Smt.V.Leela Shyam Sundari

1 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CUM I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: AT KAKINADA.

PRESENT: Smt.V.Leela Shyam Sundari, Judicial First Class Magistrate – cum – Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC/ I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate – cum I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Tuesday , this the 02 nd day of April, 2024

Calendar Case No.1384/2018

Between : Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mahila police station, Kakinada..Complainant

And :

1. Rayudu Raghu (died)

2. Rayudu Chilakamma (died)

3. Rayudu Narayana Murthy, S/o.Appanna, age 67 yrs., R/o.D.No.4-394, Gaigolupadu (old), Near Durgamma temple, Kakinada. (Accused 1 & 2 died. The case against A1 & A2 is abated.)

...... Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 02.04.2024 in the presence of Sri P.Raghuveer, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri.Y.Bhaskara Rao, counsel for accused No.3, and upon perusing the evidence and material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Mahila police station, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.8/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C) and Sec.3 & 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred as D.P. Act) against the accuse.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The marriage of L.W.1/Rayudu Suneetha was performed with A1 on 19.06.2011 and at that time the parents of P.W.1 gave 2 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24

Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and Rs.50,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanams and half sovereign gold ring and registered site of 70 sq.

yards on her name. She joined A1 Gaigolupadu with sare samans of

Rs.5,0,000/-. She was treated well for one year, later A1 started harassing L.W.1/Rayudu Suneetha physically and mentally as dowry was not sufficient. Accused uttered scornful words demanding

additional dowry with active support of her parents-in-law. She bore

all the torture. When she got pregnancy, her husband forced her aborting and dropped her at her parents’ house in 2012. She was blessed with male child on 12.10.2012. A1 did not allow L.W.1/Rayudu

Suneetha and stated that he will take up second marriage.

L.W.1/Rayudu Suneetha and her son suffered a lot due to ill-health. A1 harassed her in drunken state at the instigation of his parents-in-law to bring additional dowry by disposing of her 70 sq. yards of site and necked her out. Therefore she gave report in Mahila police station. On that L.W.1/ Rayudu Suneetha filed a report before the police and basing on the strength of the report, this case was registered by the Mahila police station, as Cr.No.8/2018 for offences punishable under Sec.498-A r/w.34 I.P.C and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act. L.W.10/T.Chandra Sekhar took up investigation in this case and after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet under Sec.498-A r/w.34 I.P.C and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

3)The case was taken cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sec.498-A r/w.34 I.P.C and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act against the accused No.1 to 3.

3 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24

4)On appearance of the accused case copies were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

5)The accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C by explaining in Telugu the charges framed for offences under Sec.498-A r/w.34 I.P.C and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. The evidence of L.W.3/Palivela

Satyanarayana, L.W.6/Rayudu Chandra Rao, L.W.7/Gubbala Sathibabu,

L.W.10/T.Chandra Sekhar, was given up by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor.

7)After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C about the incriminating material in the prosecution evidence. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8) Heard the arguments of both sides.

9)Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused, for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A r/w.34 I.P.C and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act beyond reasonable doubt?

4 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24

10.Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that P.W.3 and P.W.4 are independent witnesses and they corroborated with P.W.1 and deposed without any contradictions about all the cruelty acts on the part of P.W.1’s husband and regarding the charges framed against the accused. He argued that they also deposed about giving and taking of dowry and there is no cross examination of P.W.1 regarding all these aspects and so it amounts to admission of the facts. He argued that inspite of lengthy cross examination of P.W.1 no suggestions were made to her regarding the demand for additional dowry and P.W.1 clearly deposed that the accused came home in drunken state and demanded

additional dowry. The entire cross examination of P.W.1 appears to be civil

in nature and no admissions were elicited from P.W.2. He argued that as the testimony of prosecution witnesses is not denied by the accused by way of no cross examination, so prosecution has proved the charges against the accused and he prays to convict the accused.

11.On the other hand, learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution witnesses made only omnibus allegations. P.W.1 was given a house and though she denied the same, she admitted sale deed and mortgage deed which stands in her name. He argued that after two or three months of marriage, she left the company of accused and she does not take care of accused even though he met with an accident and his health was deteriorated. He argued that there is no joint living between

P.W.1 and A1 and so there is no question of harassing of accused. He argued that A2 and A3 are residing at some other place and so there is no chance to harass P.W.6. P.W.1 admitted that she was not present at 5 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24 the time of dowry and somebody else was present. He argued that the prosecution did not examine any persons who were present at the time of giving dowry and so did not prove giving and taking of dowry. He argued that merely beating is not sufficient to constitute cruelty and so the prosecution did not prove the charges against the accused. He submits that A1 and A2 are no more and prosecution did not prove any charges against A3 and so he prays to acquit A3.

12) POINT:

To prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6.

During trial the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1, she is the victim in this case. She deposed that in the month of June 2011 her marriage was performed with A1 at his residence at Kakinada as per

Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage her parents had given

Rs 2,00,000/- cash Rs. 50,000/- Adapaduchu lanchanam ½ sovereign of gold and 70 Sq. yards of site. After the marriage she joined with A1 at

Kakinada along with sare samans. At the time of marriage A1 is working as lecturer at Sri Chaitanya College, Kakinada. After four months, he resigned his job and started poultry business at his residence at

Gaigalapadu. They lived happily for one year. After that A1 used to consume alcohol and come to the house in a drunken house and beat her for want of additional dowry. Due to her wedlock, she was blessed with a son in the year 2012. When she was in 4th month pregnancy, in her parents house accused she brought all the sare samans from to her parents house and thrown and also demanded to terminate the pregnancy and also informed her that he will marry another lady. After 6 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24 delivery she went to her in-laws house with nine months baby. A2

Suryakantamma has used to say her to sleep on the floor. Her son is having a hole in his heart. She asked her husband that A2 and

Suryakanthamma are asking her to sleep on the floor and A1 has replied that she should adjust to sleep on the floor. A1 to A3 used to harass her mentally and physically. One Rayudu Hari is brother of A1. In the year 2015 the said Hari’s marriage was performed. At that time A1 to A3 harassed her and demanded her to bring properties. One Naga

Phaneendra is her brother. In the month of August 2015 his marriage was performed at Yeleswaram. She attended his marriage. After returning from the marriage to her matrimonial home, she noticed that accused persons locked the house and one Rayudu Hari was deputed by the accused and he is observing her by sitting in a car. She has stayed there for 2 to 3 hours, meanwhile her brother came and took her to her parent’s house. On the next day morning again she came to her matrimonial home. Then A1 has bet her with a calculator. Then she went to her parent’s house and informed the same. Then she and her mother went to the police station. Police advised her to settle the matter before elders. The matter was placed before elders at Gaigalapadu village. In the presence of elders, A1 has stated that he will not take her. Then she went to police station and filed a report. Later she came to know that A1 is having illegal intimacy with another lady.

7 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24

13.P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1 and she deposed that she performed the marriage of P.W.1 with A1 and she deposed on the same lines as

P.W.1 regarding giving of dowry and other facts.

14.P.W.3 is an independent witness and she deposed that A1 and his family members harassed P.W.1 mentally and physically for want of

additional dowry. After P.w.1 gave birth to a child A1 and his family

member neglected P.W.1 and her child. She deposed that she came to know that A1 is having illegal intimacy with another woman. One day accused and his family members necked out P.W.1 from her matrimonial home, having no other go she approached her parents. Since then P.W.1 is residing with her parents. Neither accused nor his family members came forward to take back P.W.1. Through P.W.1 she came to know that she received divorce notice sent by her husband. In the year 2018 P.w.1 gave a police report against accused and his family members. She examined and recorded her statement. In the year 2022, A1 died due to kidney failure. Herself and her husband attended the last rites of A1.

15.P.W.4 is another independent witness who deposed that in the year 2011, P.W.1 got married to A1. After marriage P.W.1 joined with A1 for conjugal life. Later she conceived pregnancy and came back to her parents house. After giving birth to a child she went back to her in-laws house along with sari samans. But A1 and his family members refused the said sari samans. There are disputes between P.W.1 and A1 and his family members in relation to the house property in the name of P.W.1.

8 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24

Due to the said disputes being not able to bear the harassment, P.W.1 came back to her parents house. Since then P.W.1 is residing with her parents. Later P.W.1 gave a report against A1 and his family members

before the police.

16.P.W.5 is the investigation officer who registered the case and he deposed that 03.02.2018 basing on Ex.P1 he has registered a case in

Cr.No.8/2018 under Sec.498-A r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act and issued FIR. Later further investigation was handed over to P.W.6.

17.P.W.6 is another investigation officer and she deposed that on 03.02.2018 she was entrusted to investigate in this case and she received the FIR from P.W.5. She took up investigation. She examined

P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the police station and recorded their statements. Then he proceeded to the scene of offence i.e. the house of P.W.1. She prepared rough sketch. She secured P.W.3 and P.W.4 examined them and recorded their statements. On the next day she visited the house of A1 and prepared rough sketch. She secured L.W.6/ Rayudu Chandra Rao and

L.W.7/Gubbala Sathibabu examined and recorded their statements. On 10.03.2018 she served notice under sec.41-A Cr.P.C. to A1. On 21.07.2018 she served notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to A2 and A3. After that she handed over the case file to their S.I/ L.W.10 T.Chandra Sekhar who filed charge sheet.

9 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24

18.Now coming to the appreciation of evidence on hand, it is the version and allegation of P.W.1 to P.W.4 that P.W.1 was harassed by the accused. While P.W.1 deposed that she was harassed for bringing properties and additional dowry. P.W.2 to P.W.4 did not depose about the same and they deposed that A1 is having illegal intimacy with another lady due to which A1 harassed P.W.1. As rightly argued, P.W.1 has deposed only about one incident in which she was beaten by A1 with a calculator. But the nature of P.W.1’s testimony she deposed that she was harassed mentally and physically by A1 to A3, but no specific incident is deposed against A2 and A3 except that A2 asked her to sleep on the floor. Learned defence counsel relied on the following citations:

Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assamreported in 2009 (3) ALT (Crl.) 316 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

“"Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C is to be established in the context of Section 498-A I.P.C as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as `cruelty' to attract the provisions of Section 498-A I.P.C. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty”.

10 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24

Mohd. Fayazuddin and another v. State of Telangana and another reported in 2023 (1) ALD (Crl.) 142 (TS) where the Hon’ble

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad held that:

"In the present case also, omnibus allegations are being made against the petitioners who are relatives of accused No.1. In view of the aforesaid judgment, on the basis of such omnibus allegations, criminal trial cannot be proceeded with against the petitioners herein”.

Ramaiah alias Rama V. State of Karnataka reported in 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 196 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

“In addition to the aforesaid material aspects which are highlighted from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, most important feature which is accepted by these witnesses is that insofar as the at appellant individually is concerned, there was no demand of dowry by him. In the absence of any particular allegation against the appellant in this behalf, would be improper to convict the appellant under Section 498-A IPC”.

Vanukuru Venkateswara Rao v. State: Sub-Inspector of

Police, Penamaluru rep. by, Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.

Hyderabadreported in 2008 (2) ALT (Crl.) 183 (A.P.) where the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that:

“The evidence of P.W. 1 would go to show that the accused used to insist her to consume alcohol after mixing with Pepsi, and the accused attempted to kill her many times. As the accused was harassing both physically 7 and mentally she was talking with the elder on 05-04-2003. Then A-1 abused her in filthy language and beat her indiscriminately under the influence of alcohol. At that time, 11 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24 it is alleged that A-2 outraged her modesty. P.Ws.3 and 4 who are said to be the elders present at the time of the incident did not say that the accused beat P.W.1 indiscriminately. They have simply stated that the accused used harsh words. Therefore, even assuming for a moment that appellant beat P.W.1 such beating would not come within the meaning of cruelty. It is admitted that only ten days prior to the alleged offence, P.W. 1 complained to the elders about the harassment made by the accused and prior thereto she never complained about the alleged harassment of the accused”.

19.Ratio laid down in the above decisions support the argument of the learned defence counsel that P.W.1 has made only omnibus allegations and that it does not amount to cruelty. Moreover during her cross examination, learned counsel elicited from P.W.1 that on 06.11.2017 she has sold the house that stands in her name to one Oruganti Krishna

Mohan and others for Rs.9,00,000/- towards discharge of the debts made by her but she admitted that there is no document to prove that she sold house for discharge of debts. Although she denied that the purpose of taking loan is for running beauty parlour. She admitted that she has mortgaged the house in Punjab and Sindh Bank, Kakinada.

20.It was also elicited from P.w.1 that she cannot say in which year A1 met with an accident and where her husband got treatment and she deposed that she came to know that A1 was affected with liver problem.

After the accident his health was deteriorated. She admitted that she does not know that A1 was taking treatment in Apollo hospital from 2018 12 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24 to 2021 where doctors declared that A1 will die within two or three months. These admissions of P.W.1 support the argument of learned defence counsel that P.W.1 has no knowledge about the health of A1 and it appears that they are not living together since many years prior to

Ex.P1 report. So as relied on by the learned defence counsel in the above citations, there is no incident immediately prior to Ex.P1 or within the reasonable time prior to Ex.P1 which has led her to give report to police.

21.Moreover though P.W.1 denied that A2 and A3 are doing cultivation at Kambalapalem, Yeleswaram. P.W.6 categorically admitted that during her investigation she found that A2 and A3 are residing at Yeleswaram by doing agriculture and so it leads to the inference that P.W.1 might have stated so because she has no knowledge or she is intentionally deposing false. The allegation of P.W.1 to P.W.4 that the dispute was due to the property that stands in the name of P.W.1 appears to be doubtful because the admissions by P.W.1 itself indicate that she has been dealing with the property by mortgaging the same and also by selling the same. She admitted that after selling the property, her parents performed marriage of her sister. Further it was admitted by P.W.2 that prior to marriage of

P.W.1 she is having beauty parlour though she denied that even after marriage she was running beauty parlour.

22.Similarly although P.W.1 denied that she did not stay in the house of A1 after she went along with her son, but P.W.2 categorically admitted that they stayed only for two days and returned to their house in the year 13 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24 2012. Though P.W.2 deposed that A1 is having intimacy with one Geeta prior to marriage, but the same was not deposed by P.W.1. P.W.2 deposed that even at the time of accident of A1, P.W.1 was staying with her and she does not know the other particulars of the treatment of A1.

Although P.W.3 and P.W.4 deposed against the accused but P.W.3 admitted that there is no personal knowledge and she came to know the facts through P.W.1. P.W.3 denied that she had stated to the police that

A2 and A3 asked P.W.1 to join A1 and placed the matter before elders for which P.W.1 refused, but on perusal of her statement, the same was stated by her. So it appears that P.W.1 herself was not willing to join with

A1 to lead matrimonial life. This Court finds tht the testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.4 is not of much help to the prosecution. The prosecution did not examine the neighbours shown in Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 to corroborate with

P.W.1.

23.Although learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that there is no cross examination on the aspect of dowry, but P.W.1 was suggested and it was elicited from her that she was not present at the time of giving dowry and presenting lanchanams and she cannot say date and time when the said lanchanams were given and it is clearly suggested to her that they have not given Rs.3,00,000/- towards marriage expenses as deposed by her, so it leads to the inference that the accused have denied the said allegation of taking dowry. As rightly argued there is no oral or documentary evidence to prove giving of dowry. It appears that P.w.1 has been residing separately from A1 since many years prior to Ex.P1 report.

14 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24

Further A2 and A3 have not been residing along with them. There is no evidence to prove the allegation of illegal intimacy or to prove that the disputes were due to the property that stands in the name of P.W.1. The testimony of P.W.1 discloses that there is no allegation of demand for

additional dowry or conduct of accused of such nature that caused any

injury to her or of such an nature to drive her to commit suicide.

24.Hence in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has not proved the essential ingredients of the charges against accused No.3 beyond all reasonable doubt and so the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly point is answered.

25. In the result, the accused No.3 is found not guilty for offences punishable under Sec.498-A r/w.34 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused No.3 shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No order is passed as to property, as no property is produced in this case.

Typed to dictation by Senior Stenographer (Outsourcing), corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 02ndday of April, 2024.

Sd/- V.Leela Shyam Sundari

Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fac/ I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kakinada 15 Fair judgment in CC 1384/18, dt.02.04.24

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:-For Defence:-

PW1: Rayudu Sunitha None P.W.2: Palivela Vijayalakshmi P.W.3: Vasamsetti Surya Kumari P.W.4: Duvva Anuradha P.W.5: V.Vijaya Rao P.W.6: B.Kumari Baby

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution Ex.P1 : Report Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Rough sketch of 1st scene of offence Ex.P4 : Rough sketch of 2nd scene of offence

For defence :-NIL

M.Os Marked -Nil-

Sd/- V.Leela Shyam Sundari

Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fac/ I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kakinada

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - CUM

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: AT KAKINADA.

CALENDER CASE NO.1384/2018 Date of offence:Prior to 31.01.2018 Date of complaint:31.01.2018 Date of taken on file:02.11.2018 Date of apprehension of accused:10.03.2018 (A1) 21.07.2018 (A2 & A3) Date of commencement of trial:16.09.2022 Date of close of trial:28.03.2024 Date of sentence of order:02.04.2024 Complainant:State, Sub-inspector of police, Mahila police station in Crime No.19/2016

Particulars of the accused:-

1. Rayudu Raghu (died)

2. Rayudu Chilakamma (died)

3. Rayudu Narayana Murthy, S/o.Appanna, age 67 yrs., R/o.D.No.4-394, Gaigolupadu (old), Near Durgamma temple, Kakinada. (Accused 1 & 2 died. The case against A1 & A2 is abated.)

Nature of offenceUnder Sec.498-A r/w.34 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act Finding of the courtAccused No.3 not found guilty. In the result, the accused No.3 is found not guilty for offences punishable under Sec.498-A r/w.34 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused NO.3 shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No order is passed as to property, as no property is produced in this case.

Sd/- V.Leela Shyam Sundari

Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fac/ I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kakinada

1Fair judgment in CC 206/16, dt.01.04.24

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CUM I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: AT KAKINADA.

PRESENT: Smt.V.Leela Shyam Sundari, Judicial First Class Magistrate – cum – Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC/ I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate – cum I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Monday , this the 01 st day of April, 2024

Calendar Case No.206/2016

Between : Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mahila police station, Kakinada..Complainant

And :

Musinada Lova Kumar, S/o.Veerabhadra Rao, age 40 yrs., R/o.D.No.6-35, Pratap Nagar, Kakinada.

...... Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 26.03.2024 in the presence of Sri P.Raghuveer, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri.Seela Bala Nagendra Rao, counsel for accused, and upon perusing the evidence and material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Mahila police station, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.19/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C) against the accused.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The marriage of L.W.1/ Musinada Jyothimala was performed at

Annavaram and it is a love marriage. They both lived happily for some time and two sons were born. Thereafter accused started harassment physically and mentally. He used to come in drunken state and abuse and 2Fair judgment in CC 206/16, dt.01.04.24 beat L.W.1/ Musinada Jyothimala. He used to consume liquor and ganja and addicted to many vices. When she went to her parents she was brought promising to look after her well. The accused suspected her as if she had illicit contact with her uncle. He caused accident of his uncle’s daughter and she died. Her uncle filed case in II Town police station. The accused used to suspect illicit contacts to her with others also. Therefore she gave report to Mahila police station. On that L.W.1/ Musinada

Jyothimala filed a report before the police and basing on the strength of the report, this case was registered by the Mahila police station, as

Cr.No.19/2016 for offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 506 I.P.C.

L.W.6/T.Nagapotha Raotook up investigation in this case and after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet under Sec.498-A, 506 I.P.C.

3)The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Sec.498-A I.P.C against the sole accused.

4)On appearance of the accused case copies were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

5)The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C by explaining in Telugu the charges framed for offence under Sec.498-A I.P.C, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3Fair judgment in CC 206/16, dt.01.04.24

6) During the course of trial, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. The evidence of L.W.3/Sabbi Lakshmi,

L.W.4/Tekumudi Veerendra Kumar, L.W.5/Lolla Gangarao, was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7)After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C about the incriminating material against him from the prosecution evidence. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8) Heard the arguments of both sides.

9)Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused, for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt?

10) POINT:

During the trial, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3. The defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1, she is the victim in this case. She deposed that on 20.02.2004 her marriage was performed with accused.

At the time of marriage her parents presented Rs.50,000/- towards dowry.

During her wedlock she was blessed with two children. Accused used to come to house in a drunken state and used to abuse her and her children in filthy language and also used to suspect her fidelity. Accused also got addicted to drugs. With a view to look after her kids she joined in a private hospital. Her husband used to suspect her character and beat 4Fair judgment in CC 206/16, dt.01.04.24 her indiscriminately. Accused suspected her character by stating that she has an illegal relationship with her maternal uncle by name

G.Srinivas. One day accused came home in a drunken state and dashed the daughter of her maternal uncle with his vehicle, out of the grudge he has against her uncle. As a result of the said incident, the daughter of her maternal uncle died. Accused subsequently married another woman.

Unable to bear the harassment of accused, she went to her parents’ house and lodged a police report before Disha police station.

11.P.W.2 is father of P.W.1 and he deposed that in the year 2004 his daughter got married with accused at Annavaram temple and their marriage is a love marriage. After their marriage the matter was placed

before elders and they agreed for their marriage and presented

Rs.50,000/- towards dowry. After marriage P.W.1 joined with accused at

Indrapalem. Accused bet her daughter in a drunken state. On that P.W.1 came to his house. Since then his daughter is residing with them.

Accused harassed P.W.1 by demanding additional dowry. Since then he is looking after the welfare of P.W.1 and her children. Unable to bear the harassment of accused, P.W.1 gave a report to Mahila police.

12.P.W.3 is the investigation officer, he deposed that on 24.02.2016 at about 1.00 pm while he was present in the police station, the DSP of

Woman police station endorsed a report given by P.W.1. Basing on which, he registered the case in Cr.No.19/2016, for the offence punishable under

Sec.498-A, 506 IPC. On the same day, he proceeded to the parents’ house of P.W.1 situated at Samalkot road, Kakinada, where he has examined and recorded the statements of PW1, P.W.2 and L.W.3/Sabbi 5Fair judgment in CC 206/16, dt.01.04.24

Lakshmi. There he had also observed the scene and prepared rough sketch. On the same day he proceeded to second scene of offence situated at Merkaveedhi, Indrapalem, where P.W.1 and her husband last resided. There he has examined and recorded the statements of

L.W.4/Tekumudi Verendra Kumar and L.W.5/Lolla Gangarao and also prepared rough sketch. On 22.04.2016 he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused and he complied the terms of the notice. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

13.It is the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the accused harassed P.W.1 by beating her and by suspecting her fidelity. But to fulfill the ingredients of section 498-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused treated P.W.1 with cruelty which constitutes physical or mental harassment for additional dowry or such a conduct which will drive the victim to commit suicide or grave injury. The testimony of P.W.1 is that the accused suspected her fidelity and that she used to beat her in a drunken state. The incident in which she deposed about causing the death of her maternal uncle’s daughter, will not amount to cruelty under the charged offence under section 498-A IPC. It is not the version of P.W.1 that she was harassed for additional dowry although she deposed that her parents gave dowry of Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage, but she admitted that there is no proof of it and that her father runs a tea shop and earns Rs.200/- per day. Further no oral or documentary evidence is produced by the prosecution to prove the giving of said dowry to the accused.

6Fair judgment in CC 206/16, dt.01.04.24

14.Moreover P.W.2 did not depose anything about the facts that were deposed by P.W.1 regarding the behaviour of the accused towards her.

P.W.2 simply stated that the accused bet P.W.1 in a drunken state. Though

P.W.2 deposed that the accused harassed P.W.1 for additional dowry, but it is a notable point that P.W.1 did not depose about the same even in her report under Ex.P1. She did not mention anything about the harassment for additional dowry by the accused. She merely mentioned in Ex.P1 that the accused used to consume alcohol and got addicted to drugs and that he used to abuse her and beat her. Further P.W.1 did not speak about any specific instances in which she was beaten by the accused or any instances of which she had taken treatment for her injuries. So this Court finds that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have made bald allegations against the accused which is not sufficient to constitute the offence under section 498-A IPC.

15.This Court finds that there is no corroboration between P.W.1 and

P.W.2 testimony before the Court regarding the cause for harassment.

Moreover P.W.2 deposed that the marriage of P.W.1 with accused took place at Annavaram. But P.W.1 did not depose the same and she admitted that she did not even mention the same in her report in Ex.P1.

Learned defence counsel elicited from P.W.1 that she lived with the accused that about 12 years and that she did not give any police complaint during that period though there were disputes between them and that the matter was placed before elders and it was pacified. But the prosecution has not examined any such elders and infact no independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution.

7Fair judgment in CC 206/16, dt.01.04.24

16.The prosecution has given up L.W.3 to L.W.5, who are neighbours and cited as independent witnesses, for the reasons best known to them.

It was elicited from P.W.3 that P.W.1 did not mention the names of the neighbours. Although P.W.3 has shown many persons as neighbours to the house of accused and to the house of P.W.1 in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and some of the neighbours shown therein are cited as witnesses, they have not been examined to corroborate that P.W.1. This Court finds that though they may not depose about the instances that are alleged to have occurred within the four walls but definitely they can depose to corroborate with P.W.1 regarding the general behavior of the accused towards P.W.1. This Court finds that in the absence of such corroboration from independent witnesses and also due to lack of corroboration between P.W.1 and PW.2, a reasonable doubt is created infavour of the accused.

17.The foregoing discussion leads this Court to find that though P.W.1 deposed in corroboration with her report under in Ex.P1, but as there are no specific allegations and no specific instances deposed by her and as there is no corroboration from independent witnesses, and due to the contradiction between the testimony of P.W.1 and her father, this Court is not inclined to believe the sole testimony of P.W.1 and finds that it is not safe to rely on her sole testimony to prove the charges against the accused. Moreover the allegations do not fulfill the ingredients of section 498-A IPC, because the allegations made by P.W.1 are not of such an extent to drive her to commit suicide and not proved to be due to demand for additional dowry.

8Fair judgment in CC 206/16, dt.01.04.24

18.Hence this Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the charges framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and so the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly point is answered.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for offences punishable under Sec.498-A IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of Criminal

Procedure Code. No order is passed as to property, as no property is produced in this case.

Typed to dictation by Senior Stenographer (Outsourcing), corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 1stday of April, 2024.

Sd/- V.Leela Shyam Sundari

Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fac/ I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kakinada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:-For Defence:-

PW1: Musinada Jyothimala None P.W.2: Duvvi Satyanarayana P.W.3: T.Nagapotha Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution Ex.P1 : Report Ex.P2 : First Information Report 9Fair judgment in CC 206/16, dt.01.04.24

Ex.P3 : Rough sketch of 1st scene of offence Ex.P4 : Rough sketch of 2nd scene of offence

For defence :-NIL

M.Os Marked -Nil-

Sd/- V.Leela Shyam Sundari

Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fac/ I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kakinada 10 Draft judgment in CC 206/16, dt.01.04.24

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - CUM

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: AT KAKINADA.

CALENDER CASE NO.206/2016 Date of offence:Prior to 24.02.2016 Date of complaint:24.02.2016 Date of taken on file:09.05.2016 Date of apprehension of accused:22.04.2016

Date of commencement of trial:18.08.2023 Date of close of trial:26.03.2024 Date of sentence of order:01.04.2024 Complainant:State, Sub-inspector of police, Mahila police station in Crime No.19/2016

Particulars of the accused:-

Musinada Lova Kumar, S/o.Veerabhadra Rao, age 40 yrs., R/o.D.No.6-35, Pratap Nagar, Kakinada.

Nature of offenceUnder Sec. 498-A I.P.C Finding of the courtAccused not found guilty. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under Sec.498-A IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No order is passed as to property, as no property is produced in this case.

Sd/- V.Leela Shyam Sundari

Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fac/ I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kakinada

1

CNR No.APEG070004912021Fair copy in OS.150/21, dt.29.08.25

IN THE COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) KAKINADA

Present: Dr. V.Leela Shyam Sundari, Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Friday, this the 29 th day of August, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 150 OF 2021

Between:

Tava Sesharatnam, W/o Veerabhadra Rao, age 50 years, Housewife, R/o D.No.10-18, Sri nagar, Chelluru, Rayavaram mandal. . . . Plaintiff

And

Nandikolla Suryakala, W/o Venkatarao, age 45 years, Housewife, R/o D.No.1-16, Near Sri Ramalayam, Uppumilli, Kajuluru mandal. . . . Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 20.08.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Mallampalli Sarveswara Rao, learned counsel for plaintiff and of Sri A.Naga Raju, learned counsel for defendants and having stood over till this day for consideration this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by plaintiff to declare the plaintiff’s title over the plaint schedule property and consequential recovery of possession of the same and granting mesne profits of Rs.5,000/- and future profits 2

CNR No.APEG070004912021Fair copy in OS.150/21, dt.29.08.25 till deliver the possession of schedule property to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

(a)The plaintiff submits that she is the absolute owner of property to an extent of Ac.0-44 cents situated in S.No.83/11 of

Uppumilli village, Kajuluru mandal. The plaintiff’s father by name

Balabadhruni Subbarao and his sons jointly gifted the said property to plaintiff and executed a registered gift deed dt.29.04.1987 bearing

Doc.No.953/1987 of Tallarevu and since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights by paying taxes to Government. The Government also issued pattadar passbook and title deed book for the said land infavour of plaintiff.

(b)The plaintiff further submits that the defendant is also having property to an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in total covered under

S.No.81/11, 83/13 and 84/1 and out of the said property, the land covered under S.No.83/13 is adjacent to the eastern side of plaintiff’s property. In the month of June 2019 the defendant taking advantage of absence of plaintiff in the village, changed boundary bund by encroaching into the western side of plaintiff’s property. On noticing 3

CNR No.APEG070004912021Fair copy in OS.150/21, dt.29.08.25 the encroachment made by the defendant into the plaintiff’s property, the plaintiff questioned the defendant about the encroachment made by changing the boundary bund. For which the defendant did not respond properly and gave evasive reply.

(c)The plaintiff further submits that she made demands to the defendant to vacate and deliver the plaint schedule property by restoring the boundary bund in actual position. But the defendant put deaf ear to the demands made by plaintiff. Due to the unauthorized encroachment into plaint schedule property made by defendant, plaintiff sustained moneory loss as well as mental pain. Since the defendant did not choose to vacate and deliver the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.13.07.2020 and it was received by defendant, demanding the defendant to vacate and deliver the plaint schedule property. But did not choose to vacate and deliver the plaint schedule property by restoring the boundary bund into actual position. Since the defendant encroached into plaint schedule property in the month of June 2019 the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profits from the year 2019-2020 to deliver vacant possession to her. Hence the suit.

4

CNR No.APEG070004912021Fair copy in OS.150/21, dt.29.08.25

3.The defendant filed her written statement by denying all the allegations made in the plaint and contended that the defendant purchased property from the brother-in-law of plaintiff under

Doc.No.2312/2015 dt.08.06.2015 got registered in SRO, Tallarevu and the said property was sold by Balabhadruni Veerabhadra Rao who is the brother-in-law of plaintiff consisting of three items to an extent of

Ac.1-00 cents. The plaintiff happens to be adjacent owner for Item

No.2 to extent of Ac.0.27 cents in S.No.81/11B of Uppumilli village.

But the defendant is having property prior to purchase of item No.2 on the west and subsequently purchased item No.2 in the above sale deed and since then the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 3, item No.2 an extent of Ac.0.27 cents adjacent to the plaintiff. After purchase the defendant is having property and removed the gattu situated in between the defendant and his vendor to make it contiguous plot which includes the original property held by defendant and purchased property in the year 2015 to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents. But the defendant never disturbed any gattu situated in between the plaintiff and defendant’s item No.2 (Ac.0.27 cents) property purchased from the brother-in-law of plaintiff after he purchased the same under Doc.NO.2312/2015.

5

CNR No.APEG070004912021Fair copy in OS.150/21, dt.29.08.25

(b)The defendant further submits that since when the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, the plaintiff with a grabbing outlook issued legal notice on 13.07.2020 for which the defendant gave reply on 24.08.2020 and infact the defendant came to know that after preliminary survey that the plaintiff is in illegal occupation to an extent of Ac.0.04 cents in Item No.2 of defendant’s property and the defendant raised dispute before the elders in the year 2020 and in anticipation that the elders will give verdict against the plaintiff but the plaintiff filed the present suit on 15.02.2021 with false and untenable allegations. All the documents filed by plaintiff very clearly establish that ever since from the date of purchase by defendant Item No.2 to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents from the brother-in-law of plaintiff. Since then the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment and in the beginning of 2020 when the defendant came to know the fact of illegal occupation by plaintiff and raised dispute leading to the filing of speculative suit by plaintiff to avoid delivery of unauthorized occupied extents. Infact the defendant out of respect of the elders waited for settlement and on the other hand the plaintiff hurriedly rushed to the Court and filed the suit with an apprehension in the mind of plaintiff that a suit will be filed by 6

CNR No.APEG070004912021Fair copy in OS.150/21, dt.29.08.25 defendant if the talks failed for settlement and for recovery of land occupied by the plaintiff. Even for survey also the plaintiff is not cooperating to what extent it was in illegal occupation of the plaintiff.

The property mentioned above is purchased by the defendant under valid document and title held by the vendor of property. Hence the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on rival contentions, the following issues are settled for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of plaintiff as prayed for ?

2) To what relief ?

5.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and defendant.

6. During trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and she got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7. The plaintiff examined a third party as PW2.

The defendant was examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

7

CNR No.APEG070004912021Fair copy in OS.150/21, dt.29.08.25

7.Issue No.1 :

The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has encroached

Ac.0-04 cents into her property on her western side and she seeks for declaration of her title and for recovery of possession of the said Ac.0- 04 cents which according to her is part and parcel of her Ac.0-44 cents land mentioned in the plaint schedule. To prove her claim she examined herself as PW1 and she reiterated the contents of plaint in her chief examination affidavit. Ex.A1 is relied on by her to prove her title over the Ac.0-44 cents which was sold to her by her father and brothers. Ex.A2 and A3 prove that her name is mutated in the revenue records for an extent of Ac.0-44 cents in S.No.83/11 which was acquired by her under Ex.A1. But the dispute is with regard to the

Ac.0-04 cents which according to her is a part of the said Ac.0-44 cents of her property and encroached by the defendant. Whereas the defendant has vehemently denied the same and she inturn alleged that the plaintiff has encroached into her property. Admittedly both the parties are adjacent land owners and there is no dispute about their title to their individual properties.

8

CNR No.APEG070004912021Fair copy in OS.150/21, dt.29.08.25

8.But it is the burden of plaintiff to prove that the disputed Ac.0- 04 cents of land is within the Ac.0-44 cents of her property as claimed by her. It is also her burden to prove that the defendant has changed boundaries to encroach into her property. She examined only PW2 who is none other than her husband and he deposed in corroboration with PW1 but no other independent witnesses are examined. During her cross examination PW1 admitted that as per the adangal and 1B i.e., Ex.A2 and A3 she is in possession of Ac.0-44 cents in S.No.83/11.

She stated that she does not know whether she applied for survey of her property but she again deposed that the surveyor had issued notice to her on 20.08.2019 and conducted survey on 24.08.2019.

Even PW2 deposed that they have filed the survey report. But apparently no such survey report is filed and got marked by the plaintiff.

9.PW1 further admitted that she did not file any petition for appointment of commissioner to measure the property and did not take any steps to measure the properties through revenue people or through Court. On the other hand the defendant has filed copy of her sale deed under which she has purchased the adjacent property of 9

CNR No.APEG070004912021Fair copy in OS.150/21, dt.29.08.25 plaintiff and she also issued reply notice under Ex.A6 which contains the same contentions taken by her in the written statement. Learned counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued that the defendant did not come into the witness box and did not prove her contentions and so the plaintiff has established her claim. But this Court finds that the plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of defendant and it is the initial burden of plaintiff to prove that the defendant has encroached Ac.0-04 cents of her property as alleged by her. But the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff does not prove the same. Though her title to her property is proved through Ex.A1 to A3 but the cause of action for filing suit and her right to recover Ac.0-04 cents from the defendant is not proved by plaintiff through cogent evidence. So this

Court finds that without taking steps to measure the properties and without proving the alleged encroachment, the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. Accordingly issue No.1 is answered.

10.Issue No.2 :

In view of the findings in issue No.1, this Court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief or for costs of the suit. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered.

10

CNR No.APEG070004912021Fair copy in OS.150/21, dt.29.08.25

11.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Senior Stenographer (Outsourcing), transcribed her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 29 thday of August, 2025.

(V.LEELA SHYAM SUNDARI)

(Reg.No.AP2016CJD00959)

PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

KAKINADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : P.W.1: Tavva Sesharatnam P.W.2: Tavva Veerabhadra Rao

FOR DEFENDANT : D.W.1 : Nandikola Venkata Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.29.04.1987 executed infavour of the plaintiff by her father and brothers. Ex.A2: Adangal copy for S.No.83/2011 of Uppumilli village obtained through Mee-seva. Ex.A3: Form-1B copy for the lands in Uppumilli village held by the plaintiff obtained through Mee-seva. Ex.A4: Office copy of the legal notice dt.13.07.2020 got issued by plaintiff to defendant.

11

CNR No.APEG070004912021Fair copy in OS.150/21, dt.29.08.25

Ex.A5: Postal acknowledgment dt.17.07.2020 from the defendant. Ex.A6: Reply notice dt.04.08.2020 got issued by the defendant. Ex.A7: Market value certificate dt.19.11.2020 for the plaint schedule property issued by Sub-registrar Tallarevu.

FOR DEFENDANT :

- Nil -

(V.LEELA SHYAM SUNDARI)

(Reg.No.AP2016CJD00959)

PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

KAKINADA

12

CNR No.APEG070004912021Fair copy in OS.150/21, dt.29.08.25

1

Fair copy in OS.226/25, dt.29.08.25

IN THE COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), KAKINADA.

Present: Dr. V.Leela Shyam Sundari, Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Friday, this the 29th day of August, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 226 / 2025

Between:

Boddu Maheswari, age 47 years, W/o Boddu Bhairava Swamy, Housewife, R/o New D.No.6-215, Old D.No.6-200/1, Korangi sivaru, Chinnaboddu Venkatayapalem, Tallarevu mandal. … Plaintiff And:

1.Ratsa Yedukondalu, S/o Tatarao, age 51 years, Fishing business, R/o Chinnaboddu Venkatayapalem, Korangi post, Tallarevu mandal.

2.Chekka Apparao, S/o Gangaraju, age 49 years, Fishing business, R/o Chinnaboddu Venkatayapalem, Korangi post, Tallarevu mandal. … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 29.08.2025 in the presence of the learned counsel for plaintiff Sri P.S.V.Surya Bhushanam and defendants were being set exparte, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to grant permanent injunction infavour of the plaintiff restraining both D1 and D2, their men, agents and representatives not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of DEF area within the plaint schedule property of plaintiff in any manner whatsoever and for costs of the suit.

2

Fair copy in OS.226/25, dt.29.08.25

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

(a) The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is absolute owner of plaint schedule property and the first and second defendants are neighbours on the eastern side of schedule property consisting of two items as per plaint schedule. The plaintiff obtained plaint schedule property from her husband and her son under registered settlement deed vide

Doc.No.6929/2019 registered with the Sub-registrar Office of Tallarevu.

She further states that ever since from the date of execution of said document in her favour by her husband and son, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of her property till date. The plaintiff further submits that the schedule property is consisting of two items out of which the first item is a 230 sq.yards of land with an R.C.C building therein, while the second item is a 188.88 sq.yards of vacant land and both the items are attached to each other from north to south admeasuring total extent of 418.88 sq.yards marked as ABCD as per plaint plan. The R.C.C building in the first Item of schedule property is eastern facing house. There is a C.C road to the south of first Item.

(b)The plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff’s husband constructed RCC building in the first Item of schedule property after leaving vacant land for the purpose of vasthu and for ingress and egress to the schedule property in a cone shape on the eastern side of first Item of 3

Fair copy in OS.226/25, dt.29.08.25 schedule property connecting to the CC road on the south of first Item of schedule property from north to south. The cone shaped vacant land is marked as EDF as per plaint plan within the first item of schedule property provides ingress and egress to the first item of schedule property thereby plaintiff used to pass through the cone shaped vacant land from north to south and vice versa to move in and move out of her RCC residential building which is a eastern facing house. Except the cone shaped vacant land there is no other substitute for the plaintiff providing ingress and egress to her house in the first item of plaint schedule property.

(c)The plaintiff further submits that the first defendant is her neighbour on the east of first item of her schedule property having his compound wall on all the four sides of his house. There is compound wall on the west of his property and east of plaintiff’s property which clearly and in-distinctively separate first defendant’s property from the plaintiff’s property. The compound wall belonged to first defendant and the first defendant has no land across the wall. On the other hand the second defendant is also neighbour on the east of plaintiff’s first and second items altogether having compound wall on his four sides and to the north of first defendant. The plaintiff’s land on the eastern side of her property exactly stretches up to the first and second defendants western side compound wall. There grows a mango tree on the east of first item of plaintiff’s 4

Fair copy in OS.226/25, dt.29.08.25 schedule property in the DEF area left by her husband providing ingress and egress to C.C road on the south of first item of schedule property.

(d)The plaintiff further submits that the first defendant started quarreling with the plaintiff that he has land across his western side compound wall claiming that the mango tree also belongs to him. She complained the matter to the village elders who in turn reprimanded him.

He has been stationing some anonymous people within the DEF area belongs to plaintiff in order to create trouble to the free movement of men and vehicles from north to south and vice versa connecting to the C.C road on the south of first item of schedule property.

(e)The plaintiff further submits that on 13.12.2024 she issued a registered legal notice to the first defendant calling upon him to withdraw from the intention of creating troubles and hurdles within the DEF area of plaintiff and also stop stationing anonymous people within the DEF area, the first defendant did not choose to receive the legal notice. The registered legal notice was returned with an endorsement of ‘refused’ and the first defendant kept quiet for some time but it is learnt that he has provoked the second defendant to quarrel with the plaintiff to claim the

DEF area on the east of her property which is on his western side without any valid grounds. It is also learnt that both first and second defendants colluded together to grab the DEF area and as part of both of their plan, 5

Fair copy in OS.226/25, dt.29.08.25 the second defendant also started quarreling with the plaintiff claiming that the mango tree within the DEF area belonged to him and he has land portion across his western side wall and collusively stationing anonymous people within the DEF area with the active support of first defendant. The plaintiff issued legal notice to send defendant also. Hence the suit.

3)Summons to the defendants through and R.P returned as ‘unclaimed’ and through Court returned with endorsement ‘affixed to door’. Hence service of summons to defendant is deemed sufficient. The defendants were called absent and as there was no representation, so they were set exparte.

4)To prove her case, the plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 and she got marked Ex.A1 to A9. The plaintiff further examined two third parties as

PW2 and PW3.

5)Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

6)Now, the point for determination is :-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction and costs as prayed for ?

6

Fair copy in OS.226/25, dt.29.08.25

7)POINT :-

To prove the plaint pleadings, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and she reiterated the contents of plaint in her chief examination affidavit.

Ex.A1 prima facie proves the title of plaintiff to the plaint schedule property and Ex.A2 & A3 prove her possession as on the date of filing of suit. As per plaint pleadings and the testimony of PW1, the defendants have obstructed the plaintiff with her peaceful possession only over DEF portion of the plaint plan. To corroborate with her plaintiff examined PW2 and 3 who are third parties and they also deposed that the defendants 1 and 2 are interfering with PW1’s peaceful possession over the plaint schedule property. PW2 and 3 deposed that they used to visit the house of plaintiff and they are well acquainted with the facts of this case because their father and plaintiff’s father are very much known to each other. So their testimony prima facie proves the cause of action for filing the suit.

8)Further Ex.A4 and A7 prove that the plaintiff has issued notice to the defendants and Ex.A9 proves that D2 has received the notice but apparently he has not issued any reply notice. Whereas as per Ex.A6 D1 has refused to receive the notice. It proves that both the defendants have knowledge about the claim of plaintiff and allegations made against by her against them but they did not choose to counter the allegations of plaintiff 7

Fair copy in OS.226/25, dt.29.08.25 by giving a reply notice. Moreover the defendants have not choosen even to appear before the Court inspite of sufficient service of summons. So the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff has remained unchallenged.

9)Hence in these circumstances and inview of foregoing discussion this

Court finds that the oral testimony of PW1 to 3 and the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A9 prove the possession of plaintiff and also the cause of action for filing the suit and as the defendants have not appeared to contest the suit, so this Court finds that there is a prima facie case infavour of the plaintiff and thereby this Court is inclined to decide the point infavour of plaintiff.

10)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction infavour of plaintiff by restraining the defendants, their men, agents and representatives and not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over DEF portion of plaint plan.

Dictated to the Senior Stenographer (Outsourcing), transcribed, corrected

by me and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29 thday of August, 2025.

(V.LEELA SHYAM SUNDARI)

(Reg.No.AP2016CJD00959)

PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

KAKINADA

8

Fair copy in OS.226/25, dt.29.08.25

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendant

P.W.1 : Boddu MaheswariNONE

P.W.2 : Pemmadi Niranjan Kumar

P.W.3 : Pinapothu Sathi Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Registered settlement deed vide Doc.No.541/2018 executed by the husband and son of plaintiff in her favour, dt.16.12.2019. Ex.A2: Tax receipt for the plaint schedule property dt.31.12.2024. Ex.A3: Electricity bill for the plaint schedule property dt.13.01.2023. Ex.A4: Registered legal notice got issued to the defendant dt.13.12.2024. Ex.A5: Pendrive containing the photographs and videos. Ex.A6: Returned unserved cover with endorsement “Refused” from defendant dt.21.12.2024. Ex.A7: Regd. Legal notice issued to the 2nddefendant dt.13.02.2025. Ex.A8: Postal receipt of Regd. Legal notice issued to the 2nd defendant dt.13.02.2025. Ex.A9: Acknowledgmentreceivedfrom2nddefendant dt.15.02.2025.

For Defendant :- NIL-

(V.LEELA SHYAM SUNDARI)

(Reg.No.AP2016CJD00959)

PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

KAKINADA

9

Fair copy in OS.226/25, dt.29.08.25

1 Fair copy in O.S.127/22, dt.03.04.24

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: KAKINADA

PRESENT: Smt.V.Leela Shyam Sundari,PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KAKINADA

FAC/ I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), KAKINADA

Wednesday, the 03rd day of April, 2024

ORIIGNAL SUIT No. 127/2022

Between : State Bank of India, Matam Center Branch, Samalkot represented by its Branch Manager, D.No.17-2-15, Ambati Rama Krishna Plaza, Samalkot, East Godavari District. …Plaintif

And

1. Datla Vamsee Varma, S/o D.V.Vara Prasad, aged 37 years, Business D.No.60- 10-67, Near Ideal College, Nancy Street, Vidyuth Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District,

2. Rajeti Surya Ravi Kiran Babu, S/o Prabhakara Rao, aged 38 years, Business, D.No.18-14-83, Bhaskara Colony, Samalkot, East Godavari District

...Defendants

This suit is coming on 27.03.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.S.V.Lakshmaji Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and defendants were remained set exparte and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff’s bank against the defendants for recovery of Rs.6,76,004/- with subsequent interest and costs with a first charge in favour of plaintiff over plaint schedule property and permit to sale of hypothecated property for realization of decree amount and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The first defendant approached the plaintiff bank for term loan for doing medical business in the name and style Vamsi Laboratories. As the plaintiff bank agreed first defendant executed necessary loan documents. The first 2

Fair copy in O.S.127/22, dt.03.04.24 defendant also executed guarantee agreement dt.03.08.2018 and the second defendant will indemnify. The bank granted Rs.5,00,000/- and the first defendant executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation on 03.08.2018 and the second defendant stood as guarantor. As the debt is due to SBI which is a statutory corporation so the Debt Relief Acts are not applicable. The plaintiff bank is entitled to the contract rate of interest. Hence the suit.

3. After receiving the summons through registered post, the 1st defendant appeared and filed vakalat but did not file written statement and he was set ex parte on 31.10.2022. The second defendant received the summons, but did not appear before the Court. On 01.04.2022, the second defendant was set ex-parte.

4.To prove the case, the branch manager of plaintiff’s bank was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

6.Now the Point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

7.The Branch Manager of plaintiff bank who is examined PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit in corroboration with plaint pleadings. Ex.A1 to A3 apparently show that the defendant No.1 borrowed the loan from plaintiff bank and Ex.A4 shows the second defendant as guarantor. Ex.A5 shows that the defendant have not discharged the loan.

8.The defendants did not appear and did not file written statement and did not challenge the oral or documentary evidence of the plaintiff. As such 3

Fair copy in O.S.127/22, dt.03.04.24

Ex.A1 to A5 remained unchallenged and proved the prima facie case of plaintiff.

9.Hence in these circumstances, this Court finds that the defendants are liable jointly and severally to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff bank and so the plaintiff is entitled for decree of the suit. As the contractual rate of interest is not pleaded by plaintiff and not mentioned in the documents, so this Court is inclined to award 6% rate of interest. Accordingly this point is answered infavour of plaintiff.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing defendants No.1 & 2 to pay the suit amount of Rs.6,76,004/- (Rupees six lakhs seventy six thousand four only) to the plaintiff bank together with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the sum of Rs.6,76,004/- (Rupees six lakhs seventy six thousand four only).

Typed to dictation by Senior Stenographer (Outsourcing) corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 03 rd day of April, 2024.

V.Leela Shyam Sundari

PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

FAC/ I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

KAKINADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

PW.1: Nulu Srinivasa Rao None 4

Fair copy in O.S.127/22, dt.03.04.24

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Original application form for Micro and Small Enterprises execute by the first defendant, dt.03.08.2018 Ex.A2Original letter of Arrangement addressed to the first defendant dt.03.08.2018 Ex.A3Original agreement of loan cum Hypothecation executed by the first defendant dt.03.08.2018 Ex.A4Original guarantee agreement executed by the 2nd defendant, dt.03.08.2018 Ex.A5Certified copy of account statement.

FOR DEFENDANT: --Nil--

V.Leela Shyam Sundari

PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

FAC/ I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

KAKINADA