Smt V Rajani

Page No.1 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT

BHONGIR

Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2022

PRESENT:-V. Rajani,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Bhongir.

O.S No.41 of 2014

Between :- V.Devidas, S/o Late V.Ramulu, age: 51 years, Occ: Government Employee, R/o H.No.16-11-511/201/202, Flat No.503, Sri Gayathri Ram Manorama Residency, Shalivahana Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, R.R.District ….Plaintiff AND

Dachepalli Madhav, S/o Sri Ramulu, age: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.5-494/13/C, Near Bus Stand, Choutuppal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. … Defendant

This suit coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri J.C.Francis, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri A.Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant, and the suit having stood over for consideration till this day, and after hearing both sides, and perusing the material on record, this Court made the following :

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking specific performance of oral agreement of sale dated 25.12.2012 directing the defendant to register plot ad measuring 201 sq.yards in

Sy.Nos.84 and 86 situated at Lakkaram Village, Choutuppal Mandal,

Nalgonda District (hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property)

Page No.2 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

in favour of the plaintiff, in alternative to direct the defendant to pay

Rs.8,19,000/- which includes interest @ 15% per annum for the period from 23.06.2005 to 25.12.2012 and the additional amount of Rs.37,000/-.

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is that plaintiff is an employee of

APDDC, working as Deputy Director at Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh and the defendant is doing real estate business. Defendant is owner of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff was posted at Kadthal dairy in the year 2004 to 2009. Defendant was introduced to the plaintiff by one

Dasharath who was the employee of APDDC. Defendant developed acquaintance with the plaintiff offering to sell plots to the plaintiff and to other persons. Defendant apprised the plaintiff that he is the owner of open land in Sy.No.53/1, 2, 3 and 4 situated at Ramanthapur, Uppal

Mandal and the plots in the above survey numbers and that in future, the land would have appraised rates and impressed upon the plaintiff to purchase 200 sq.yards in the said survey numbers. Defendant made an oral offer to the plaintiff to sell the plot ad measuring 200 sq.yards @

Rs.1,600/- per sq.yard. The offer was accepted by the plaintiff and communicated the same to the defendant. On 23.06.2005, the concluded contract came into force and on which date, plaintiff paid Rs.3,20,000/-

Page No.3 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

and additional amount of Rs.30,000/- for registration charges through post dated cheques bearing Nos.317443 dated 02.07.2005 and 307446

dated 09.07.2005 drawn on Andhra Bank, Ramanthapur Branch. The

said cheques were encashed by the defendant. He issued a receipt for

Rs.3,50,000/- on 23.06.2005. The time for performance of the contract was subject to a period of three years which is one of the terms and conditions for registration of the plot as the defendant expressed that the

Government was planning to put up a green belt area near his land.

Plaintiff paid the total sale consideration to the defendant. Plaintiff insisted the defendant to register the plot in his name. But defendant expressed that he would be registering the plot in favour of the plaintiff only after the Government takes action to convert the land or any part thereof as green belt area. Plaintiff came to know in November 2012 that the statutory authority has declared the land as green belt area. Plaintiff approached the defendant and requested him to return the amount of

Rs.3,50,000/- with interest to him. He also issued a demand notice to the defendant on 05.12.2012. On receiving the said demand notice, defendant called upon the plaintiff to come for negotiations at Yashoda

Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad. Plaintiff along with one M.Dayanand

Page No.4 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

and B.Dasharath (mediator) went to Yashoda Hospital at Malakpet,

Hyderabad where the defendant was admitted for lungs infection in the month of November and December 2012. On meeting the defendant, he expressed that he would register the suit schedule property which is covered under the document No.3979 of 2005 registered at SRO,

Choutuppal in favour of the plaintiff immediately after his discharge from the hospital. The defendant was discharged on 31.12.2012 from the hospital. At the time of treatment, the defendant agreed to treat the sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- which was already received by him as the total sale consideration in pursuance of the oral contract entered in between them. On 25.12.2012, the above contract took place in between the plaintiff and the defendant at Yashodha Hospital in the presence of

B.Dasharath and M.Dayanand. The defendant also received Rs.37,000/-

additional expenditure for registration charges. After discharge from the

hospital, the defendant on one or the other pretext postponed to register the suit schedule property in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and his obligation to pay the sale consideration to the defendant was discharged and also he paid

Rs.37,000/- to the defendant towards the incidental expenditure for the

Page No.5 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

purpose of stamp duty for registration. But the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. Hence, this suit.

3.Written statement is filed by the defendant admitting that plaintiff is an employee of APDDC and also that the defendant is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. It is further stated that he agreed to sell one plot ad measuring 200 sq.yards situated in Sy.No.13 at

Ramanthapur Village in favour of the plaintiff for a sale price of

Rs.4,000/- per sq.yard and the total sale price was Rs.8,00,000/-.

Plaintiff paid Rs.3,50,000/- as advance amount to the defendant and the defendant passed the receipt in favour of the plaintiff on 23.06.2005.

Plaintiff promised to pay the remaining sale price of Rs.4,50,000/- to the defendant within two months from 23.06.2005 i.e., by 23.08.2005 but he failed to pay the remaining sale price as per the agreement. Therefore defendant forfeited the sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. Plaintiff is not entitled for refund of sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. Plaintiff approached the defendant thereafter for registration of sale deed in respect of Sy.No.13 ad measuring 200 sq.yards. But the said land was acquired by Hyderabad

Urban Development Authority under Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of Moosi river conversion and river front development. As such

Page No.6 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

the defendant was unable to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Sy.No.13 ad measuring 200 sq.yards and therefore he was entitled to forfeit Rs.3,50,000/-. It is further stated that plaintiff never met the defendant in Yashodha Hospital. In 2011 plaintiff approached the defendant and enquired about plot situated near

Choutuppal village. Defendant informed the plaintiff that he was the owner of the suit schedule property which was acquired by him under a registered gift settlement deed dated 21.12.2005. Plaintiff asked for a

Xerox copy of the said registered gift settlement deed to show the same to his friends, who wanted to purchase plots nearby Choutuppal village.

Defendant furnished the Xerox of the registered gift settlement deed. It is denied that defendant agreed to sell the suit plot to the plaintiff under an oral agreement. Defendant never entered into agreement of sale with the plaintiff for sale of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff never paid Rs.37,000/- to the defendant towards the incidental expenditure.

The agreement in between the plaintiff and the defendant was expired long back on 23.08.2005 when the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale price of Rs.4,50,000/- to the defendant in respect of plot in Sy.No.13. It is further stated that plaintiff is not entitled for refund of the suit amount

Page No.7 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

as it is not supported by any agreement. Receipt dated 23.06.2005 does not indicate about repayment of the amount on failure to do certain act.

The receipt dated 23.06.2005 cannot be treated as an agreement. The suit is not maintainable and accordingly it is prayed to dismiss the same.

4.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial.

(1)Whether there exists agreement dated 23.06.2005 in between the plaintiff and the defendant? (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance as prayed for? (3)Whether the alternative relief in respect of damages is barred by limitation? (4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief of damages? (5)To what relief?

5.The plaintiff in support of his case has examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. Defendant in support of his case has examined himself as D.W.1. No documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant.

6.Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and also the learned counsel for the defendant. The learned counsel relied on the judgment in Balasaheb Dayanedeo Naik v. Appasahed Dattatraya

Page No.8 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

Pawar reported in AIR 2008 Law (SC) 1205 wherein in para 10 it is observed under the facts and circumstances of the said case that “It is clear that in the case of sale of immovable property, there is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract. Even where the parties have expressly provided that time is the essence of the contract, such a stipulation will have to be read along with other provisions of the contract. For instance, if the contract was to include clauses providing for extension of time in certain contingencies or for payment of fine or penalty for every day or week, the work undertaken remains unfinished on the expiry of the time provided in the contract, such clauses would be construed as rendering ineffective the express provision relating to the time being of the essence of contract. In the case on hand, though the parties agreed that the sale deed is to be executed within six months, in the last paragraph they made it clear that in the event of failure to execute the sale deed, the earnest money will be forfeited. In such circumstances, the above-mentioned clauses in the last three paragraphs of the agreement of sale would render ineffective the specific provision relating to the time being the essence of contract”

7.ISSUE NOS.1 TO 4:The admitted facts are that plaintiff paid

Rs.3,50,000/- to the defendant, on 23.06.2005 for which a receipt was issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 23.06.2005, for a plot of 20 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.53/1, 2, 3 and 4 situated at Ramanthapur, Uppal Mandal, there was an oral agreement of sale in between him and the defendant, the defendant agreed to sell the plot @ Rs.1,600/- per sq.yard, which was accepted by him and that the defendant postponed registration of plot in his favour as the Government was undertaking to declare the said area as green belt

Page No.9 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

area. In November 2012, the area of Sy.Nos.53/1, 2, 3 and 4 was declared by the Government as green belt area. That when the plaintiff approached the defendant for refund of the amount, on 05.12.2012, in

Yashodha Hospital, in the presence of one B.Dasharath and M.Dayanand, defendant offered him the suit schedule property for the same sale consideration and informed him that he would register the suit schedule property after discharge from the hospital and also took Rs.37,000/- towards additional expenses. On the other hand it is the case of the defendant that he offered to sell to the plaintiff plot of 200 sq.yards in

Sy.No.13 situated at Ramanthapur but as the land was acquired by the

Government for the purpose of Moosi river conversation and river front development, by issuing gazette notification dated 06.07.2006, he was unable to register the sale deed and as such the sale consideration amount paid by the plaintiff was forfeited. The defendant denied that plaintiff approached him in Yashodha Hospital in 2012 and that he offered to sell the suit schedule property for the same sale consideration of

Rs.3,50,000/- and also received Rs.37,000/- towards additional expenses from the plaintiff.

Page No.10 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

8.The plaintiff as P.W.1, in his evidence in chief has reiterated the version stated by him in the plaint. He marked Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is receipt issued by the defendant dated 23.06.2005. This receipt does not show the the survey number but it shows plot of 200 sq.yards. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 04.12.2012 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant whereunder, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to refund the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest at 18% per annum. Ex.A3 is the encumbrance certificate dated 04.01.2013 which shows that the suit schedule property was gifted to the defendant by one Dachapally

Goverdhan. Ex.A4 is the market value certificate. Ex.A5 is the passbook of Andhra Bank of plaintiff which shows clearance of two cheques bearing Nos.443 and 317446 for Rs.2,75,000/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively.

9.In the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is elicited from him that he got acquaintance with the defendant through one Dasharath of Bhongir town and the said Dasharath died. He stated that Dayanand is his relative and he is a resident of Hyderabad. He further stated that defendant informed him that 200 sq.yards of plot was available for sale at

Ramanthapur village and he is the owner of the said property in the year

Page No.11 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

2005 and the rate per sq.yard is Rs.1,600/- and he paid to the defendant

Rs.3,20,000/-, for which Ex.A1/receipt was issued. He admitted that

Ex.A1 does not show the details or description of the plot and also the rate per sq.yard as Rs.1,600/-. He denied the suggestion that the defendant agreed to sell the plot at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per sq.yard and that the total sale consideration amount was Rs.8,00,000/-. He denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 shows payment of only advance amount of

Rs.3,50,000/-. He stated that except Ex.A1 there is no other agreement.

He stated that he does not know that the plot offered to him by the defendant i.e., 200 sq.yards at Ramanthapur village was acquired by the government under green belt zone and that a gazette notification was issued to that effect in the year 2006 by the District Collector, Ranga

Reddy District. He stated that he approached the defendant several times asking him to execute the sale deed. He admitted that he issued legal notice/Ex.A2 to the defendant. He admitted that in Ex.A2 he mentioned that since the property fell under green belt zone, he demanded refund of

Rs.3,50,000/- with interest. He stated that there is no written agreement executed by the defendant in respect of registration of suit schedule property. He stated that on 25.12.2012, he paid Rs.37,000/- to the

Page No.12 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

defendant towards registration charges and he has not filed any proof

before the Court in respect of payment of alleged Rs.37,000/- to the

defendant. He denied the suggestion that he did not pay Rs.37,000/- to the defendant. He denied the suggestion that the defendant was not admitted in Yashodha hospital, Malakpet in the months of November and

December 2012 and he did not meet him and no negotiations took place.

He further denied the suggestion that he filed the suit falsely against the defendant and he is not entitled for the relief of specific performance or for the alternative relief of refund.

10.There is no denial from the defendant that there was an agreement of sale in between him and the defendant for plot of 200 sq.yards and payment of Rs.3,50,000/- by the plaintiff to him. But it is his case that the sale consideration was Rs.8,00,000/- and he received Rs.3,50,000/- towards advance amount and it took place on 23.06.2005 and within two months i.e., by 23.08.2005, the plaintiff has to pay the remaining sale price of Rs.4,50,000/- to the defendant, but he did not pay the said amount and as such the amount paid by the plaintiff was forfeited. But as seen above, no suggestion is given to P.W.1 that the alleged balance of

Rs.4,50,000/- was to be paid to the defendant by 23.08.2005 and as he

Page No.13 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

failed to pay the remaining sale price of Rs.4,50,000/- to the defendant, the advance amount paid by him i.e., Rs.3,50,000/- was forfeited. Ex.A1 does not show that the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was received as advance sale consideration for the plot. Though the defendant is not disputing that he received Ex.A2/legal notice, he did not choose to give any reply to the said legal notice informing the plaintiff that the advance amount was already forfeited and that he is not entitled for refund of the amount.

11.D.W.1 in his evidence in chief has reiterated the version stated by him in the written statement. In his cross-examination, it is elicited from him that he is doing real estate business and he sold away the suit schedule property about 6 to 7 years back, but he cannot give the name of the purchaser. He admitted that he has been residing in the address given in the cause title of the plaint for the past 7 to 8 years, it is a rented house and he knows Dasharatha for the last 15 years, who used to work in APDDC. He further admitted that 7 to 8 years after his acquaintance with Dasharatha, Dasharatha introduced him to the plaintiff. He further admitted Dasharaha introduced the plaintiff for the purpose of sale of his plot at Ramanthapur. He admitted that plaintiff paid him Rs.3,50,000/- through cheques. He denied that the signature on Ex.A1 as not his

Page No.14 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

signature. He further admitted that in 2012, he was admitted in

Yashodha Hospital, Malakpet but he does not know for what disease he was admitted. He stated that there was no agreement in between him and the plaintiff regarding forfeiteture of the advance amount. He stated that he does not know whether any notice was received from the plaintiff by him as he was admitted in the hospital. He stated that he has not filed any receipt in the Court in proof of return of advance amount. He denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence. He stated that he does not have idea as to on what date he returned Rs.2,50,000/- to the plaintiff on humanitarian grounds. In his evidence in chief, it is written in pen that the defendant returned Rs.2,50,000/- to the plaintiff on humanitarian grounds.

12.As seen from the information elicited in the cross-examination of

D.W.1, there was no agreement in between him and the plaintiff regarding forfeiture of the advance amount and though he denied his signature on Ex.A1, in his written statement and in his evidence in chief, the defendant admitted that he issued Ex.A1/receipt. The defendant further has not denied his acquaintance with the plaintiff and with

Dasharatha and also he admitted that Dasharatha introduced the plaintiff

Page No.15 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

to him for the purpose of sale of his plot at Ramanthapur. He admitted that plaintiff paid him Rs.3,50,000/- through cheques. He further admitted that he was admitted in Yashodha Hospital in 2012.

13.The information elicited in the cross-examination of D.W.1 shows that after sending of legal notice to the defendant by the plaintiff, the plaintiff met the defendant in Yashodha Hospital and there, the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule plot to the plaintiff. Nothing could be elicited from the plaintiff, as already stated above, that there was time stipulated in between him and the defendant for the agreement of sale entered by them on 23.06.2005 that the balance amount had to be paid within two months. There is no dispute that the plot which was offered by the defendant for sale to the plaintiff was declared as green belt area and as such it could not be registered in favour of the plaintiff. Thus there exists an oral agreement of sale in between plaintiff and defendant

dated 23.06.2005. It is also proved by the plaintiff that in the month of

December 2012, he met the defendant in Yashodha Hospital and the agreement of sale dated 23.06.2005 was extended and under which the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for the sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. But the plaintiff has not filed any proof

Page No.16 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

before this Court or elicited any information from the defendant to show

that he paid Rs.37,000/- towards additional expenses to the defendant. In the cross-examination of the defendant, it is elicited from him that he sold away the suit schedule property about 6 to 7 years prior to the date of his deposition in 2022. Thus the suit schedule property is not available for registration in favour of of the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the sale consideration amount paid by him to the defendant with interest and the said relief is not barred by time. Issue

Nos.1 to 4 are accordingly answered holding that the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the sale consideration amount of Rs.3,50,000/- paid by him to the defendant along with interest.

14.ISSUE NO.5:In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, directing the defendant to pay sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs

Fifty Thousand only) to the plaintiff with interest @12% per annum from 23.06.2005 till the date of decree and with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

-Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of August, 2022.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

Page No.17 of 17 O.S No.41 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: P.W.1:V.Devidas

FOR THE DEFENDANT: D.W.1:Dachepally Madhav

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Receipt issued by the defendant dated 23.06.2005. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 04.12.2012 Ex.A3: Encumbrance certificate dated 04.01.2013 Ex.A4: Market value certificate. Ex.A5: Andhra Bank passbook of plaintiff

FOR THE DEFENDANT:-NIl-

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

Page No.1 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE : AT BHONGIR

Dated this the 11th day of August, 2022

Present:-V. Rajani, Assistant Sessions Judge,

BHONGIR.

SESSIONS CASE NO.188 OF 2016

(On committal made by the learned Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir vide PRC No.15 of 2016 dated 19.07.2016)

Name of the Complainant: The State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Bhongir Town P.S. (Crime No.146 of 2015 of P.S Bhongir Town).

Name of the Accused : Guduri Sanjeeva Rao, S/o Rajaiah, age: 49 years, Occ: Lorry Cleaner, R/o Coolie lane, Near Ramakrishna Hospital, Kothagudem, Khammam Charge: under Section 307 IPC

Plea of the Accused: Not guilty

Finding of the Court: Not guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted of the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is completed. . Prosecution conducted by: Sri P. Satyanarayana, Addl.P.P., Bhongir. Accused defended bySri Md.Ismail Ahmed, Advocate

Page No.2 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Satyanarayana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and Sri Md.Ismail Ahmed, learned counsel for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, and the case having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhongir Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC in crime No.146 of 2015 of P.S Bhongir Town Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that L.W.1/victim/Parimi

Ram Mohan is working as Revenue Officer in Municipality, Bhongir.

Accused is a resident of Kothagudem, Khammam District. Accused has two sons. Accused and his wife given their second son in adoption to

L.W.1 on 19.12.2013 and the said adoption was registered vide document

No.35 of 2013 dated 19.12.2013. Thereafter some differences arose in between accused and his wife. Accused thought to get back his adopted son from L.W.1. Accordingly accused demanded L.W.1 to give back his son or to give Rs.1,00,000/-. But L.W.1 refused both the said demands.

As such accused threatened L.W.1 that he would kill him if he fails to fulfill his demand. As L.W.1 has not responded to the demands of the accused, accused planned to kill L.W.1 and accordingly he visited

Page No.3 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

Bhongir on 24.06.2015 in the morning hours. He went to the house of

L.W.1 at about 8.15 a.m and threatened him to fulfill his demand. But

L.W.1 refused to fulfill the demand. Accused picked up a quarrel with

L.W.1 and tried to stab L.W.1 with a knife which was brought with him.

But L.W.1 escaped from the stabbing and he got cut injuries on his forehead. In the meantime L.Ws.2 and 3/Pangerekka Swamy and Suraka

Ramesh rushed to the place and rescued L.W.1 from the accused.

Accused absconded from the scene by leaving the knife at the scene of offence. Thus the accused has committed the offence punishable under

Section 307 IPC

3.The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 307IPC against the accused and registered the case as PRC No.15 of 2016. Copies of case documents were furnished to accused, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed by the learned Addl.Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, vide committal order dated

19.06.2016 under Section 209 Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Nalgonda. The Hon’ble Sessions Court registered it as S.C No.188 of

Page No.4 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 2016 and made over the same to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.

4.On appearance of the accused before this Court, he was examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C and charge for the offence under Section 307

IPC was framed; read over and explained to him in Telugu and accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 and M.O.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and seizure. P.W.5 is the de facto complainant and the injured. P.W.6 is the doctor, who treated P.W.5, and P.W.7 is the investigating Officer.

6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.The point that arises for determination in this case is-

Page No.5 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

8.Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused. I have gone through the material available on record.

9.POINT:-The case of the prosecution is that P.W.5 adopted the second son of the accused through a registered adoption deed on 19.12.2013. As disputes arose in between the accused and his wife, accused started demanding P.W.5 to give back his son to him or else pay

Rs.1,00,000/-. When P.W.5 did not heed to the demand of the accused, on 24.06.2015 accused went to the house of P.W.5 and attacked him with a knife, to kill him and P.W.5 received injury on his forehead. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the rescue of P.W.5 and accused escaped from the scene.

10.P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence in chief deposed that they know

P.W.5 but they do not know the accused. They further stated that they do not know anything about this case and that they have not witnessed any incident. Both these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution and in their cross-examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor,

Page No.6 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 they denied to have stated before the police as in Exs.P1 and P2, their

Section 161 Cr.P.C statements.

11.P.Ws.3 and 4, in whose presence it is the case of the prosecution that scene of offence panchnama was conducted and knife was seized from the scene stated that they do not know anything about this case.

They further stated that about 7 to 8 years back, police Bhongir obtained their signatures on some blank papers without disclosing anything. They identified their signature on the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and on the rough sketch of the scene. Both these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution and in their cross-examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, they denied that on 24.06.2015, the police Bhongir conducted scene panchanama at the house of the accused and seized a pen knife from the scene and that the police also drawn the rough sketch of the scene.

12.P.W.5 in his evidence in chief deposed that he knows P.Ws.1 and 2 and the accused. He has been residing in the house of Dr.Raghupathi

Reddy, at house bearing No.1-8-69 situated at Bhongir from 2013. He stated that accused has two sons and he adopted his younger son by name

Page No.7 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

Sai Ram Prasad and got the adoption deed registered at Sub Registrar's office, Kothagudem vide document bearing No.35 of 2013, dated 19.12.2013. He stated that accused demanded him on phone to give

Rs.1,00,000/- for giving his son in adoption to him and he refused for the same. He further stated that on 24.06.2015 at about 08.15 am, accused came to his house, quarreled with him and fisted and tried to kill him with a pencil knife. He stated that accused attacked him with the pencil knife on his face and throat and tried to cut his throat. He further stated that PWs.1 and 2 witnessed the incident and on the said persons coming into his house, accused fled away from his house by leaving the pencil knife. He stated that he sustained bleeding injuries on his head and on his face, he went to Bhongir Government Hospital for treatment and thereafter he went to police station and lodged report on the evening of the same day. The report is marked as Ex.P7.

13.P.W.6 in her evidence in chief deposed that she worked as CAS,

Government Hospital, Bhongir from 2013 to 2018. She stated that on 24.06.2015 on receiving requisition from police, Bhongir town in

Cr.No.146 of 2015 to examine P.W.5, she examined him found one deep cut injury 2x2 cms on the frontal area and swelling 4x4 cms on the right

Page No.8 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 cheek. She stated that both the injuries are simple in nature injury No.1 might have been caused by a sharp edged object and injury No.2 might have been caused by a blunt object and age of the injuries was one hour prior to her examination. She further stated that she issued the wound certificate/Ex.P8.

14.P.W.7 in his evidence in chief deposed that he worked as S.I. of

Police, P.S., Bhongir Town from 01.01.2015 to 07.07.2015. That on 24.06.2015 at about 6:00 p.m, he received report from P.W.5 and based on the said report, he registered a case in Cr.No.146 of 2015 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and issued FIR/Ex.P9. He stated that he sent PW.5 to Government Area Hospital, Bhongir for treatment and certificate. He further stated that he visited the scene of offence at the house of P.W.5, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 2, secured the presence of PWs.3 and 4, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drawn the rough sketch of the scene in the presence of the mediators and seized from the scene, one small pencil sharpener (small knife) marked as M.O.1. He stated that he arrested the accused on 25.06.2015 and sent him to Court for judicial custody and filed charge sheet against the accused after completion of investigation.

Page No.9 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

15.In the cross-examination of P.W.5, it is elicited from him by the counsel for the accused that he knows the accused since 18 years prior to the date of the incident as wife of the accused used to work in his house.

He stated that wife of the accused worked in his house from 2000 and himself and accused used to reside in nearby houses. He stated that he was married in 2004 with one Lakshmi belonging to Tenali and he has daughter through the said Lakshmi and his daughter’s name is Sri Vani.

He stated that he divorced his wife and his daughter is residing with his wife. He denied the suggestion that prior to his divorce and during his living with his wife, he had illegal intimacy with wife of accused by name Manjula and that on coming to know about the same, his wife divorced him. He denied the suggestion that he kidnapped his daughter from his wife custody from Tenali and that his wife lodged report against him. He further denied the suggestion that upon his insistence, wife of the accused filed divorce case against the accused on 23.06.2015 before the Family Court, Warangal and that he lodged this report on 24.06.2015 against the accused to send the accused to jail and to get divorce to the wife of accused. He admitted that he married the wife of the accused in 2017. He admitted that presently he is staying with wife of the accused

Page No.10 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 by name Manjula. He denied the suggestion that he with a pre-plan, adopted the son of the accused in 2013, got wife of the accused to file divorce petition in 2015 and he cheated the accused by adopting his son and marrying his wife. He further denied the suggestion that accused never called him demanding money and no incident took place on 24.06.2015. He further denied the suggestion that he by influencing the police got registered the report against the accused. He admitted that he stated before the police that he does not have children through his first wife Lakshmi. He further denied the suggestion that no incident had taken place and the pencil sharpener knife is implanted by him and that accused has not committed the offence and he is deposing falsely.

16.In the cross-examination of P.W.6, it is elicited from her that the injured was not accompanied by any police personnel and the injured was treated as an outpatient.

17.In the cross-examination of P.W.7, he denied the suggestion that he did not record the statements of the witnesses and did not conduct scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and M.O.1 is planted in this case.

He further denied the suggestion that the accused is implicated in this case by colluding with P.W.1.

Page No.11 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

18.From the information elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.5, it is clear that P.W.5 married the wife of the accused, in 2017, by getting divorce to her from the accused. It has also come in the cross- examination of P.W.5, which is denied by him that one day prior to filing of the present report, wife of the accused filed divorce case against the accused in the Family Court, Warangal. There is also no dispute that in 2013 P.W.5 adopted the second son of the accused. It is also not in dispute that P.W.5 divorced his wife, he has a daughter and his daughter is living with his wife. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that accused demanded him on phone to give Rs.1,00,000/- as he gave his son in adoption to him and he refused for the same. P.W.5 has failed to give the date as to when the accused made the demanding phone call to him. Admittedly the adoption took place in 2013 and the present alleged incident took place in 2015 and if really accused had demanded P.W.5 to give Rs.1,00,000/- for giving his son in adoption, either prior to 2013 and immediately after giving his son in adoption, the accused would have demanded the amount but not after two years. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that the incident was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2. But P.Ws.1 and 2 though stated that they knew P.W.5, they stated that they do not know anything about

Page No.12 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 this case. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that he went to the hospital for treatment straight away from his house and thereafter in the evening hours he lodged the report with the police and also P.W.6 stated that the injured was not accompanied by any police personnel but P.W.7 stated that he sent injured to the hospital. Thus there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 7 which creates doubt about P.W.5 taking treatment with P.W.6. Further P.W.6 either in Ex.P8 the would certificate or in her evidence has mentioned the age of injury except stating that it was one hour prior to her examining the patient but she did not give the time when she examined the patient so also Ex.P8 does not disclose time of examination of P.W.5. P.W.5 in his evidence stated that he received bleeding and cut injuries on his head and on his face but the injuries mentioned in Ex.P8 are different and they show deep cut injury on the frontal area and swelling on the right cheek. Thus there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.5 and the medical evidence. The prosecution has not filed any call data record of P.W.5 and of the accused to show that there were phone calls exchanged in between them prior to the date of the incident. The seizure of knife from the scene of offence is also not supported by P.Ws.3 and 4, in whose presence, it is the case of the

Page No.13 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 prosecution that the knife was seized from the scene of offence. All these circumstances put together would show that to get divorce from the accused to his wife, whom P.W.5 has married after this date of incident,

P.W.5 lodged a false report against the accused with the police so as to implicate the accused in a false case. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore accused is entitled to be acquitted of the said offence. Point is accordingly answered.

19. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence under

Section 307 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted of the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is completed.

-Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of August , 2022.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

BHONGIR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1:Pangarekka Swamy P.W.2:Suraka Ramesh

Page No.14 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

P.W.3:Gayapaka Pavan Kumar-None- P.W.4:Nagaram Jangaiah P.W.5:Parimi Ram Mohan P.W.6:Dr.Karuna Sree P.W.7:Ch.Suresh Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P2:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P3:Signature of P.W.3 on scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P4:Signature of P.W.3 on rough sketch map Ex.P5:Signature of P.W.4 on scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P6:Signature of P.W.4 on rough sketch map Ex.P7:Report dated 24.06.2015 Ex.P8:Wound certificate of P.W.5 Ex.P9:First Information Report Ex.P10:Scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P11:Rough sketch map

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:Pencil sharpener (small knife)

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

BHONGIR.

Page No.1 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE : AT BHONGIR

Dated this the 11th day of August, 2022

Present:-V. Rajani, Assistant Sessions Judge,

BHONGIR.

SESSIONS CASE NO.188 OF 2016

(On committal made by the learned Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir vide PRC No.15 of 2016 dated 19.07.2016)

Name of the Complainant: The State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Bhongir Town P.S. (Crime No.146 of 2015 of P.S Bhongir Town).

Name of the Accused : Guduri Sanjeeva Rao, S/o Rajaiah, age: 49 years, Occ: Lorry Cleaner, R/o Coolie lane, Near Ramakrishna Hospital, Kothagudem, Khammam Charge: under Section 307 IPC

Plea of the Accused: Not guilty

Finding of the Court: Not guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted of the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is completed. . Prosecution conducted by: Sri P. Satyanarayana, Addl.P.P., Bhongir. Accused defended bySri Md.Ismail Ahmed, Advocate

Page No.2 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Satyanarayana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and Sri Md.Ismail Ahmed, learned counsel for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, and the case having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhongir Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC in crime No.146 of 2015 of P.S Bhongir Town Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that L.W.1/victim/Parimi

Ram Mohan is working as Revenue Officer in Municipality, Bhongir.

Accused is a resident of Kothagudem, Khammam District. Accused has two sons. Accused and his wife given their second son in adoption to

L.W.1 on 19.12.2013 and the said adoption was registered vide document

No.35 of 2013 dated 19.12.2013. Thereafter some differences arose in between accused and his wife. Accused thought to get back his adopted son from L.W.1. Accordingly accused demanded L.W.1 to give back his son or to give Rs.1,00,000/-. But L.W.1 refused both the said demands.

As such accused threatened L.W.1 that he would kill him if he fails to fulfill his demand. As L.W.1 has not responded to the demands of the accused, accused planned to kill L.W.1 and accordingly he visited

Page No.3 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

Bhongir on 24.06.2015 in the morning hours. He went to the house of

L.W.1 at about 8.15 a.m and threatened him to fulfill his demand. But

L.W.1 refused to fulfill the demand. Accused picked up a quarrel with

L.W.1 and tried to stab L.W.1 with a knife which was brought with him.

But L.W.1 escaped from the stabbing and he got cut injuries on his forehead. In the meantime L.Ws.2 and 3/Pangerekka Swamy and Suraka

Ramesh rushed to the place and rescued L.W.1 from the accused.

Accused absconded from the scene by leaving the knife at the scene of offence. Thus the accused has committed the offence punishable under

Section 307 IPC

3.The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 307IPC against the accused and registered the case as PRC No.15 of 2016. Copies of case documents were furnished to accused, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed by the learned Addl.Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, vide committal order dated

19.06.2016 under Section 209 Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Nalgonda. The Hon’ble Sessions Court registered it as S.C No.188 of

Page No.4 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 2016 and made over the same to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.

4.On appearance of the accused before this Court, he was examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C and charge for the offence under Section 307

IPC was framed; read over and explained to him in Telugu and accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 and M.O.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and seizure. P.W.5 is the de facto complainant and the injured. P.W.6 is the doctor, who treated P.W.5, and P.W.7 is the investigating Officer.

6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.The point that arises for determination in this case is-

Page No.5 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

8.Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused. I have gone through the material available on record.

9.POINT:-The case of the prosecution is that P.W.5 adopted the second son of the accused through a registered adoption deed on 19.12.2013. As disputes arose in between the accused and his wife, accused started demanding P.W.5 to give back his son to him or else pay

Rs.1,00,000/-. When P.W.5 did not heed to the demand of the accused, on 24.06.2015 accused went to the house of P.W.5 and attacked him with a knife, to kill him and P.W.5 received injury on his forehead. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the rescue of P.W.5 and accused escaped from the scene.

10.P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence in chief deposed that they know

P.W.5 but they do not know the accused. They further stated that they do not know anything about this case and that they have not witnessed any incident. Both these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution and in their cross-examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor,

Page No.6 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 they denied to have stated before the police as in Exs.P1 and P2, their

Section 161 Cr.P.C statements.

11.P.Ws.3 and 4, in whose presence it is the case of the prosecution that scene of offence panchnama was conducted and knife was seized from the scene stated that they do not know anything about this case.

They further stated that about 7 to 8 years back, police Bhongir obtained their signatures on some blank papers without disclosing anything. They identified their signature on the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and on the rough sketch of the scene. Both these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution and in their cross-examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, they denied that on 24.06.2015, the police Bhongir conducted scene panchanama at the house of the accused and seized a pen knife from the scene and that the police also drawn the rough sketch of the scene.

12.P.W.5 in his evidence in chief deposed that he knows P.Ws.1 and 2 and the accused. He has been residing in the house of Dr.Raghupathi

Reddy, at house bearing No.1-8-69 situated at Bhongir from 2013. He stated that accused has two sons and he adopted his younger son by name

Page No.7 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

Sai Ram Prasad and got the adoption deed registered at Sub Registrar's office, Kothagudem vide document bearing No.35 of 2013, dated 19.12.2013. He stated that accused demanded him on phone to give

Rs.1,00,000/- for giving his son in adoption to him and he refused for the same. He further stated that on 24.06.2015 at about 08.15 am, accused came to his house, quarreled with him and fisted and tried to kill him with a pencil knife. He stated that accused attacked him with the pencil knife on his face and throat and tried to cut his throat. He further stated that PWs.1 and 2 witnessed the incident and on the said persons coming into his house, accused fled away from his house by leaving the pencil knife. He stated that he sustained bleeding injuries on his head and on his face, he went to Bhongir Government Hospital for treatment and thereafter he went to police station and lodged report on the evening of the same day. The report is marked as Ex.P7.

13.P.W.6 in her evidence in chief deposed that she worked as CAS,

Government Hospital, Bhongir from 2013 to 2018. She stated that on 24.06.2015 on receiving requisition from police, Bhongir town in

Cr.No.146 of 2015 to examine P.W.5, she examined him found one deep cut injury 2x2 cms on the frontal area and swelling 4x4 cms on the right

Page No.8 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 cheek. She stated that both the injuries are simple in nature injury No.1 might have been caused by a sharp edged object and injury No.2 might have been caused by a blunt object and age of the injuries was one hour prior to her examination. She further stated that she issued the wound certificate/Ex.P8.

14.P.W.7 in his evidence in chief deposed that he worked as S.I. of

Police, P.S., Bhongir Town from 01.01.2015 to 07.07.2015. That on 24.06.2015 at about 6:00 p.m, he received report from P.W.5 and based on the said report, he registered a case in Cr.No.146 of 2015 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and issued FIR/Ex.P9. He stated that he sent PW.5 to Government Area Hospital, Bhongir for treatment and certificate. He further stated that he visited the scene of offence at the house of P.W.5, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 2, secured the presence of PWs.3 and 4, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drawn the rough sketch of the scene in the presence of the mediators and seized from the scene, one small pencil sharpener (small knife) marked as M.O.1. He stated that he arrested the accused on 25.06.2015 and sent him to Court for judicial custody and filed charge sheet against the accused after completion of investigation.

Page No.9 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

15.In the cross-examination of P.W.5, it is elicited from him by the counsel for the accused that he knows the accused since 18 years prior to the date of the incident as wife of the accused used to work in his house.

He stated that wife of the accused worked in his house from 2000 and himself and accused used to reside in nearby houses. He stated that he was married in 2004 with one Lakshmi belonging to Tenali and he has daughter through the said Lakshmi and his daughter’s name is Sri Vani.

He stated that he divorced his wife and his daughter is residing with his wife. He denied the suggestion that prior to his divorce and during his living with his wife, he had illegal intimacy with wife of accused by name Manjula and that on coming to know about the same, his wife divorced him. He denied the suggestion that he kidnapped his daughter from his wife custody from Tenali and that his wife lodged report against him. He further denied the suggestion that upon his insistence, wife of the accused filed divorce case against the accused on 23.06.2015 before the Family Court, Warangal and that he lodged this report on 24.06.2015 against the accused to send the accused to jail and to get divorce to the wife of accused. He admitted that he married the wife of the accused in 2017. He admitted that presently he is staying with wife of the accused

Page No.10 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 by name Manjula. He denied the suggestion that he with a pre-plan, adopted the son of the accused in 2013, got wife of the accused to file divorce petition in 2015 and he cheated the accused by adopting his son and marrying his wife. He further denied the suggestion that accused never called him demanding money and no incident took place on 24.06.2015. He further denied the suggestion that he by influencing the police got registered the report against the accused. He admitted that he stated before the police that he does not have children through his first wife Lakshmi. He further denied the suggestion that no incident had taken place and the pencil sharpener knife is implanted by him and that accused has not committed the offence and he is deposing falsely.

16.In the cross-examination of P.W.6, it is elicited from her that the injured was not accompanied by any police personnel and the injured was treated as an outpatient.

17.In the cross-examination of P.W.7, he denied the suggestion that he did not record the statements of the witnesses and did not conduct scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and M.O.1 is planted in this case.

He further denied the suggestion that the accused is implicated in this case by colluding with P.W.1.

Page No.11 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

18.From the information elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.5, it is clear that P.W.5 married the wife of the accused, in 2017, by getting divorce to her from the accused. It has also come in the cross- examination of P.W.5, which is denied by him that one day prior to filing of the present report, wife of the accused filed divorce case against the accused in the Family Court, Warangal. There is also no dispute that in 2013 P.W.5 adopted the second son of the accused. It is also not in dispute that P.W.5 divorced his wife, he has a daughter and his daughter is living with his wife. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that accused demanded him on phone to give Rs.1,00,000/- as he gave his son in adoption to him and he refused for the same. P.W.5 has failed to give the date as to when the accused made the demanding phone call to him. Admittedly the adoption took place in 2013 and the present alleged incident took place in 2015 and if really accused had demanded P.W.5 to give Rs.1,00,000/- for giving his son in adoption, either prior to 2013 and immediately after giving his son in adoption, the accused would have demanded the amount but not after two years. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that the incident was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2. But P.Ws.1 and 2 though stated that they knew P.W.5, they stated that they do not know anything about

Page No.12 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 this case. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that he went to the hospital for treatment straight away from his house and thereafter in the evening hours he lodged the report with the police and also P.W.6 stated that the injured was not accompanied by any police personnel but P.W.7 stated that he sent injured to the hospital. Thus there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 7 which creates doubt about P.W.5 taking treatment with P.W.6. Further P.W.6 either in Ex.P8 the would certificate or in her evidence has mentioned the age of injury except stating that it was one hour prior to her examining the patient but she did not give the time when she examined the patient so also Ex.P8 does not disclose time of examination of P.W.5. P.W.5 in his evidence stated that he received bleeding and cut injuries on his head and on his face but the injuries mentioned in Ex.P8 are different and they show deep cut injury on the frontal area and swelling on the right cheek. Thus there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.5 and the medical evidence. The prosecution has not filed any call data record of P.W.5 and of the accused to show that there were phone calls exchanged in between them prior to the date of the incident. The seizure of knife from the scene of offence is also not supported by P.Ws.3 and 4, in whose presence, it is the case of the

Page No.13 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016 prosecution that the knife was seized from the scene of offence. All these circumstances put together would show that to get divorce from the accused to his wife, whom P.W.5 has married after this date of incident,

P.W.5 lodged a false report against the accused with the police so as to implicate the accused in a false case. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore accused is entitled to be acquitted of the said offence. Point is accordingly answered.

19. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence under

Section 307 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted of the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is completed.

-Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of August , 2022.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

BHONGIR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1:Pangarekka Swamy P.W.2:Suraka Ramesh

Page No.14 of 14S.C No. 188 of 2016

P.W.3:Gayapaka Pavan Kumar-None- P.W.4:Nagaram Jangaiah P.W.5:Parimi Ram Mohan P.W.6:Dr.Karuna Sree P.W.7:Ch.Suresh Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P2:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P3:Signature of P.W.3 on scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P4:Signature of P.W.3 on rough sketch map Ex.P5:Signature of P.W.4 on scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P6:Signature of P.W.4 on rough sketch map Ex.P7:Report dated 24.06.2015 Ex.P8:Wound certificate of P.W.5 Ex.P9:First Information Report Ex.P10:Scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P11:Rough sketch map

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:Pencil sharpener (small knife)

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

BHONGIR.

Page No.1 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT BHONGIR

Dated this the 11th day of August, 2022

PRESENT:- V. Rajani,

Senior Civil Judge,

Bhongir.

O.S No.76 of 2019

Between :-

1.Tangutoori Kavitha, W/o Mahesh, D/o Late Dommati Gouraiah, age: 30 years, Occ: Household, R/o Venkiryal Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

2.Bethala Renuka, W/o Bethala Naveen Kumar, D/o Late Dommati Gouraiah, age:23 years, Occ: Household, R/o Raigir Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District ….Plaintiffs AND

1.Dommati Krishna Swamy, S/o late Gouraiah, age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture and private employee, R/o /o Raigir Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District

2.Gangadhari Padma @ Lavanya, W/o Ramesh, age: 34 years, Occ: Agriculture and household, R/o Nancharipeta Village, Athmakur (M), Yadadri-Bhongir District.

3.Dommati Mallamma, W/o Late Gouraiah, age: 41 years, Occ: Household, R/o Raigir Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri- Bhongir District.

4.Dommati Shiva Kumar, S/o Late Gouraiah, age: 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o Raigir Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

5.Dommati Naresh, S/o Late Gouraiah, age: 19 years, Occ: Student, R/o Raigir Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District

6.Kaithi Venkat Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, age: 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Raigir Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri- Bhongir District (Defendant No.6 is the proforma party to this suit and no relief is claiming against him)

Page No.2 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

7.Thammishetty Nagaraju, S/o T.Venkatesham, age: 35 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H.No.1-9-43, Old Bank Street, Janagon town and District … Defendants

This suit coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Ch.Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 having remained ex parte, and the suit having stood over for consideration till this day, and after hearing both sides, and perusing the material on record, this Court made the following :

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition of Ac.5-00 gts in Sy.No.698/A, dry-cum-wet agricultural lands situated at Raigir

Revenue Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District (hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property) declaring the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 as 7/30th shareholders each and defendant Nos.4 and 5 as 1/30th shareholders each in the suit schedule property and to declare registered sale deed bearing document No.5243 of 2017 dated 21.06.2017 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 in favour of defendant

No.7 in respect of part of the suit land in Sy.No.698/A/1 and 698/A/2 ad measuring Acs.2.00 gts situated at Raigir village, Bhongir Mandal as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

2.The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that late Dommati Roshaiah was their common ancestor, who died leaving Dommati Gouraiah as his

Page No.3 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

only son. Gouraiah has got two wives namely Dommati Yadamma (first wife) and Dommati Mallamma (second wife/defendant No.3). Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the children of the first wife of Gouraiah.

Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the sons of Gouraiah and defendant No.3.

During the life time of Gouraiah, he performed second marriage with defendant No.3 as his first wife Yadamma was suffering from cancer and thereafter she died in the month of August, 1999 by leaving the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. Gouraiah died on 12.11.2011 leaving the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5 as his legal heirs and successors.

Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5 constitute a Hindu undivided joint family governed by Hindu Mitakshara school of law. The said joint family members acquired the suit schedule property. They are jointly enjoying the said property without affecting any final partition with metes and bounds by raising dry and wet crops as per season. The suit schedule property was nominally standing in the name of late Gouraiah during his life time. For his joint family needs and necessities, he obtained loan from defendant No.6, executed a nominal registered sale deed vide document No.1597 of 2011 dated 29.03.2011 in respect of

Ac.0-20 gts of land in suit survey number as security for the said loan

Page No.4 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

amount. He utilized the said amount for the joint family needs and physical possession of the land was not delivered to defendant No.6.

Thereafter defendant No.1 repaid the loan amount to defendant No.6 and defendant No.6 in turn executed registered sale deed vide document

No.11001 of 2016 dated 12.07.2016 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of the said Ac.0-20 gts of land. Defendant No.6 is made as a proforma party and the plaintiffs are not claiming any any relief against him.

3.Taking advantage of nominal patta in the name of late Gouraiah of an extent of Acs.4-20 gts, defendant Nos.1 and 3 got mutated the patta of suit schedule property into their names under pouthi amendment to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts and Acs.3-20 gts respectively and also making efforts to alienate the same to third parties. Plaintiffs came to know that defendant No.7 is claiming that he is the owner of Acs.2-00 gts in

Sy.No.698/A out of the suit schedule property and on enquiry with the

Sub-Registrar’s Office, Bhongir, plaintiffs for the first time came to know that defendant Nos.1 and 3 jointly created false and fictitious registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.7 without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 by colluding

Page No.5 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

with defendant No.7 for part of the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs demanded defendants to come forward for amicable partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and also for cancellation of the said registered sale deed by way of conducting panchayath before the elders and well wishers on 01.03.2019 and also on 06.03.2019 but they did not come forward for amicable partition of the suit schedule property. Legal notice was issued to the defendants by the plaintiffs on 17.09.2018 which was served on defendant Nos.1 and 3 and was refused by defendant No.7. But the defendants did not come forward for partition of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.7 under the guise of the nominal and sham sale deed in his name trying to occupy the suit schedule property and also alienate the same in favour of the third parties. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to equal share on par with their deceased father i.e., 1/5th share each and out of the 1/5th share of their late father, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are again entitled to equal share i.e., 1/30th share each. Thus the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to 7/30th share each, defendant Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to 1/30th share each in the suit schedule property. As defendant No.3 being the second wife of late

Page No.6 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

Gouraiah and she married him during the life time of his first wife, she is not entitled to any share in the joint family property as per Hindu

Succession Act and she is the formal party to the suit. Defendant No.6 is also a formal party to the suit. Accordingly it is prayed to pass a preliminary decree partitioning the suit schedule property by declaring plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 as 7/30th shareholders each and defendant Nos.4 and 5 as 1/30th shareholders each in the suit schedule property and to declare registered sale deed bearing document No.5243 of 2017 dated 21.06.2017 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of part of the suit schedule land in

Sy.Nos.698/A/1 and 698/A/2 ad measuring Acs.2-00 gts as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

4.Defendant Nos.4 and 5 though entered their appearance by filing vakalath, they did not choose to file their written statement and therefore they were set ex parte. Defendant Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7 though were served with summons, they did not choose to make their appearance

before the Court, and therefore they were set ex parte.

5.The points that arise for consideration in this suit are:

Page No.7 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary decree as prayed for?

(2)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of the sale deed bearing document No.5243 of of 2017 dated 21.06.2017 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 in favour of defendant No.7 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?

(3) To what relief?

6. The plaintiffs in support of their case have examined plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and and marked Exs.A1 to A14. They also examined one third party as P.W.2.

7.Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and also I have gone through the material available on record.

8.POINT NOS.1 AND 2: The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property was originally belonged to one Dommati Roshaiah, who is their paternal grandfather. That after the death of the said

Roshaiah, their father by name Dommati Gouraiah held the property nominally in his name. That their father Gouraiah died intestate and defendant Nos.1 and 3 got mutated patta of the suit schedule property in their names under pouthi amendment of an extent of Ac.1-00 gts and

Acs.3-20 gts respectively. It is their case that their father Gouraiah had two wives i.e., Dommati Yadamma and defendant No.3 herein. That

Page No.8 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

they, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the children of Dommati Gouraiah through his first wife Yadamma. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the children of Gouraiah through defendant No.3. It is also their case that during the life time of Dommati Yadamma, Gouraiah contracted second marriage with Dommati Mallamma/defendant No.3, and therefore she is not entitled to any share in the property. It is their case that their father

Gouraiah died on 12.11.2011 leaving them and defendant Nos.1 to 5 as his legal heirs and successors. That defendant Nos.1 and 3 executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.7 for part of the suit schedule property without having any right over the suit schedule property.

9.Plaintiff No.1 and P.W.1 in her evidence in chief has reiterated the above version. She marked Exs.A1 to A14. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of pahani for the years 2002-2003 to 2006-2007. Ex.A1 shows Dommati

Roshaiah, S/o Lingaiah as pattadar and possessor of Acs.5-00 gts of land in Sy.No.698/A. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of pahani for the years 2007- 2008 to 2011-2012. The pahani for the year 2007-2008 shows Dommati

Roshaiah as the pattadar of Acs.5-00 gts of land in Sy.No.698/A. The pahanies for the years 2008-2009 to 2011-2012 shows Dommati

Gouraiah, S/o Roshaiah as pattadar and possessor of Acs.5-00 gts of land

Page No.9 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

in Sy.No.698/A by way of pouthi amendment No.78/2007-2008. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of pahani for the years 2012-2013 to 2013-2014 shows Dommati Gouraiah as pattadar and possessor of Acs.5-00 gts of land in Sy.No.698/A. Ex.A4 is the Mee-seva pahani for the year 2017

dated 11.01.2019 which shows Dommati Mallamma i.e., defendant No.3

as pattadar and possessor of Acs.2-00 gts of land in Sy.No.698/A. Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice dated 17.09.2018 issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants seeking partition. Exs.A6 and A7 are the served postal acknowledgment cards of defendant Nos.1 and 3. Exs.A8 and A9 are the returned postal covers of VRO, Bhongir and defendant No.7. Ex.A10 is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.1597 of 2011 dated 29.03.2011 executed by Dommati Gouraiah in favour of defendant No.6 for Ac.0-20 gts of land in Sy.No.698/A. Ex.A11 is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.11001 of 2016 dated 12.07.2016 executed by defendant No.6 in favour of defendant No.1 for Ac.0-20 gts of land in Sy.No.698/A/2. Ex.A12 is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.5243 of 2017 dated 21.06.2017 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 in favour of defendant No.7 for Acs.2-00 gts of land in Sy.Nos.698/A/1 and 698/A/2 of an extent of Acs.1-20 gts and

Page No.10 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

Ac.0-20 gts respectively. Ex.A13 is the market value certificate. Ex.A14 is encumbrance certificate from 01.01.1989 to 24.03.2019 which shows the transaction of defendant Nos.1 and 3 executing the sale deed in favour of defendant No.7, defendant No.6 executing the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 for Ac.0-20 gts and also Gouraiah executing the sale deed in favour of defendant No.6 for Acs.0-20 gts.

10.P.W.2 in his evidence in chief deposed that the common ancestor

Roshaiah died by leaving his only son Gouraiah and that Gouraiah has two wives namely Yadamma (1st wife) and Mallamma (2nd wife).

Plaintiffs are daughters and defendant No.1 is the son of the first wife of

Gouraiah. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the sons and defendant No.3 is the second wife of Gouraiah. It is further stated by him that during the life time of his first wife, Gouraiah married defendant No.3. Gouraiah died on 12.11.2011; that the suit schedule property is in the joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendants and that defendant Nos.1 and 3 taking advantage of nominal patta in their name created false sale deed in favour of defendant No.7.

11.Exs.A1 to A3 shows that originally the suit schedule property was held by Dommati Roshaiah and after his death, Dommati Gouraiah’s

Page No.11 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

name was mutated in the revenue records and patta was changed into his name. Ex.A10 shows that during his life time, Dommati Gouraiah, father of the plaintiffs sold Ac.0-20 gts of land in favour of defendant No.6. It is the case of the plaintiffs that to meet the family necessities, the said sale deed was nominally executed in favour of defendant No.6 by their father for a loan taken by him from defendant No.6. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 repaid the loan amount to defendant

No.6 and defendant No.6 executed sale deed on 12.07.2016 in favour of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is not disputing the said fact. Exs.A10 and A11 are evidencing the said fact.

12.After death of his father, as seen from the pahanies, Dommati

Gouraiah held the suit schedule property nominally in his name. There is also no dispute from defendant No.3 that she married Gouraiah during the subsistence of his marriage with his first wife and during her lifetime.

Defendant No.3 being the second wife of Gouraiah, whose marriage with him being performed during the lifetime of his first wife, and as per

Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, at the time of marriage, none

Page No.12 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

of the parties should have a living spouse, therefore, defendant No.3 is not entitled to claim any share in the property of Gouraiah.

13.Defendants did not choose to rebut the case of the plaintiffs that they, defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Gouraiah, through his first wife and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the children of Gouraiah through his second wife. Therefore, Gouraiah, plaintiffs 1, 2, defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit schedule property. Out of 1/5th share of Gouraiah, being the class I legal heirs, plaintiff Nos.1, 2, defendant

Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are entitled to 1/30th share each. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 do not have any exclusive right to execute sale deed in favour of defendant No.7 for part of the suit schedule property and therefore the sale deed executed by them in favour of defendant No.7 is liable to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant

No.7, being a bona fide purchaser, for valid sale consideration, has to workout his remedies from out of the share of the land which would be allotted to defendant No.1. Point Nos.1 and 2 are accordingly answered.

14.POINT NO.3:- In the result, preliminary decree is passed, without costs, declaring plaintiff Nos.1, 2, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are

Page No.13 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

entitled to 7/30th share each and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to 1/30th share each out of the suit schedule property. The sale deed bearing document No.5243 of 2017 dated 21.06.2017 is declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant No.7 is at liberty to workout the equities in the final partition as he steps into the shoes of defendant

No.1 being the bona fide purchaser.

-Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of August, 2022.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Bhongir.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: P.W.1: Tangutoori Kavitha P.W.2: Chinthala Yadagiri

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of pahani for the years 2002-2003 to 2006-2007. Ex.A2: Certified copy of pahani for the years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012. Ex.A3: Certified copy of pahani for the years 2012-2013 to 2013-2014 Ex.A4: Mee-seva pahani for the year 2017 dated 11.01.2019 Ex.A5: Office copy of legal notice dated 17.09.2018 Ex.A6: Served postal acknowledgement card of defendant No.1. Ex.A7: Served postal acknowledgement card of defendant No.3. Ex.A8: Returned postal cover of VRO, Bhongir

Page No.14 of 14 O.S No. 76 of 2019

Ex.A9: Returned postal cover of defendant No.7. Ex.A10:Certified copy of sale deed bearing document 1597 of 2011

dated 29.03.2011

Ex.A11:Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.11001 of 2016

dated 12.07.2016

Ex.A12:Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.5243 of 2017

dated 21.06.2017

Ex.A13:Market value certificate. Ex.A14: Encumbrance certificate from 01.01.1989 to 24.03.2019

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: -Nil-

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Bhongir

Page No.1 of 10 O.S No.240 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT

BHONGIR

Dated this the 11th day of August, 2022

Present:- V. Rajani,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Bhongir.

O.S No.240 of 2019

Between :-

1.Nukula Srisailam, S/o Buchaiah, age: 43 years,

2.Nukala Pooja, D/o Late Nukula Ilaiah, age: 16 years,

3.Nukala Mahender, S/o Late Nukala Ilaiah, age: 14 years, Both are students and under the guardianship of their paternal grandfather Nukala Buchaiah @ Bixamaiah, S/o Mallaiah, age: 68 years, Occ: Agriculture All are R/o Kanumukkula Village, Bhoodan Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District ….Plaintiffs AND

1.Kota @ Chinnakota Sathi Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, age: 73 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gousekonda Village, Bhoodan Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District

2.Kandadi Nirmala, W/o Goverdhan Reddy, D/o Kota @ Chinnakota Sathi Reddy, age: 43 years, Occ: Household, R/o Gousekonda Village, Bhoodan Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District … Defendants This suit coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S.Sreekanth, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 having remained ex parte, and the suit having stood over for consideration till this day, and after hearing counsel for the plaintiffs, and perusing the material on record, this Court made the following :

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking to declare them as owners and possessors of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.137

Page No.2 of 10 O.S No.240 of 2019

ad measuring Acs.2-00 gts situated at Kanumukkula village, Boodhan

Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District (hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property) and cancel registered settlement deed bearing document No.30 of 2015 dated 03.01.2015 created in favour of defendant

No.2 and to restrain the defendants, their henchmen, servants etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

2.The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners, possessors, pattadars and titleholders of the suit schedule property. Originally the property belonged to defendant No.1. He sold away the same to plaintiff No.1 and the deceased father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 namely Nukala Ailaiah under registered sale deed bearing document

No.633 of 1996 dated 26.02.1996. The said sale deed was implemented in the revenue record vide amendment No.57 of 2005 and they were also issued with ROR pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Ailaiah died on 07.10.2007 and after his death, patta of his share of land was mutated in the name of his wife namely Nukala Padma. The said Padma also died on 14.02.2015 and after her death, the patta of the land standing on the name of Padma was mutated in the names of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 vide

Page No.3 of 10 O.S No.240 of 2019

amendment No.28 of 2017videpouthi Virasath proceedings

No.B1816/2017 dated 28.11.2017. Though the plaintiffs have been issued with pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the suit schedule property, their names are not reflecting in the pahani records. By taking undue advantage of the same, defendant No.1 created registered settlement deed in favour of his daughter/defendant No.2 for part of the suit schedule land in Sy.No.137 ad measuring Ac.0-32 ½ gts and

Sy.No.137 ad measuring Ac.0-17 ½ gts in total Ac.1-10 gts situated at

Kanumukkula village, Boodhan Pochampally mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir

District vide document No.30 of 2015 dated 03.01.2015 and amendment was issued and the said settlement deed was implemented vide amendment No.24 of 2014-2015. Defendant No.1 was not in possession of the part of the suit schedule property as on the date of execution of settlement deed in favour of defendant No.2 as he already alienated the same in favour of plaintiff No.1 and his deceased brother in 1996.

Aggrieved by the said amendment proceedings, plaintiffs filed ROR appeal vide No.B/1590/2019 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer,

Choutuppal and the appeal is pending. While so, the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs to occupy the property and on 15.07.2019 and

Page No.4 of 10 O.S No.240 of 2019

on 03.08.2019, they interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs.

Therefore this suit for declaration, cancellation of the registered settlement deed and for perpetual injunction.

3.Defendant Nos.1 and 2, in spite of service of summons, did not choose to make their appearance before this Court and therefore, they were set ex parte.

4.The points that arise for consideration in this suit are:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(2)To what relief?

5. Plaintiffs, in support of their case, have examined plaintiff No.1 as

P.W.1. Plaintiffs have also examined another witness as P.W.2 and marked

Exs.A1 to A15.

6.Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and also I have gone through the material available on record.

7.POINT NO.1:The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under a registered sale deed in the year 1996 by

Page No.5 of 10 O.S No.240 of 2019

plaintiff No.1 and by the father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and that since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. That they purchased the property from defendant No.1. In 2015, defendant No.1 without any right over the suit schedule property executed gift settlement deed in favour of defendant No.2 for an extent of Acs.1-10 gts and are interfering with their possession over the suit schedule property.

8.P.W.1 in his evidence in chief has reiterated the version stated by him in the plaint. He marked Exs.A1 to A15. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.633 of 1996 dated 26.02.1996 which shows one Chinnakota Sathi Reddy, S/o Chandra

Reddy i.e., defendant No.1 herein executed the sale deed in favour of

Nukala Ailaiah i.e., father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and Nukala

Srishailam/plaintiff No.1 selling Acs.2-00 gts of land in Sy.No.137 (minj) situated at Kanumukkula village, Boodhan Pochampally Mandal,

Yadadri-Bhongir District. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of amendment register for the year 2005 which shows amendment of patta from the name of defendant No.1 to plaintiff No.1 and one Nukala Ailaiah for Acs.2-00 gts land in Sy.No.137. Ex.A3 is the ROR pattadar passbook of plaintiff

Page No.6 of 10 O.S No.240 of 2019

No.1 issued on 24.09.1994 and the same shows him as pattadar of Ac.1-00 gts of land in Sy.No.137 by way of purchase. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of amendment register No.28/2017 which shows amendment of names of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 for Acs.2-00 gts of land in Sy.No.137 as the legal heirs of Nukala Padma, W/o Ailaiah. Ex.A5 is the death certificate of

Nukala Ailaiah. Ex.A6 is the death certificate of Nukala Padma. Ex.A7 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-1996 which shows defendant No.1 as pattadar of Acs.2-17½ gts in Sy.No.137/A. Ex.A8 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000 which shows defendant No.1 as pattadar of Acs.2-17 ½ gts in Sy.No.137/A. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-2006 also shows defendant

No.1 as pattadar and possessor of Ac.1-29 gts of land in Sy.No.137/A.

Ex.A10 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-2011 which shows defendant No.1 as pattadar and possessor of Acs.2-06 ½ gts in

Sy.No.137/A. Ex.A11 is the certified copy pahani for the year 2011-2012 which shows defendant No.1 as pattadar and possessor of Acs.2-06 ½ gts in Sy.No.137/A. Ex.A12 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2012- 2013, which does not show any land in the name of defendant No.1 in

Sy.No.137/A but it shows the name of defendant No.2 as pattadar and

Page No.7 of 10 O.S No.240 of 2019

possessor of Ac.1-10 gts in Sy.No.137/. Ex.A13 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2013-2014 which shows blanks in respect of

Sy.No.137/A against the name of defendant No.1. Ex.A14 is the certified copy of gift settlement deed dated 03.01.2015, which shows defendant

No.1 executed gift settlement deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 03.01.2015 for Ac.1-00 gts of land in Sy.No.137/A and Sy.No.137/U of an extent of Ac.0-32 ½ gts and Ac.0-17 ½ gts at Kanumukkula village,

Boodhan Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. Ex.A15 is the office copy of ROR appeal No.B/1590/2018 on the file of RDO,

Choutuppal preferred by the plaintiffs against defendant Nos.1 and 2.

9.P.W.2 in his evidence in chief deposed that the suit schedule property originally belonged to defendant No.1 and he sold away the same to plaintiff No.1 and the deceased father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, namely;

Nukala Ailaiah under a registered sale deed, which was implemented in the revenue records, and were issued with ROR pattadar passbooks and title deeds. That Ailaiah died and after his death patta of the land was mutated in the name of his wife Nukala Padma. That Padma also died and after her death, patta of the land standing in the name of Padma was

Page No.8 of 10 O.S No.240 of 2019

mutated in the name of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. Thus the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and were issued with ROR pattadar passbooks and title deeds; that the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs and occupy the suit schedule property.

10.Ex.A1 shows that plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 purchased Acs.2-00 gts of land in Sy.No.137 from defendant No.1 and that Ex.A2 shows that patta of said land was changed from the name of defendant No.1 to plaintiff No.1 and Nukala Ailaiah/father of plaintiff

Nos.2 and 3. Ex.A3/pattadar passbook of plaintiff No.1 also shows that he is the pattadar of Ac.1-00 gts of land in Sy.No.137. Ex.A4 shows that after death of Nukala Ailaiah, his wife Nukala Padma was holding the land in

Sy.No.137 and after her death, under pouthi virasath, the land in

Sy.No.137 was mutated into the name of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. Exs.A7 to

A13 shows that land in Sy.No.137 was in the name of defendant No.1 and it was changed into the name of defendant No.2 for an extent of Ac.1-10 gts. In the year 2012-2013, the gift settlement deed was executed under the original of Ex.A14 on 03.01.2015. Exs.A1 and A2 show that plaintiff

No.1 and his brother Nukala Ailaiah had purchased the suit schedule

Page No.9 of 10 O.S No.240 of 2019

property from defendant No.1 and they were issued with pattadar passbook and title deed. Defendant No.1 without any right over the said property has executed Ex.A14 in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant

Nos.1 and 2 did not choose to make their appearance before this Court to rebut the case of the plaintiffs and to put forth their version before this

Court. Exs.A1 to A4 show that plaintiffs are owners of the suit schedule property and they are holding the property from 1996. The said case of the plaintiffs remained unrebutted and defendant No.1 without having any right over the suits schedule property had executed the gift settlement deed in favour of defendant No.2. In this view of the matter, plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owners of the suit schedule property and the registered gift settlement deed is liable to be cancelled and the defendants are to be restrained from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property.

11.POINT NO.2:- In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, declaring the plaintiffs as the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, canceling the registered gift settlement deed bearing document

No.30 of 2015 dated 03.01.2015 and restraining the defendants from

Page No.10 of 10 O.S No.240 of 2019

interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

-Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of August, 2022.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: P.W.1: Nukala Srisailam

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.633 of 1996 dated 26.02.1996 Ex.A2: Certified copy of amendment register No.57 of 2005 Ex.A3: ROR pattadar passbook of plaintiff No.1 Ex.A4: Certified copy of amendment register No.28 of 2017 Ex.A5: Death certificate of Nukala Ailaiah. Ex.A6: Death certificate of Nukala Padma. Ex.A7: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-1996 (Nos.2) Ex.A8: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000 Ex.A9: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-2006 Ex.A10:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-2011 (Nos.2) Ex.A11:Certified copy pahani for the year 2011-2012 (Nos.2) Ex.A12:Certified copy pahani for the year 2012-2013 (Nos.2) Ex.A13:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2013-2014 dated 03.01.2015 Ex.A15:Office copy of ROR appeal No.B/1590/2018 on the file of RDO, Choutuppal FOR THE DEFENDANTS: -Nil-

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir