T.Venkateswara Reddy
II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Warangal
Warangal, PDJ Court Complex · Warangal · Telangana
Based on 11 recent ordersT.Venkateswara Reddy, II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Warangal, is posted at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana, India. 11 court orders on record since 2018. 6 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, AS, MVOP cases.
Featured Judgments
1 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
IN THE COURT OF VII-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT ::
WARANGAL
PRESENT: Sri T. VENKATESHWARA REDDY,
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.
FAC VII-ADDL.DIST.JUDGE,
WARANGAL
MONDAY THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
APPEAL SUIT NO.118 OF 2007
AND
APPEAL SUIT NO.102 OF 2007
Appeal Suit No. 118 Of 2007
Between:-
Smt Anumala Venkat Laxmi, W/o.Late Sri A.Rajaiah, Age.69 Years, Occu. House hold,R/o.H.No.2-9-228/H, Waddepally, Hanamkonda.
(DIED FOR L.R)
Enabotula Vanamala, W/o.Shiva Kumar, Aged about 52 Years, Occu.Household, R/o.H.No.3-3-303, Enugulagadda, Hanamkonda, warangal District. The L.R of deceased appellant is added as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.vide C.R.P.No.2431 of 2010 dated 23.9.2010
…Appellant/Defendant
A n d
Anumala Seena Sagar, S/o.Chandraiah, (Falsely described plaint as S/o.A.Rajaiah) Age.35 Years, Occu.Contractor, R/o.# 2-9-228, Waddepally, Hanamkonda. … Respondent/Plaintiff
Appeal presented under Order 41, Rule-1 of C.P.C r/w. Sec.96
C.P.C
Aggrieved by Judgment and Decree dated : 04.06.2007 in
O.S.No.1026/2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Warangal
Between:-
Anumala Seena Sagar,S/o.A.Rajaiah, Aged.28 Years, Occu.Student, R/o.H.No.2-9-228/H, Waddepally, Hanamkonda.
…Plaintiff
A n d 2 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) 1.Anumala Rajaiah, S/o.Nagaiah, Aged.77 Years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2/336/2, Old Corresponding to New No.2-9-228/H, Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.
2.A.Venkatalaxmi, W/o.A.Rajaiah, Aged.69 Years, Occu.House hold, R/o.H.No.2-9-228/H, Waddepally, Hanamkonda
(amended as per Orders in I.A.No.631 of 2002 dated 12.4.2002)
…Defendants
Appeal Suit No. 102 Of 2007
Between:-
Smt Anumala Venkat Laxmi, W/o.Late Sri A.Rajaiah, Age.69 Years, Occu. House hold,R/o.H.No.2-9-228/H, Waddepally, Hanamkonda.
(DIED FOR L.R)
Enabotula Vanamala, W/o.Shiva Kumar, Aged about 52 Years, Occu.Household, R/o.H.No.3-3-303, Enugulagadda, Hanamkonda, warangal District. The L.R of deceased appellant is added as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.vide C.R.P.No.2419 of 2010 dated 23.9.2010
…Appellant/Plaintiff
A n d
1. Anumala Seena Sagar, S/o.Chandraiah, Age.29 Years, Occu.Business,
2. Anumala Chandraiah, S/o.Nagaiah, Age.70 Years, Occu.Agriculture, 3.Anumala Laxmi, W/o.Chandraiah, Age.60 Years, Occu.Household.
All r/o.H.No.2-10-86, Waddepally vilalge, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District.
… Respondents/Defendants
Appeal presented under Order 41, Rule-1 of C.P.C r/w.Sec.96 C.P.C
Aggrieved by Judgment and Decree dated : 04.06.2007 in
O.S.No.739/1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Warangal
Between:- 1.Anumala Rajaiah, S/o.Nagaiah, Aged.75 Years, Occu.Agriculture, 3 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
R/o.H.No.2-10-85, Waddepally, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District.
2.Anumala Venkatalaxmi, W/o.A.Rajaiah, Age.60 Years, Occu.House hold, R/o.H.No.2-10-85, Waddepally village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal
…Plaintiffs
A n d 1.Anumala Seena Sagar, S/o.Chandraiah, (Falsely described plaint as S/o.A.Rajaiah) Age.65 Years, Occu.Contractor, R/o.# 2-10-125, Waddepally, Hanamkonda.
2.Anumala Chandraiah, S/o.Late Nagaiah,Age.70 Years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-10-86, Waddepally 3.Anumala Laxmi, W/o.A.Chandraiah, Age.60 Years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-10-86, Waddepally …Defendants
These appeal suits are coming before me on 24.8.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.V.Vidyadhara Raju, Advocate for the
Appellants in both the suits and Sri P.Ram Gopal Rao, Advocate for the Respondents in both the suits and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and material records of lower Court and hearing the arguments of the said advocates and the matter is having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:
:: COMMON JUDGMENT ::
APPEAL SUIT NO.118 OF 2007:-
1.This Appeal Suit is as directed against the judgment and decree
dated 04.06.2007 in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Warangal wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and
separate possession of plaintiff's 3/4th share in A and B of plaint schedule mentioned property has been decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree the defendant preferred the Appeal Suit No.118 of 2007.
2.The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 on the file of Principal Junior 4 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
Civil Judge, Warangal. For the sake of convenience the parties are herein
after referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.1026 of 2000.
3.During the pendency of O.S.No.1026 of 2000 on the file of
Principal Junior Civil ;Judge, Warangal the sole defendant in the said suit
expired and on that the wife of the deceased defendant is impleaded as defendant No.2 as per orders in I.A.No.631 of 2002 dated 12.4.2002.
4.The case of the plaintiff as seen from the averments made in the plaint is to the following effect:-
The plaintiff is the adopted son of the defendant. The defendant No.1 has no issues and the defendant No.1 approached the natural parents of the plaintiff by name Anumala Chandraiah and Laxmi along with common relatives for adoption of the plaintiff who is the third son of Anumala Chandraiah. The defendant No.1 is the brother of
Anumala Chandraiah. When the plaintiff was aged about two years, in the year 1972 as per the customs prevailing in the community in the presence of the relatives and family friends, the plaintiff was given in adoption to the defendants, after simple ceremony of giving and taking. Since then the defendants brought up the plaintiff as their son. The defendant No.1 got admitted the plaintiff in school and in the school record the name of the defendant No.1 is recorded as father of the plaintiff. The defendants executed a registered adoption deed on 24.4.1986. As per the terms and conditions of adoption deed the plaintiff has right of succession and inheritance to the properties of the defendant No.1. As the plaintiff did not agree for the marriage of a girl as per the choice of the defendants the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants became strained.
The defendants threatened that they will dis inherit the plaintiff to their property. Hence the suit for partition of the plaint schedule mentioned property.
5 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
5.The defendant No.1 filed the written statement alleging that the marriage of the defendant No.1 took place about 50 to 60 years with the defendant No.2 and they have no issues. Chandraiah is the father of the plaintiff and is the younger brother of defendant No.1. The father of the plaintiff and his family members used to visit the house of the defendants. Durgaiah is the elder brother of defendant No.1 and his children also used to visit the house of defendant No.1. Chandraiah used to take the assistance of the defendant No.1 for family necessities now and then. Chandraiah and his sons about 15 years back represented that they need loans to run business ventures for their livelihood and for that purpose they required a registered instrument evidencing the settlement of family properties and the documents shall be executed by defendant
No.1 and his wife for the satisfaction of the banks and financial institutions which advance loan. By representing the same, the family members of the plaintiff took the defendants 1 & 2 to the Registration Office prepared the document. The contents of the document were not explained to the defendants by any of the family members and the officials. The defendants are illiterate persons. The defendants put their thumb impressions on the documents believing that it is the partition deed. The defendants never suspected any ill-desire on the part of the family members of the plaintiff. In the first week of June, 1998 in the wedding invitation of the plaintiff it is mentioned that the plaintiff is the adopted son of the defendant No.1 and the invitation cards were issued by the
Chandraiah and by noticing the same the defendants questioned the plaintiff and his family members. The plaintiff and his family members did not reply anything and they stated that they got a registered adoption deed said to be executed by the defendants. On 10.6.1998 the plaintiff produced a photo copy of alleged registered document and by knowing the contents of the same the defendants shocked and surprised and they 6 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) came to know that the alleged document is not Deed of Settlement of
Partition but it is the Deed of Adoption containing the recitals of the adoption of the plaintiff. The defendants have no desire or intention to execute any Adoption deed adopting the plaintiff. At the time of execution of the document the plaintiff and his family members represented that the document is a Deed of Settlement of Partition. The plaintiff and his family members deliberately playing fraud on the defendants. The defendant and his wife had no intention to adopt the plaintiff or any children of
Chandraiah. No ceremony was took place and there was no adoption of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not the adoptive son of the defendant and has no connection with the family of the defendant. The plaintiff has no status of adoptive son of the defendant. The defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.739 of 1998 on the file of II-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal for cancellation of a Registered Adoption deed. The plaintiff with the help of his parents created school record and the adoption deed. The plaintiff never resided with the defendant at any point of time and the plaintiff never look after the welfare of the defendant. The defendant not owned and possessed only landed property mentioned in the plaint schedule. The defendant sold land in Sy.No.422 to Kumari Enubothula Amshmumati in the year 1985 and sold an extent of Ac.0.04 gts in the same survey number to
Kumari Veeramalla Vasudha in the year 1985. The defendant No.1 sold
Ac.0.04 gts of lland in Sy.No.423 and 621 to Vijayalaxmi w/o.Vishwanadha
Raju. The defendant No.1 sold an extent of Ac.0.16 gts of land in
Sy.No.868 to Edla Prabhakar in the year 1997. Enubottula Vanamala has been looking after the defendant since long time. Vanamala and her husband and children have been assisting the defendant in all matters. As the defendants treated Vanamala as their daughter and brought up her from her child hood, the defendant No.1 executed a will in the year 1999 bequeathing some of the remaining properties infavour of defendant No.2.
7 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
An extent of Ac.0.30 gts of land in Sy.No.631 of Waddepally is not included for any schedule in the suit property. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit for partition. The plaintiff is residing in the house of his parents at Waddepally from the beginning. The plaintiff never resided along with the defendant.
6. On the above pleadings the following issues and additional issues are settled for trial by the Trial Court.
1. Whether the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule
properties are joint family properties of the
plaintiff and the defendant ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ½ share
in the suit schedule properties as prayed
for ?
3. To what relief ?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE DATED 10.10.2006 IN OS.1026 OF 2010
“Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of the defendants”
AS.NO.102 OF 2017
This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2007 in O.S.No.739 of 1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Warangal wherein the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of Registered
Adoption Deed dated 24.4.1986 as null and void and for the cancellation of the same has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiffs preferred the Appeal Suit No.102 of 2007.
7.The appellants herein are the plaintiffs. The respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.739 of 1998 on the file of Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. For the sake of convenience the parties are herein after referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.739 of 1998.
8.The case of the plaintiffs as seen from the averments made in the plaint is to the following effect:- 8 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
The plaintiff No.1 is the husband of the plaintiff No.2. In the first week of June, 1998 the plaintiffs noted the wedding invitation of the defendant No.1 and it is mentioned in the same that the defendant No.1 is the adoptive son of the plaintiff No.1. On that the plaintiffs questioned the defendants and the defendants stated that they got a Registered Adoption
Deed executed by the plaintiff and they also furnished photo copy of registered document. After that the plaintiffs came to know that the same is not a Deed of Settlement of Partition and it is a Deed of Adoption. The plaintiffs have no desire to adopt the defendant No.1. By playing fraud and misrepresentation on the plaintiffs the defendants obtained the alleged adoption deed. No adoption took place at any time and no function was taken place with regard to the adoption. The defendant
No.1 is not the adoptive son of the plaintiffs and under a fraudulent deed the defendant No.1 claiming status of adoptive son of the plaintiffs. Since the alleged deed was obtained by playing fraud and mis-representation by the defendants on the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the said deed.
9.The defendants 2 & 3 filed the written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint which are not specifically admitted by the defendants 2 & 3 in the written statement field by them. The defendants alleged that the defendant No.1 filed a suit for partition in
O.S.No.1026 of 2000 and the contents in the said suit may be read as part
and parcel of the written statement. The defendant No.1 was brought and educated by the plaintiff, the school records are also to the effect that the defendant No.1 is the adoptive son of the plaintiff. The troubles started when the defendant No.1 did not agree to marry a girl as per the choice of the plaintiffs. No fraud was played by the defendants in obtaining the
Adoption Deed.
9 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
10. On the above pleadings the following issued are settled for trial by the Trial Court.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
cancellation of adoption deed registered as
Document No.101/86 dated 24.12.1986
before Joint Sub-Registrar ?
2. To what relief ?
11.In O.S.No.1026 of 2000 on 10.10.2006 the following additional issue was framed by the Trial Court :
“Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of the
defendant?”
12.The plaintiff in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 is the defendant No.1 in
O.S.No.739 of 1998.
13.The defendants in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 are the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.739 of 1998.
14.The suit in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 and the suit in O.S.No.739 of 1998 are clubbed for joint trial and common evidence for both the suits is recorded in O.S.No.1026 of 2000.
15.For the sake of convenience and inorder to avoid confusion the parties are herein after referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.1026 of 2000.
16.During the course of common trial before Trial Court the plaintiff in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 got examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked
Exs.A.1 to A.20.
17.PW.1 is the plaintiff. PW.2 mother of the plaintiff. PW.3 is the brother of the plaintiff. PW.4 is attestor to Ex.A.3 Adoption Deed. PWs.5 & 6 are residents of Waddepally.
18. Ex.A.1 is legal notice, dated 12.5.1998, Ex.A.2 is Postal receipt, Ex.A.3 is Certified copy of Adoption Deed, dated 24.4.1986, Ex.A.4 is memorandum of marks of SSC of A.Seenasagar, Ex.A5 is Study 10 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) certificate, Ex.A.6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1976-77,
Ex.A.7 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1977-78, Ex.A.8 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1978-79, Ex.A.8 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1980-81, Ex.A.9 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1981-82, Ex.A.10 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1982-83,
Ex.A.11 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1983-84, Ex.A.12 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1984-85, Ex.A.13 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1985-86, Ex.A.14 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1986-87, Ex.A.15 is reply notice. Ex.A.17 is photograph along with negatives, Ex.A.18 is voters list for the year 1994, Ex.A.19 is the voters identity card issued by Election Commission, Ex.A.20 is Employment
Card Registration No.VI/1987/04965, dated 6.9.1987.
19.On the other hand the defendants in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 got examined DW.1 and DW.2 and got marked Exs.B.1 and B.2.
20.DW.1 is the defendant No.2. DW.2 is resident of Waddepally.
21.Ex.B.1 is attested copy of Special Officer of UCCA, Ex.B.2 is
Caveat No.34 of 1998 on the file of Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
22.Considering the arguments submitted by both side counsel and considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by both side counsel, the Trial Court under impugned common judgment dismissed the suit in O.S.No.739 of 1998 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.1026 of 2000.
Aggrieved by the said common judgment the defendants in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 preferred A.S.No.118 of 2007 and aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.739 of 1998 the un-successful plaintiffs in the said suit preferred A.S.No.102 of 2007.
23.Both the Appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 and O.S.No.739 of 1998.
Therefore, both the Appeals are disposed off under a common judgment.
11 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
24.The plaintiff in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 filed suit against defendant No.1 initially for partition of the suit property alleging that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendant No.1. During the pendency of the said suit the defendant No.1 expired and the wife of the deceased defendant is impleaded as defendant No.2 in O.S.No.1026 of 2000. During the pendency of A.S.No.118 of 2007 which is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 the appellants expired and during the pendency of the Appeal Suits on that the legal representatives of the deceased appellant is added as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court in
C.R.P.No.2431 of 1990 datd 23.9.2010. Thus the original defendants in
O.S.No.1026 of 2000 are expired and the legal representative of the
original defendants in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 is prosecuting the A.S.No.118 of 2007.
25.Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.738 of 1998 the un-successful plaintiff in the said suit preferred A.S.No.102 of 2007.
During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff No.1 expired and the suit is prosecuted by the plaintiff No.2 who is the wife of the plaintiff No.1. During the pendency of A.S.No.102 of 2007 the appellant who is the plaintiff No.2 in the suit expired and the legal representative of the deceased appellant is impleaded as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in CRP No.2419 of 2010 dated 23.9.2010.
26.Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsel.
27.Apart from submitting the oral arguments both side counsel filed the written arguments.
28. Perused the written arguments filed by both side counsel.
29.Now the points that arise for determination in A.S.No.118 of 2007 are:
1. Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of the defendants?
12 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for partition of the plaint
schedule mentioned property ?
3. Whether the impugned judgment
in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 is
sustainable on facts and law ?
4. To what relief ?
30.Now the points that arise for determination in A.S.No.102 of 2007 are:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
the cancellation of Registered
Adoption Deed dated 24.4.1986?
2. Whether the impugned judgment
and decree in O.S.No.739 of 1998
are sustainable on law and facts ?
3. To what relief ?
31.POINTS 1 & 2 IN AS.NO.118 OF 2007 AND POINT NO.1 IN
AS.NO.102 OF 2007 : For the sake of convenience while deciding these
points the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in
O.S.No.1026 of 2000.
32.The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit property alleging that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants 1 & 2.
33.The defendant No.1 is the husband of the defendant No.2.
Plaintiff is the son of the brother of the defendant No.1. The defendants 1 & 2 had no issues. As on today the defendants 1 & 2 are not alive. The legal representatives of the defendants 1 & 2 claiming suit property under alleged Will Deed. The defendants contended that as per the recitals in
Ex.A.1 notice the plaintiff was taken into adoption by the defendants when the plaintiff was five years old. In the plaint it is pleaded that the adoption was took place in the year 1972. Exs.A.4 and A.5 shows that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 28.12.1970. From this what is stated in Ex.A.1 appears to be false. When the adoption took place in the year 1972, the age of the plaintiff must be two years at the time of alleged adoption. But 13 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) in Ex.A.5 notice it is mentioned that the plaintiff was 05 years old as on the date of the alleged adoption. Thus there is discrepancy with regard to the date of adoption. Ex.A.3 is certified copy of Registered Adoption Deed
dated 24.4.1986. As seen from the recitals in Ex.A.3 it is not mentioned
that the boy was handed over by the natural parents to the adoptive parents. In Ex.A.4 it is mentioned that the alleged adoption took place in the year 1972. Ex.A.5 Study Certificate shows that the plaintiff was admitted in school on 19.6.1976 and studied upto 19.6.1981. As per
Ex.A.1 the date of alleged adoption was when the plaintiff was five years old. When that being the case how the name of the defendant No.1 will be mentioned in Ex.A.5. These circumstances suggest that the alleged adoption pleaded by the plaintiff in the year 1972 appears to be false. The further contention of the defendants is that if Ex.A.3 and A.5 are genuine documents, the alleged adoption of the year 1972 appears to be false. If the contents of Ex.A.1 is taken into consideration, Ex.A.4 and A.5 will appears to be false. With this the the defendants submitted that Ex.A.3 and A.5 are not helpful to the case of the plaintiff. The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff stated that the defendant No.1 got admitted the plaintiff into school. The defendants denied the same. The plaintiff did not take any steps to call for the Admission Register of the
School to establish that Rajaiah got admitted the plaintiff into school.
Exs.A.4 and A.5 are not sufficient to prove the adoption of the plaintiff.
The Trial Court gave much weightage to Ex.A.3 ignoring the Ex.A.1 recital and discrepancy with regard to year of the adoption. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of Registered Adoption Deed. There is no pleading about the original of Ex.A.3. In Ex.A.3 it is stated that from the date of execution of the deed the plaintiff is treated as adoptive son. Ex.A.3 is dated 24.4.1986. As on the date of Ex.A.3 the plaintiff was sixteen years old.
The Trial Court came to wrong conclusion and the appreciation of Trial 14 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
Court on the contents of Ex.A.3 is against to the Law. It is not mentioned in Ex.A.3 that the contents of Ex.A.3 are readover and explained to the defendants at the time of execution of Ex.A.3. The defendants 1 and 2 are illiterate persons. There is every possibility of creating the alleged
Registered Adoption Deed by keeping the defendants in dark. The suit of the plaintiff without asking the declaration that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendant is bad. The defendant No.1 alienated the property to third parties and as such the suit is not maintainable and Court Fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct. The plaintiff has not filed the original
Registered Adoption Deed and as such the plaintiff is not entitled the benefit of presumption under Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is not supporting the factum of adoption and the same is clearly observed by the Trial Court under impugned judgment. There is no pleading about the date and month of the adoption and due execution of Ex.A.3 is not proved. The defendants further submitted that there is no evidence that giving and taking ceremony was performed. There is a discrepancy with regard to the year of the adoption and mere filing of Ex.A.3 is not sufficient to prove the factum of adoption. With this the defendants submitted that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendant.
34.The defendants relied on the following decisions in support of their contention.
(1)Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshman
Singh Kothari, vs Smt Rup Kanwar, Respondent reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1378.
In the above decision their Lord Ships held that “giving and
receiving are absolute necessary to the validity of an adoption”.
15 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) (2)Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pandurang
Shankar Shivankar vs Muktabai and others reported in 2014 (4)
CCC 146 (Bombay)
In the above decision their Lordships held that “When adoption would
displace the natural succession of property, the evidence on
adoption should be free from all suspicion of fraud And it should
be so consistent and probable that it leaves no occasion for
doubting the adoption. (reliance is placed on (Kishori Lal v.
Mt.Chaltibai).
(3)Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Gangavva and others v.Ningavva and others reported in AIR 2008 (NOC) 2214 (Karnataka) wherein his Lord Ships held that “The
registered document evidencing adoption should be produced
before the Court”
35.The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant filed
O.S.No.739 of 1998 for cancellation of the original of Ex.A.3 on the ground
that the same was obtained by playing fraud on the defendants. The defendants failed to establish that the original of Ex.A.3 was obtained by playing fraud by the family members of the plaintiff and hence it is to be held that the defendants executed original of Ex.A.3 confirming the earlier adoption. Since the execution of Ex.A.3 is proved the contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants is to be accepted. There is an endorsement of the Sub-Registrar in registered document to the effect that the contents of the document are original explained to the executant. Under this circumstance the contention of the defendants that the original of Ex.A.3 was obtained on the pretext that the partition deed is required for the purpose of obtaining loan cannot be accepted. The defendants have not placed any legal evidence to show that the defendant No.1 alienated the property and as such this sit is not 16 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) bad for non-joinder of the alleged purchaser of the property. Ex.A.18 is of the year 1994 voters list, Ex.A.19 is voter identity card of the plaintiff,
Ex.A.20 is employment registration. In Exs.A.18 to A.20 the names of the defendant No.1 is mentioned as father of the plaintiff. Exs.A.17 to A.20 supports the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendant. The defendants are challenging Ex.A.3 almost more than 12 years of execution of Ex.A.3 and as such the very suit of the defendant in O.S.No.739 of 1998 is barred by the period of limitation. From the oral testimony of DW.1 and 2 it cannot be said that the original of Ex.A.3 was obtained by playing fraud on the defendants. The plaintiff relied on the following decisions in support of the contention of the plaintiff that from
Ex.A.3 the plaintiff has established that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants (1)Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in
Mst.Pratapi and others v.Balkishan and another reported in AIR 1998 Madhya Pradesh 125 in the above decision his Lord ships held that the “The presumption contemplated under S.16 has a very wide sweep in that it mandates that when an adoption is evidenced by a registered instrument, the court has to presume the validity of the adoption in all respects envisaging that the adoption shall be deemed to have been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act.” (2)Decision of High Court of Allahabad in Yashodanand v.Smt
Bisheshwari Devi and another reported in AIR 1981 NOC 27. Inthe above decision their Lord Ships held that Non-examination of natural father of person given in adoption would not affect the proof of adoption, when two eye witnesses deposed about the ceremony and rites of adoption.
(3)Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Nagpur in Nilkanth Rao v.Guna Bai reported in A.I.R.1926 Nagpur 482. In the above decision 17 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) their Lord ships held that Registration endorsement in a document complete proof that the document was readover to the testator and understood and admitted by him.
(4)Decision of Hon'ble High of Madhya Pradesh in Mst
Jhunkaribahu alias Katrawali w/o.Laxmiprasad and another
v.Phoolchand alias Manikchand Chhotelal Jain and other reported in
AIR 1958 Madhya Pradesh 261. In the above decision their Lord Ships held that There is an endorsement on it by the sub-registrar that its execution was admitted by Kodulal. This is an act performed by him in official capacity and it should be presumed that he would not make such an endorsement unless the execution was admitted before him by the testator.
(5)Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Misri Lal and another v.Bhagwati Prasa reported in AIR 1955 Allahabad 573.
In the above decision their Lordships held that the Registrar's certificate is evidence of admission of execution by the executant and that itself is evidence admissible to prove the due execution of the document. The question whether it is sufficient evidence must depend upon the circumstances. In the case before us there is no other evidence either way and there is nothing whatever in the surrounding circumstances to arouse suspicion. In my judgment thew award must be held to have been proved.
36.Perused the decision relied on by the plaintiff and the defendants.
37.The defendant No.1 is the husband of the defendant No.2. The contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants and the plaintiff was given in adoption in the year 1972. The defendants executed registered deed on 24.4.1986 confirming the earlier adoption and Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of the said deed.
18 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
38.On the other hand the contention of the defendants is that the original of Ex.A.3 was obtained by the parents of the plaintiff by playing fraud and mis-representation on the defendants and by mis-representing that the deed of partition of the properties is required for obtaining loan.
The defendants 1 & 2 herein filed O.S.No.739 of 1998 for cancellation of original of Ex.A.3.
39.The defendant No.1, Anumala Durgaiah, Anumala Ramswamy and Anumala Chandraiah are brothers. The plaintiff is the natural son of
Anumala Chandraiah. The defendants 1 & 2 had no issues. The defendant
No.1 is the husband of the defendant No.2. There is no dispute with regard to the partition of the property among the defendant No.1 and his three brothers.
40.All the above facts are not in dispute.
41.The defendants 1 & 2 who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.739 of 1998 are expired and are no more. E.Vanamala was brought on record as a legal representative of the deceased defendants in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 and the deceased plaintiffs in O.S.No.739 of 1998 on the allegation that the defendant No.2 executed a registered Will dated 4.1.2007 bequeathing the suit properties on E.Vanamala. After impleading the
E.Vanamala as the legal representative of the deceased defendants in
O.S.No.1026 of 2000 and deceased plaintiffs in O.S.No.739 of 1998, the
said E.Venugopal has not taken any steps for amendment of original pleading and has not placed any legal evidence to substantiate her contention that the deceased defendant No.2 bequeathed the suit properties to E.Vanamala under registered Will dated 4.1.2007. Under this circumstance it is held that there is no legal evidence before the Court to show that E.Vanamala is having legal right to prosecute the Appeal Suits.
The Court comes to this conclusion for the reasons that E.Vanamala has not taken any step for consequential amendment of the pleadings and has 19 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) not placed any evidence to prove his right over the suit property and to prove the alleged Will Deed. Thus both the Appeals are bad for the above reason. It is necessary for Vanamala who came on record as legal representative of the deceased appellants in both the appeals to prove her right over the property. A person who impleads as a party in the capacity of legal representative of the deceased in the proceedings, it is necessary for the said party to prove his or her right over the suit property after coming on record in proceedings as legal representative of the deceased.
42.The defendants are challenging the original of Ex.A.3 by filing
O.S.No.739 of 1998 after a lapse of more than 12 years of execution of
Ex.A.3. The defendants are not disputing the execution of Ex.A.3. The contention of the defendants is that Ex.A.3 was obtained on the pretext that partition deed is required for obtaining loan.
43.The Court perused the evidence of DW.1. The evidence of
DW.1 is to the effect that the defendant No.1 and his brother separated 10 years after the marriage of DW.1. From this it can be safely presumed that there was partition of the property among the defendant No.1 and his brothers much prior to Ex.A.3. Under this circumstance the very explanation of the defendants that they executed Ex.A.3 believing that they are executing partition deed appears improbable. When there was partition much earlier to Ex.A.3 the contention of the defendants that they executed Ex.A.3 on the pretext that the partition deed is required for the father of the plaintiff for obtaining loan cannot be believed and the said explanation appears to be not reasonable explanation for the reason that for execution of partition deed DW.1 and PW.2 need not require to sign on the document. PW.2 and DW.1 are also parties to Ex.A.3.
44.Since the defendants are alleging that the original of Ex.A.3 was obtained by playing fraud and mis-representation the burden is on the defendants to prove the same. The very explanation of the defendant 20 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) that they executed original of Ex.A.3 by believing the words of father of the plaintiff that a partition deed is required for obtaining loan is not accepted by the Court, the only alternative before the Court is to come to a conclusion that the defendants executed Ex.A.3 confirming earlier adoption of plaintiff by them. Apart from this the oral evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 is not sufficient to prove that the original of Ex.A.3 was obtained by playing fraud on the defendants. When the defendants are not disputing the execution of the document and when the defendants failed to establish that the document was obtained by playing fraud on the defendant, the non filing of original of Ex.A.3 is no way helpful to the case of the defendants. Since Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of registered document the same can be relied on. If at all the defendants have executed Ex.A.3 by believing the words of the father of the plaintiff, all the brothers are to be made to the parties to the document and there is no necessity for defendant No.2 to execute a deed of partition. This circumstance also made the Court to dis-believe the contention of the defendants that Ex.A.3 was obtained by playing fraud on the defendants.
45.The Court perused the contents of Ex.A.3. Entire contents of the document are to be taken into consideration in order to know the intention of the parties in execution of the document and the intention of the parties for which the document is executed. Therefore entire contents of Ex.A.3 are to be taken into consideration to know the intention of the parties. As seen from the contents of Ex.A.3 it is clear that Ex.A.3 is executed confirming the earlier adoption of the year 1972 and no adoption is effected under Ex.A.3. Therefore the contention of the defendants that as on the date of Ex.A.3 the plaintiff was 16 years old and as such the very adoption is void is not accepted. Since the Court comes to a conclusion that the defendants executed Ex.A.3, the discrepancy pointed out by the defendants with regard to the year of adoption mentioned in Ex.A.3 and in 21 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) legal notice Ex.A.1 and age of the plaintiff mentioned in Ex.A.1 is not helpful to the case of the defendants.
46.Apart from this under Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act there is a presumption to the registered deed that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act.
Since Ex.A.3 is a registered document and due execution of Ex.A.3 is proved by examining PW.4 who is attestor to Ex.A.3, from Ex.A.3 it can be presumed that the adoption of the plaintiff by the defendants was made in compliance with the provision of the Act. The oral testimony of Dws.1 and 2 is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the plaintiff under
Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Since the document is registered it can be safely said that the defendants executed
Ex.A.3 by knowing the contents of Ex.A.3. The above findings of the Court are fortified by the above mentioned decisions relied on by the plaintiff.
The very circumstances that the natural mother of the plaintiff and wife of the defendant No.1 are not necessary for execution of a partition deed made the Court to dis-believe the contention of the defendants that they executed Ex.A.3 under the impression that it is the deed of partition of the property.
47.The very contents of the document clearly proved that the plaintiff was given in adoption during the year 1972 and thus giving and taking of adoptive son is proved from the very contents of Ex.A.3. Ex.A.5 is study certificate. In Ex.A.5 it is mentioned that the defendants No.1 is the father of the plaintiff. Ex.A.4 is S.S.C marks certificate of the plaintiff
dated 6.6.1985. Ex.A.18 is voters list of the year 1994. Ex.A.19 is voter
Identity Card. Ex.A.20 is the Employment Registration Card dated 6.9.1992. in Ex.A.4, A.5, A.18 to A.20 the name of the defendant No.1 is mentioned as father of the plaintiff.
22 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
48.From the oral testimony of Dws.1 and 2 it can be said that
Ex.A.18 to A.20 and Exs.A.4 and A.5 are created documents for the purpose of the suit. Since Ex.A.4 is much prior to the date of the suit, at any point of time it cannot be said that Ex.A.4 is a created document. The very circumstance of mentioning the name of the defendant No.1 as father of the plaintiff in the above said documents support the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants 1 & 2. Since
Ex.B.1 is not a certified copy, the same cannot be relied on. In view of the above all reasons it is held that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants 1 & 2 and the defendants executed original of Ex.A.3 by knowing the contents of the same. Since the Court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the due execution of Ex.A.3 by the defendants and registration of Ex.A.3 the presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act is infavour of the plaintiff that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act.
Apart from the said presumption there are Ex.A.4, A.5, A.2, A.18 to A.20 show that the name of the defendant No.1 is mentioned as father of the plaintiff in the said documents and this circumstance strengthens the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants.
Ex.A.17 photograph with negative is to the effect that the plaintiff is performing the last rites of the defendant No.1.
49.In the present case the court comes to a conclusion that the defendants executed registered document that is original of Ex.A.3 confirming the adoption of the plaintiff and Ex.A.17 to A.20, Ex.A.4, Ex.A.5 support the adoption of the plaintiff by the defendants and the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is also to the effect that plaintiff is given in adoption to the defendants. Under these circumstances the decisions relied on by the defendants mentioned above are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
23 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
50.In view of above all reasons it is held that the plaintiff has established that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants. Since the court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit property. The trial Court comes to a correct conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for 3/4th share in the suit property and the court finds no reason to disturb the finding of the trial court on this aspect.
51.In view of above all reasons, it is held that the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.739 of 1998 failed to establish that the father of the plaintiff No.1
herein obtained original of Ex.A.3 registered adoption deed by playing fraud and mis-representation on the plaintiffs in O.S.No.739 of 1998 who are the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S.No.1026 of 2000. Since the court comes to a conclusion that the original of Ex.A.3 registered document is true and genuine and the same was executed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 herein by knowing that they are executing a deed confirming the adoption of the plaintiff by the defendants No.1 and 2, the original of
Ex.A.3 cannot be canceled as prayed for by the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 739 of 1998.
52.In view of above all reasons, points 1 and 2 in A.S.No.118/2007 are decided against the appellant and point No.1 in A.S.No.102/2007 is decided against the appellant.
53.POINT NO.3 IN A.S.NO.118/2007: In view of my findings on point Nos. 1 and 2, it is held that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court against which the present appeal suit i.e., A.S.No. 118/2007 is preferred, is sustainable on law and facts and this court finds no reason to disturb the findings arrived by the trial court under impugned judgment and this point is answered against the appellant.
24 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
54.POINT NO.2 IN A.S.NO.102/2007: In view of my findings on point No. 1, it is held that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court against which the present appeal suit i.e., A.S.No. 102/2007 is preferred, is sustainable on law and facts and this court finds no reason to disturb the findings arrived by the trial court under impugned judgment and this point is answered against the appellant.
55.POINT NO.4 IN A.S.NO.118/2007: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2 the appeal suit in A.S.No.118 of 2007 is to be dismissed.
56.POINT NO.3 IN A.S.NO.102/2007: In view of my findings on point Nos. 1 to 3 the appeal suit in A.S.No.102 of 2007 is to be dismissed.
57.IN THE RESULT: Appeal Suit No.118/2007 and Appeal Suit No.
102/2007 are dismissed. Consequently common judgment and decree in
O.S.No.1026/2000 and O.S.No.739/1998 dated: 04.06.2007 on the file of
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal are hereby confirmed. In the
circumstances of the case, the parties to the Appeal Suit No.118/2007 and
Appeal Suit No. 102/2007 are directed to bear their own costs involved in these appeal suits.
(Dictated to Stenographer Gr.1, after his transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of September,2018)
Sd/-
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.
FAC VII-ADDL.DIST.JUDGE,
WARANGAL
:Appendix of Evidence:
Witnesses Examined
--NIL--
Sd/-
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.
FAC VII-ADDL.DIST.JUDGE,
WARANGAL
1 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
IN THE COURT OF VII-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT ::
WARANGAL
PRESENT: Sri T. VENKATESHWARA REDDY,
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.
FAC VIII-ADDL.DIST.JUDGE,
WARANGAL
MONDAY THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
APPEAL SUIT NO.118 OF 2007
AND
APPEAL SUIT NO.102 OF 2007
Appeal Suit No. 118 Of 2007
Between:-
Smt Anumala Venkat Laxmi, W/o.Late Sri A.Rajaiah, Age.69 Years, Occu. House hold,R/o.H.No.2-9-228/H, Waddepally, Hanamkonda.
(DIED FOR L.R)
Enabotula Vanamala, W/o.Shiva Kumar, Aged about 52 Years, Occu.Household, R/o.H.No.3-3-303, Enugulagadda, Hanamkonda, warangal District. The L.R of deceased appellant is added as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.vide C.R.P.No.2431 of 2010 dated 23.9.2010
…Appellant/Defendant
A n d
Anumala Seena Sagar, S/o.Chandraiah, (Falsely described plaint as S/o.A.Rajaiah) Age.35 Years, Occu.Contractor, R/o.# 2-9-228, Waddepally, Hanamkonda.
… Respondent/Plaintiff
Appeal presented under Order 41, Rule-1 of C.P.C r/w. Sec.96
C.P.C
Aggrieved by Judgment and Decree dated : 04.06.2007 in
O.S.No.1026/2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Warangal
Between:-
Anumala Seena Sagar,S/o.A.Rajaiah, Aged.28 Years, Occu.Student, R/o.H.No.2-9-228/H, Waddepally, Hanamkonda.
2 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
…Plaintiff
A n d 1.Anumala Rajaiah, S/o.Nagaiah, Aged.77 Years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2/336/2, Old Corresponding to New No.2-9-228/H, Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.
2.A.Venkatalaxmi, W/o.A.Rajaiah, Aged.69 Years, Occu.House hold, R/o.H.No.2-9-228/H, Waddepally, Hanamkonda
(amended as per Orders in I.A.No.631 of 2002 dated 12.4.2002)
…Defendants
Appeal Suit No. 102 Of 2007
Between:-
Smt Anumala Venkat Laxmi, W/o.Late Sri A.Rajaiah, Age.69 Years, Occu. House hold,R/o.H.No.2-9-228/H, Waddepally, Hanamkonda.
(DIED FOR L.R)
Enabotula Vanamala, W/o.Shiva Kumar, Aged about 52 Years, Occu.Household, R/o.H.No.3-3-303, Enugulagadda, Hanamkonda, warangal District. The L.R of deceased appellant is added as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.vide C.R.P.No.2419 of 2010 dated 23.9.2010
…Appellant/Plaintiff
A n d
1. Anumala Seena Sagar, S/o.Chandraiah, Age.29 Years, Occu.Business,
2. Anumala Chandraiah, S/o.Nagaiah, Age.70 Years, Occu.Agriculture, 3.Anumala Laxmi, W/o.Chandraiah, Age.60 Years, Occu.Household.
All r/o.H.No.2-10-86, Waddepally vilalge, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District.
… Respondents/Defendants
Appeal presented under Order 41, Rule-1 of C.P.C r/w.Sec.96 C.P.C
Aggrieved by Judgment and Decree dated : 04.06.2007 in
O.S.No.739/1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Warangal
Between:- 1.Anumala Rajaiah, S/o.Nagaiah, Aged.75 Years, Occu.Agriculture, 3 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
R/o.H.No.2-10-85, Waddepally, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District.
2.Anumala Venkatalaxmi, W/o.A.Rajaiah, Age.60 Years, Occu.House hold, R/o.H.No.2-10-85, Waddepally village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Waranga
…Plaintiffs
A n d 1.Anumala Seena Sagar, S/o.Chandraiah, (Falsely described plaint as S/o.A.Rajaiah) Age.65 Years, Occu.Contractor, R/o.# 2-10-125, Waddepally, Hanamkonda.
2.Anumala Chandraiah, S/o.Late Nagaiah,Age.70 Years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-10-86, Waddepally 3.Anumala Laxmi, W/o.A.Chandraiah, Age.60 Years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-10-86, Waddepally …Defendants
These appeal suits are coming before me on 24.8.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.V.Vidyadhara Raju, Advocate for the
Appellants in both the suits and Sri P.Ram Gopal Rao, Advocate for the Respondents in both the suits and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and material records of lower Court and hearing the arguments of the said advocates and the matter is having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:
:: COMMON JUDGMENT ::
APPEAL SUIT NO.118 OF 2007:-
1.This Appeal Suit is as directed against the judgment and decree
dated 04.06.2007 in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Warangal wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and
separate possession of plaintiff's 3/4th share in A and B of plaint schedule mentioned property has been decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree the defendant preferred the Appeal Suit No.118 of 2007.
2.The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 on the file of Principal Junior 4 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
Civil Judge, Warangal. For the sake of convenience the parties are herein
after referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.1026 of 2000.
3.During the pendency of O.S.No.1026 of 2000 on the file of
Principal Junior Civil ;Judge, Warangal the sole defendant in the said suit
expired and on that the wife of the deceased defendant is impleaded as defendant No.2 as per orders in I.A.No.631 of 2002 dated 12.4.2002.
4.The case of the plaintiff as seen from the averments made in the plaint is to the following effect:-
The plaintiff is the adopted son of the defendant. The defendant No.1 has no issues and the defendant No.1 approached the natural parents of the plaintiff by name Anumala Chandraiah and Laxmi along with common relatives for adoption of the plaintiff who is the third son of Anumala Chandraiah. The defendant No.1 is the brother of
Anumala Chandraiah. When the plaintiff was aged about two years, in the year 1972 as per the customs prevailing in the community in the presence of the relatives and family friends, the plaintiff was given in adoption to the defendants, after simple ceremony of giving and taking. Since then the defendants brought up the plaintiff as their son. The defendant No.1 got admitted the plaintiff in school and in the school record the name of the defendant No.1 is recorded as father of the plaintiff. The defendants executed a registered adoption deed on 24.4.1986. As per the terms and conditions of adoption deed the plaintiff has right of succession and inheritance to the properties of the defendant No.1. As the plaintiff did not agree for the marriage of a girl as per the choice of the defendants the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants became strained.
The defendants threatened that they will dis inherit the plaintiff to their property. Hence the suit for partition of the plaint schedule mentioned property.
5 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
5.The defendant No.1 filed the written statement alleging that the marriage of the defendant No.1 took place about 50 to 60 years with the defendant No.2 and they have no issues. Chandraiah is the father of the plaintiff and is the younger brother of defendant No.1. The father of the plaintiff and his family members used to visit the house of the defendants. Durgaiah is the elder brother of defendant No.1 and his children also used to visit the house of defendant No.1. Chandraiah used to take the assistance of the defendant No.1 for family necessities now and then. Chandraiah and his sons about 15 years back represented that they need loans to run business ventures for their livelihood and for that purpose they required a registered instrument evidencing the settlement of family properties and the documents shall be executed by defendant
No.1 and his wife for the satisfaction of the banks and financial institutions which advance loan. By representing the same, the family members of the plaintiff took the defendants 1 & 2 to the Registration Office prepared the document. The contents of the document were not explained to the defendants by any of the family members and the officials. The defendants are illiterate persons. The defendants put their thumb impressions on the documents believing that it is the partition deed. The defendants never suspected any ill-desire on the part of the family members of the plaintiff. In the first week of June, 1998 in the wedding invitation of the plaintiff it is mentioned that the plaintiff is the adopted son of the defendant No.1 and the invitation cards were issued by the
Chandraiah and by noticing the same the defendants questioned the plaintiff and his family members. The plaintiff and his family members did not reply anything and they stated that they got a registered adoption deed said to be executed by the defendants. On 10.6.1998 the plaintiff produced a photo copy of alleged registered document and by knowing the contents of the same the defendants shocked and surprised and they 6 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) came to know that the alleged document is not Deed of Settlement of
Partition but it is the Deed of Adoption containing the recitals of the adoption of the plaintiff. The defendants have no desire or intention to execute any Adoption deed adopting the plaintiff. At the time of execution of the document the plaintiff and his family members represented that the document is a Deed of Settlement of Partition. The plaintiff and his family members deliberately playing fraud on the defendants. The defendant and his wife had no intention to adopt the plaintiff or any children of
Chandraiah. No ceremony was took place and there was no adoption of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not the adoptive son of the defendant and has no connection with the family of the defendant. The plaintiff has no status of adoptive son of the defendant. The defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.739 of 1998 on the file of II-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal for cancellation of a Registered Adoption deed. The plaintiff with the help of his parents created school record and the adoption deed. The plaintiff never resided with the defendant at any point of time and the plaintiff never look after the welfare of the defendant. The defendant not owned and possessed only landed property mentioned in the plaint schedule. The defendant sold land in Sy.No.422 to Kumari Enubothula Amshmumati in the year 1985 and sold an extent of Ac.0.04 gts in the same survey number to
Kumari Veeramalla Vasudha in the year 1985. The defendant No.1 sold
Ac.0.04 gts of lland in Sy.No.423 and 621 to Vijayalaxmi w/o.Vishwanadha
Raju. The defendant No.1 sold an extent of Ac.0.16 gts of land in
Sy.No.868 to Edla Prabhakar in the year 1997. Enubottula Vanamala has been looking after the defendant since long time. Vanamala and her husband and children have been assisting the defendant in all matters. As the defendants treated Vanamala as their daughter and brought up her from her child hood, the defendant No.1 executed a will in the year 1999 bequeathing some of the remaining properties infavour of defendant No.2.
7 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
An extent of Ac.0.30 gts of land in Sy.No.631 of Waddepally is not included for any schedule in the suit property. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit for partition. The plaintiff is residing in the house of his parents at Waddepally from the beginning. The plaintiff never resided along with the defendant.
6. On the above pleadings the following issues and additional issues are settled for trial by the Trial Court.
1. Whether the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule
properties are joint family properties of the
plaintiff and the defendant ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ½ share
in the suit schedule properties as prayed
for ?
3. To what relief ?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE DATED 10.10.2006 IN OS.1026 OF 2010
“Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of the defendants”
AS.NO.102 OF 2017
This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2007 in O.S.No.739 of 1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Warangal wherein the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of Registered
Adoption Deed dated 24.4.1986 as null and void and for the cancellation of the same has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiffs preferred the Appeal Suit No.102 of 2007.
7.The appellants herein are the plaintiffs. The respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.739 of 1998 on the file of Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. For the sake of convenience the parties are herein after referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.739 of 1998.
8.The case of the plaintiffs as seen from the averments made in the plaint is to the following effect:- 8 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
The plaintiff No.1 is the husband of the plaintiff No.2. In the first week of June, 1998 the plaintiffs noted the wedding invitation of the defendant No.1 and it is mentioned in the same that the defendant No.1 is the adoptive son of the plaintiff No.1. On that the plaintiffs questioned the defendants and the defendants stated that they got a Registered Adoption
Deed executed by the plaintiff and they also furnished photo copy of registered document. After that the plaintiffs came to know that the same is not a Deed of Settlement of Partition and it is a Deed of Adoption. The plaintiffs have no desire to adopt the defendant No.1. By playing fraud and misrepresentation on the plaintiffs the defendants obtained the alleged adoption deed. No adoption took place at any time and no function was taken place with regard to the adoption. The defendant
No.1 is not the adoptive son of the plaintiffs and under a fraudulent deed the defendant No.1 claiming status of adoptive son of the plaintiffs. Since the alleged deed was obtained by playing fraud and mis-representation by the defendants on the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the said deed.
9.The defendants 2 & 3 filed the written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint which are not specifically admitted by the defendants 2 & 3 in the written statement field by them. The defendants alleged that the defendant No.1 filed a suit for partition in
O.S.No.1026 of 2000 and the contents in the said suit may be read as part
and parcel of the written statement. The defendant No.1 was brought and educated by the plaintiff, the school records are also to the effect that the defendant No.1 is the adoptive son of the plaintiff. The troubles started when the defendant No.1 did not agree to marry a girl as per the choice of the plaintiffs. No fraud was played by the defendants in obtaining the
Adoption Deed.
9 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
10. On the above pleadings the following issued are settled for trial by the Trial Court.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
cancellation of adoption deed registered as
Document No.101/86 dated 24.12.1986
before Joint Sub-Registrar ?
2. To what relief ?
11.In O.S.No.1026 of 2000 on 10.10.2006 the following additional issue was framed by the Trial Court :
“Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of the
defendant?”
12.The plaintiff in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 is the defendant No.1 in
O.S.No.739 of 1998.
13.The defendants in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 are the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.739 of 1998.
14.The suit in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 and the suit in O.S.No.739 of 1998 are clubbed for joint trial and common evidence for both the suits is recorded in O.S.No.1026 of 2000.
15.For the sake of convenience and inorder to avoid confusion the parties are herein after referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.1026 of 2000.
16.During the course of common trial before Trial Court the plaintiff in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 got examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked
Exs.A.1 to A.20.
17.PW.1 is the plaintiff. PW.2 mother of the plaintiff. PW.3 is the brother of the plaintiff. PW.4 is attestor to Ex.A.3 Adoption Deed. PWs.5 & 6 are residents of Waddepally.
18. Ex.A.1 is legal notice, dated 12.5.1998, Ex.A.2 is Postal receipt, Ex.A.3 is Certified copy of Adoption Deed, dated 24.4.1986, Ex.A.4 is memorandum of marks of SSC of A.Seenasagar, Ex.A5 is Study 10 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) certificate, Ex.A.6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1976-77,
Ex.A.7 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1977-78, Ex.A.8 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1978-79, Ex.A.8 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1980-81, Ex.A.9 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1981-82, Ex.A.10 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1982-83,
Ex.A.11 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1983-84, Ex.A.12 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1984-85, Ex.A.13 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1985-86, Ex.A.14 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1986-87, Ex.A.15 is reply notice. Ex.A.17 is photograph along with negatives, Ex.A.18 is voters list for the year 1994, Ex.A.19 is the voters identity card issued by Election Commission, Ex.A.20 is Employment
Card Registration No.VI/1987/04965, dated 6.9.1987.
19.On the other hand the defendants in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 got examined DW.1 and DW.2 and got marked Exs.B.1 and B.2.
20.DW.1 is the defendant No.2. DW.2 is resident of Waddepally.
21.Ex.B.1 is attested copy of Special Officer of UCCA, Ex.B.2 is
Caveat No.34 of 1998 on the file of Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
22.Considering the arguments submitted by both side counsel and considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by both side counsel, the Trial Court under impugned common judgment dismissed the suit in O.S.No.739 of 1998 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.1026 of 2000.
Aggrieved by the said common judgment the defendants in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 preferred A.S.No.118 of 2007 and aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.739 of 1998 the un-successful plaintiffs in the said suit preferred A.S.No.102 of 2007.
23.Both the Appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 and O.S.No.739 of 1998.
Therefore, both the Appeals are disposed off under a common judgment.
11 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
24.The plaintiff in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 filed suit against defendant No.1 initially for partition of the suit property alleging that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendant No.1. During the pendency of the said suit the defendant No.1 expired and the wife of the deceased defendant is impleaded as defendant No.2 in O.S.No.1026 of 2000. During the pendency of A.S.No.118 of 2007 which is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 the appellants expired and during the pendency of the Appeal Suits on that the legal representatives of the deceased appellant is added as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court in
C.R.P.No.2431 of 1990 datd 23.9.2010. Thus the original defendants in
O.S.No.1026 of 2000 are expired and the legal representative of the
original defendants in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 is prosecuting the A.S.No.118 of 2007.
25.Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.738 of 1998 the un-successful plaintiff in the said suit preferred A.S.No.102 of 2007.
During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff No.1 expired and the suit is prosecuted by the plaintiff No.2 who is the wife of the plaintiff No.1. During the pendency of A.S.No.102 of 2007 the appellant who is the plaintiff No.2 in the suit expired and the legal representative of the deceased appellant is impleaded as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in CRP No.2419 of 2010 dated 23.9.2010.
26.Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsel.
27.Apart from submitting the oral arguments both side counsel filed the written arguments.
28. Perused the written arguments filed by both side counsel.
29.Now the points that arise for determination in A.S.No.118 of 2007 are:
1. Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of the defendants?
12 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for partition of the plaint
schedule mentioned property ?
3. Whether the impugned judgment
in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 is
sustainable on facts and law ?
4. To what relief ?
30.Now the points that arise for determination in A.S.No.102 of 2007 are:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
the cancellation of Registered
Adoption Deed dated 24.4.1986?
2. Whether the impugned judgment
and decree in O.S.No.739 of 1998
are sustainable on law and facts ?
3. To what relief ?
31.POINTS 1 & 2 IN AS.NO.118 OF 2007 AND POINT NO.1 IN
AS.NO.102 OF 2007 : For the sake of convenience while deciding these
points the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in
O.S.No.1026 of 2000.
32.The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit property alleging that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants 1 & 2.
33.The defendant No.1 is the husband of the defendant No.2.
Plaintiff is the son of the brother of the defendant No.1. The defendants 1 & 2 had no issues. As on today the defendants 1 & 2 are not alive. The legal representatives of the defendants 1 & 2 claiming suit property under alleged Will Deed. The defendants contended that as per the recitals in
Ex.A.1 notice the plaintiff was taken into adoption by the defendants when the plaintiff was five years old. In the plaint it is pleaded that the adoption was took place in the year 1972. Exs.A.4 and A.5 shows that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 28.12.1970. From this what is stated in Ex.A.1 appears to be false. When the adoption took place in the year 1972, the age of the plaintiff must be two years at the time of alleged adoption. But 13 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) in Ex.A.5 notice it is mentioned that the plaintiff was 05 years old as on the date of the alleged adoption. Thus there is discrepancy with regard to the date of adoption. Ex.A.3 is certified copy of Registered Adoption Deed
dated 24.4.1986. As seen from the recitals in Ex.A.3 it is not mentioned
that the boy was handed over by the natural parents to the adoptive parents. In Ex.A.4 it is mentioned that the alleged adoption took place in the year 1972. Ex.A.5 Study Certificate shows that the plaintiff was admitted in school on 19.6.1976 and studied upto 19.6.1981. As per
Ex.A.1 the date of alleged adoption was when the plaintiff was five years old. When that being the case how the name of the defendant No.1 will be mentioned in Ex.A.5. These circumstances suggest that the alleged adoption pleaded by the plaintiff in the year 1972 appears to be false. The further contention of the defendants is that if Ex.A.3 and A.5 are genuine documents, the alleged adoption of the year 1972 appears to be false. If the contents of Ex.A.1 is taken into consideration, Ex.A.4 and A.5 will appears to be false. With this the the defendants submitted that Ex.A.3 and A.5 are not helpful to the case of the plaintiff. The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff stated that the defendant No.1 got admitted the plaintiff into school. The defendants denied the same. The plaintiff did not take any steps to call for the Admission Register of the
School to establish that Rajaiah got admitted the plaintiff into school.
Exs.A.4 and A.5 are not sufficient to prove the adoption of the plaintiff.
The Trial Court gave much weightage to Ex.A.3 ignoring the Ex.A.1 recital and discrepancy with regard to year of the adoption. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of Registered Adoption Deed. There is no pleading about the original of Ex.A.3. In Ex.A.3 it is stated that from the date of execution of the deed the plaintiff is treated as adoptive son. Ex.A.3 is dated 24.4.1986. As on the date of Ex.A.3 the plaintiff was sixteen years old.
The Trial Court came to wrong conclusion and the appreciation of Trial 14 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
Court on the contents of Ex.A.3 is against to the Law. It is not mentioned in Ex.A.3 that the contents of Ex.A.3 are readover and explained to the defendants at the time of execution of Ex.A.3. The defendants 1 and 2 are illiterate persons. There is every possibility of creating the alleged
Registered Adoption Deed by keeping the defendants in dark. The suit of the plaintiff without asking the declaration that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendant is bad. The defendant No.1 alienated the property to third parties and as such the suit is not maintainable and Court Fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct. The plaintiff has not filed the original
Registered Adoption Deed and as such the plaintiff is not entitled the benefit of presumption under Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is not supporting the factum of adoption and the same is clearly observed by the Trial Court under impugned judgment. There is no pleading about the date and month of the adoption and due execution of Ex.A.3 is not proved. The defendants further submitted that there is no evidence that giving and taking ceremony was performed. There is a discrepancy with regard to the year of the adoption and mere filing of Ex.A.3 is not sufficient to prove the factum of adoption. With this the defendants submitted that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendant.
34.The defendants relied on the following decisions in support of their contention.
(1)Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshman
Singh Kothari, vs Smt Rup Kanwar, Respondent reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1378.
In the above decision their Lord Ships held that “giving and
receiving are absolute necessary to the validity of an adoption”.
15 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) (2)Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pandurang
Shankar Shivankar vs Muktabai and others reported in 2014 (4)
CCC 146 (Bombay)
In the above decision their Lordships held that “When adoption would
displace the natural succession of property, the evidence on
adoption should be free from all suspicion of fraud And it should
be so consistent and probable that it leaves no occasion for
doubting the adoption. (reliance is placed on (Kishori Lal v.
Mt.Chaltibai).
(3)Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Gangavva and others v.Ningavva and others reported in AIR 2008 (NOC) 2214 (Karnataka) wherein his Lord Ships held that “The
registered document evidencing adoption should be produced
before the Court”
35.The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant filed
O.S.No.739 of 1998 for cancellation of the original of Ex.A.3 on the ground
that the same was obtained by playing fraud on the defendants. The defendants failed to establish that the original of Ex.A.3 was obtained by playing fraud by the family members of the plaintiff and hence it is to be held that the defendants executed original of Ex.A.3 confirming the earlier adoption. Since the execution of Ex.A.3 is proved the contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants is to be accepted. There is an endorsement of the Sub-Registrar in registered document to the effect that the contents of the document are original explained to the executant. Under this circumstance the contention of the defendants that the original of Ex.A.3 was obtained on the pretext that the partition deed is required for the purpose of obtaining loan cannot be accepted. The defendants have not placed any legal evidence to show that the defendant No.1 alienated the property and as such this sit is not 16 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) bad for non-joinder of the alleged purchaser of the property. Ex.A.18 is of the year 1994 voters list, Ex.A.19 is voter identity card of the plaintiff,
Ex.A.20 is employment registration. In Exs.A.18 to A.20 the names of the defendant No.1 is mentioned as father of the plaintiff. Exs.A.17 to A.20 supports the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendant. The defendants are challenging Ex.A.3 almost more than 12 years of execution of Ex.A.3 and as such the very suit of the defendant in O.S.No.739 of 1998 is barred by the period of limitation. From the oral testimony of DW.1 and 2 it cannot be said that the original of Ex.A.3 was obtained by playing fraud on the defendants. The plaintiff relied on the following decisions in support of the contention of the plaintiff that from
Ex.A.3 the plaintiff has established that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants (1)Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in
Mst.Pratapi and others v.Balkishan and another reported in AIR 1998 Madhya Pradesh 125 in the above decision his Lord ships held that the “The presumption contemplated under S.16 has a very wide sweep in that it mandates that when an adoption is evidenced by a registered instrument, the court has to presume the validity of the adoption in all respects envisaging that the adoption shall be deemed to have been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act.” (2)Decision of High Court of Allahabad in Yashodanand v.Smt
Bisheshwari Devi and another reported in AIR 1981 NOC 27. Inthe above decision their Lord Ships held that Non-examination of natural father of person given in adoption would not affect the proof of adoption, when two eye witnesses deposed about the ceremony and rites of adoption.
(3)Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Nagpur in Nilkanth Rao v.Guna Bai reported in A.I.R.1926 Nagpur 482. In the above decision 17 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) their Lord ships held that Registration endorsement in a document complete proof that the document was readover to the testator and understood and admitted by him.
(4)Decision of Hon'ble High of Madhya Pradesh in Mst
Jhunkaribahu alias Katrawali w/o.Laxmiprasad and another
v.Phoolchand alias Manikchand Chhotelal Jain and other reported in
AIR 1958 Madhya Pradesh 261. In the above decision their Lord Ships held that There is an endorsement on it by the sub-registrar that its execution was admitted by Kodulal. This is an act performed by him in official capacity and it should be presumed that he would not make such an endorsement unless the execution was admitted before him by the testator.
(5)Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Misri Lal and another v.Bhagwati Prasa reported in AIR 1955 Allahabad 573.
In the above decision their Lordships held that the Registrar's certificate is evidence of admission of execution by the executant and that itself is evidence admissible to prove the due execution of the document. The question whether it is sufficient evidence must depend upon the circumstances. In the case before us there is no other evidence either way and there is nothing whatever in the surrounding circumstances to arouse suspicion. In my judgment thew award must be held to have been proved.
36.Perused the decision relied on by the plaintiff and the defendants.
37.The defendant No.1 is the husband of the defendant No.2. The contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants and the plaintiff was given in adoption in the year 1972. The defendants executed registered deed on 24.4.1986 confirming the earlier adoption and Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of the said deed.
18 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
38.On the other hand the contention of the defendants is that the original of Ex.A.3 was obtained by the parents of the plaintiff by playing fraud and mis-representation on the defendants and by mis-representing that the deed of partition of the properties is required for obtaining loan.
The defendants 1 & 2 herein filed O.S.No.739 of 1998 for cancellation of original of Ex.A.3.
39.The defendant No.1, Anumala Durgaiah, Anumala Ramswamy and Anumala Chandraiah are brothers. The plaintiff is the natural son of
Anumala Chandraiah. The defendants 1 & 2 had no issues. The defendant
No.1 is the husband of the defendant No.2. There is no dispute with regard to the partition of the property among the defendant No.1 and his three brothers.
40.All the above facts are not in dispute.
41.The defendants 1 & 2 who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.739 of 1998 are expired and are no more. E.Vanamala was brought on record as a legal representative of the deceased defendants in O.S.No.1026 of 2000 and the deceased plaintiffs in O.S.No.739 of 1998 on the allegation that the defendant No.2 executed a registered Will dated 4.1.2007 bequeathing the suit properties on E.Vanamala. After impleading the
E.Vanamala as the legal representative of the deceased defendants in
O.S.No.1026 of 2000 and deceased plaintiffs in O.S.No.739 of 1998, the
said E.Venugopal has not taken any steps for amendment of original pleading and has not placed any legal evidence to substantiate her contention that the deceased defendant No.2 bequeathed the suit properties to E.Vanamala under registered Will dated 4.1.2007. Under this circumstance it is held that there is no legal evidence before the Court to show that E.Vanamala is having legal right to prosecute the Appeal Suits.
The Court comes to this conclusion for the reasons that E.Vanamala has not taken any step for consequential amendment of the pleadings and has 19 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) not placed any evidence to prove his right over the suit property and to prove the alleged Will Deed. Thus both the Appeals are bad for the above reason. It is necessary for Vanamala who came on record as legal representative of the deceased appellants in both the appeals to prove her right over the property. A person who impleads as a party in the capacity of legal representative of the deceased in the proceedings, it is necessary for the said party to prove his or her right over the suit property after coming on record in proceedings as legal representative of the deceased.
42.The defendants are challenging the original of Ex.A.3 by filing
O.S.No.739 of 1998 after a lapse of more than 12 years of execution of
Ex.A.3. The defendants are not disputing the execution of Ex.A.3. The contention of the defendants is that Ex.A.3 was obtained on the pretext that partition deed is required for obtaining loan.
43.The Court perused the evidence of DW.1. The evidence of
DW.1 is to the effect that the defendant No.1 and his brother separated 10 years after the marriage of DW.1. From this it can be safely presumed that there was partition of the property among the defendant No.1 and his brothers much prior to Ex.A.3. Under this circumstance the very explanation of the defendants that they executed Ex.A.3 believing that they are executing partition deed appears improbable. When there was partition much earlier to Ex.A.3 the contention of the defendants that they executed Ex.A.3 on the pretext that the partition deed is required for the father of the plaintiff for obtaining loan cannot be believed and the said explanation appears to be not reasonable explanation for the reason that for execution of partition deed DW.1 and PW.2 need not require to sign on the document. PW.2 and DW.1 are also parties to Ex.A.3.
44.Since the defendants are alleging that the original of Ex.A.3 was obtained by playing fraud and mis-representation the burden is on the defendants to prove the same. The very explanation of the defendant 20 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) that they executed original of Ex.A.3 by believing the words of father of the plaintiff that a partition deed is required for obtaining loan is not accepted by the Court, the only alternative before the Court is to come to a conclusion that the defendants executed Ex.A.3 confirming earlier adoption of plaintiff by them. Apart from this the oral evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 is not sufficient to prove that the original of Ex.A.3 was obtained by playing fraud on the defendants. When the defendants are not disputing the execution of the document and when the defendants failed to establish that the document was obtained by playing fraud on the defendant, the non filing of original of Ex.A.3 is no way helpful to the case of the defendants. Since Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of registered document the same can be relied on. If at all the defendants have executed Ex.A.3 by believing the words of the father of the plaintiff, all the brothers are to be made to the parties to the document and there is no necessity for defendant No.2 to execute a deed of partition. This circumstance also made the Court to dis-believe the contention of the defendants that Ex.A.3 was obtained by playing fraud on the defendants.
45.The Court perused the contents of Ex.A.3. Entire contents of the document are to be taken into consideration in order to know the intention of the parties in execution of the document and the intention of the parties for which the document is executed. Therefore entire contents of Ex.A.3 are to be taken into consideration to know the intention of the parties. As seen from the contents of Ex.A.3 it is clear that Ex.A.3 is executed confirming the earlier adoption of the year 1972 and no adoption is effected under Ex.A.3. Therefore the contention of the defendants that as on the date of Ex.A.3 the plaintiff was 16 years old and as such the very adoption is void is not accepted. Since the Court comes to a conclusion that the defendants executed Ex.A.3, the discrepancy pointed out by the defendants with regard to the year of adoption mentioned in Ex.A.3 and in 21 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007) legal notice Ex.A.1 and age of the plaintiff mentioned in Ex.A.1 is not helpful to the case of the defendants.
46.Apart from this under Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act there is a presumption to the registered deed that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act.
Since Ex.A.3 is a registered document and due execution of Ex.A.3 is proved by examining PW.4 who is attestor to Ex.A.3, from Ex.A.3 it can be presumed that the adoption of the plaintiff by the defendants was made in compliance with the provision of the Act. The oral testimony of Dws.1 and 2 is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the plaintiff under
Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Since the document is registered it can be safely said that the defendants executed
Ex.A.3 by knowing the contents of Ex.A.3. The above findings of the Court are fortified by the above mentioned decisions relied on by the plaintiff.
The very circumstances that the natural mother of the plaintiff and wife of the defendant No.1 are not necessary for execution of a partition deed made the Court to dis-believe the contention of the defendants that they executed Ex.A.3 under the impression that it is the deed of partition of the property.
47.The very contents of the document clearly proved that the plaintiff was given in adoption during the year 1972 and thus giving and taking of adoptive son is proved from the very contents of Ex.A.3. Ex.A.5 is study certificate. In Ex.A.5 it is mentioned that the defendants No.1 is the father of the plaintiff. Ex.A.4 is S.S.C marks certificate of the plaintiff
dated 6.6.1985. Ex.A.18 is voters list of the year 1994. Ex.A.19 is voter
Identity Card. Ex.A.20 is the Employment Registration Card dated 6.9.1992. in Ex.A.4, A.5, A.18 to A.20 the name of the defendant No.1 is mentioned as father of the plaintiff.
22 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
48.From the oral testimony of Dws.1 and 2 it can be said that
Ex.A.18 to A.20 and Exs.A.4 and A.5 are created documents for the purpose of the suit. Since Ex.A.4 is much prior to the date of the suit, at any point of time it cannot be said that Ex.A.4 is a created document. The very circumstance of mentioning the name of the defendant No.1 as father of the plaintiff in the above said documents support the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants 1 & 2. Since
Ex.B.1 is not a certified copy, the same cannot be relied on. In view of the above all reasons it is held that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants 1 & 2 and the defendants executed original of Ex.A.3 by knowing the contents of the same. Since the Court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the due execution of Ex.A.3 by the defendants and registration of Ex.A.3 the presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act is infavour of the plaintiff that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act.
Apart from the said presumption there are Ex.A.4, A.5, A.2, A.18 to A.20 show that the name of the defendant No.1 is mentioned as father of the plaintiff in the said documents and this circumstance strengthens the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants.
Ex.A.17 photograph with negative is to the effect that the plaintiff is performing the last rites of the defendant No.1.
49.In the present case the court comes to a conclusion that the defendants executed registered document that is original of Ex.A.3 confirming the adoption of the plaintiff and Ex.A.17 to A.20, Ex.A.4, Ex.A.5 support the adoption of the plaintiff by the defendants and the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is also to the effect that plaintiff is given in adoption to the defendants. Under these circumstances the decisions relied on by the defendants mentioned above are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
23 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
50.In view of above all reasons it is held that the plaintiff has established that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendants. Since the court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit property. The trial Court comes to a correct conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for 3/4th share in the suit property and the court finds no reason to disturb the finding of the trial court on this aspect.
51.In view of above all reasons, it is held that the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.739 of 1998 failed to establish that the father of the plaintiff No.1
herein obtained original of Ex.A.3 registered adoption deed by playing fraud and mis-representation on the plaintiffs in O.S.No.739 of 1998 who are the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S.No.1026 of 2000. Since the court comes to a conclusion that the original of Ex.A.3 registered document is true and genuine and the same was executed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 herein by knowing that they are executing a deed confirming the adoption of the plaintiff by the defendants No.1 and 2, the original of
Ex.A.3 cannot be canceled as prayed for by the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 739 of 1998.
52.In view of above all reasons, points 1 and 2 in A.S.No.118/2007 are decided against the appellant and point No.1 in A.S.No.102/2007 is decided against the appellant.
53.POINT NO.3 IN A.S.NO.118/2007: In view of my findings on point Nos. 1 and 2, it is held that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court against which the present appeal suit i.e., A.S.No. 118/2007 is preferred, is sustainable on law and facts and this court finds no reason to disturb the findings arrived by the trial court under impugned judgment and this point is answered against the appellant.
24 (AS.118 of 2007 and AS No.102 of 2007)
54.POINT NO.2 IN A.S.NO.102/2007: In view of my findings on point No. 1, it is held that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court against which the present appeal suit i.e., A.S.No. 102/2007 is preferred, is sustainable on law and facts and this court finds no reason to disturb the findings arrived by the trial court under impugned judgment and this point is answered against the appellant.
55.POINT NO.4 IN A.S.NO.118/2007: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2 the appeal suit in A.S.No.118 of 2007 is to be dismissed.
56.POINT NO.3 IN A.S.NO.102/2007: In view of my findings on point Nos. 1 to 3 the appeal suit in A.S.No.102 of 2007 is to be dismissed.
57.IN THE RESULT: Appeal Suit No.118/2007 and Appeal Suit No.
102/2007 are dismissed. Consequently common judgment and decree in
O.S.No.1026/2000 and O.S.No.739/1998 dated: 04.06.2007 on the file of
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal are hereby confirmed. In the
circumstances of the case, the parties to the Appeal Suit No.118/2007 and
Appeal Suit No. 102/2007 are directed to bear their own costs involved in these appeal suits.
(Dictated to Stenographer Gr.1, after his transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of September,2018)
Sd/-
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.
FAC VII-ADDL.DIST.JUDGE,
WARANGAL
:Appendix of Evidence:
Witnesses Examined
--NIL--
Sd/-
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.
FAC VII-ADDL.DIST.JUDGE,
WARANGAL
(1 of 9) MVOP 818 OF 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL (VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), WARANGAL.
THURSDAY, THE 19 TH DAY OF JULY, 2018.
PRESENT: SRI T.VENKATESHWARA REDDY,
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, FAC CHAIRMAN, MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (VII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE),
WARANGAL.
M.V. O.P. No. 818 OF 2015
Between:
Mohd. Raj Mohammad, S/o. Mohd. Yakub, Aged : 53 years, Occu: Radiographer in M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, R/o. H.No. 3-9-406, Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.
....Petitioner
and
1.Puttala Sathya Soma Mallikarjun, S/o. Somaiah, Aged : 38 years, Occu: Owner-cum-Driver of Crime Vehicle Car bearing No. AP 36 AK 3994, R/o. H.No. 2-5-886, Circuit House Road,Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.
2.TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by Authorized Signatory, Registered Office: 15thFloor, Tawez-A PeninsulaBusiness Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Off: Senpati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013.
3.TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Claims Manager, My Home Tycoons, Block-'A', Kundan Bagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500 010.
...Respondents.
This petition is coming on 02.5.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohd. Yakub Ali, Advocate for the Petitioner and
of Sri A.Madan Mohan Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained exparte; upon hearing, upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:
: : A W A R D : :
This is the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166(1)(a) of
Motor Vehicles Act, for a compensation amount of Rs.3,56,000/- for sustaining injuries to the Petitioner in the motor accident.
(2 of 9) MVOP 818 OF 2015
2.The case of the Petitioner as seen from the averments made in the
Petition is to the following effect:
Petitioner is working as Radiographer in MGM Hospital, Warangal.
On 12-04-2014 while the Petitioner was proceeding in his Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-36-UG-TR-1477 towards Nursing School, at about 2-20 PM, the driver of Car bearing No. AP-36-AK-3994 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle in which the Petitioner was proceeding, as a result the Petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries. The Petitioner was shifted to MGM Hospital immediately after the accident and for better treatment the Petitioner was shifted Jaya Hospital,
Hanamkonda. The Petitioner also treated in Global Hospital, Hyderabad.
The Petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.84,341/- from the Health Department towards treatment pertaining to 'Pulmonary-Thromobo Imabalism' under
Medical Reimbursement Bills. The Police of Matwada Traffic Police Station registered a case against the driver of the Car bearing No. AP-36-AK-3994 in Crime No. 57/2014 and filed the charge sheet against the driver of the
Car after completion of the investigation. The Respondent No.1 is owner- cum-driver of the Car and the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Insurers of the Car. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car and all the respondents are liable to pay the compensation payable to the Petitioner.
3.The Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte.
4.The Respondent No.3 filed written statement denying the manner in which the incident happened, injuries sustained to the Petitioner, treatment took by the Petitioner and the expenditure incurred for the treatment as mentioned in the petition. The Respondent No.3 denied the (3 of 9) MVOP 818 OF 2015 allegations mentioned in the petition, which are not specifically admitted by the Respondent No.3 in the written statement filed by the Respondent
No.3. The Respondent No.1 is not having valid driving licence as on the date of the incident. The Policy in respect of the vehicle bearing No. AP 36 AK 3994 is in force as on the date of alleged accident. The Respondent
No.3 is not aware of filing of the criminal case against the Respondent
No.1. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Motor Cycle. The owner of the Motor Cycle and Insurer of the
Motor Cycle are liable to pay the compensation payable to the Petitioner.
The petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the Motor Cycle.
5.On the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the Petitioner sustained injuries in the Motor Vehicle Accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Chevrolet Car bearing No. AP 36 AK 3994?
2. Whether the claim application is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of owner and insurer of Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 36 UG TR 1477?
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
4. To what relief?
6.During the course of enquiry of this petition, the Petitioner got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10 apart from marking Ex.X-1.
7.PW-1 is the Petitioner. PW-2 is Orthopaedic Surgeon in Jaya Hospital,
Hanamkonda. Ex.A-1 is the Discharge Summary of the Petitioner from 12-04-2014 to 23-04-2014 issued by Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda dated 23-04-2014. Ex.A-2 is the Medical Cash Bills issued by Jaya Hospitals,
Hanamkonda (amounting to Rs.7,721-80 ps.) Ex.A-3 is the Prescription (4 of 9) MVOP 818 OF 2015
Chits of Dr.K.Satish Chandra, M.D. Chest Physician of Jaya Hospitals,
Hanamkonda. Ex.A-4 is the Prescription Chit of Dr.R.Srinivas, M.D.
Consultant Cardiologist of Srinivasa Heart Centre, Hanamkonda. Ex.A-5 is the Cash Bills of V.B.R. Diagnostics, Hanamkonda (amounting to
Rs.2,550/-). Ex.A-6 is the Cash Bills of Prescription fees and Diagnostic
Reports of Srinivasa Heart Centre, Hanamkonda (amounting to Rs.1,650/-).
Ex.A-7 is the Diagnostics Reports of the Petitioner issued by VBR
Dignostics, Hanamkonda, Ex.A-8 is the certified copy of Charge sheet in
Crime No. 57/2014 under Section 338 IPC of P.S. Warangal Traffic, Ex.A-9 is the attested copy of Leave Proceedings of the Petitioner dated 27-08-2014 and Ex.A-10 is the original Salary Certificate of Petitioner. Ex.X-1 is the original Case Sheet of Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda pertaining to Petitioner.
8.Heard the arguments of both side counsel.
9.ISSUE NO.1:
The case of the Petitioner is that on 12-04-2014 at about 2-20 PM, while the Petitioner was proceeding on his Motor Cycle along with his colleague Bhaskar in MGM Hospital Compound, the driver of the Car bearing No. AP-36-AK-3994 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Motor Cycle in which the Petitioner was proceeding, as a result the Petitioner fell down and sustained fracture injury. Thus, the case of the Petitioner is that the incident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car. In support of the contention of the Petitioner that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car, the Petitioner is relying on Ex.A-8-Charge sheet filed by the Police against the driver of the Car bearing No. AP-36-AK-3994 under Section 338 IPC.
(5 of 9) MVOP 818 OF 2015
The Petitioner is examined as PW-1. The Petitioner is the injured and eye witness to the incident. The evidence of the Petitioner is to the effect that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Car bearing No. AP-36-AK-3994. Ex.A-8-Charge sheet filed by the
Police after completion of investigation is also to the effect that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
Car bearing No. AP-36-AK-3994. The Respondents have not placed any rebuttal evidence to the evidence of PW-1 and to Ex.A-8. Therefore, the
Court placed reliance on the evidence of PW-1 and on Ex.A-8 and comes to a conclusion that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Car bearing No. AP-36-AK-3994 and the Petitioner sustained injuries in the incident. In view of above all reasons, this Issue is decided in favour of the Petitioner.
10.ISSUE NO.2:
The contention of the Respondents 2 and 3 is that the owner and insurer of Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-36-UG-TR-1477 are necessary parties to the present petition and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
On Issue No.1 it is held that the incident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. In view of this the contention of the Respondents 2 and 3 that the owner and insurer of motor cycle are necessary parties to this petition, is not accepted and this
Issue is decided against the Respondents 2 and 3.
11.ISSUE NO.3:
The Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP-36-AK- 3994. The Respondents 2 and 3 are Insurers of the (6 of 9) MVOP 818 OF 2015
Car. These facts are not in dispute. On Issue No.1 it is held that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Car bearing No. AP-36-AK-3994. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 being the owner and Respondents 2 and 3 being Insurers of Car bearing No. AP-36-
AK-3994 are liable to pay compensation amount payable to the Petitioner.
Coming to the quantum of compensation. Petitioner was working as a Radiographer in MGM Hospital at the time of the accident. This fact is not in dispute. Since Police filed Ex.A-8-Charge Sheet under Section 338
I.P.C., it is held that the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
PW-2 is Orthopedic Surgeon in Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda. The evidence of PW-2 is to the effect that on 12-04-2014 the Petitioner was admitted in Jaya Hospital with history of fracture of both bones of middle- third and fracture calcaneus of right ankle. The Petitioner undergone surgery of 'interlocking nailing of tibia'. The Petitioner developed complication of 'Thrombo Embolism' on 17-04-2014. The Petitioner came again and admitted on 21-04-2014 and the Petitioner was referred to higher center. The Petitioner was discharged on 23-04-2014. For removal of rod the approximate expenditure may be Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.
From the above evidence of the Doctor, it is clear that the Petitioner sustained frcture injury and the Petitioner undergone surgery. Considering the evidence of PW-2-Doctor and considering the nature of injury, the
Court feels that it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the
Petitioner towards pain and sufferings. The Petitioner filed Ex.A-2-Cash
Bills for Rs.7,721/-, Ex.A-5-Cash Bills for Rs.2,550/- and Ex.A-6-Diagnostics
Bills for Rs.1,650/-. Apart from this the Petitioner has not filed other receipts. A total amount of Exs.A-2, A-5 and A-6 comes to Rs.11,921/-.
The evidence of the Petitioner is to the effect that Exs.A-2, A-5 and A-6- (7 of 9) MVOP 818 OF 2015
Cash Receipts were not reimbursed and other bills were reimbursed.
Considering this aspect and considering the evidence of PW-1, a sum of
Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner towards medical expenditure, transportation charges and attendant charges. Ex.A-9 is the Special
Disability Leave granted to the Petitioner for a period of (88) days from 13-04-2014 to 09-07-2014. Ex.A-10 is the Salary Certificate of the
Petitioner wherein the gross salary of the Petitioner is mentioned as
Rs.94,572/-. It can be safely said that due to the injury sustained by the
Petitioner in the incident the Petitioner had applied for Special Disability
Leave for a period of (88) days. Thus, the Petitioner sustained loss of leave due to the injury sustained in the incident. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for loss of earnings during the said period and it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the Petitioner towards loss of earnings during the leave period. Since PW-2-Doctor stated that a sum of
Rs.20,000/- to 30,000/- is required for removal of rod, a sum of
Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner towards future medical expenditure. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner towards extra nourishment charges. Thus, the Petitioner is entitled for a compensation amount ofRs.1,60,000/-.The break-up of the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner is as follows:
Pain and Sufferings -Rs.30,000/-
Medical Expenditure including Transport and Attendant Charges- Rs.20,000/-
Loss of earnings during leave period – Rs.90,000/-
Future Medical Expenditure - Rs.10,000/-
Extra Nourishment Charges - Rs.10,000/- ------------------------------- Total: Rs.1,60,000/- ------------------------------- (8 of 9) MVOP 818 OF 2015
In view of above all reasons, it is held that the Petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.1,60,000/- against the Respondents 1 to 3 and this Issue is decided accordingly in favour of the Petitioner.
12.ISSUE NO.4:
In view of my findings on Issue Nos. 1 to 3 the Petition is to be allowed for Rs.1,60,000/-.
13.In the result, the Petition is allowed partly for Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Sixty Thousand Only)against the
Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally with proportionate costs and with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of amount. The Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months. The
Petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of July, 2018.)
FAC CHAIRMAN,
M.A.C.T.-CUM-VII-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONER:
PW-1 : Mohd. Raj Mohammed PW-2 : Dr.R.Jai Singh
FOR RESPONDENTS:
-None-
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PETITIONER:
Ex.A-1 : Discharge Summary of the Petitioner from 12-04-2014 to 23-04-2014 issued by Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda dated 23-04-2014.
(9 of 9) MVOP 818 OF 2015
Ex.A-2:Medical Cash Bills issued by Jaya Hospitals, Hanamkonda (amounting to Rs.7,721-80 ps.) Ex.A-3: Prescription Chits of Dr.K.Sathish Chandra, M.D. Chest Physician of Jaya Hospitals, Hanamkonda. Ex.A-4: Prescription Chit of Dr.M.Srinivas, M.D. Consultant Cardiologist of Srinivasa Heart Centre, Hanamkonda. Ex.A-5: Cash Bills of V.B.R. Diagnostics, Hanamkonda (amounting to Rs.2,550/-). Ex.A-6: Cash bills of Prescription fees and Diagnostic Reports of Srinivasa Heart Centre, Hanamkonda (amounting to Rs.1,650/-). Ex.A-7:Diagnostic Report of the Petitioner issued by VBR Diagnostics, Hanamkonda. Ex.A-8:Certified copy of Charge sheet in Crime No. 57/2014 under Section 338 IPC of P.S. Warangal Traffic. Ex.A-9:Attested copy of Leave Proceedings of the Petitioner
dated 27-08-2014
Ex.A-10: Original Salary Certificate of Petitioner
FOR RESPONDENT:
-Nil-
FOR COURT:
Ex.X-1: Original Case Sheet of Jaya Hospital pertaining to Petitioner
FAC CHAIRMAN,
M.A.C.T.-CUM-VII-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
1 SSC:24/2018
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST-CUM-VII-
ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT WARANGAL
Tuesday, this the 17th day of July, 2018.
Present: Sri T.Venkateshwara Reddy, III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge,Wgl. FAC Spl.Sessions Judge for SC/ST-Cum-VII-Addl.District
Judge atWarangal
Special Sessions Case No.24 of 2018
01. Name and description Asst. Commissioner of Police, : of the ComplainantMamnoor. A.1 Jampala Praveen Kumar, S/o. Somaiah, Age.26 Years, Caste Mangali, Occu.Private Employee. R/o.Kakkralapally, Inavol. A.2 Jampala Sharadha, W/o.Somaiah, Age.45 Years, Caste. Mangali, Occu.House wife. R/o.Kakkralapally A.3 Jampala Somaiah, S/o. Ramaswamy, Age. 50 Years, Caste. Name and description of 02:Mangali, Occu. Agriculture, R/o. the accused Kakkralapally A.4 Jampala Jagadeshwar, S/o. Somaiah, Age.22 Years, Caste. Mangali,Occu.Private Employee, R/o. Kakkralapally, A.5 Sonnaila Bachhavva, W/o. Narayana, Age.70 Years, Caste. Mangali, N/o.Thammadapalli (G) Now at R/o. Kakkralapally Under Sec.498-A of I.P.C, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 03Offences charged:and under Sections 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 04Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty 05Finding of the Court:Found not guilty 06Conviction/Sentence or :A.1 to A.5 are found not guilty of the acquittaloffences punishable Under Section 498-A of I.P.C, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 3 A.1 Jampala Praveen Kumar, S/o. Somaiah, Age.26 Years, CasteMangali,Occu.Private Employee. R/o.Kakkralapally, Inavol. A.2 Jampala Sharadha, W/o.Somaiah, Age.45 Years, Caste. Mangali, Occu.House wife. R/o.Kakkralapally A.3 Jampala Somaiah, S/o. Ramaswamy, Age. 50 Years, Caste. Mangali, Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Kakkralapally 2 SSC:24/2018
A.4 Jampala Jagadeshwar, S/o. Somaiah, Age.22 Years, Caste. Mangali,Occu.Private Employee, R/o. Kakkralapally, A.5 Sonnaila Bachhavva, W/o. Narayana, Age.70 Years, Caste. Mangali, N/o.Thammadapalli (G) Now at R/o. Kakkralapally(1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence Accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted u/s.232 Cr.P.C for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall ordered to be in force for a period of six months. Name of the Counsel forSri M.Vasanth Kumar, 07: the ProsecutionAddl.Public Prosecutor Name of the Counsel forSri N.Shekar Rao, 08: the AccusedAdvocate
This case coming up before me on 11.7.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Vasanth Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri N.Shekar Rao, Learned counsel for the accused, and having heard both sides and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Asst.Commissioner of Police Officer, Mamnoor filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.96 of 2017 of Wardhannapet Police Station under Section 498-
A I.P.C and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sec. 3 (1) (s) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against accused Nos.1 to 5 alleging that the accused No.1 is the husband of the defacto-complainant. The accused Nos.2 & 3 are in-laws, accused No.4 is brother-in-law of the defacto-complainant. The accused No.5 is the grand mother of the accused No.1. The defacto-complainant belonged to Scheduled
Castes Community. The accused No.1 and the defacto-complainant got married on 20.12.2015 at Aryasamaj in the presence of their friends. On 22.12.2015 the defacto-complainant and the accused No.1 informed their parents about their marriage. Subsequently the in-laws of the defacto- complainant demanded Rupees 10,00,000/- as dowry. On that the defacto- complainant reported the matter before the Wardhannapet Police. The accused No.1 insulted the defacto-complainant. The accused insulted the 3 SSC:24/2018 defacto-complainant and abused the defacto-complainant by touching her caste. The accused did not allow the defacto-complainant in their house.
Inspite of the advice of the village elders the accused did not allow the defacto-complainant to enter into their house. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered a case in Cr.No.689/2016 Under Section 498-A of
I.P.C, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 3 (1) (s) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and issued F.I.R and took up investigation. Assistant Commissioner of Police after examination of the witnesses and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 5 Under Section 498-A of I.P.C, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 3 (1) (s) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
2.This case was taken on file in S.S.C.No.24 of 2018 under Section 498-A of I.P.C, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused Nos.1 to 5 and on their appearance copies of case documents were furnished to accused Nos.1 to 5.
3.After hearing the arguments submitted by both side counsel, charges
Under Section 498-A of I.P.C, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were framed against the accused and the same were readover and explained to the accused in Telugu to which the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.To substantiate the charges the prosecution got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3.
5.After examination of PW.1 and PW.2 the prosecution closed its side evidence without examining the witnesses cited as LWs.2 to 12 and 14 to 22 in the memo of evidence. Thus, after examination of PW.1 and PW.2 the prosecution closed its side evidence.
4 SSC:24/2018
6.PW.1 is the defacto-complainant and victim girl. PW.2 is the neighbour of the accused.
7.Ex.P.1 is the complaint of PW.1 to police. Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 are Sec.161
Cr.P.C statements of PW.1 and PW.2 respectively.
8.As there is no incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused, examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.
9.Heard the arguments submitted by both sides counsel.
10.Now the points that arise for determination are :
(1)“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused of the offences for which they stand charged
beyond reasonable doubt”. (2) To what result?
11.POINT NO.1: The case of the prosecution is that PW.1 is the wife of accused No.1 and their marriage was performed on 20.12.2015. PW.1 belonged to Scheduled Castes Community. Accused Nos.2 & 3 are parents, accused No.4 is the brother and accused No.5 is the grand mother of the accused No.1. After the marriage the accused Nos.1 to 5 subjected PW.1 to physical and mental harassment for additional dowry amount and they also not allowed PW.1 into their house and accused Nos.1 to 5 abused PW.1 in filthy language by touching the caste of PW.1. On the basis of Ex.P.1 complaint police registered a case, investigated into the same and filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable Under
Section 498-A of I.P.C, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under
Sections 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
12.The court perused the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. The evidence of
PW.1 and PW.2 is not to the effect that the accused Nos.1 to 5 subjected
PW.1 to mental and physical cruelty for additional dowry amount of Rupees 10,00,000/- and the accused Nos.1 to 5 abused PW.1 by touching her caste.
Thus, PW.1 and PW.2 have not supported the prosecution case. PW.1 and 5 SSC:24/2018
PW.2 denied their statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C and the same were marked as Ex.P.2 & P.3 respectively. Though the prosecution cross-examined PW.1 and PW.2, the prosecution has not elicited anything so as to fix the crime on the accused. Except the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 there is no other evidence in support of the prosecution case. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is not to the effect that the accused have committed the offeces as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused of the offences for which they stand charged and this point is answered against the prosecution.
13.POINT NO.2: In view of my findings on point No.1 the accused are to be acquitted of the offences punishable Under Section 498-A of I.P.C, under
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
14.IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty of the offences punishable Under Section 498-A of I.P.C, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and under Sections 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C of the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall ordered to be in force for a period of six months.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of July, 2018)
Sd./- III-Addl.Dist.Judge, Wgl. FAC Spl.Sessions Judge for SC/ST-Cum- VII-Addl.District Judge At Warangal
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution : For Defence :None
PW1: Jampala Shailaja PW2: Dasari Sukanya 6 SSC:24/2018
:Exhibits marked:
For Prosecution :
Ex.P.1 Complaint of PW.1 to police Ex.P.2 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of PW.1 Ex.P.3 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2,
For Defence : --NIL--
Material Objects marked -NIL-
Sd./-
III-Addl.Dist.Judge, Wgl.
FAC Spl.Sessions Judge for SC/ST-Cum- VII-Addl.District Judge At Warangal // TRUE COPY // 7 SSC:24/2018
CALENDER EXTRACT
JUDGMENT IN S.S.C.No.24/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE
FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT
WARANGAL.
1. Name of the Police Station with Cr.No:Dundigal, Crime No. 689/2016
2. Name of the Accused :
A.1Jampala Praveen Kumar, S/o. Somaiah, Age.26 Years, Caste Mangali, Occu.Private Employee. R/o.Kakkralapally, Inavol. A.2 Jampala Sharadha, W/o.Somaiah, Age.45 Years, Caste. Mangali, Occu.House wife. R/o.Kakkralapally A.3Jampala Somaiah, S/o. Ramaswamy, Age. 50 Years, Caste. Mangali, Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Kakkralapally A.4 Jampala Jagadeshwar, S/o. Somaiah, Age.22 Years, Caste. Mangali,Occu.Private Employee, R/o. Kakkralapally, A.5 Sonnaila Bachhavva, W/o. Narayana, Age.70 Years, Caste. Mangali, N/o.Thammadapalli (G) Now at R/o. Kakkralapally
3. Date of offence: 24.12.2016
4. Date of Report: 24.12.2016
5. Date of Arrest: 30.08.2017
6. Date of Release on bail: 12.09.2017
7. Date of Commitment : --
8. Date of commencement of Trial : 11.07.2018
9. Date of closure of Trial: 11.07.2018
10. Date of Sentence/Order : 17.07.2018
In the result, Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty of the offences punishable Under Section 498-A of I.P.C, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and under Sections 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C of the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall ordered to be in force for a period of six months.
11. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY :
The case was taken on file and registered as S.S.C.No. 24 of 2018 on 02-01-2018. On 30.01.2018 on appearance of all accused copies furnished to them and on 11-06-2018 charges framed and Schedule fixed. Trial commenced on 11.07.2018 and closed on 11.07.2018. PWs 1 and 2 are examined and Exs.P-1 to P-3. As there is no incriminating material found in evidence of Pws 1 and 2 against the accused, the examination of the accused u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with and arguments were also heard on the same day. Judgment pronounced on 17.07.2018.
SD./- FAC SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA)CASES-Cum-VII ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.
1 SSC:38/2017
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST-CUM-
VII-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT WARANGAL
Thursday this the 02nd day of August, 2018
Present: Sri T.Venkateswara Reddy, III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge,Wgl. FAC Spl.Sessions Judge for SC/ST-Cum-VII-Addl.District
Judge atWarangal
Special Sessions Case No.38 of 2017
01. Name and description Asst. Commissioner of Police, : of the ComplainantHanamkonda. A.1 Volishetty Madhavi, W/o. Bhaskar, Age.40 Yrs, Caste. Munnurukapu, Occu. House wife, R/o.H.No.17-2- 625/626, Kareemabad, Warangal.
A.2 Volishetty Raghava, S/o. Bhaskar, Age.25 Yrs, Caste. Munnurukapu, Name and description of 02:Occu.Business,R/o.H.No.17-2- the accused 625/626, Kareemabad, Warangal.
A.3 Bommal Ramesh, @ Rangaiah, S/o.Mondaiah,Age.30Years, Caste.Munnurukapu, Occu.Agriculture, R/o.Shayampet, Hanamkonda.
under Sections 447 r/w.34 I.P.C, under Section 427 r/w.34 IPC, under Section 506 r/w.34 I.P.C and under Sections 3 03Offences charged: (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 04Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty 05Finding of the Court:Found not guilty A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 447 r/w.34 I.P.C, under Section 427 r/w.34 IPC, under Section 506 r/w.34 I.P.C and under Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Conviction/Sentence or 06:Hence Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquittal acquitted u/s.232 Cr.P.C for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall ordered to be in force for a period of six months. The un- marked non-valuable property in this case is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. Name of the Counsel for Sri M.Vasanth Kumar, 07: the ProsecutionAddl.Public Prosecutor 2 SSC:38/2017
Name of the Counsel for Sri K.Narsimha Rao, 08: the AccusedAdvocate
This case coming up before me on 25.7.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Vasanth Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri K.Narsimha Rao, Learned counsel for the accused, and having heard both sides and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Asst. Commissioner of Police Officer, Hanamkonda filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.349 of 2016 of Subedari Police Station under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34 I.P.C and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging that on 25.10.2016 the defacto-complainant lodged a written complaint before police stating that the defacto-complainant purchased a plot admeasuring 300 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.68/D and 69/A to C situate at
Shayampet Jagir, Hanamkonda in the name of his minor daughter. The defacto-complainanat filed a suit in O.S.No.382 of 2016 on the file of II-
Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. On 22.10.2016 the accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 trespassed into the plot of the defacto-complainant and dismantled the basement and all the accused abused the defacto- complainant by touching his caste and the accused No.1 threatened the defacto-complainant with dire consequences. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered a case and took up investigation. Assistant
Commissioner of Police investigated into the case and filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation.
2.This case was taken on file under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.34
I.P.C and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused. Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused on their appearance before the
Court.
3.After hearing the arguments submitted by both side counsel, charges under Sections 447 r/w.34 I.P.C, under Section 427 r/w.34 IPC, under 3 SSC:38/2017
Section 506 r/w.34 I.P.C and under Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are framed against the accused and the same are readover and explained to the accused in Telugu to which the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.To substantiate the charges the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6.
5.PW.1 is the defacto-complainant. PW.2, PW.3, PW.4 are eye witnesses to the incident. PW.5 and PW.6 are panch witnesses for scene of offence observation panchanama.
6.Ex.P.1 is complaint PW.1 to police. Exs.P.2 to P.5 are Section 161
Cr.P.C statements of PWs.1 to 4 respectively. Ex.P.6 is Crime Details Form.
7.After examination of PWs.1 to 6 the prosecution closed its side evidence without examining the witnesses cited as LWs.3,6 and 9 to 14 in the memo of evidence.
8.As there is no incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused, examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.
9.Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsel.
10.Now the points that arise for determination are :
(1)“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused of the offences for which they stand charged
beyond reasonable doubt”.
(2) To what result?
11.POINT NO.1: The case of the prosecution is that PW.1 the defacto- complainant belonged to Scheduled Community and on 22.10.2016 the accused Nos.1 to 3 trespassed into the house plot of PW.1 and caused damage to the basement and abused PW.1 by touching his caste.
12.In the evidence of PW.1 has not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of PW.1 is not to the effect that the accused are the persons who 4 SSC:38/2017 abused PW.1 and who damaged the property of PW.1. PW.1 stated in his evidence that on 25.10.2016 about 10 to 20 persons came to his land and they tried to occupy the land and the said persons damaged compound wall of the property of PW.1. PW.1 cannot identify the said persons and PW.1 cannot say whether the accused were present at that time.PWs.2 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident and they stated in their evidence that they do not know anything about the case and they had not witnessed the incident. PW.5 and PW.6 are panch witnesses for Crime Details Form and they stated in their evidence that they do not know the contents of Ex.P.6
Crime Details Form. Thus PWs.1 to 6 who are the very material witnesses to the case of the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case. PWs.1 to 4 denied their statements recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C and the same are marked Exs.P.2 to P.5 respectively. Though the prosecution cross examined PWs.1 to 6, prosecution has not elicited anything so as to fix the crime on the accused. There is no legal evidence in support of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused of the offences for which they stand charged. Hence, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused of the offences for which they stand charged and this point is answered against the prosecution.
13.POINT NO.2: In view of my findings on point No.1 the accused are to be acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 447 r/w.34 I.P.C, under Section 427 r/w.34 IPC, under Section 506 r/w.34 I.P.C and under
Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
14.I N THE RESULT, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable charges under Sections 447 r/w.34 I.P.C, under Section 427 r/w.34 IPC, under Section 506 r/w.34 I.P.C and under Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Hence accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C of the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall ordered to be in 5 SSC:38/2017 force for a period of six months. The un-marked non-valuable property involved in this case is ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 02nd day of August, 2018)
Sd/-T.Venkateswara Reddy,
III-Addl.Dist.Judge, Wgl. FAC Spl.Sessions Judge for SC/ST-Cum- VII-Addl.District Judge At Warangal
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution : For Defence :None
PW1: R.Anand Babu PW2: S.Rajeshwar Rao PW3: M.Vijay Kumar PW4: D.Parameshwar PW5: D.Kumar PW6: Shivaratri Shekar
:Exhibits marked:
For Prosecution :
Ex.P.1 Complaint of PW.1 to police Ex.P.2 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P.6 is Crime Details Form
For Defence : --NIL--
Material Objects marked -NIL-
Sd/-T.Venkateswara Reddy,
III-Addl.Dist.Judge, Wgl.
FAC Spl.Sessions Judge for SC/ST-Cum- VII-Addl.District Judge At Warangal
Order Record 11 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS/102/2007 | Anumula Venkat Laxmi vs Anumala Seena Sagar | 24 Sep 2018 | copy of judgment | — |
| AS/118/2007 | Anumala Venkat Laxmi vs Anumala Seena Sagar | 24 Sep 2018 | copy of judgment | — |
| SC.SPL/600038/2017 | Rudduru Anandababu vs Volishetty Madhavi | 02 Aug 2018 | copy of judgment | Acquitted |
| MVOP/818/2015 | Mohd.Raj Mohammad vs Puttala Sathya Soma Mallikarjun | 19 Jul 2018 | copy of judgment | — |
| SC.SPL/24/2018 | Shailaja Jampala vs Jampala Praveen Kumar | 17 Jul 2018 | copy of judgment | Acquitted |
| SC.SPL/600019/2016 | Bobbala Shobharani vs Narsingoju Bhrammachary | 16 Jul 2018 | copy of judgment | — |
| SC.SPL/600026/2014 | Jannu Gattaiah vs Kanyadhari Sheshagiri Rao | 04 Jun 2018 | copy of judgment | — |
| SC.SPL/600006/2012 | Dr. Karantothu Bukya Chandra Bhanu vs Chadsavada Mallikarjun Rao @ Md. Sirajuddin | 31 May 2018 | copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/410/2015 | Ramkaran Paswan and another vs K. Ramesh Reddy and others | 24 May 2018 | copy of judgment | — |
| OS/55/2009 | Gattu Mahesh vs The orieintal Insurnace Company Limited | 26 Apr 2018 | copy of judgment | — |
| CRLRP/600045/2017 | Mohd. Akram Ahmed vs The State of TS through WPS Warangal | 23 Apr 2018 | copy of order | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has T.Venkateswara Reddy handled?
T.Venkateswara Reddy has handled 11 court orders since 2018 at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 2 orders per month.
What types of cases does T.Venkateswara Reddy hear?
Based on available records, T.Venkateswara Reddy primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) and Civil matters (Appeal Suits, Original Suits) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is T.Venkateswara Reddy currently posted?
T.Venkateswara Reddy is posted as II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Warangal at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana.
Are judgments by T.Venkateswara Reddy available online?
Yes. 6 judgments by T.Venkateswara Reddy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does T.Venkateswara Reddy dispose cases?
T.Venkateswara Reddy disposes approximately 2 cases per month, based on 11 orders handled over their tenure at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex.
Since when is T.Venkateswara Reddy serving?
T.Venkateswara Reddy has been serving at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex since 2018.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Apr 2018 — Oct 2018II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Warangal · 10 orders
-
Apr 2018 — Apr 2018II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Warangal · 1 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court