Sri V.Audhinarayana

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present : Sri V. Audhinarayana,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

Monday, this the Seventeenth (17th) day of April, 2023

Original Suit No. 193 of 2021

Between :

Javvaji Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Laxmi Subbaiah, aged about 58 years, Business, Hindu, Tarlupadu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintif

And

Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu (Died) his L.Rs.

1. Kurmarayuni Perantalu Devi, 1st wife of Late Venkateswarlu, aged about 45 years,

2. Kurmarayuni Sarala, 2nd wife of Late Venkateswralu, aged bout 37 years,

3. Kurmarayuni Chennarayudu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 21 years,

All are residents of Ganugapenta Village, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendants

This suit has come before me on 06-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Shaik Shahanaj Begum, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri R. Sree Krishnaiah and Smt. A. Usha Sri, Advocates for defendants; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T // //

01.This suit is filed with a prayer to pass a decree against the estate of deceased Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu which are in the hands of defendants 1 to 3 and in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants to pay the suit amount of

Rs. 2,95,840/- (Rupees Two lakhs ninety five thousand eight hundred and forty only) (Rs. 1,47,920/- + Rs. 1,47,920/-) with the costs.

02.The plaint reads as follows:-

The husband of the defendants 1 & 2 and father of the 3rd defendant namely Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu had borrowed a sum of Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees (Fair) 2

Eighty six thousand only) from one Javaji Sai Krishna, S/o. Vijaya Bhaskar Rao of

Tarlupadu Village and Mandal on 25-05-2017 agreeing to repay the same interest at 24% per annum on demand either to the transferor or to his order at Tarlupadu and the deceased defendant executed ‘A’ marked suit promissory note in favour of said Javvaji Sai Krishna on 25-05-2017. The said Javvaji Sai Krishna the transferor had demanded the deceased defendant to pay the suit debt, but he failed to pay the amount. Hence, Javvaji Sai Krishna for the purpose of his necessities, had received a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rupees One lakh forty thousand only) from the plaintiff on 20-5-2020 and the said Javvaji Sai Krishna has transferred the ‘A’ marked promissory note in favour of the plaintiff who is his father and made transfer endorsement on the back side of the suit promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff is a holder in due course and is entitled to recover the ‘A’ marked suit promissory note debt from the defendants.

2(1). Again on 20-06-2017, the husband of the defendants 1 & 2 and father of the 3rd defendant borrowed Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand only) from the plaintiff for his family necessities and had executed the suit ‘B’ marked promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum . The deceased borrower Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu died intestate leaving his wives i.e. defendants 1 & 2 and his son i.e. defendant No. 3 as his legal representatives and thus right to sue survives on them and the defendants are holding the estate of the deceased Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu and on being demanded by the plaintiff, the defendants did not pay the suit debt.

Hence,this suit.

03.The defendants filed the written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and submitted that the husband of the defendants 1 & 2 and father of the 3rd defendant namely Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu never (Fair) 3 borrowed an amount of Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand only) on 25-05- 2017 from one Javvaji Sai Krishna and never executed ‘A’ marked promissory note in favour of said Javvaji Sai Krishna. Further, the husband of the defendants 1 & 2 and father of the 3rd defendant namely Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu did not borrow Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand only) from the plaintiff on 20-06- 2017 and never executed ‘B’ marked promissory note. After the death of the husband of the defendants 1 & 2 and father of the 3rd defendant, the plaintiff forged suit ‘A’ & ‘B’ marked promissory notes and got filed this suit with anti date to get unlawful gain. There are political differences between the Late

Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu and the plaintiff with mandal politics and on that, the plaintiff with his hench men fabricated the suit promissory note stating that the late Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu executed ‘A’ & ‘B’ marked promissory notes.

Moreover, the said Javvaji Sai Krishna who is the transferor of the suit ‘A’ marked promissory note is none other than the son of the plaintiff and he never demanded the defendants to pay the suit ‘A’ marked promissory note debt and he never issued legal notice to the defendants. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the contents in the plaint and written statement, the following issues are framed for trial:-

1. Whether the ‘A’ marked suit promissory note, Dated: 25-05-2017 is true, valid and duly executed by deceased Sri K. Venkateswarlu?

2. Whether the ‘B’ marked suit promissory note, Dated: 20-06-2017 is true, valid and duly executed by deceased Sri K. Venkateswarlu?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief claimed for?

4. To what relief?

05.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff gave evidence as P.W.1 and got (Fair) 4 marked Exs. A1 to A3. Ex. A1 is the ‘A’ marked promissory note, Dated: 25-05- 2017 for Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand only); Ex. A2 is the transfer endorsement, Dated: 20-05-2020 and Ex.A3 is the ‘B’ marked promissory note,

Dated: 20-06-2017 for Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand only) and he

further examined one of the attestors of Exs. A1 & A3 as P.Ws.2; the attestor of

Ex. A2 as P.W.3 and transferor of Ex. A1 was examined as P.W.5 and the chief affidavit of P.W.4 is eschewed. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants, the 3rd defendant gave evidence as D.W.1, but no document is marked on their behalf.

06.Heard both sides.

07.ISSUE Nos. 1 & 2: (Discussed in common)

“Whether the ‘A’ marked suit promissory note, Dated: 25-05-2017 is

true, valid and duly executed by deceased Sri K. Venkateswarlu?” and

“Whether the ‘B’ marked suit promissory note, Dated: 20-06-2017 is

true, valid and duly executed by deceased Sri K. Venkateswarlu?”

It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the husband of the defendants 1 & 2 and father of the defendant No. 3 had borrowed Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand only) under Ex. A1 from Javvaji Sai Krishna transferor of Ex. A1 and also borrowed Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand only) under Ex. A3 from the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendants pleaded that the husband of the defendants 1 & 2 and father of the defendant No. 3 did not borrow the amount and did not execute Exs. A1 & A3 and that the transferor of Ex. A1 never demanded the defendants or the deceased defendant to discharge the debt under Ex. A1. Ex. A1 is the ‘A’ marked promissory note, Dated: 25-05-2017 for Rs.

86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand only); Ex. A2 is the transfer endorsement, (Fair) 5

Dated: 20-05-2020 and Ex.A3 is the ‘B’ marked promissory note, Dated: 20-06-

2017 for Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand only).

08.The plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination.

Coming to the cross examination, P.W.1 clarified that the transferor by name

Javvaji Sai Krishna is his son and he is a Software Engineer and he studied at

Markapur. Except the above information, there is nothing in the cross examination of P.W.1 to discuss.

09.P.W.2 who is the 2nd attestor of Exs. A1 & A3, in his cross examination also stated that Javvaji Sai Krishna is working as Software Engineer and residing in

India not in the foreign country. The other suggestions categorically denied by the P.W.2. As such P.W.2 has corroborated P.W.1 in respect of attestation of Exs.

A1 & A3.

10.P.W.3 is the attestor of Ex. A2. In his cross examination, he has stated that he has attested the transfer endorsement under Ex. A2 wherein, the plaintiff has paid Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rupees One lakh forty thousand only) to Sai Krishna. P.W.3 has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1.

11.The transferor by name Javvaji Sai Krishna has been examined as P.W.5. In his cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that the attestors are his friends and admitted that no legal notice is given by him to K. Venkateswarlu i.e.

deceased defendant and he stated that he demanded orally. It is also elicited that Ex. A2 does not contain that P.W.5 received amount for his necessity under

Ex. A2.

12.The plaintiff has not only examined the transferor under Ex. A1 but also examined the attestors of Exs. A1 to A3. The attestors and transferor have (Fair) 6 supported the pleadings of the plaintiff. So far as the cross examinations are concerned, the attestors have categorically stated that they were present at the time of attestation of Exs. A1 to A3. The transferor under Ex. A2 also reiterated that he received Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rupees One lakh forty thousand only) from the plaintiff and he made transfer endorsement in favour of the plaintiff.

13.So far as the defence of the defendants is concerned, they pleaded that the deceased Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu did not borrow under Exs. A1 & A3 and did not execute Exs. A1 & A3. In support of the above, the 3rd defendant gave evidence as D.W.1. The chief examination of D.W.1 is nothing but recapture of the contents of the written statement. In the cross examination, it is elicited that the deceased Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu was father of D.W.1 and the said

Venkateswarlu died three years back and he was Ex-Surpanch of Ganugapenta

Village of Tarlupadu Mandal. D.W.1 claimed that the signatures on Exs. A1 & A3 did not belong to his father and there are political rivalry between the plaintiff’s family and his family. So far as the political rivalry between the plaintiff family and defendants’ are concerned except oral reiteration by D.W.1, there is no verifiable independent evidence, as such the political rivalry is ruled out. D.W.1 claimed that the signatures on Exs. A1 & A3 do not belong to the deceased K.

Venkateswarlu who was father of the D.W.1. The defendants did not take any steps to send Exs. A1 & A3 to the expert though they are denying the signatures on Exs. A1 & A3. The plaintiff not only gave evidence as P.W.1 but also examined the attestors and transferor of Ex. A1. Therefore execution and contents of Exs.

A1 & A3 are proved by the plaintiff. As the plaintiff has proved the legal burden with regarding to the contents and execution of Exs. A1 to A3, the evidentiary burden shifts from the plaintiff to defendants. The defendants except the evidence of D.W.1, no other supporting witness is examined by the defendants.

(Fair) 7

The defendants did not take any steps to verify the signatures on Exs. A1 & A3 with admitted signatures. The cross examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 & 5 do not give scope to discard or discredit the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 & 5. Therefore, I believe the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 holding that the deceased defendant borrowed the amount under Exs. A1 & A3 and executed in favour of P.Ws.5 & 1 respectively.

Accordingly, the points are answered in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants.

14.ISSUE No. 3:

“Whether the plaintif is entitled the relief claimed for?”

There is no dispute with regarding the relationship of defendants with deceased Kurmaryuni Venkateswarlu and it is pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendants are holding the estate of the deceased Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu.

It is therefore, the plaintiff is entitled the relief claimed from the esate of the deceased Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants.

15.ISSUE No. 4:- “To what relief?”

As the issue Nos. 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants, hence the suit is liable to be decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the estate of the Late Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu which are in the hands of Defendants 1 to 3 and the defendants 1 to 3 are directed to pay the suit amount of Rs. 2,95,840/- (Rupees Two lakhs ninety five thousand eight hundred and forty only) (Rs. 1,47,920/- + Rs. 1,47,920/-) from and out of the estate of Late (Fair) 8

Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the suit i.e. 03-09-2020 to till the date of decree i.e. 17-04- 2023 and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs. 1,72,000/- (Rupees One lakh seventy two thousand only) (Rs. 86,000/- +

Rs. 86,000/-).

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

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 17th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- V. Audhinarayana,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintif : P.W.1 : Javvaji Vijaya Bhaskara Rao

P.W.2 : Gosu Venkateswarlu

P.W.3 : Nadikattu Bhaskar Reddy

P.W.4 : Kunduru Pedda Kasi Reddy (Eschewed)

P.W.5 : Javvaji Sai Krishna.

For Defendants :

D.W. 1 : Kurmarayuni Chennarayudu.

Documents Marked

For Plaintif :

Ex. A1 : The ‘A’ marked suit promissory note, Dated: 25-05-2017 executed by the deceased defendant namely Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu in favour of transferor of plaintiff by name Javvaji Sai Krishna for an amount of Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand only);

Ex. A2 :The Transfer Endorsement, Dated: 20-05-2020 and

Ex. A3 :The ‘B’ marked suit promissory note, Dated: 20-06-2017 executed by the deceased defendant namely Kurmarayuni Venkateswarlu in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand only).

For Defendants: - NIL -

Ild/- V.A., P.J.C.J.

(Fair)

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MARKAPUR

Calendar Case No. 872 of 2022

•

1)Offence : 25-06-2021

2)Complaint 25-06-2021

3)Date of Arrest of A.1 to: 25-06-2021 A.4

4)Date of release of A.1 to: 05-07-2021 A.4

5)Commencement of Trial: 24-02-2023

6)Close of Trial: 27-03-2023

7)Judgment: 03-04-2023

8)Complainant: State Inspector, S.E.B. Station, Markapur.

9)Accused: 1. Kopparthi Ramana Reddy, s/o Obulreddy, 34 years, Caste by Reddy, Cultivation, r/o Y.Kothapalli village, Yerragondapalem Mandal.

2. Shakala Srinivasulu, s/o Brahmaiah, 31 years, caste by Reddy, Mechanic, r/o Opposite Venkateswara Theater, Yerragondapalem village and Mandal.

3. Shaik Jani, s/o Rasool, 21 years, caste by Muslim, Yerragondapalem village & Mandal

4. Dontha Charan Kumar s/o Koteswara Rao, 25 years, caste by Gouda, coolie, r/o S.T. colony, Yerragondapalem village & Mandal.

0)Offences: 34(A)) of A.P. Excise Act

11) Plea of Accused: Pleaded Not guilty

12) Finding Result FOUND NOT GUILTY

13) Explanation for delay: Case was taken on file on 01-11-2022, Trial commenced on 24-02-2023, Trial closed on 27-03-2023, Judgment was pronounced on 03-04-2023. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- V.Audhinarayana

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Ongole, Prakasam District.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

MARKAPUR

Present: Sri V. Audhinarayana,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur

Monday, this the Third (03rd ) day of April, 2023

Calendar Case No. 872 of 2022

Between:

State Inspector, S.E.B. Station, Markapur.…Complainant

And

1. Kopparthi Ramana Reddy, s/o Obulreddy, 34 years, Caste by Reddy, Cultivation, r/o Y.Kothapalli village, Yerragondapalem Mandal.

2. Shakala Srinivasulu, s/o Brahmaiah, 31 years, caste by Reddy, Mechanic, r/o Opposite Venkateswara Theater, Yerragondapalem village and Mandal.

3. Shaik Jani, s/o Rasool, 21 years, caste by Muslim, Yerragondapalem village & Mandal.

4. Dontha Charan Kumar s/o Koteswara Rao, 25 years, caste by Gouda, coolie, r/o S.T. colony, Yerragondapalem village & Mandal.… Accused

This case has come before me on 28-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri Y.Anil Kumar,

Advocate for the A1 to A4 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The State Inspector, S.E.B. Station, Markapur.. laid charge sheet in Cr.No.

101/2021 against the A1 to A4 for the offence punishable Under Section 34(A) of

A.P. Excise Act.

02.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 25-06-2021 on receipt of relevant information about illegal transportation of liquor bottles

Lw.1/Akkala Reddamma, HC 262, Peddaraveedu P.S. along with Lw.2/I.Ravi Kumar, PC 2384, Peddaraveedu PS and Lw.3/P.Novahu, HG 275 Peddaraveedu PS visited

Hanuman Junction (Kunta) and noticed one vehicle bearing No. AP 27 BL 5855 (Etiyaz car), Lw.1 with the assistance of Lws.2 & 3 stopped the car and noticed including driver four persons available and on questioning by Lw.1, they furnished their identity particulars as A1 to A4 and they confessed that they are doing illegal business with liquor bottles by getting from Telangana State and selling them in the surrounding areas of Yerragondapalem. In the same manner A1 to A4 took the said car on hire from S.Satyanarayana of Yerragondapalem village on hire, went to

Eegalapenta where by the side of bus stand from un unknown person they purchased the liquor bottles i.e., 1. Blender pride 750 ml bottles – 9, 2. Rayal Stag 750 ml bottles – 5, 3. Rayal Stag 350 ml bottles – 4, Rayal Stag 180 ml bottles – 46, 5.

Officer Choice 180 ml bottles-48 and 6. Imperial Blue 180 ml bottles – 48. Total 160 liquor bottles. Lw.1 verified the car and found in the dickey of the car the above mentioned liquor bottles kept without having any permission to transport and sell the liquor bottles.

After conclusion of the police proceedings Lw.1 arrested the accused A1 to A4, seized liquor bottles and car and returned to the police station and registered the policed proceedings as a case in Cr.No.102/2021 u/sec. 34-A of A.P. Excise Act of

Peddaraveedu Police station on 25-06-2021 at 9-10 PM and produced A1 to A4

before this Court for judicial remand.

On 28.06.2021 D.Rama Krishna, S.I. of Police Peddaraveedu P.S transferred the case records in Cr.No.102/2021 u/sec.34-A of AP Excise Act of Peddaraveedu PS to the Station House Officer, Markapur and handed over all the seized liquor bottles and car bearing number AP 27 BL 5855 on point of jurisdiction for further proceedings.

On receipt of the case records in Cr.No.102/2021 of peddaraveedu PS and case property i.e., liquor bottles and car, re-registered as a case in Cr.No.101/2021 u/sec.

34-A of A.P. Excise Act of S.E.B Station, Markapur on 28.06.2021 and submitted the copies of FIR to all concerned officers and investigated by Lw.4/A.Padmaja, Sub-

Inspector, SEB Station, Markapur.

During the course of investigation on 29.07.2021 Lw.4 sent

Lw.6/G.Peddasubbarayudu, SEB Excise Constable, Markapur to get mediators, but in vain. Then Lw.4 among the seized property preserved one bottle from each quality as sample for onward transmission to the expert for analysis and to that effect prepares special report on 29-07-2021 from 9-30 AM to 10-30 AM duly attested by

Lw.4 to 6 and the special report was scribed by Lw.5/D.V.Ramana, SEB HC, SEB

Station, Markapur.

During the course of investigation Lw.4 sent the sample bottles to the

Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Guntur through the Assistant

Enforcement Superintendent of SEB Markapur and opined that the sample bottles are Indian Liquor.

Lw.7/N.Ragamai, Inspector, SEB, Station, Markapur submitted proposals to the

Deputy Commissioner and confiscation authority, special Enforcement Bureau, SPSR

Nellore to confiscate to Ithiyaz car bearing No. AP 27 BL 5855 and also liquor bottles excluding samples to destruct them (154 bottles).

The Deputy Commissioner and confiscation authority Special Enforcement

Bureau, SPSR Nellore permitted to destruct case property.

As per the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and confiscation authority,

Special Enforcement Bureau, SPSR Nellore, Lw.7 destructed the pending liquor bottles 936 concerned in this case underneath of National High way 16 Bridge on the way to Ongole to Agraharam.

After completion of investigation Lw.7/N.Ragamai, SEB Inspector, SEB Station,

Markapur filed the charge sheet.

04.Cognizance of the offence was taken for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act against A1 to A4.

Act against accused and issued summons.

05. On appearance of A1 to A4, on 24-11-2022, copies of case documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

06. On appearance of the A1 to A4 on 02-12-2022, they ares examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. Charge under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise

Act is framed against the them. The prosecution case was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which A1 to A4 denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in accordance with the law.

07.In order to prove its case the prosecution has been examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 besides M.Os.1 to 6.

08.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 are examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code on 28-03-2023, and explaining the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against the A1 to A4 for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

09. Heard the arguments on both sides.

10.Now the point for determination before me is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the A1

to A4 for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P.

Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

11. PW1 is the supporting witness on the instructions of Lw.4, he went to Markapur town to secure mediators at the time of taking sample from the seized property in SEB station but, nobody came forward to act as mediators. Special report is prepared at the time of taking sample. He signed on special report.

12. Pw.2 is one of the investigating officer and she deposed that she received chemical analysis report from RPEL, Guntur, Later she sent confiscation proposals of seized property and after receiving destruction proceedings of contraband, she disposed off the contraband and she filed charge sheet. Ex.P.` is the Chemical analysis Report.

13.PW.3 who re-registered Cr.No.101.2021 under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act deposed that on 29-07-2021 at about 09-30 a.m in the police station, she have drawn samples i.e., 750 ml from two varieties, 375 ml from Rayal Stag, 180 ml from Rayal Stag,

Officers Choice and Imperial Blue from the seized property under the cover of special

Report. Ex.P.2 is the Special Report, dated 28-06-2021. M.Os.1 to 6 are the sample bottles in

C.P.R.No. 67/2023.

14.Pw.4 who is the Head Constable, Peddaraveedu Police Station deposed that on 25- 06-2021 he along with Lw.2 and Lw.3 while petroling and at about 07-00 p.m. they reached to the Hanuman Junction Kunta and found one car bearing No. AP 27 BL 5855 Etios company was proceeding at high speed without stopping the car. Then he with the assistance of his staff stopped the car and noticed four persons were available in the car including driver. On enquiry about their personal details, he felt some suspicion on them as they did not give any proper reply. Then with the assistance of his staff he searched the car and found liquor bottles in the dickey of the car, without having any license or bills for the liquor bottles. On enquiry they revealed, their names and particulars of A1 to A4 and they confessed that they purchased liquor bottles from Eegalapenta in Telangana State to sell the same to the persons in Yerragondapalem. The car hired from S.Satyanarayana of

Yerragondapalem village. He found 160 liquor bottles of various quality and different varieties. 1. Blender Pride-750 m.l – 09 bottles, 2. Royal Stag – 750 m.l. - 05 bottles, 3. Royal

Stag – 375 m.l. - 04 bottles, 4. Royal Stag – 180 m.l. - 46 bottles, 5Officer Choice – 180 m.l – 48 bottles and 6. Imperial Blue – 180 m.l – 48 bottles. After informing the grounds of arrest, he seized the contraband from the possession of accused and he arrested A1 to A4 along with car bearing No. AP 27 BL 5855 Etios company under the cover of police proceedings.

They returned to the Police Station and he registered police proceedings as a case in

Cr.No.102/2021 under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. He submitted FIR to this Court and copies to the concerned officers and produced the A1 to A4 before this Court for remand.

He examined Lws.2 & 3 and recorded their statements under section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.3 is the FIR, Ex.P.4 is the Police Proceedings, Ex.P.5 is the FIR in Cr.No.101/2021 of SEB

Markapur. He handed over the C.D. file to S.I. of Police, Peddaraveedu for further investigation. In his cross-examination he admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality.

15.Pw.1 to 3 are the excise officials and they have deposed their roles in the chief- examination, why Pw.3 has not secured the independent mediators for the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused. The prosecution has failed to give proper account for failure of securing the independent witnesses for the seizure of the contraband from the accused. It is not safe to go against the accused basing on the uncorrobarated evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3 who are the excise officials. Pw.4 who is the H.C. of Peddaraveedu

P.S. who conducted raid, seized the case property, car, arrested A1 to A4 and registered the case and filed the C.D. file to Pw.3. In order to connect the accused to the alleged offence, the prosecution has to establish the seizure of the contraband from the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution herein failed to establish the seizure because the prosecution has failed to comply the conditions under Section 165 r/w 100 of Criminal

Procedure Code pertaining to the seizure of contraband. It is therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the A1 to A4 dbeyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the A1 to A4 are entitled to benefit of doubt.

16. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of

Criminal Procedure Code for the said charge. The bail bonds of the A1 to A4 as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Criminal procedure Code. M.Os. 1 to 6. I.e, 180 ml bottles in C.P.R. No.67/2023 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed by the Copyist on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03rd day of April, 2023.

Sd/- V.Audinarayana

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- Pw.1:G.Pedda Subba Rayudu SEB Constable, Markapur - Nil - Pw.2: N.Ragamai, SEB CI, Markapur Pw.3: A.Paddmaja, SEB SI, Markapur Pw.4: A.Reddemma, HC, Peddaraveedu PS

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

Ex.P.1:Chemical Analysis Report -NIL - Ex.P2: Special Report Ex. P3: F.I.R in Cr.No.102/2021 Ex.P.4: Police Proceedings Ex.P.5: FIR in Cr.No.101/2021

Material objects marked

For Prosecution:-

M.O.1: 180 ml bottle of Blender pride in C.P.R. No.67/2023 M.O.2: 180 ml bottle of Rayal Stag in C.P.R. No.67/2023 M.O.3: 180 ml bottle of Rayal Stag in C.P.R. No.67/2023 M.O.4: 180 ml bottle of Rayal Stag in C.P.R. No.67/2023 M.O.5: 180 ml bottle of Officer Choice in C.P.R. No.67/2023 M.O.6: 180 ml bottle of Imperial Blue in C.P.R. No.67/2023

For Defence:- - NIL -

Ild/- V.A.

P.J.C.J., MRKP,

FAC: A.J.M.F.C. MRKP

// true copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MARKAPUR

Calendar Case No. 1094 of 2022

1)Offence : 20-07-2021

2)Complaint 20-07-2021

3)Date of Arrest of: 20-07-2021 Accused

4)Date of release of:28-07-2021 Accused

5)Commencement of Trial: 24-02-2023

6)Close of Trial: 24-02-2023

7)Judgment: 06-04-2023

8)Complainant: State Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Yerragondapalem.

9)Accused:1. Bellamkonda Bala Nagamma, w/o Guravaiah, age 48 years, Yerukala by caste, r/o Gangupalli village, Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Bujula Kotaiah, s/o Yogaiah, age 40 years, Yerukala by caste, r/o Chennarayapalli village, Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District..

10) Offences: 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act

11) Plea of Accused: Pleaded Not guilty

12) Finding Result FOUND NOT GUILTY

13) Explanation for delay: Case was taken on file on 18-12-2022, Trial commenced on 24-02-2023, Trial closed on 24-02-2023, Judgment was pronounced on 06-04-2023. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- V. Audhinarayana

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Ongole, Prakasam District.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

MARKAPUR

Present: Sri V. Audhinarayana,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur

Thursday, this the Sixth 06 th day of April, 2023

Calendar Case No. 1094 of 2022

Between:

State Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Yerragondapalem.…Complainant

And

1. Bellamkonda Bala Nagamma, w/o Guravaiah, age 48 years, Yerukala by caste, r/o Gangupalli village, Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Bujula Kotaiah, s/o Yogaiah, age 40 years, Yerukala by caste, r/o Chennarayapalli village, Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District.… Accused

This case has come before me on 27-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri R.Balu Naik,

Advocate for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The State Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Yerragondapalem laid charge sheet in Cr.No. 178/2021 against the A1 & A2 for the offence punishable Under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

02.The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 20-07-2021 Lw.3/N.Venkata

Ramana,Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem along with along with Lw.1/

P.Ranganayakulu, Enforcement Head Constable, Yerragondapalem and

Lw.2/P.Venkateswarlu, Enforcement Head Constable, Yerragondapalem while conducting raids to detect P &Excise offence at about 03-30 P.M they reached to the Ankalamma

Temple located before Gangupalli village of Yerragondapalem Mandal and found A1 hide behind the temple on seeing Lws. Then Lw.3 detained her with the assistance of Lws.1 & 2 and noticed that A1 was in a possession of one plastic can and A1 revealed that the can contained I.D. Liquor and A1 informed that she purchased the ID liquor from A.2. Thereupon

Lw.3 sent to Lw.2 to Gangupalli village to securse mediators, but in vain. Then Lw.3 verified the plastic can and found can is 20 liters capacity and it contains 20 liters of I.D. liquor. Lw.3 drawn one 180 m.l. OF I.D. liquor as sample from the plastic can in separate 180 ml capacity bottle and kept the remaining contraband in the same can, and sealed and labeled both sample bottle and contraband and put the signature of Lw.3 and obtained the thumb impression of the A1 and affixed the same on the sample bottle and identity slips and arrested the A1 after informing the grounds of arrest as contemplated under sec. 50 and 50(1) Cr.P.C. procedure. Then Lw.3 along with Lws.1 & 2 proceeded to Chennarayapalli village outskirts, A2 observed them and raw away from there,then A1 identified him as

A2.Then Lw.3 tried to caught hold him with the assistance of Lws.1 & 2, but in vain.

Thereupon A2 ascertained the identity particulars of A2. Sealed and seized the contraband under a cover of Special Report drafted by Lw.1 at the scene of offence concluded at about 05-00 P.M. duly attested by Lws.1 to 3.

They returned to the Police Station and she registered as a case in Cr.No.178/2021 for the offence u/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and and on the next day A1 forwarded the accused to this Court for judicial remand.

Subsequently Lw.3 arrested A2 on 20-07-2021 at 09-30 PM and on the same day produced before this Court for remand.

During the course of investigation, Lw.3 sent the sample bottle along with letter of advice to chemical examiner, RPEL, Guntur through A.E.S., SEB, Markapur. She received chemical analysis report from RPEL, Guntur. She sent the remaining property before the

Deputy Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, SPSR Nellore district for confiscation of the case property basic on the report the Chemical Examiner, Regional P & E Laboratory,

Guntur. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, SPSR Nellore district ordered to destroy the liquor and she destroyed the same on 06-07-2022.

After completion of investigation and after receipt of the Chemical analysis report,Lw.3 filed the charge sheet.

04.Cognizance of the offence was taken for the offence punishable under section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. P Act against A1 and A2 and issued summons.

05. On appearance of A1 and A2, on 02-02-2023, copies of case documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

06. On appearance of the A1 and A2 on 24-02-2023, A1 and A2 are examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. Charge under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. P

Act is framed against the accused. The prosecution case was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which A1 and A2 are denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in accordance with the law.

07.In order to prove its case the prosecution has been examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 besides M.O.1.

08.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 are examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code on 27-03-2023, and explaining the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against the A1 and A2 for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

09. Heard the arguments on both sides.

10.Now the point for determination before me is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the A1

and A2 for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w

8(e) of A.P. P Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

11. Pw.1 is the Investigating Officer,who alleged to have participation for conducting the raids and seizing the property under cover of special report under

Ex.P.1. She deposed in the chief examination pertaining to her participation of the alleged seizure under Ex.P.1 and filed the charge sheet.

In her cross examined she admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and no rough sketch is prepared at the scene of offence and the particulars of the person from whom they requested to act as mediators are not mentioned in the proceedings under Ex.P.1.

12. PW.1 is the supporting witness who alleged to have accompanied Pw.1 for conducting the raids and seizing the property under cover of special proceedings under

Ex.P.1. He deposed in the chief examination pertaining to his participation of the alleged seizure under Ex.P.1. In the cross examination he also admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality.

13.Pw.1 & 2 are the excise officials and Pws.1 & 2 have deposed their roles in the chief- examination and both of them admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality. If the scene of offence is a busy locality, why Pw.1 has not secured the independent mediators for the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused. The prosecution has failed to give proper account for failure of securing the independent witnesses for the seizure of the contraband from the accused. It is not safe to go against the accused basing on the uncorroborated evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 who are the excise officials. In order to connect the accused to the alleged offence, the prosecution has to establish the seizure of the contraband from the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution herein failed to establish the seizure because the prosecution has failed to comply the conditions under

Section 165 r/w 100 of Criminal Procedure Code pertaining to the seizure of contraband. It is therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the A1 & A2 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, A1 & A2 are entitled to benefit of doubt.

14. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said charge. The bail bonds of the A1 and

A2 as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Criminal procedure Code. M.O1. I.e, 180 ml bottle of I.D. arrack in C.P.R. No.57/2023 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed by the Copyist on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- V. Audhinarayana

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

Pw.1:N.Venkata Ramana, SEB C.I., Yerragondapalem - Nil - Pw.2: P.Venkateswarlu, SEB Constable, Yerragondapalem

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- Ex.P.1: Special Report Ex.P2: F.I.R - Nil - Ex. P3: Chemical Analysis Report

Material objects marked

For Prosecution:-

M.O.1: 180 ml bottle of I.D. arrack C.P.R. No.57/2023

For Defence:- - NIL -

Ild/- V.A.

P.J.C.J., MRKP,

FAC: A.J.M.F.C. MRKP

// true copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present : Sri V. Audhinarayana,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

Monday, this the Tenth (10th) day of April, 2023

Original Suit No. 91 of 2023

Between :

Gunja Bala Nagamma, aged about 51 years, W/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Coolie, native of Rayavaram Village of Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District, presently residing in Mekalavaripalli Village of Tarlupadu mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintif

And

Bathula Chinna Lakshamma, W/o. Ramanna, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Coolie, resident of Rayavaram Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendant

This suit has come before me on 06-04-2023 for plaintiff’s Exparte Evidence in the presence of Sri G. Choudeswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant is set Exparte; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments on plaintiff’s side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T // //

01.This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men, agents and her representatives from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule site in any manner what so ever and for costs of the suit.

02.The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:-

The plaint schedule site is the government site. The plaintiff is a house less poor person, she occupied the plaint schedule site 20 years back and she constructed a tin sheet house in the said site and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule site and the government recognized her possession and enjoyment in the plaint schedule site, granted “NIVESA STHALA (Fair) 2

APPAGINTHA PATTA” in respect of the plaint schedule house site on 09-03-2016 in

RCC/141/2016 in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the Tahsildar issued “NIVESA STHALA DHRUVEEKARANA PATRAMU” in favour of plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule site on 08-02-2021 stating that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule site since more than 12 years. Recently, the plaintiff with an intention to construct RCC house, she demolished the old tin sheet house.

2(1). While so, there were some political differences between the plaintiff and the defendant recently and that the defendant who has no manner of right, title and possession in the plaint schedule site, used to obstruct the plaintiff from clearing the waste material from the plaint schedule site and obstructing her from constructing the new house with an intention to cause loss to the plaintiff.

At this juncture, on 31-12-2022 at about 10.30 am, the plaintiff along with her family members went to the plaint schedule site and clearing off the waste material in the site, suddenly, the defendant along with her hench followers trespassed into the plaint schedule site and demanded her to vacate the said site immediately and also threatened her with dire consequences. In a utmost difficulty, the plaintiff resisted them with the assistance of her family members and sent them from the plaint schedule site. Now, the defendant openly canvassing in Rayavaram Village that she is going to trespass into the plaint schedule site with an intention to occupy the same and with an ulterior motive to cause loss to the plaintiff. If her plans put in action, the plaintiff cannot recover the loss. In those circumstances, having no option, the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant.

03.On 29-03-2023, Defendant is called absent, no representation. Hence, (Fair) 3 defendant is set Exparte.

04. To establish the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed her chief affidavit and gave evidence as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A3. Ex. A1 is the Nivesa

Stala Appagintha Patta issued by the Tahsildar, Markapur Mandal in favour of plaintiff, Dated: 09-03-2016; Ex. A2is the Nivesa Stala Dhruveekarana Patram issued by the Tahsildar, Markapur Mandal in favour of plaintiff, Dated: 08-02-2021 and Ex. A3 is the Photos (03 in number) showing the plaint schedule site.

05. Heard the counsel for Plaintiff.

06. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the Plaintif is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction

as prayed for?”

07. Point :

To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff gave evidence as P.W.1 and in her evidence clearly supported the averments of the plaint and deposed that the plaint schedule site is the government site, as P.W.1 is a house less poor person, she occupied the plaint schedule site 20 years back and she constructed a tin sheet house in the said site and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule site and the government recognized her possession and enjoyment in the plaint schedule site, granted Ex. A1 in respect of the plaint schedule house site on 09-03-2016 in RCC/141/2016 in favour of P.W.1.

Subsequently, the Tahsildar issued Ex. A2 in favour of P.W.1 in respect of the plaint schedule site on 08-02-2021 stating that P.W.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule site since more than 12 years. Recently, P.W.1 with an intention to construct RCC house, she demolished the old tin sheet house.

(Fair) 4

08.P.W.1 further deposed that while so, there were some political differences between P.W.1 and the defendant recently and that the defendant who has no manner of right, title and possession in the plaint schedule site, used to obstruct

P.W.1 from clearing the waste material from the plaint schedule site and obstructing her from constructing the new house with an intention to cause loss to P.W.1. At this juncture, on 31-12-2022 at about 10.30 am, P.W.1 along with her family members went to the plaint schedule site and clearing off the waste material in the site, suddenly, the defendant along with her hench followers trespassed into the plaint schedule site and demanded her to vacate the said site immediately and also threatened her with dire consequences. In a utmost difficulty, P.W.1 resisted them with the assistance of her family members and sent them from the plaint schedule site. Now, the defendant openly canvassing in

Rayavaram Village that she is going to trespass into the plaint schedule site with an intention to occupy the same and with an ulterior motive to cause loss to

P.W.1. If her plans put in action, P.W.1 cannot recover the loss. In those circumstances, having no option, P.W.1 filed the present suit against the defendant.

09.The oral evidence of P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A3 clearly show that the plaint schedule property is the government land and the plaintiff being a land less poor person, she occupied the plaint schedule site 20 years back and constructed a tin sheet house in the said site and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the revenue authorities recognized her possession and enjoyment in the plaint schedule site and issued Exs. A1 & A2 in her favour and since then, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption from anybody. But subsequently, the defendant without having any manner of right, title and possession over the suit schedule site with a malafide (Fair) 5 intention is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Once the plaintiff proved her case by adducing her oral and documentary evidence, then the burden shifts on the shoulders of the defendant to disprove the case of Plaintiff, but the defendant did not appear before the court, thereby this court is constrained to set her ex-parte. Hence, this Court felt that it is a fit case to pass decree in favour of Plaintiff. Accordingly, this Point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant. The defendant, her men, agents and her representatives are restrained from ever interfering in to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule site in any manner, what so ever by way of permanent injunction.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 10th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- V. Audhinarayana,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintif : For Defendant:

P.W.1 : Gunja Bala Nagamma. - Set Exparte-

Documents Marked

For Plaintif :-

Ex. A1 : The Nivesa Stala Appagintha Patta issued by the Tahsildar, Markapur Mandal in favour of plaintiff, Dated: 09-03-2016;

Ex. A2 :The Nivesa Stala Dhruveekarana Patram issued by the Tahsildar, Markapur Mandal in favour of plaintiff, Dated: 08-02-2021 and

Ex. A3 :The Photos (03 in number) showing the plaint schedule site.

For Defendant :- - NIL -

Ild/- V.A.,

P.J.C.J.

(Fair)

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present : Sri V. Audhinarayana,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

Wednesday, this the Nineteenth (19th) day of April, 2023

Original Suit No. 624 of 2022

Between :

Akula Nagalakshmi, W/o. Chinna Subba Rao, aged about 34 years, Housewife, resident of Endurivaripalem, Ganapavaram Post, Tripuranthakam Mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintif

And

Banavath Badde Naik, S/o. Vastranaik, aged about 40 years, resident of Sangam Thanda village, Ganapavaram Post, Tripuranthakam Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendant

This suit has come before me on 18-04-2023 for plaintiff’s Exparte Evidence in the presence of Sri K.V. Ambedkar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri R.C.S. Naik, Advocate for the defendant and subsequently, the defendant is set Exparte as written statement not filed within stipulated period; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments on plaintiff’s side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T // //

01.This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and supports from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule land in any manner what so ever and for costs of the suit.

02.The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:-

The plaint schedule land is an assigned government land which is situated in

Ganapavaram Revenue Ilaka of Tripuranthakam mandal. The Tahsildar of

Tripuranthakam issued D-Form (7) patta in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff vide D.K.No. 51/2009/1418 on 26-06-2009. Since, then she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by raising seasonal (Fair) 2 crops. This year also, the plaintiff raised cotton crop in the plaint schedule property. The Tahsildar of Tripuranthakam had issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule land and her name was also mutated in all revenue records as enjoyer of the said land. Further, the plaintiff obtained crop loan from Andhra Bank, Medapi Branch of

Tripuranthakam Mandal by depositing her original title deed in respect of the plaint schedule property and the concerned bank authorities sanctioned the loan to the plaintiff after satisfying with the right, title and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land.

2(1). While so, the defendant who has no manner of right over the plaint schedule property, is having land on southern side of the plaint schedule property and he requested the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule land to him, but the plaintiff refused for the same. On that, the defendant developed hatredness towards her and he is threatening the plaintiff by stating that he will do away her life and also stated that he will file a S.C., S.T. case against her. Further, the defendant is canvassing in the village that he is going to trespass into the plaint schedule land and dispossess her high handedly from the plaint schedule land.

The defendant is very powerful person in the village, whereas, the plaintiff is a weak lady. Therefore, taking advantage of the condition of the plaintiff, the defendant proclaiming in the village that he is going to trespass into the plaint schedule land high handedly and trying to dispossess her from plaint schedule land. In those circumstances, having no option, she obliged to file the present suit against the defendant.

03.On 17-03-2023, written statement of defendant is not filed, stipulated period of 90 days is completed. Hence, defendant is set Exparte.

(Fair) 3

04. To establish the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed her chief affidavit and gave evidence as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A3. Ex. A1 is the D-Form (7)

Patta, Dated: 26-06-2009 issued by the Tahsildar, Tripuranthakam in favour of plaintiff; Ex. A2 is the Patta with Katha No. 292 issued by the Tahsildar,

Tripuranthakam in favour of plaintiff and Ex. A3 is the Computerized copy of 1-B

Namoona.

05. Heard the counsel for Plaintiff.

06. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the Plaintif is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction

as prayed for?”

07. Point :

To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff gave evidence as P.W.1 and in her evidence clearly supported the averments of the plaint and deposed that the plaint schedule land is an assigned government land which is situated in

Ganapavaram Revenue Ilaka of Tripuranthakam mandal. The Tahsildar of

Tripuranthakam issued D-Form (7) patta in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of P.W.1 under Ex. A1 and since, then she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by raising seasonal crops. This year also, she raised cotton crop in the plaint schedule property. The Tahsildar of

Tripuranthakam had issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of P.W.1 in respect of the plaint schedule land and her name was also mutated in all revenue records as enjoyer of the said land. Further, P.W.1 obtained crop loan from

Andhra Bank, Medapi Branch of Tripuranthakam Mandal by depositing her original title deed in respect of the plaint schedule property and the concerned bank authorities sanctioned the loan to P.W.1 after satisfying with the right, title and (Fair) 4 possession of P.W.1 over the plaint schedule land.

08.P.W.1 further deposed that while so, the defendant who has no manner of right over the plaint schedule property, is having land on southern side of the plaint schedule property and he requested her to sell the plaint schedule land to him, but she refused for the same. On that, the defendant developed hatredness towards her and he is threatening P.W.1 by stating that he will file a S.C., S.T. case against her. Further, the defendant is canvassing in the village that he is going to trespass into the plaint schedule land and dispossess her high handedly from the plaint schedule land. The defendant is very powerful person in the village, whereas, the plaintiff is a weak lady. Therefore, taking advantage of the condition of the plaintiff, the defendant proclaiming in the village that he is going to trespass into the plaint schedule land high handedly and trying to dispossess her from plaint schedule land. In those circumstances, having no option, she filed the present suit against the defendant.

09.The oral evidence of P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A3 clearly show that the plaint schedule property is the government land and the plaintiff being a land less poor person, she was given the suit schedule land by the Mandal Tahsildar,

Tripuranthakam under Ex. A1 and since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the revenue authorities recognized her possession and enjoyment in the plaint schedule land and issued Ex. A2 in her favour and entered her name in the online revenue records. Thus, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land without any interruption from anybody. But subsequently, the defendant who is the southern side land owner, without having any manner of right, title and possession over the suit schedule land with a malafide intention is trying to interfere with the (Fair) 5 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Once the plaintiff proved her case by adducing her oral and documentary evidence, then the burden shifts on the shoulders of the defendant to disprove the case of Plaintiff, but the defendant did not appear before the court and did not file his written statement within stipulated period. Thereby this court is constrained to set him ex-parte.

Hence, this Court felt that it is a fit case to pass decree in favour of Plaintiff.

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

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant. The defendant, his men and supporters are restrained from interfering in to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule land in any manner, what so ever by way of permanent injunction.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- V. Audhinarayana,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintif : For Defendant:

P.W.1 : Akula Nagalakshmi. - Set Exparte-

Documents Marked

For Plaintif :-

Ex. A1 : The D-Form (7) Patta, Dated: 26-06-2009 issued by the Tahsildar, Tripuranthakam in favour of plaintiff;

Ex. A2 :The Patta with Katha No. 292 issued by the Tahsildar, Tripuranthakam in favour of plaintiff and

Ex. A3 :The Computerized copy of 1-B Namoona.

For Defendant :- - NIL -

Ild/- V.A.,

P.J.C.J.

(Fair)