Sri V. Satyanarayana

1

S.C.No. 354/2017

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Friday, this the 28th day of December, 2018

Present:  Sri V. Satyanarayana,  II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Warangal. 

Sessions Case No.354/2017

(P.R.C.No. 17/2017 on the file of Addl. JFCM, Parkal )

1. Name and description : The State of T.S through of the Complainant. SHO of P.S, Bhupalpally

2. Name and description :

Kunarapu Rayamallu, S/o. Odelu, Age: 40 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Gorlaveedu Village.

3. Offences with which charged : u/s. 307 of IPC.

4. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge: Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 307 of IPC but the accused found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 IPC

6. Sentence or Order : Convicted 

In the result:  : the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 

307 of IPC and he is acquitted U/sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. However, the accused 

is found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 324 of IPC and he is

convicted U/sec. 222(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to suffer Rigorous 

Imprisonment for a period of TWO YEARSand to pay fine of Rs. 

1,000/­ (Rupees One Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount of Rs. 1,000/­, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH for the offence U/sec. 324 of IPC. The remand period already undergone by the accused from 30.6.2017 to till date shall be given set off U/sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. The certified copy of the judgment is ordered to be given to the accused on free of cost and he is 2

S.C.No. 354/2017 also appraised of his right to prefer appeal against this judgment within limitation period before the Hon'ble Appellate Court. The accused is also appraised about taking Legal Aid Counsel in preferring appeal. 

7. Prosecution conducted by : Sri Vasanth, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by: J. Meghnath

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutorfor the State/Complainant and of Sri J. Meghnath, Counsel for the Accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Bhupalpally Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

PW1 is the complainant and injured lodged complaint with police, 

Bhupalpally stating that his son namely Kunarapu Rayamallu released from jail 1 1/2 year back who is undergone imprisonment on the murder of his wife. On 26.6.2017 evening at about 0600 hours, the accused with an intention to kill PW1, armed with a stick and beat on his head as he blocked with his left hand as he got injuries to his left hand with right thigh. Due to hue and cries made by PW1, his daughter rushed to the spot, meanwhile, the accused fled away from the scene. Thereafter, PW1 went to the hospital for treatment. Therefore, PW1 lodged complaint against the accused for taking necessary action. Hence the charge. 

3

S.C.No. 354/2017

3. After taking cognizance of the case by the learned 

Addl. JMFC, Parkal, for the offence u/s. 307 IPC vide P.R.C.No. 17/2017 and after compliance of Section 207 to 209 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the 

Court of Sessions, numbered as S.C. No. 354/17 and made over to this 

Court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, 

Warangal.

4. After hearing the Addl.P.P., and the accused, charge under sections 307 of IPC has been framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Then, the schedule for commencement of trial had been issued, witnesses Pws.1 to PW.5 were examined and Ex.P1 to P6, MO1 and Ex.D1 were marked as indicated in the appendix of evidence. 

6.The accused is examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence. 

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s. 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT :

9. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.7.2008 in the morning hours at 10.00 a.m., the accused picked up quarrel with her mother and killed her by beating with the pestle on her head, for which a case in 

Cr.No. 129/2008 for the offence U/Sec.302 of IPC was registered against 4

S.C.No. 354/2017 him. After trial, the accused has been convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. After releasing from the jail, the accused came to the house and lived for few days. The daughter of the complainant has been residing with him, as there were disputes with her husband. Upon which, the accused quarreled with his sister about her family issue with an intention, where she got the property share of the house and the accused also quarreled with his father/complainant. On 26.6.2017 at 6.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of the complainant arming with stick and beat on his head, which was resisted by the complainant with his left hand. On raising hues and cries, the daughter of the complainant came there and on seeing her, the accused fled away. Thereafter, the injured was shifted to the hospital for medical treatment. 

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined and relied upon the oral evidence of Pws 1 to 5 and documentary evidence under Ex. 

P1 to P6 and also got marked MO1 stick. On behalf of the accused, none were examined but got marked Ex. D1. PW1 is the eye witness to the incident. PW2 is the panch witness for crime detail form.PW3 is the daughter of the complainant. PW4 is the medical officer who treated the injured and issued wound certificate. PW5 is the investigation officer in this case. 

11.Admittedly, PW1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. 

According to PW2, who is one of the panch witness for crime details from deposed that on one day in the month of June, 2017, police called him to the house of the complainant and prepared crime details from under Ex. P2 in his presence and in the presence of one devi by incorporating the 5

S.C.No. 354/2017 particulars of the scene of offence and recovered one stick and they attested the panchanama. PW3 who is the daughter of the complainant and sister of the accused deposed that the accused attacked on her father with stick at 6.00 p.m and caused injury on his left hand. She further deposed that the accused also beat her father Odelu on his thighs due to grudges and tht she along with LW4 S.Veeraiah and others witnessed the incident and thereafter the accused fled away from the house. In cross examination of the PW3, the counsel for the accused got marked Ex.D1 to the effect that by the time she and others went to the scene of offence place, the accused fled away, which do not effects the core case of the prosecution. 

12.The Medical Officer who treated the injured/complainant is examined as PW4.She deposed that on 27.6.2017 at 10.30 a.m., the complainant and his daughter approached their hospital for taking treatment. Accordingly, she examined the complainant/injured and found contusion over left side metatarsal joint and abrasion over left side, which are grievous in nature. Accordingly, she issued the wound certificate under 

Ex. P3. The investigation officer is eamined as PW5 and he deposed about the manner of investigation done by him that on 28.6.2017 on receipt of complaint from LW1/Odelu, he registered a case in Cr.No.181/2017, 

U/Sec.307 of IPC and issued FIR under Ex. P4.Ex. P5 is the complaint. 

Thereafter, he examined and recorded the statement of the complainant and later visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama before the mediators and also examined and recorded the statements of the other witnesses. He referred the injured to the hospital for medical treatment. On 30.6.2017, he arrested the accused and produced before the court and after 6

S.C.No. 354/2017 completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 

13.In order to appreciate the legal conundrum which has been presented by the facts of this case, the provisions of Section 307 IPC, are that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which amy extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. 

To justify a conviction under this section it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 

7

S.C.No. 354/2017 Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of section 307 IPC. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury. In the instant case, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused attacked on the complainant with stick causing injuries on his left hand and right thigh. However, the complainant could not be examined by the prosecution before this court, as he died subsequently. The police have filed death certificate of the complainant before this court, basing on which his evidence was closed. The only evidence available on record in support of the case of the prosecution is that of the PW3, who is none other than the daughter of the complainant and also sister of the accused. PW3 is the prime witness in this case as she eye witnessed the incident and upon seeing her, the accused fled away. PW3 in her evidence deposed that the accused attacked on her father with stick at 6.00 p.m., and caused injury on his left hand. She further deposed that the accused also beat her father Odelu on his thighs due to grudges and that she along with LW4 S. Veeraiah and others witnessed the incident and thereafter the accused fled away from the house. 

The above evidence of PW3 though reliable to some extent of attacking the complainant by the accused with a stick. Ex.D1 which is got marked by the learned counsel for the accused reveals that by the time, PW3 and other went to the complainant, the accused fled away and whereas PW3 in her evidence deposed that she along with others were present and witnessed the incident. In this regard, the evidence of PW3 is not much inspiring 8

S.C.No. 354/2017 confidence of this court as to presence of PW3 and others at the scene of offence or they came subsequently. No doubt, from the oral evidence of PW3 coupled with the medical evidence of PW4 establishes the injuries on the deceased complainant.

14.A close perusal of the section clarifies that no attract an offence 

U/Sec. 307 of IPC, the court is expected to carefully examine whether the act irrespective of its result was done with an intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in the section. It should be further verified whether the intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute the murder. If these ingredients are not established the offence of attempt to murder is not made out. The intention is to be gathered from various circumstances and not merely form the consequence that ensures. The prosecution should place and prove all the facts and circumstances as mentioned in section 300 of IPC. Unless it can be said that the intention or knowledge of the accused was to cause such a bodily injury as would come within the scope of section 300 of IPC, the accused cannot be found guilty U/sec. 307 of IPC when there is attempt to cause injury. It must be proved that if the act complained of would have culminated in the death of the victim, the offence would have come within the ingredients as envisaged in section 300 of IPC. Mere beating the complainant with a stick does not raise an inference of attempt to murder. The mens rea required under law has to exist and there must also to exist an effective act to achieve the end of killing. Further, the attempt must be doing everything by the accused within his power to achieve the final result. But the final result is not alludes because something beyond his control intervened. To determine 9

S.C.No. 354/2017 whether an act falls within the ambit of section 307 IPC three conditions are essential are to be examined: viz (I) nature of the act done, (ii) the intention or knowledge of the act, and (iii) the circumstance under which the act is done. To support conviction U/sec. 307 of IPC, it must be proved that the acts intended would cause death and also that the act is, one which is capable of causing death in the ordinary course but death did not eventually ensue for some reason or other. While dealing with this nature of offence, this court has to keep two more points in its mind. One in relation tot he intention which preceded to the act and another the actual consequence which follows from the act. To prove all the above, the burden is indisputably on the prosecution who affirms the same and the burden must be fully discharged and it should be beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In order to satisfy on the above referred requirements of law, it is necessary to notice the factual matrix in the case.It shall be significant for me to go through the evidence both oral and documentary and the final findings of the impugned judgment. On perusal of the charge sheet contents, the complainant was accompanied with his daughter PW3 which fact is not deposed either by PW3 or by the investigation officer PW5. The complaint and 161 Cr.P..C statement of the complainant namely Odelu is got marked through the investigation officer in terms of section 32 of Indian evidence 

Act, as Exs. P5 and P6, since the complainant was died.PW3 simply deposed that in order to sent their father out from the house and due to grudges, the accused attacked on the complainant. The said fact is nowhere deposed by 

PW3 in her 161 Cr.P.C statement. Thus, viewed from any angle, the evidence of PW3 is not supporting the case of the prosecution, except the attack made 10

S.C.No. 354/2017 by the accused on her father with a stick. Admittedly, PW1 eye witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and there is no other independent and corroborating piece of evidence to strengthen the case of the prosecution. Thus, the sole testimony of PW3 which is suffering with irregularities and lacunas is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. 

PW3 at least not deposed in her evidence that in order to grab the property from his father, the accused attacked on the complainant, as mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, this court holds that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the act of the accused is not attracting the offene 

U/sec. 307 of IPC. 

16.However, the evidence of PW3 has clearly established that her deceased father/complaint had sustained injury on his left hand and thighs and the accused beat him with a stick. The medical evidence is corroborating this fact. Admittedly, the deceased complainant sustained contusion measuring about 4 ½ cms over left side metatarsal joint and abrasion measuring 728 cms over left side and they are grievous injuries. If the evidence of PW3 is accepted, the accused used stick, which is a dangerous weapon. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused to disbelieve the evidence of PW3 is that the complainant is not examined 

before this court and thereby the contents of complaint itself are not proved 

and the injured/victim is the main witness in this case, as such, in the absence of his evidence, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the complainant is died and thereby the prosecution could not examine him before this court, however, the prosecution examined the daughter of the complainant as PW3. 

11

S.C.No. 354/2017 The investigation officer also deposed as PW5 about the manner of investigation done by him nad through him the complaint and 161 Cr.P.C statement of the deceased complainant were marked as per section 32 of 

Indian Evidence Act and the same can be relied and taken in to consideration. However, the minor inconsistencies in the evidence of PW3 may not embarrass a truthful witness, but may cause an untruthful witness to prevaricate, and may lead to the ultimate break down of the whole of his evidence and in the present case it has to be remembered that the accused contention was that the prosecution witness were false witnesses. Even if the evidence of PW3 is to be kept aside, even then this court has the evidence of 

Pws 4 and 5, who are the medical officer and the investigation officer, who firmly deposed about giving treatment to the injured and issuance of the wound certificate opining the nature of injuries as grievous in nature. Thus the record discloses that the deceased complainant/injured/victim was admitted in the hospital and got treatment. Therefore, one important circumstance about the occurrence of incident and injury was established through the evidence of Pws 3 to 5. In view of clear and cogent evidence of 

Pws 3 to 5 and the medical evidence, this court is of the opinion that the act attributed to the accused is clearly attracting the provisions of Sec. 324 of 

IPC. Though no specific charge is framed, this court is having ample powers to convict the accused for the proved offence U/Sec. 324 of IPC in terms of section 222(2) Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the offence U/s. 324 of IPC is minor offence to that of the section 307 of IPC. 

17.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the 12

S.C.No. 354/2017 offenece U/Sec. 307 of IPC, but proved its case for the offence U/Sec. 324 of 

IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered. 

18. In the result, this court found that the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 307 of IPC and he is acquitted U/sec. 235 (1) 

Cr.PC. However, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec. 324 of IPC and he is convicted U/sec. 222(2) of Cr.P.C. 

19.The accused is heard about quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him, and he prayed mercy of this court stating that he was falsely implicated in this case and that he has been languishing in jail since one year. On perusal of the case records, the accused had previous criminal background and he was also convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment in connection with murder of his own mother. Hence, this court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of P.O Act against the accused, as the offences are proved against the accused in respect of causing grievous injury to his father. There are no mitigating circumstances to consider the request of the accused and to extend benefit under P.O Act and hence no lenient view can be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

 IN THE RESULT, this court found that the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 307 of IPC and he is acquitted U/sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. 

However, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec. 324 of IPC and he is convicted U/sec. 222(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to suffer Rigorous 

Imprisonment for a period of TWO YEARS and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/­ (Rupees One Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount of 

Rs. 1,000/­, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 

ONE MONTH for the offence U/sec. 324 of IPC. The remand period already 13

S.C.No. 354/2017 undergone by the accused from 30.6.2017 to till date shall be given set off 

U/sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. The certified copy of the judgment is ordered to be given to the accused on free of cost and he is also appraised of his right to prefer appeal against this judgment within limitation period before the 

Hon'ble Appellate Court. The accused is also appraised about taking Legal 

Aid Counsel in preferring appeal. 

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of December, 2018)

Sd/­

II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence  PW1 – K. Raghu ­None­ PW2 – Mote Ramesh PW3 – D. Komala PW4 – Dr. G. Sujatha PW5 – K. Venkat Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1: u/s. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P2: Crime Detail Form Ex.P3: Wound Certificate of LW1 Ex.P4: First Information Report Ex.P5: Complaint by PW1 Ex.P6: Statement of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

 MO1: Stick 

For Defence: Ex.D1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Sd/­

II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1

O.S.No. 749 of 2010

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Friday, this the 21st day of December, 2018

Present:- Sri V. Satyanarayana, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S.No. 749/2010

Between: M/s. Siri Chit Fund Private Limited, Warangal rep. By its Foreman Sri E.Rajaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 59 years, R/o. Warangal.

… Plaintiff

And

1. Namthbad Nagesh, S/o. Chandra Prakash, Age: 32 years, Occ: Cook, S.T. Boys Hostel, Vangara, Bheemadevarapally Mandal, Karimnagar District.

2. Bathini Sailu, S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Driver, Karimnagar District.

3. Theda Narayana Reddy, S/o. Bal Reddy, Age: 48 years, Occ: S.G.T. P.S, Gollapally, Mirzapur Mandal, Karimnagar District.

4. Bura Venkanna, S/o. Istari, Age: 45 years, Occ:Conductor, Staff no.301520, A.P.S.R,.T,C, Husnabad Depot, Karimnagar District.

5. Abakala Vikram Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, Age: 38 years, Occ: S.G.T, P.S, Dharmaram, Bheemadevarapally Mandal, Karimnagar District. … Defendants

This suit is coming up for hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Veerabhadraiah,counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri B. Ramesh Goud, advocate for the defendant no.2 and the defendants no.1, 3, 4 and 5 are set ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,52,735/- (Rs. One Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Seven

Hundred and Thirty Five Only) with interest @ 12% p.a on the principal amount and award costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that :

The plaintiff submitted that on 24.03.2009, the defendant No.1 joined as a member of chit fund scheme of the plaintiff company. The total value of chit is Rs.2,00,000/- to be subscribed @ Rs.2,000/- per

2

O.S.No. 749 of 2010

month for a period of 100 installments (1000 days) and signed an agreement of chit on 24.03.2009. D.1 participated in the auction on 20-12-2009 and was the successful bidder having agreed to forego

Rs. 52,100/- out of Rs.2,00,000/-. D.1 paid 62,000/- by way of installments till the date of auction and his future liability was Rs.

1,38,000/-. D.1 furnished D.2 to D.5 as guarantors, who executed agreement of guarantee dt. 21.12.2009. The 1st defendant was paid

Rs.1,11,520/- through cheque no. 307563/- and Rs. 36,380/- on 21.12.2009 by receipts thus total amount being paid of Rs. 1,47,900/-.

The D.1 committed default in paying installments from 21.12.2009. The plaintiff company demanded the defendant No.1 and also other defendants to repay the chit amount, the defendants did not repay the chit loan amount. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant no.1, 3, 4 and 5 are set ex-parte and the defendant no.2 filed his written statement by denying the material averments levelled against him and further stated that he is not having knowledge that the defendant no.1 received any amounts from the plaintiff company much less the alleged amount and other defendants never stood as guarantees to the alleged amount, therefore, the defendants are not liable to pay such amounts to the plaintiff company and further stated the signature on Demand Promissory Note and

Agreement of Guarantee does not belong to him. There is no cause of action and no notice received by them from the plaintiff company prior to this suit, hence, prayed that the suit be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount ?

2. To what relief ?

3

O.S.No. 749 of 2010

5.The plaintiff examined as PW1 to prove his claim and he got marked Exs.A.1 to A.18 whereas on behalf of the defendants, the defendant no.2 is examined as DW1 and no documents were marked.

6.Heard.

7.PW1 filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint once again and he exhibited Ex. A1 to A18. On careful perusal of Ex. A1 Agreement of Chit, dt: 24.03.2009 executed by the defendant no.1, Ex. A2 is Agreement of Guarantee, dt: 21.12.2009 executed by D2 to D5, Ex. A3 is Demand Promissory Note, dt: 21.12.2009 executed by all the defendants, Ex. A4 is Cash Voucher, dt: 21.12.2009, Ex.A5 is

Adjustment Authorization letter, dt: 21.12.2009, Ex.A6 is Adjustment

Receipt no.185812, dt: 21.12.2009, Ex. A7 is Adjustment Receipt no.185813, dt: 21.12.2009, Ex. A8 is Adjustment Receipt no.185814, dt:

21.12.2009, Ex. A9 is Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt: 23.04.2010,

Ex. A10 is Returned Postal Cover of defendant no.1, Ex. A11 is Returned

Postal Cover of defendant no.2, Ex. A12 is Returned Postal Cover of defendant no.3, Ex. A13 is Returned Postal Cover of defendant no.4,

Ex. A14 is Returned Postal Cover of defendant no.5, Ex. A15 is True

Extract of Ledger Account of D1, dt: 24.03.2009, Ex. A16 is C.C of

Incorporation, dt: 19.05.1992, Ex. A17 is C.C of Foreman Authorization,

dt: 27.5.1992 and Ex. A18 is Pay Slip for the month of July, 2009.

8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the total value of chit is Rs.2,00,000/- to be subscribed @ Rs.2,000/- per month for a period of 100 installments and D1 signed an agreement of chit on 24.03.2009. D.1 paid Rs. 62,000/- by way of installments till the date of auction and his future liability was Rs. 1,38,000/-. D.1 furnished D.2 to

D.5 as guarantors, who executed agreement of guarantee,

4

O.S.No. 749 of 2010

dt. 21.12.2009. The D.1 committed default in paying installments from

21.12.2009. The plaintiff company demanded the defendant No.1 and also other defendants to repay the chit amount, the defendants did not repay the chit loan amount, hence prayed the court to decree the suit.

9.Whereas the learned counsel for the defendant no.2 contended that the defendant no.2 and that other defendants are not liable to pay such amounts to the plaintiff company and further stated that the signature on Demand Promissory Note and Agreement of Guarantee does not belong to him and no notice received by him from the plaintiff company prior to this suit, hence prayed that the suit be dismissed.

ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount ?

10.The plaintiff relied on Ex. A1 to A18 to prove his claim. Out of which Ex. A1 Agreement of Chit, dt: 24.03.2009 executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff company Ex. A2 is Agreement of Guarantee, dt: 21.12.2009 executed by D2 to D5, Ex. A3 is Demand

Promissory Note, dt: 21.12.2009 executed by all the defendants. Ex. A1 to A3 show that the defendant no.1 gave undertaking in favour of the plaintiff stating that he will pay the suit amount, failing which, the defendants no.2 to 5 will pay the chit loan amount of Rs. 1,38,000/- along with interest 12% p.a to the plaintiff under Ex. A2. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that one of his office staff by name

Nagaraju is scribed Ex. A3 Promissory note along with Ex.A2. D1 is having another chit in their chit business. PW1 denied the suggestion that D2 never stood as guarantor to the chit amount and also denied several suggestions put forth by the counsel for the defenant no.2 that he was deposing false relating to chit transactions.

5

O.S.No. 749 of 2010

Whereas the defendant no.2 is examined as DW1 and filed his chief affidavit on the same lines of his written statement and in his cross examination, it is elicited that Ex. A11 Returned Postal Cover of defendant no.2 bears his residential address including the house no. 11- 101/2. DW1 admitted that he attested his signature on Ex. A3

Promissory Note after signing of one of another person on said

Promissory Note. He further deposed that D1 was present by the time when he signed on Ex. A3 Promissory Note. DW1 attested his signature on Ex. A2 after defendant no.1 attested on Ex. A2. DW1 denied the suggestion that he acted as guarantor to the main borrower and that he was deposing false in order to evade the chit amount.

11.On careful perusal of entire evidence on record on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants which is crystal clear that the defendants executed Ex. A1 to A3 which clearly reveals that they are liable to pay the suit amount. However, the defendant no.2 categorically admitted the same in his cross examination that he attested on Ex. A3. Except taking plea by the defendant that the signature appearing on Ex. A2 and

A3 is not his signature but no further steps taken by the defendant no.2 to substantiate his case by forwarding his disputed signatures for obtaining opinion from the Hand Writing Expert. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex. A1 to A18 proves that the defendants are liable to pay the suit claim amount. Thus, the issue no.1 and 2 answered in favour of the plaintiff.

12. Issue No.2: “ To what relief ?”

In view of the discussion under issue no.1, the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,52,735/- with interest from the defendants jointly and severally.

6

O.S.No. 749 of 2010

13. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants no. 1 to 5 to pay an amount of Rs. 1,52,735/- to the plaintiff with interest @12% p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% p.a from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs. 1,38,000/- (Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 21st day of December, 2018)

Sd/-

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendants:

PW1: E. Rajaiah DW1: Bathini Sailu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Agreement of Chit, dt: 24.03.2009 executed by the defendant no.1, Ex.A2 : Agreement of Guarantee, dt: 21.12.2009 by D2 to D5 Ex.A3 : Demand Promissory Note, dt: 21.12.2009 by all the defendants Ex.A4 : Cash Voucher, dt: 21.12.2009 Ex.A5 : Adjustment Authorization letter, dt: 21.12.200 Ex.A6 : Adjustment Receipt no.185812, dt: 21.12.2009 Ex.A7 : Adjustment Receipt no.185813, dt: 21.12.2009 Ex.A8 : Adjustment Receipt no.185814, dt: 21.12.2009 Ex.A9 : Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt: 23.04.2010 Ex.A10: Returned Postal Cover of defendant no.1 Ex.A11: Returned Postal Cover of defendant no.2 Ex.A12: Returned Postal Cover of defendant no.3 Ex.A13: Returned Postal Cover of defendant no.4 Ex.A14: Returned Postal Cover of defendant no.5 Ex.A15: True Extract of Ledge Account Company of D1, dt: 24.03.2009 Ex. A16: C.C of Incorporation, dt: 19.05.1992 Ex. A17: C.C of Foreman Authorization, dt: 27.5.1992. Ex. A18: Pay Slip for the month of July, 2009.

For Defendants: Nil

Sd/-

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1 O.S. 336 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Friday, this the 28th day of December, 2018

Present:- V. Satyanarayana, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S.No. 336 OF 2016

Between:

Bussa Indira, W/o. Satyanarayana, Age: 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Flat no.401, 4th floor, Prashanthi Heights, Prashanthnagar, AS Rao nagar, Kapra Municipality, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

AND

1. Konatham Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Late Venkatadri, Age: 50 years, occ: Employee, R/o. Aaram Hospital, Narsingi, Rangareddy district, Hyderabad, H.No. 12.2.709/20/B, Karolbagh Apartments, Padmanabha Nagar, Rethibowli, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad

2. Kalvala Bharathi, W/o. Late Mohan Rao, Age: 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 3-4-459, Sudhanagara, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

3. Goli Saraswathi, Age: 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 3-4- 459, Sudhanagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

4. Konatham Kishan Rao, S/o. K. Venkatadri, Age: 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 3-4-485, Sudhanagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

5. Gunnala Vasanthi, W/o. G. Vinod Kumar, Age: 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 3-4-485, Sudhanagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

6. Konatham @ Puppala Sudharani, W/o. P. Srujan Kumar, Age: 39 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 3-4-485/1, Sudhanagar, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal. …. Defendants

This suit is coming up for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Mallikarjun, counsel for the Plaintiff, the defendants are set ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking partition to divide the suit schedule properties in to seven equal shares and allot 1/7th share each among the plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 6 and appoint an advocate commissioner to make partition as per preliminary decree and award costs of the suit.

2 O.S. 336 of 2016

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

That, the plaintiff and the defendants are the children of late Kontham Venkatadri and Kontham Venkatramnarsamma who died intestate on 16.7.2016 and 17.06.2015. The plaintiff and defendants are constitutes undivided Hindu Joint Family.

The plaintiff further stated that her father purchased the plot no.31/B to an extent of 471.00 sq.yards under registered sale deed in the year 1964 in the name of her mother out of his earnings along with benefits arrived from the ancestral properties. During the life time of her parents, they have constructed the house bearing no. 3-4-485 the land to an extent of 353.00 sq.yards situated at Sudhanagar, Hanamkonda,

Warangal herein after called item no.1 suit schedule property. The plaintiff further stated that her father also acquired the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac. 0.20 guntas, Ac. 0.14 guntas, Ac. 0.14 guntas and Ac.

3.20 guntas out of sy.no. 197/__, 606/__, 606/__ and 107/__, totalling to an extent of Ac. 4.28 guntas located side by side in a single contiguous compact block situated at Inugurthy Village, Kesamudram Mandal,

Warangal District and the said property is item no.2 suit schedule property. The plaintiff and defendants were continued in joint possession of above said properties which were left over by her father. During the life time of the mother of the plaintiff had gifted the shed with open plot admeasuring 118 sq.yards out of item no.1 schedule property situated at Sudhanagar, Hanamkonda to the defendant no. 6 out of her natural love and affection through registered Gift Settlement Deed with consent of all the parties, accordingly, the said extent is not covered under the suit. The plaintiff asked the defendants for partition of the suit schedule properties but all the defendants intentionally avoiding for partition of

3 O.S. 336 of 2016

the properties and also tried to sell away the suit schedule properties to 4th defendant and in July, 2016, the defendants tried to sell away the above said properties in favour of 3rd parties. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons were served on the defendant no.2 to 6 and to the defendant no.1 by way of publication. The defendants no.1 to 6 were set ex-parte.

4.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

5.Now the point for consideration is : “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties as prayed for?

POINT

6.PW.1 filed her chief affidavit which is on the lines of plaint averments and she got exhibited Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is Latest House Tax

Receipt for the house bearing no.3-4-485 discloses that property tax receipt in the name of Konthem Venkatadri who is none other than the father of the plaintiff and defendants, over the item no.1 suit schedule property issued by Grater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Ex. A2 is

Adangal pahani for the year 2016 discloses that one Konthem Venkatadri is the pattedar and possessor over the Schedule B properties and Ex.A3 is Market Value Certificate.

7.The plaintiff has supported her case by means of documentary evidence in Exs.A1 to A3. The defendants have been served with summons failed to appear before the court and contest the case. Therefore, the evidence adduced remains unchallenged and the plaintiff is held to be entitled to the relief claimed.

4 O.S. 336 of 2016

8In the result, the suit is decreed without costs and a preliminary decree is granted declaring the plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 6 are entitled to 1/7th share each in respect of suit schedule A and

B properties. A final decree will be passed in terms of preliminary decree on application of either parties for allocation of their respective shares in respect of suit schedule A and B properties.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of December, 2018).

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1- Bussa Indira None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff Ex.A.1: Latest House Tax Receipt for the house bearing no.3-4-485 Ex.A.2: Adangal pahanies for the year 2016 Ex.A.3: Market Value Certificate.

For Defendants: Nil

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1 O.S. 128 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Friday, this the 28th day of December, 2018

Present:- V. Satyanarayana, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S.No. 128 OF 2018

Between:

1. Katakam Janardhan, S/o. Late Rajaiah, Age: about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Jangedu Village, Bhupalpally Mandal, Jayashankar District.

2. Gudepu Koteshwar, S/o. Late Mallaiah, Age: about 26 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Jangedu Village, Bhupalpally Mandal, Jayashankar District.

...Plaintiffs

AND

1. Yamsani Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Age: 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 2-248/1, Ganesh Chowk, Bhupalpally, Jayashankar District.

2. Mamidala Ravinder, S/o. Linga Reddy, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 3-306, Sai Traders, Main Road, Bhupalpally, Jayashankar District.

…. Defendants

This suit is coming up for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch. Chidambaranath, counsel for the Plaintiffs and the defendants set ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and all those persons on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property in any manner and award costs of the suit.

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

That, the plaintiff no.1 is the son of late Katakam Rajaiah and the plaintiff no.2 is the son of late Gudepu Mallaiah. The father of the plaintiffs have jointly purchased an agricultural land in sy.no. 308/A/2/1 situated in Bhupalpally village from one Mohd. Ali Ahmed, S/o. Mirza Ali

2 O.S. 128 of 2018

Musharaj, the original owner through Registered Sale deed vide doc. no.1268/1995, dt: 29.11.1995 by virtue of above said Registered

Sale deed, the vendor of the father of the plaintiffs has delivered the possession of said property to the father of the plaintiffs, since then, the father of the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment over the said property without anybody interference.

3.The plaintiffs further stated that the father of the plaintiff no.1 died on 23.07.2002 leaving behind the plaintiff no.1 similarly, the father of the plaintiff no.2 has also passed away on 02.02.1998 leaving the plaintiff no.2 as his legal heir to his share of schedule property respectively. The plaintiffs submitted that both of them have been enjoying the above said property jointly, having exclusive right and ownership over the suit schedule property. After demise of their fathers, the plaintiffs shifted their residence from Jungedu to Bhupalpally and leading their livelihood by doing business. Taking undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs, the defendants illegally encroached some part of the land of the plaintiffs in the above survey number and got constructed some sheds, for which the plaintiffs have got issued legal notices to them to evict from the suit land. The plaintiffs further stated that the remaining land 1331 sq.yards is vacant one in sy.no. 308/A/2/1 of Bhupalpally. The defendants are having their land towards eastern side of the suit schedule property and it is different from the suit schedule property. On 05.02.2018, the defendants interfered with the suit schedule property and tried to grab the same. Hence, the suit.

4.Summons served on the defendants no.1 and 2 and of

Sri T. Sridhar, Advocate filed Vakalath on behalf of the defendants. The defendants did not file their written statement. Therefore, the

3 O.S. 128 of 2018

defendants no.1 and 2 remained ex-parte on 11.12.2018.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of permanent injunction as prayed for?

POINT

7.The plaintiff no.1 and 2 are examined as Pws 1 and 2 and they filed their respective chief affidavits which is on the lines of plaint averments and PW1 exhibited Exs.A1 and A2. Out of which, Ex. A1 is

Original Registered Sale deed vide doc. no. 1268/1995, dt: 27.11.1995 and Ex. A2 is Original 1-B Namuna pahani issued by MEE SEVA, dt:

01.07.2016. .

8.The oral evidence of Pws 1 and 2 supported their case by means of documentary evidence under Exs.A1 and A2. The defendants have been served with summons and engaged an advocate on their behalf and failed to contest the suit by filing written statement and set ex-parte. Therefore, the evidence adduced remains unchallenged and the plaintiffs are held to be entitled to the relief claimed.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants, their agents, workers etc., and all those persons on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of December, 2018).

Sd/­

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

4 O.S. 128 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1- Katakam Janardhan PW.2-Gudepu Koteshwar None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff Ex.A.1: Original Registered Sale Deed vide doc. no.1268/1995,

dt: 27.11.1995

Ex.A.2: Original 1-B Namuna issued by MEE SEVA, dt: 01.7.2016

For Defendants: Nil

Sd/-

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1 O.S. 482 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Wednesday, this the 26th day of December, 2018

Present:- V. Satyanarayana, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S.No. 482 OF 2018

Between:

Kotapani Rani, W/o. Sree Ram Murthy, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gunturpally, H/o. Thirumalapur village of Chityal Mandal of Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

...Plaintiff

AND

1. Narra Chowdaraiah, S/o. Venkat Subbaiah, Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture

2. Narra Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Venkat Subbaiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture …. Defendants

This suit is coming up for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Rajamalla Reddy, counsel for the Plaintiff, the defendants are set ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, workmen or any other persons acting on their behalf from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land and award costs of the suit.

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

That, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor and pattedar of the agricultural land in sy.no. 257/A/2/1 admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 3.21 guntas situated at Thimmapur Village, Jayashankar

Bhupalpally District.

3.It is further submitted that originally the husband of the plaintiff namely Rammurthy purchased the land to an extent of Ac. 4.00 guntas in the above said survey number on 29.1.1999 from its erstwhile

2 O.S. 482 of 2018

owner and possessor namely Gummadi Venkateshwarlu through simple sale deed dt: 29.1.1999, since then, the husband of the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, the husband of the plaintiff due to love and affection, gifted the suit schedule property in the year 2008 and delivered the possession thereof to the plaintiff and recorded the ownership and possession in the concerned revenue records along with pahanies. The defendants who have no way concerned with the suit land, on 14.7.2017, illegally interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and damaged the cotton crop and the son of the plaintiff filed a complaint before P.S, Chityal. On 28.8.2018, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff and threaten not to make any cultivation over the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

4.Summons were served on the defendants but the defendants did not choose to file their written statement, therefore, the defendants are set ex-parte.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction as prayed for?

POINT

7.PW.1 filed her chief affidavit which is on the lines of plaint averments and she got exhibited Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is C.C of Pahani for the year 1998-1999, Ex. A2 is Original Pattedar Pass Book no.T24020100493 and Ex. A3 is Computarized Pahani for the year 2017,

dt: 16.8.2018 establishes that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor

over the suit schedule property.

3 O.S. 482 of 2018

8.The plaintiff has supported her case by means of documentary evidence in Exs.A1 to A3. The defendants have been served with summons failed to appear before the court and contest the case. Therefore, the evidence adduced remains unchallenged and the plaintiff is held to be entitled to the relief claimed.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, their agents and all other persons on their behalf are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 26th day of December, 2018).

Sd/-

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1- Kotapani RaniNone

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff Ex.A.1: C.C of pahani for the year 1998-99 Ex.A.2: Original Pattedar Pass Book no.T24020100493 Ex.A.3: Computarized Pahani for the year 2017, dt: 16.8.2018

For Defendants: Nil

Sd/-

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.