion, this court does not inspire confidence to rely upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses, as a cloud casts on the case of prosecution. The benefit arises thereunder goes in favour of the accused. Accordingly the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A1 to A4 for the offence punishable U/s.498-A of

IPC and A1 is for the offence punishable U/s.307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

19.In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and A1 is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.307 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/S.235(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The un-marked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 13 th day of April, 2012.

Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution: PW1: Balija Sadanagari Radhika, W/o.Balija Raghava Rao. PW2: Balija Sadanagari Anasuyamma, W/o.Late Chalapathi. PW3: Kamma Nara Kambaiah, S/o.Nara Chennaiah. PW4: Balija Nali Narasimhulu, S/o.Balija Kambagiri. PW5: B.Peddaiah, ASI of Police.

For Defence: None. Exhibits marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1/ Complaint of Pw1 dt.19.2.10. Ex.P2/ U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P3/ U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW42 Ex.P4/ FIR in Cr.No.31/ 2010 of Dhone Town P.S.

For Defence:

Ex.D1/ Relevant portion in U/s.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

A.A.S.J,. KNL. Copies submitted to: 1.The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, through the Principal Sessions

Judge, Kurnool.

2. The Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

12

3. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool.

4. Copy to the Director of Prosecution, D.G.P., Complex, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

5. Copy to the Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Dhone.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KURNOOL.

Present: Sri T.V.Subba Rao, B.Com, B.L.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Friday the 13th day of April, 2012

E.P.366/2011 IN O.S.7/2009

G.Kondal Rao.… Petitioner/D.hr.

-Versus- S.Devakrupamma.… Respondent/Jdr.

This petition coming on 12.4.12 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Srinivasan, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Mohan Babu, Advocate for respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following:

ORDER

1.The decree holder filed E.P. against J.Dr U/o.21 R.22 CPC and Rule 242 of Civil Rules of Practice to send for the amount of Rs.1,13,206/- from CCD to this E.P.

2.The D.hr filed affidavit along with the petition which contains the following averments: He filed the suit for recovery of amount from the defendant. After enquiry the suit was decreed on 2.7.2009. At the time of filing of the suiut, he filed a petition for attachment of earned leave salary of the J.dr in IA.16/2009. The attachment warrant was served on the drawing officer of the defendant and officer sent the attachment amount of Rs.1,13,306/- to the court which is in CCD. He filed a cheque petition and same was returned to file at execution side. Hence, he filed E.P. for send for the attached amount from original suit to the E.P. side.

3.On appearance J.Dr filed counter U/o.21 R.22 CPC stage with the following averments: It is humbly submitted that the E.P. is not maintainable against him. The amount is excessive to attachment earned leave salary of the

J.dr. It is further submitted that the amount shows in E.P. schedule is excessive.

It is further submitted that D.hr has obtained the exparte decree without having knowledge of the J.Dr. Hence the decree cannot be enforceable in law. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.During the course of enquiry, both sides did not let in any oral or documentary evidence U/o.21 R.22 CPC stage. Heard the arguments of both side counsels.

5.Points for consideration are:

1. Whether the E.P. filed U/o.21 R.22 CPC stage is liable to be allowed?

2. To what relief?

6.The objection raised in the counter is the amount shown in the E.P.

schedule is excessive and the decree holder obtained an exparte decree and decree cannot be enforceable in law. There is no law prohibiting enforcement exparte decree. There is no difference in between the contested decree and an exparte decree in enforcement as per law. The J.Dr has not shown how the amount is claimed is excessive. However, though the total amount of

Rs.1,13,206/- is send for the petitioner/DHr is only entitled to the extent of due amount as per law. Hence, there are no tenable objections in the counter at this stage U/o.21 R.22 CPC stage. Hence the counter contents are over ruled. E.P.

U/o.21 R.22 CPC stage is liable to be allowed.

7.In the result, E.P. is allowed with costs U/o.21 R.22 CPC stage. Send for the amount of Rs.1,13,206/- from CCD to this E.P. on payment of process.

Call on 6.6.12.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 13 th day of April, 2012.

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Kurnool.

Appendix of evidence -Nil.-

ASCJ, KNL.