V. Sowmya

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex · Siddipet · Telangana

V. Sowmya, Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel, is posted at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex, Siddipet, Telangana, India. 206 court orders on record since 2022. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

206

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/25/2016

Siddipeta Lachireddy vs The Thahasildar

17 Oct 2024

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 1 Dated: 17-10-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT GAJWEL

PRESENT:- Smt. Sowmya Vardha,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL.

Thursday, the 17 th day of October, 2024.

O.S.No. 25 of 20 16

Between:

Siddipeta Lachireddy, S/o Hallareddy, aged about 60yrs, occ: agril.,, R/o Anajipur village, Doulthabad mandal, Medak dist.

.....Plaintiff.

AND.

1. The Thahasildar, Doulthabad, Medak dist.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet Revenue Division, Siddipet, Medak dist.,

3. The District collector, Medak dist, Sangareddy.

4. Chinnolla Mallaiah, S/o Rajaiah, age:55yrs, occu: agril.,

5. Manne Gopaiah, S/o Buchaiah, age: 65yrs, occ: agril.,

6. Manne Mallaiah, S/o Buchaiah, age: 60yrs, Occ: agril.,

7. Dasari Satyanarayana, S/o Mallaiah, age: 65yrs, occ: agril.,

8. Dubakunta Mallesham, S/o Yellaiah, age: 30yrs, Occ: agril.,

9. Kotha Durgareddy, S/o Sanjeeva reddy, age: 32 yrs, Occ: agril., 4 to 9 are R/o Anajipur village, Doulthabad mandal, Medak dist.

….Defendants.

CLAIM: SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE, PERPETUAL INJUNCTION AND

RECTIFICATION OF REVENUE ENTRIES

Plaint Filed U/ Sec 26 order VII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sec. 151 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908

Date of presentation of plaint: 28.01.2016

Date of registration of plaint: 28.01.2016

Date of Judgment: 17-10-2024

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 2 Dated: 17-10-2024

This suit came before me on 30.09.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A. Hari Krishna counsel for Plaintiff and Sri P. Ashok reddy advocate for the defendants no.1 to 3 and defendant no.4 to 9 were set exparte and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The present suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants, praying for following reliefs.

(I)To grant of Perpetual Injunction, restraining the defendants no.4 to 9 their agents, family members, henchmen, or any other persons on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the agricultural land to an extent of Ac 0.12 gts., in Sy. No. 1005/A2 situated at

Anajipur village, Doulthabad Mandal, Siddipet Dist. and bounded on:

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of Manne Gopal and Mallaiah

WestLand of Yellaiah

NorthRoad

SouthLand of Chinnolla Mallaiah

Herein after referred as “Suit schedule Land ”.

(ii)To direct defendant no.1 to 3 to rectify the name of the plaintiff in the pahanie and to record the name of the plaintiff in pattedar and possessor column.

2.Case of the Plaintiff: (i) That the grand father of the plaintiff namely Macha Ramaiah was the original owner of the suit schedule land.

Macha Ramaiah died long back leaving behind two sons namely Narayana 2

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 3 Dated: 17-10-2024

reddy and Mallareddy. Narayana reddy got mutated the land to an extent of

Ac 0.13 gts., and Mallareddy got mutated the land to an extent of Ac 0.12 gts., in the suit survey number. Mallareddy died in the year 2004 and after the death of Mallareddy, the plaintiff who is the legal heir of Mallareddy got mutated the land on his name. On 17-02-2014 the Tahasildar, Doulthabad has issued mutation proceedings copy, patta pass book and title book in favour of the plaintiff.

(ii)That the defendants no. 4 to 9 who are not having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property came to suit land on 24-04- 2015 and tried to interfered into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, but with great difficulty, the plaintiff resisted them with the help of neighbors and saved his possession. As such in the year 2015 plaintiff filed a suit vide OS No. 88/2015 for perpetual injunction. But after filing the said suit the defendant no. 4 to 9 on 12-06-2015 came to suit land and tried to interfered into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. As such plaintiff has lodged a complaint and the police Doulthabad issued FIR against the defendant no.4 to 9. The plaintiff obtained permission from this court to withdraw the suit 88/2015 and filed this present suit.

(iii)The plaintiff further submitted that he has been enjoying the suit land till today without any interruption and on 26/4/15 and 12-6-2015 the defendants No.4 to 9 were tried to interfered into the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and threatened the plaintiff as at any point of time they will dispossess him from the suit land, and also submitted that the defendant no. 4 to 9 were stated in their written statement in OS 88/2015 that as the suit land was acquired for house sites under B.C. section from 3

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 4 Dated: 17-10-2024

the pattedars S. Narayanreddy and K. Sathamma vide award proceeding no.B8/5034/1982 dated 31/1/1985 by the Thahasildar and land acquisition officer, Gajwel Taluq and paid compensation. The same report has filed by the Thahasildar Doulthabad before Mandal Legal services committee Gajwel

dated 15/10/2015. Hence the plaintiff is filing this suit before this Hon'ble

court against the defendant no. 1 to 9 for Declaration of title over the suit land and rectification of revenue entries. The plaintiff and his father did not received any notice from the land acquisition officer, and not received any compensation from the land acquisition officer. Without giving notice, without giving compensation the defendant no. 1 to 3 have no right to acquire the suit land or any other land. The land acquisition officer has not acquired the suit land from the plaintiff. But the defendant, No.1 has not giving pahani from the year 2015 by mentioning the name of the plaintiff in possession column. Till 2014 pahanies are issued by mentioning the name of the plaintiff in patteder and possessor column. The plaintiff has issued legal notice to the defendant, No.1 on 17/6/2015 by registered post due with acknowledgment and filed this present suit.

3.The summons to defendant no.1 to 9 are served. AGP filed memo on behalf of D.1 to D.3 and filed written statement of D.1, adoption memo is filed by AGP to adopt the written statement of D.1 to D.2 and D.3.

On 08-08-2016 D.4 to D.9 were set exparte for not filing the written statement.

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 5 Dated: 17-10-2024

4.Case of the Defendants No. 1 to 3: (i) The Defendants D.1 to

D.3 filed detailed written statement denying the contents of the plaint and further contended that there is no locus-standi to file the present suit and the suit is barred by limitation and stated that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule land and the suit is not maintainable in law and facts is liable to be dismissed and the plaintiff knowingly, wilfully, and conveniently suppressed the real facts and approached this court with polluted hands.

ii)The defendant no.1 to 3 denied that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of suit schedule property agricultural land bearing By no.

1005/A/2 extent Ac.0-12 gts situated at Anajipur (v), Revenue Mandal

Doulthabad. That this defendant is not aware that the grand father of the plaintiff Macha Ramaiah was the original owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy.no. 1005 to an extent of Ac.0-25 gts., Even other wise the plaintiff is neither the owner nor possessor of the suit schedule property as the plaintiff not belongs to the family of Macha and the plaintiff belongs to the family of "Siddipeta'.

(iii) The defendant no.1 to 3 submits that, the plaintiff not filed the copy of plaint O.S. No. 88 of 2015, copy of withdrawal of suit and F.I.R.

along with plaint to give reply. This defendant reserves right to file additional written statement at appropriate time.

(iv) The facts of the defendants case is that the land bearing in

Sy.No.1005/A extent Ac.0-26 gts., and 1005/AA extent Ac.-25 gts., total extent Ac.1-11 gts., was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Gajwel for house sites under B.C. weaker section while paying the compensation after due process to the than pattedars who are in actual possession namely 5

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 6 Dated: 17-10-2024

Siddipeta Narayana Reddy and Kashireddy Sathamma respectively vide file

No. B8/5034/1982, dt. 31-1-1985. Since the date of payment of compensation to Siddipeta Narayana Reddy the land extent Ac. 1005/A extent Ac.0-26 gts., was in possession of Land Acquisition Officer. As such no titled passed to the father of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff can not seek for Declaration of Title Perpetual Injunction and Rectification of entries.

(v) That the than pattedar Siddipeta Narayana Reddy received the awarded amount under protest and filed O.P. No. 79 of 1989 for determination of reasonable marketable value on the date of notification. As per the decree the balance amount is paid to the legal her of Siddipeta

Narayana Reddy i.e., Narsamma. Without admitting the claim of the plaintiff, it appears that all the land acquisition proceedings are with the consent and within the knowledge of plaintiff. Had the plaintiff any right over the land

Sy.No. 1005/A extent Ac.0- 12 gts., the plaintiff would have challenged and would have filed O.P. Even other wise the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.

(vi)That the defendant submits that the Government decided to split the taluqas into small mandals. The process was started and Mandal were formed on 25-5-1985. That due to work busy and transferring of records, the required particulars are properly not maintained/ recorded in revenue records by the than revenue authorities, as such the names of same pattedars continued routinely up to 2014. Mere entries in revenue records without any possession and valid title do not confer any right to the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as the suit schedule property was already vested in the Government. Subsequently this mistake was rectified and 6

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 7 Dated: 17-10-2024

corrected in the revenue records by incorporating as house sites. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for any declaration and rectification and injunction.

(vii) That it appears that the plaintiff intelligently taking advantage of entries in revenue records obtained the mutation proceedings for the land extent Ac.0-12 gts., and obtained Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed by misguiding the than authorities though the plaintiff is neither the owner nor possessor of the suit land at any point of time. The mistake crept is corrected the plaintiff is not entitled for any declaration and rectification and injunction.

(viii) That the series of filing of O.S. No. 88 of 2015, PLC No. 111 of 2015 and the present suit clearly shows that the plaintiff intelligently approaching different forums by filing cases one after another to harass the defendants with a malafide intention.

(ix) The allegations of the plaint are invented for the purpose of the suit which are not based on true facts.

(x) It is submitted that the plaintiff has no right in what-so-ever over the suit schedule property as the government acquired the suit land for houses sites for B.C. weaker sections and paid compensation to the owners and possessors of the property. As such Declaration of Title, Injunction and

Rectification of entries cannot be granted. The plaintiff has no title over the suit schedule property.

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 8 Dated: 17-10-2024

(xi) That the cause of action shown in the plaint is not correct and denied and it is imaginary and invented for the purpose of the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.After considering the pleadings of plaintiff and defendants this court framed the following issues.

Issues:

1. whether the defendant no.1 to 3 acquired the suit land for the purpouse of BC section house sites vide proceedings B8/5034/1982 dt 31-01-1985 or not?

2.whether the defendant no.1to 3 paid compensation to Narayana reddy vide OP.No.79/1989 or not?

3. Whether the O.S.No .88/2015 and the PLC no 11/2015 are having any bear on the present suit?

4. whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of suit schedule property i.e. Sy.no 1005/A2 to an extant of Ac.0.12 gts., or not?

5.Whether plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction or not?

6.Whether the defendant no.1 to 3 are liable to rectify the revenue record or not?

7. Whether the suit is filed within the limitation or not?

8.To what relief?

6.To substantiate the case, the plaintiff got examined as PW1 and examined one Gandla Babu as Pw2 and exhibits A1 to A18 are marked on his behalf. The defendant no.1 examined as Dw1 and examined one S.

Sandeep examined as D.w2 and marked exhibits B1 to B3 on their behalf.

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 9 Dated: 17-10-2024

7.Arguments:

a) Arguments of Plaintiff: (i) The contention of the plaintiff is that he is the owner and pattedar and in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants no.4 to 9 without having right and title over the suit lands are interfering into possession and threatening the plaintiff, for which the plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S. 88 of 2015 against the defendants 4 to 9 and from the written statement filed by the defendants 4 to 9 in O.S.

88 of 2015, the plaintiff came to know that the suit schedule land was acquired by the government for the house site under B.C. section from pattedars S. Narayana Reddy and K. Sathaamma vide award proceedings

No. B8/5034/1982 dt: 31/01/1985 by the Thasildhar and land acquisition officer paid compensation to S. Narayana reddy.

(ii)The counsel for plaintiff further contends that neither plaintiff nor his father Mallareddy received the notice from the land acquisition officer nor received compensation amount. The defendant no.1 by denying his title over the suit land not giving pahanies from 2015 by mentioning the name of the plaintiff in possession column, hence the plaintiff filed the present suit against D.1 to D.9 to declare him as a owner, pattedar and possessor of suit land, to restrain the D.4 to D.9 from interfering into peaceful possession over the suit land and to direct the defendant no.1 to 3 to rectify the revenue records by recording the name of the plaintiff in pattedar and possessor column in respect of suit lands.

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 10 Dated: 17-10-2024

b) Arguments of defendant no.1 to 3:

The AGP representing the state, vehemently argued that the suit land was already vested with the government by way of acquisition proceedings No. B8/5034/1982 dt: 31/01/1985 and the compensation was paid to the then pattedar's namely Siddipeta Narayanareddy and Kashireddy

Sathamma who are in actual possession at that time, since then the suit land was vested with Government and Government is in the possession of the land as such the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at threshold.

8.Heard the arguments on both sides:

9.In order to avoid the repetition of facts all the issues no.1 to no.7 farmed are considered at once and answered together .

Answer to issue no(i) to (vii) :

10.The burden to prove the title is on the plaintiffs irrespective of the defects in the case of the defendants. The plaintiff filed the chief affidavit and examined himself as P.W.1 (The Pw1 is referred as plaintiff) and examined another witness P.W.2. The P.W.1 reiterated the entire contents of plaint in his chief affidavit.

11.The plaintiff to prove his title over the suit land filed the documents Ex.A1 to A18. Ex A1 original valuation certificate, Ex A2 original title deed of plaintiff, Ex A3 original pattedar pass book of plaintiff, Ex A4 original patta certificate B/10609/2014 dated: 17-02-2014, Ex A5 certified 10

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 11 Dated: 17-10-2024

copy of pahani for the year 1983-84, Ex A6 Pahani for the year 2000-01, Ex

A6 certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-01, Ex A7 certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06, Ex A8 certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08, Ex A9 Office copy of Legal notice dated 17-12-2015, Ex A10 Postal receipt dated 17-08-2015, Ex A11 Acknowledgment by Tahasildar,

Doulthabad. Ex A12 certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-98, Ex A13

Pahani for Fasli year 1423 dated 30-12-2013, Ex A14 Pahani for Fasli year 1423 dated 04-01-2014, Ex A15 Docket order dated 25-01-2016 in OS No.

88/2015, Ex A16 certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-95, Ex A17 certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11 and Ex A18 ROR for the year 1989-90.

12.From the documents filed above by the P.W.1 it is evident that the plaintiff’s father name Mallaredy and the name of the plaintiff is continued in the revenue records as a pattedar and possessor column till 2014, the pattedar passbook Ex A3 and Titile deed Ex A2 was also issued in the name of the plaintiff. The documents Ex A1 to A18 filed by the plaintiff is in support of his pleadings and establishes his title over the suit schedule property, but his right to the suit schedule property is denied by the defendants no. D.1 to D.3.

13.The revenue authorities defendant no. D1 to D3 refused to enter the P.w.1 name in pattedar and possession colomn in pahanies from 2014 by submitting that the entire extent of land i.e., Ac. 1-11 gts., in suit survey including the suit land was acquired by the Government in the year 1985, for house sites under BC weaker sections by paying compensation to the then 11

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 12 Dated: 17-10-2024

pattedars namely Siddipeta Narayana reddy and Kashipeta Sathemma vide file no B8/5034/1982 Dt:31-01-1985 and since then the land in survey no.1005/A to an extent of Ac.0-26 gts., is in the possession of Land

Acquisition officer and the plaintiff has no right to claim title over the suit schedule property which was already acquired by the Government by following the procedure under due process law.

14.Now the burden is on the defendants to prove the suit land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of BC section house sites vide proceedings B8/5034/1982 dt. 31-01-1985 or not.

15.The defendant no.1 and 2 filed the chief affidavits along with the documents Ex.B1 to B3, The Thahasidhar/DW.2 deposed that the entire extent of land i.e., Ac 1-11 gts., in suit survey number including the suit land was acquired by the Government for house sites under BC weaker sections by paying compensation to the then pattedars namely Siddipeta

Narayana reddy and Kashipeta Sathemma vide file no B8/5034/1982 Dt: 31- 01-1985 and since then the land in survey no.1005/A to an extent of Ac.0- 26 gts is in the possession of Land Acquisition officer. The D.W.2 in support of his case filed the award copy Ex.B1 which proves that the land in survey no.1005/A to an extent of Ac.00.26 gts., was acquired by Government and the compensation was received by Siddepeta Narayana Reddy.

16.Admittedly Siddepeta Narayana Reddy is none other than brother to plaintiff’s father. The document Ex.B.1 proves that the suit land has been acquired by the Government and compensation was paid and the 12

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 13 Dated: 17-10-2024

land is vested with Government. The award was passed by the land acquisition officer in the year 1985 vide land acquisition proceedings No.

B8/5034/1982 Dt:31-01-1985, Ex.B.1, the plaintiff did not challenge the award Ex.B1 from 1985 to 2015.

17.The plaintiff relied on the documents Ex.A1 to A16, the DW2 admits that the name of the plaintiff’s father and the plaintiff is continued in the revenue records till 2014, the reason being is that due to the bifurcation of Talukas to small mandal from 1985 the revenue record was not updated as such the names are continued. The pw1 and p.w.2 also admits that there was bifurcation of Talukas to small mandal.

18. The question that arouse is "Whether the mutation proceedings, entries in pahanies will confer title or not"?

right from 1997, the law is very clear. The Honble

Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh , (1997) 7 SCC 137 , Court had considered the effect of mutation and observed that mutation of property in revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue.

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 14 Dated: 17-10-2024

In the Supreme Court decision of Suraj Bhan v. Financial

Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it was observed that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”.

So far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court.

19.It is settled principle that the entries in revenue records will not confer title, Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Basing on the entries in revenue records the plaintiff cannot be declared as a pattedar to the suit schedule property which is vested with the government. Once the land is acquired by the governments the jurisdiction of civil court is ousted.

20.The counsel for the defendants no.1 to 3 by producing the

Aadhar card and ration card of plaintiff Ex.B2 and B3 created a doubt on plaintiff case by stating that as per revenue records, the suit land belongs to family members of 'Siddepeta', where as the plaintiff is from 'Macha' family, as such he is not entitled for any rights over the suit property which is in the name of Siddepeta Mallaredddy. To claim the title over the suit land which is in the name of Siddipeta Mallareddy as per Ex.A1 to A.18, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish his identity as a son of Siddipeta Mallareddy, the plaintiff failed to prove the same and which left doubt on the plaintiffs case.

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 15 Dated: 17-10-2024

21.On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, that as per the award Ex.B1 the suit land was already acquired by the

Government in the year 1985 for the purpose of house sites for BC weaker sections, Ex.B1 proceedings were passed after giving reasonable opportunity to the plaintiffs and the compensation was paid to Siddipeta Narayana reddy. The plaintiff ought to have challenge the award Ex.B1 before appellant authority which he fails to do so. Once the land is acquired by the

Government with due process of law, the rights of the plaintiff over the land will be divested. It is further held that once the land is acquired by the

Government the jurisdiction of civil court is ousted.

22. The entries in revenue records as well as the mutation proceedings on which the P.w.1 is relied, would not determine the right and title to the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property as such it was not necessary to go into the issue as to who were in physical possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit for granting the relief of perpetual injunction. For the reasons stated above the plaintiff cannot be declared as a pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule property which was vested with the government.

23.In view of answer to issues (1) to (7) the plaintiff is not entitle for any of the reliefs as prayed for and the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.

24.In the Result: Suit is dismissed with costs. All pending I.A.'s are closed.

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 16 Dated: 17-10-2024

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III on my official laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 17th day of October, 2024.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W.1: Siddipeta LachireddyD.W.1: L. Srivalli

P.W.2: Gundla BabuD.W.2: S. Sandeep

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Original valuation certificate dated 07-11-2015

Ex.A2Original title deed of S. Lachireddy/plaintiff

Ex.A3Original pattedar pass book of S. Lachireddy/plaintiff

Ex.A4Original patta certificate B/10609/2014 dated: 17-02-2014

Ex.A5C.C of pahani for the year 1983-84

Ex.A6C.C of pahani for the year 2000-01

Ex.A7C.C of pahani for the year 2005-06

Ex.A8C.C of pahani for the year 2007-08

Ex.A9Office copy of Legal notice dated 17-12-2015, from A. Hari Krishna advocate to Tahsildar, Doulthabad

Ex.A10Postal receipt dated 17-08-2015 16

O.S.No.25/2016 Page No. 17 Dated: 17-10-2024

Ex.A11Acknowledgment by Tahasildar, Doulthabad.

Ex.A12C.C of pahani for the year 1977-78

Ex.A13Pahani for Fasli year 1423 dated 30-12-2013

Ex.A14Pahani for Fasli year 1423 dated 04-01-2014

Ex.A15Docket order dated 25-01-2016 in OS No. 88/2015 from JCJ,

Gajwel

Ex.A16C.C of pahani for the year 1994-95 (5 pages)

Ex.A17C.C of pahani for the year 2010-11 (5 pages)

Ex.A18ROR for the year 1989-90

DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1Award copy dated 31-01-1985

Ex.B2Household card

Ex.B3Aadhar card

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 17

CC/1038/2018 Acquitted

Ps Jagdevpur vs Mudavth Narsimlu

17 Oct 2024

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - AT GAJWEL.

Thursday, this the 17 th day of October, 2024

Present: Smt. V. Sowmya, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel.

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018

Between State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station Jagadevpur …Complainant.

And

A1 – Mudavath Narsimlu, S/o Khana, Age: 29 yrs, Occ: Business,

A2 – Mudavath Ravinder, S/o Shankar, Age: 22 yrs, Occ: Driver,

Both are R/o Puttagudem village, Rajapet mandal, Siddipet Dist.

...Accused.

Offences u/s.: 6-A and 7 of Essential Commodities Act - 1955.

-o0o-

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the A.P.P. Gajwel on behalf of the State and of Sri P. Sreenivas, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The brief facts of the case are that on 16-08-2018 at 1700 hours, the complainant Sri. Kommidi Suresh Reddy, Asst. Civil Supply officer,

Siddipet Collectorate came to PS and lodged a petition stating that, the

Police, Jagadevpur have caught a vehicle bearing No. TS-30-T-3059

EICHER Vehicle at 8:30 P.M on 16-08-2018 and the same have been handed over to Civil Supplies Officials for further investigation. In view of the above he had secured the mediators duly Informing the purpose of inspection and on verification of vehicle they found (155.60) Quintals of

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018 Page 2

PDS rice and the same has been seized duly conducting proper panchanama and handed over to Sri Steefen, Godown incharge (MLSP-

Gajwel) for safe custody, on his enquiry, he came to know that the accused/A1 and A2 were involved in smuggling of PDS rice from villages near to Puttagudem and selling to Shankar Patel of Nanded of Maharastra

State. Accordingly he had booked a 6-A case and filed the same in the

Court of Collector(C.S), Siddipet for confiscation of entire of seized property in favour of State Government. As such he lodged a report and handed over vehicle EICHER Goods bearing No. TS-30-T- 3059 for safe custody with a request to safe guard the same till further orders of the

Collector (CS), Siddipet.

2.Basing on it, Pw4 registered a case in Cr.No.48/2018, U/s.6-A, 7 of Essential Commodities Act-1955, issued FIR to all concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, Pw4 thoroughly examined and recorded the statements of Lw1, Pw1 and PW2 at PS. Later visited Jagadevpur village and examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses. While the investigation was in progress, On 24-04-2018 the accused/A1 and A2 voluntarily came to PS Jagadevpur and surrendered before PW4. On interrogation the accused/A1 and A2 admitted their guilt. As such PW4 issued 41(A) Cr.P.C. notice to the accused released on bail after furnishing sureties. Later after conducting detailed investigation, PW4 filed charge sheet against the accused/A1 and

A2 u/sec 6-A, 7 of Essential commodities Act, 1955.

3.This court has taken cognizance of the offence against accused/A1 and A2 for the offences u/s.6-A and 7 of Essential

Commodities Act - 1955.

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018 Page 3

4.On appearance of accused/A1 and A2 copies of case documents was furnished to them u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. They are examined u/sec 239 of

Cr.P.C for the charge sheet allegations leveled against accused/A1 and A2

U/sec.6-A and 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (4) witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The learned

APP has given up the evidence of LW1, LW4, LW5 and LW7.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused/A1 and A2 are examined u/sec 313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence voiced against them to which they pleaded not guilty and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused/A1 and A2 for the offences u/sec. 6- A and 7 of Essential Commodities Act – 1955, beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.To prove the guilty of the accused, the prosecution all together examined 4 witnesses, P.W.1 is the Depury Tahasildhar (Civil supply) and circumstantial witness, P.W.2 is the VRO, Jagadevpur village, PW3 is the panch witness to the seizure panchanama and P.W.4 is the investigating officer of the case. The prosecution marked Ex.P1 to P.5.

9.Pw1 deposed that on 16-08-2018, LW1 received a requisition from SHO, Jagadevpur PS bout catching a vehicle with PDS rice at 8.30 am. He along with LW3 and panch witnesses LW4 to LW6 went to the police station with LW1. They found the accused/A1 and A2 at police

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018 Page 4 station. LW1 conducted enquiry with A1 and A2, revealed their names as

M.Ravinder/A1 and A2/M. Narsimulu and further confessed that they are purchased PDS rice from surrounding villages of Puttagudem and selling to one Shankar patel of Nanded Maharashtra state. As per the instructions of LW1 he scribed panchanama and the statement of A1 and A2. LW1 weighed total PDS rice bags, there are 250 bags, 155.60 quintals of PDS rice, the LW1 seized the rice from A1 and A2 under the cover of panchanama and handed over to Stefen MLSP Gajwel for safe custody and obtained a receipt, the vehicle Eicher DCM no. TS 30 T 3059 was handed over the SHO of PS Jagadevpur for safe custody. The LW1 lodged report at police station.

10.Pw2 deposed that she know PW1, LW1 and A1 and A2. As per the instructions of MRO Jagadevpur, on 16-08-2018, ahe went to

Jagadevpur police station along with LW1, PW1 and panch witnesses LW4 to LW6. She saw A1 and A2 in police station along with PDS rice vehicle, consisting of 250 bags of PDS rice weighing about approximately 155 quintals. LW1 conducted panchanama in the in her presence and in the presence of mediators and seized PDS rice from the possession of A1 and

A2 under cover of panchanama and handed over rice to one stefen MLS point incharge, Gajwel and the vehicle was handed over to SHO of PS

Jagadevpur.

11.Pw3 deposed that on 16-08-2018, Civil Supplies Officer conducted panchanama at Jagadevpur police station, he came to know that police caught one Van Bearing No. TS 30 T 3059 with 250 bags of

PDS rice equal to 155.60 quintals and brought to police station and informed Civil Supplier Officer. He saw A1 and A2 in police station, on enquiry with A1 and A2 they revealed that they purchased the PDS rice

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018 Page 5 from the white ration holders Puttagudem Village for Rs.10/- per kg, and selling the same to one Shankar Satu at Nanded, while transporting the rice the police caught them at Gandhmalla Cross Road, Jagadevpur village. The civil Supplies Officer prepared panchanama, by recording the statements of A1 and A2, and seized eicher van and the PDS rice from the possession of the A1 and A2 in his presence and in the presence of LW4 and LW5, seized rice was handed over to MLS point in charge, Gajwel and vehicle was handed over to police, Jagadevpur. The police examined and recorded his statement.

12.Pw4 deposed that on 14-08-2018 he long with police staff LW7 caught a vehicle bearing No. TS 30 T 3059 eicher vehicle at 08.30 pm, along with 155.06 quintals of PDS rice and informed to Civil Supplier

Officer. The LW1, PW1, PW2 along with panch witnesses PW3 and LW5 came to police station and inspected the vehicle in the presence of punchas, the LW1 seized the PDS rice bags under the cover of panchanama and handed over to MLS point, Gajwel for safe custody and handed over the vehicle to them and lodged a report. On 16-08-2018 at 1700 hours he received a report from LW1 and registered case in

Cr.No.48/2018, U/s.6 A, 7 of Essential Commodities Act and issued FIR.

He recorded statements of LW1, PW1 and PW2 in police station, on the same day he visited Jagadevpur village and recorded statements of panch witnesses LW2 to LW5 and PW3, on the same day he recorded the statements of LW7 as well. On 24-08-2018 the accused A1 and A2 surrendered before him, he issued 41 A notice. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet in this case.

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018 Page 6

13.Arguments:

(i)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the accused A1 and A2 are purchasing the PDS rice from ration card holders of

Puttegudam village and selling to one Shankar patel of Nanded district,

Maharastra state and making illegal profits by cheating the Government and involved in illegal transportation of Public Distribution System Rice (PDS) in violation to section 3 of the E.C Act and committed an offence u/sec 7 of essential commodities act and u/sec 420 of IPC.

(ii)The counsel for the accused A1 and A2 submitted that the rice is not essential commodity and the rice which have been alleged to have seized from the possession of the accused persons is not PDS rice, and it is not seized from the possession of the accused person. The police in collusion with civil suppliers officers registered a false case with false allegation for statistical purpose. Hence the accused A1 and A2 are entitled to be acquitted.

14.Heard the arguments on both sides.

15.As per the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the investigating officer/P.W.4 on 14-08-2018 at 8.30 Pm, he found that the accused A1 and A2 are illegally transporting the PDS rice in Eicher Vehicle

B.No.TS30T3059, he caught the accused A1 and A2 along with the vehicle which contains 250 bags of PDS rice, the P.W.4 taken the accused A1 and

A2 and the vehicle with rice bags into his custody, brought them to police station and informed to L.W.1/Assistant Civil Supply officer, for taking necessary action against A1 and A2. The L.W.1 along with P.W.1 to P.W.3 and other panchas came to police station and enquired the accused A1

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018 Page 7 and A2, the accused A1 adn A2 admitted guilt before L.W.1 to have been purchasing the PDS rice from ration card holders of Puttegudem village and selling maharastra, the L.W.1 seized the 250 bags of PDS rice from the possession of accused A1 and A2 under the panchanama Ex.P.1 in the presence of P.W.3 and other punchas, and recorded the confession statement Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 of accused A1 and A2. The panchanam and the confession statement was scribed by P.W.1. The L.W.1 handed over

PDS Rice bags to steefen, incharge of MLS point Gajwel, for safe custody and obtained the receipt and lodged the report Ex.P5 at Jagdevpur P.S.

The panch witness P.W.3 identified the accused A1 and A2 in the open court.

16.The entire proceeding was taken place in the police station in the presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The P.w.1 is the Deputy Thasildhar, P.W.2 is the then VRO of Jaddevpur village and P.W.3 is the VRA and panch witnesses to the panchanam Ex.P1. The P.W.2 deposed the same lines as

P.W.1 and supported the prosecution case. The testimony of P.W.1 is supported by panch witnesses P.W.3, and investigating officer P.W.4.

17.The P.w.3 who is witness to confession panchanama Ex.P1 testified the seizure of 250 bags of PDS rice and Eicher vehicle bearing no:

TS30T3059 from the possession of the accused A1 and A2 in his presence and supported the prosecution case. Both the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 testified about the confession made by the accusedA1 and A2 in their presence and they have identified the accused persons A1 and A2 in the open court. From the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the prosecution proved the identification of accused A1 and A2, seizure of 250 bags of of rice from the possession of accused A1 and A2.

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018 Page 8

18.At this stage it is crucial before the court to decide certain points:

1. "Whether the rice seized under panchanama Ex.P1 is the Public

Distribution System Rice or not ?

2. Whether the accused A1 and A2 purchased the rice from the ration card holders of Puttegudem village and selling to one Shankar patel of Nanded district of Maharastra state or not?

19.All the above two points are answered together for sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts.

20.The P.W.1 stated that the accused himself admitted before him about the purchasing and selling of Government distributed PDS rice from the ration card holders, and he recorded the statement of the accused under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and based on such confession statement the L.W.1 and he came to conclusion that the rice so seized from the possession of the accused persons is PDS rice. The testimony of P.W.1 clearly shows that the P.W.1 relied on the statement of the alleged accused A1 and A2, to draw a conclusion that the rice bags found in possession of the accused persons are PDS rice bags, but the P.w.1 did not take any steps either to draw the samples or to send rice to concerned authorities or labs to know whether it is PDS rice or normal rice.

21.The prosecution further argues that when the accused A1 and

A2 himself voluntarily admitted their guilt before the Thasildhar it need not be necessary to send the rice for examination, the statement of the accused Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 contains the signature of the accused A1 and A2, and the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 in whose presence the accused A1 and

A2 confessed also testified before the court.

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018 Page 9

22.On perusal of document Ex.P2 and Ex.P.3, the confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P1 was conducted by Civil Supply officer, and the prosecution urges that Ex.P2 and P.3 are the confession statements of accused A1 and A2. The question is "whether the statement of the accused A1 and A2 made under Ex.P2 and P.3 are confessions or not and if so whether it can be relied or not?" As per the prosecution case the

P.W.1 has recorded the statement of the accused A1 and A2 under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, where in the accused A1 and A2 alleged to have admitted their guilty about illegally purchasing the PDS rice from ration card holder of Puttagudem Village and selling in Maharashtra state at higher rates, the admission of accused person A1 and A2 amounts to confession only when it is made in the immediate presence of the Judicial Magistrate.

23.As per the procedure laid down under 164 Cr.P.C, the statement of the accused whether it is confession or a statement shall be recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of first class, only after obtaining the voluntariness from the accused and the statement should be signed by accused.

24.Here in present case the statement of accused A1 and A2 is recorded by the Dy. Thasildhar who is not a competent person. The P.W.1 recorded the statement of accused A1 and A2 without recording his satisfaction about the voluntariness obtained from the accused A1 and A2

before taking statement from them, whether the statement of accused A1

and A2 under Ex.P2 and P3 are made with free mind or not, will be known to court, only by the satisfaction recorded by the P.W.1.

25.As discussed above the P.W.1 did not record his satisfaction about voluntariness, therefore this court feels that the P.W.1 did not follow

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018 Page 10 the procedure laid now u/sec 164 Cr.P.C while recording the statement of the accused A1 and A2. It is pertinent to note that the confession statements of both the accused A1 and A2 were recorded in police station and as per section 26 of Indian Evidence Act confession by the accused while in the custody of police not to be proved against him. Further during 313 Cr.P.C examination also the accused denied entire prosecution case including his statement. Therefore the statements of accused A1 and A2 made before the Deputy Thasildhar, in police station cannot be treated as confession and cannot be used against accused A1 and A2.

26.The another specific allegation is that the alleged accused A1 and A2 has procured the PDS rice from ration card holders of Puttegudem

Village and for lesser price and selling to one Shankar patel of Nanded

Dist, Maharastra State.

27.As per the section 17(e) of the TSPDS (C) Order, 2016, issued by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 19.08.2016, if any person is found to have purchased the rice supplied through PDS either from the card holder or fair price shop dealer or any other source, he shall be liable for criminal action and imposition of penalty as may be fixed by the competent authority.

28.It is clear that as per the above order purchasing a PDS rice from the ration card holder is an offence. To prove the specific allegation against the accused persons that they have purchased the rice from ration card holder, the investigating officer did not examined the persons who sold PDS rice to accused persons, and also not secured the details of

Shankar patel who is purchasing the rice from the accused persons .

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018 Page 11

29.No doubt the prosecution proved identification of accused A1 and A2 and also proved the seizure of 250 bags of rice from the possession of the accused A1 and A2 herein, but there is no substantive piece of evidence on record to prove that the rice so seized by the P.W.1 is PDS rice and also person who have been cheated. Unless the prosecution proves that the rice is PDS rice the accused A1 and A2 cannot be convicted under section 7 of the EC Act.

30.Therefore this court feels that there is no iota of evidence to prove that the rice so seized from the possession of the accusedA1 and A2 is PDS rice and also no evidence has been placed against the accused A1 and A2 to prove the specific allegation that they purchased the rice from the ration card holder and illegally transporting to Rice mills Maharashtra

State.

31.The prosecution failed to discharge its burden beyond all reasonable doubts and failed to prove the guilty of the accused A1 and A2 for the offence u/sec. 6A, 7 of EC Act. Hence the accused A1 and A2 are entitled to be acquitted.

32.In The Result: the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences U/sec 6 A and sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act and they are acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 and

A2 shall stand canceled and the sureties are discharged, subject to section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation on my official laptop, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of October ,

2024.

PRL. JCJ-CUM-JMFC

GAJWEL

C.C.No. 1038 of 2018 Page 12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Prosecution:Defence:

PW1 Pasula Swamy -None -

PW2 G. Jyothi

PW3 R. Naresh

PW4 M. Veeraiah

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:Defence:

Ex P1 is the Panchanama -Nil-

Ex P2 is the Statement of the accused No.1

Ex P3 is the Statement of the accused No.2

Ex P4 is the FIR

Ex P5 is the Report

Material Objects Marked

NIL

PRL. JCJ-CUM-JMFC

GAJWEL

CC/518/2024 Acquitted

Gajwel ps vs Mathin Mohammed

10 Oct 2024

C.C.No. 518 of 2024 Page 1 Dated:10-10-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - AT GAJWEL.

Thursday, this the 10 th day of October, 2024

Present: Smt. V. Sowmya, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel.

C.C.No. 518 of 202 4

Between State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station Gajwel. …Complainant.

And

Mohammad Mathin, S/o Madar Sab, Aged: 21 years, Occ: Business, R/o Chinna Arepally village, Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District.

...Accused.

Offences u/s.: 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act. -o0o-

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the A.P.P. Gajwel on behalf of the State and Sri. N. Sudharshan advocate Legal aid counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The brief facts of the case are that on 25-04-2024 at about 17.00 hrs., on the instructions of PW5, while PW1 was performing routine duties at Gajwel P.S., he received credible information that one person is selling liquor on excess rates to customers in the kirana shop of the accused without any Government permission in Chinna Arepally village.

Upon which he along with PW2 rushed to the kirana shop of the accused and apprehended the accused and secured the presence of Pw3 and LW6 and recorded the confession statement of accused in which the accused confessed that he is eaking livelihood by running kirana shop at Chinna

Arepally village and he used to purchase liquor bottles from licensed wine shops at Gajwel and selling the same on excess rates to his customers without having any license or permission from concerned government. As

C.C.No. 518 of 2024 Page 2 Dated:10-10-2024 usually on 25-04-2024 while he was selling the liquor in her shop, in the meantime police caught him. Later he produced the liquor bottles before the panch witness i.e., 1) Heyward's 5000 beers each 650 ml - 23, 2)

Budweiser beers each 650 ml - 12, 3) King fisher Ultra beers each 650 ml – 08, 4) Black Buster Ultra laser beers, each 650 ml - 06, 5) King Fisher

Strong beers, each 650 ml - 03, 6) Knockout strong beers, each 650 ml - 03, 7) Royal Stag whisky bottle, each 180 ml- 05. 8) MC whsiky bottles, each 180ml-05, 9) OC whsiky bottles, each 180 ml-10, 10) Daccan blue whsiky bottles, each 180 ml-05 Total litters of beers-35.750 litters, and whisky 4.500 litters and total alcohol 40.250 litters and total worth Rs.

13,887/- and one bottle of each variety was taken, sample was drawn for chemical examination purpose and remaining bottels are seized under the cover of confession cum seizure panchanama and brought the seized property to PS at 19.30 hours and given a written report for legal action as per law. Later on his report, PW5 registered a case in Cr.No. 239/2024 u/sec 34(a) of TS Excise Act and issued FIR to all concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigationPw5 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and visited scene of offense and secured the mediator LW3 and PW4 and conducted CDF and on 28-04- 2018, the PW5 served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. On 19-05-2024

Pw5 obtained CE report in which it was opined that the item no.1 Sl.No.

14372, 14373, 14374, 14375, 14376, 14377 are beers and 14378, 14379, 14380, 14381 are Indain made liquor. Later after conducting deatiled investigation PW5 filed charge sheet against the accused u/sec 34(a) of

T.S. Excise Act.

2.This court has taken cognizance for the offence u/sec 34(a) of

T.S. Excise Act against accused .

C.C.No. 518 of 2024 Page 3 Dated:10-10-2024

3.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/sec 239 of Cr.P.C for the charge sheet allegations leveled against him u/sec 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (5) witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused for which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence u/sec. 34(a) of T.S.Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

7.To prove the guilty of the accused the prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Pw1 is the complainant, PW2 is the eye witness and police constable who assisted PW1, PW3 is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama, Pw4 is the panch witness for CDF and PW5 is the investigating officer.

8.Pw1 deposed that 24-05-2024 at 1700 hours he along with his staff PW2 went to Chinna Arepally Village of Gajwel Mandal and raided on

Mathin (Accused) Kirana Shop and found Beer bottles, Liquor bottles in the possession of accused who is selling Illegally without license, he secured

C.C.No. 518 of 2024 Page 4 Dated:10-10-2024 two punch witnesses LW5 and LW6 and he recorded confession statement of accused, wherein the accused admitted the guilt of selling liquor illegally in his kirana shop without license. In the presence of two punch witnesses LW5 and LW6 he searched the shop and the seized haywards 5000 strong beer 650 ml, Budwiser strong beer 650 ml, Kingfisher Beer premium larger, Budwiser strong beer 650 ml, King fisher stong premium beer 650 ml, Knock out strong beer HI punch 650 Ml., Royal Stag blended whisky 180 ml, MC dowells No.1 whiskey 180 ml., Officer choice resume whisky 180 ml., and Deccan blue whisky 180 ml in the presence of punchas from the possession of the accused, he had drawn samples for chemical examination purpose and seized property and accused brought to police station and PW1 lodged a report. Police examined and recorded his statement.

9.PW2 deposed that on 24-05-2024 at 1700 hours he along with

PW1 went to Chinna Arepally Village of Gajwel Mandal and raided on

Mathin(Accused) Kirana Shop and found Beer bottles, Liquor bottles in the possession of accused selling Illegally without license, PW1 secured two punch witnesses LW5 and LW6 and PW1 recorded confession statement of accused, alleged accused admitted the guilt of selling liquor illegally in his kirana shop without license. In the presence of two punch witnesses LW5 and LW6 they searched the shop and PW1 seized haywards 5000 strong beer 650 ml, Budwiser strong beer 650 ml, Kingfisher Beer premium larger, Budwiser strong beer 650 ml, King fisher strong premium beer 650 ml, Knock out strong beer HI punch 650 Ml., Royal Stag belnded wisky 180 ml, MC dowells No.1 whiskey 180 ml., Officer choice resume whisky 180 ml., and Deccan blue whisky 180 ml from the possession of the accused in the presence of punchas, and drawn samples for chemical examination purpose. The seized property and accused was brought to police station and PW1 lodged a report.

C.C.No. 518 of 2024 Page 5 Dated:10-10-2024

10.PW3 deposed that he know LW6 and accused. At about 5 months back the police visited Kirana shop of accused and seized beer bottles, liquor bottles from the accused shop in his presence and in the presence of Lw6. At the scene of offence the police recorded the confession statement of the accused in his presence.

11.PW4 deposed that in the month of April, he along with accused and LW2 went to police station with regard to the liquor seized from the accused shop, at that time police obtained his signature.

12.PW5 deposed that on 25-04-2024 at 1700 hours about illegal selling of Liquor and beer on excess rates at Kirana shop of the accused, the LW7 instructed PW1 and PW2 to search the shop of accused. On 25-04- 2024 at about 2000 hours, LW7 registered the case in Cr.No.239/2024 U/s.

34(a) of TS Excise Act and LW7 issued FIR and entrusted him for further investigation. He recorded the statements of PW1, Pw2 in police station on 26-04-2024. He Visited scene of offence and secured two mediators

LW3 and PW4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators. On 28-04-2024 he draw 41(a) Cr.PC notice to accused. He deposited the case property before this court vide CPR

No.136/15/2024 and received the same for safe custody. Drawn samples were sent to lab for chemical examination and remaining property deposited before Excise Superintendent, Sanga Reddy. After receiving the report from FSL he concluded his investigation and filed the charge sheet in this case.

Answer to point:

13.The specific allegation against the accused is that, the accused without license, illegally selling liquor and beer bottles for excessive rates

C.C.No. 518 of 2024 Page 6 Dated:10-10-2024 in his kirana store at Chinna Arepally village, and he found in the possession of liquor and beer bottles and he failed to account for its possession.

14.A person selling liquor without permit or license is an offence u/section 34(a) of Telangana Excise Act. Burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused is selling liquor without license.

15.As per the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the P.W.5 received the credible information and instructed his subordinate police

P.W.1 to raid the kirana shop of accused at Cinna Arepally village to know whether the accused is selling liquor and beer bottles illegally in his shop, accordingly the P.W.1 and his staff P.W.2 raided on accused shop and found the accused in possession of 1) Heyward's 5000 beers each 650 ml - 23, 2) Budweiser beers each 650 ml - 12, 3) King fisher Ultra beers each 650 ml – 08, 4) Black Buster Ultra laser beers, each 650 ml - 06, 5) King

Fisher Strong beers, each 650 ml - 03, 6) Knockout strong beers, each 650 ml - 03, 7) Royal Stag whisky bottle, each 180 ml- 05. 8) MC whisky bottles, each 180ml-05, 9) OC whisky bottles, each 180 ml-10, 10)

Deccan blue whisky bottles, each 180 ml-05 Total litters of beers-35.750 litters, and whisky 4.500 litters and total alcohol 40.250 litters, which is worth of Rs. 13,887/- and the P.W.1 recorded the confession statement of the accused in the presence of panch P.W.3 and seized the above bottles under cover of panchanama Ex.P.1.

16.All the official witnesses and panch witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to

P.W.5 supported the case of prosecution and their evidence corroborating with each other and in consonance with Ex.P1. The prosecution filed the chemical examiner report Ex.P6 which proves that they are liquor and

C.C.No. 518 of 2024 Page 7 Dated:10-10-2024 beer bottles.

17.As per section 25 of Indian evidence act confession made in the presence of police officer is in admissable in evidence and cannot be used against the accused however if that confession statement leads to recovery or discovery of any material objects such portion is relevant u/sec 279 of Evidence Act. The P.W.1 deposed that accused is found in possession of 1) Heyward's 5000 beers each 650 ml - 23, 2) Budweiser beers each 650 ml - 12, 3) King fisher Ultra beers each 650 ml – 08, 4)

Black Buster Ultra laser beers, each 650 ml - 06, 5) King Fisher Strong beers, each 650 ml - 03, 6) Knockout strong beers, each 650 ml - 03, 7)

Royal Stag whisky bottle, each 180 ml- 05. 8) MC whisky bottles, each 180ml-05, 9) OC whisky bottles, each 180 ml-10, 10) Deccan blue whisky bottles, each 180 ml-05 Total litters of beers-35.750 litters, and whisky 4.500 litters and total alcohol 40.250 litters, which is worth of Rs.

13,887/- and he seized the same from the possession of accused under panchanama Ex.p1 in the presence of mediator P.W.3.

18.The panch witness P.W.3 testified about the seizure of beer and liquor bottles from the possession of accused but he did not give the descriptive particulars of the bottles and the quantity seized by the

P.w.1 in his presence. The seized bottles are not produced before the court during trail and it is submitted after drawing sample the remaining bottles were handed over to Excise superintendent of police, such handing over proceedings were also not filed in court, as a part of investigation a duty cast on the investigating officer to file the photographs when the case property is either destroyed or given for interim custody, the investigating officer P.W.5 failed to file the photographs of seized liquor and beer bottles. There are lacunas in the investigation done by P.W.5.

C.C.No. 518 of 2024 Page 8 Dated:10-10-2024

19.As per the act the individual without permit are allowed to carry up to 4.5 liters of IMFL and 7.5 liters of beer within the state of

Telangana. Possessing liquor and beer bottles for consumption within a limit is not an offence under Excise Act. Excessive possession or illegal sales without license or permit is an offence. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused without permit or license possessed excessive quantity and making illegal sales. The panch witness P.W.3 failed to mention the quantity to draw the conclusion whether it is within the limit or beyond the limit. Mere seizure of liquor and beer bottles from the possession of accused is not sufficient to prove the guilt under the act, unless it is proved that quantity of beer and liquor stored is the excessive quantity than permit.

20.During 313 Cr.p.c the court after explaining the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused was given an opportunity to speak about the evidence against him, the accused stated that "on occasion of bodria festival in the village, some of the villagers brought the liquor and beer bottles and kept in his shop, on the same day night police came and filed this case". The accused admits that there are some liquor and bottles in his shops and same was seized by police from his shop, but he denies to have been possessed by him for illegal sale.

21.In Telangana State most particularly in villages, there is a custom and practice of consuming liquor with friends and relative on the occasion of village festivals, for that purpose the villagers might have purchased the bottles and stored at accused shop.

22.Here the case at hand the allegation is accused is selling liquor and beer bottles in his kirana shop, which was denied by the accused. If

C.C.No. 518 of 2024 Page 9 Dated:10-10-2024 really the accused is selling liquor in his shop for excessive rates, if really a credible information has been received and reasonable enquiry has done in the village before forming an opinion that the act of accused selling liquor and beer bottles in his kirana shop is offence. What stopped the police to collect the evidence of customers who regularly purchase the liquor from the accused shop. The police did not collect the evidence of customers who are purchasing the liquor and beer bottles from the accused shop, they simple seized the liquor and beer bottels from the possession of accused without securing the evidence that the accused is selling at Excessive rates and making profits.

23.From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, there is no sufficient evidence on record as to the exact quantity possessed by the accused and also no sufficient evidence about unauthorized sales of liquor and beer made by accused without license. While from the above evidence this court concludes that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused to convict the accused u/sec 34(a) of TS Excise Act for illegal sale of liquor and beer at his kirana shop. The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt.

24.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly he is acquitted u/sec 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds canceled forthwith. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-III transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10 th day of October,

2024.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

C.C.No. 518 of 2024 Page 10 Dated:10-10-2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: M. Pandari None

PW2: P. Janardhan

PW3: D. Narsimlu

PW4: Mohd. Amjad

Pw5: M. Yadagiri Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is the Confession cum seizure panchanama - NIL -

Ex.P2 is the Report

Ex.P3 is the Signature of Pw4 on Crime Detail Form

Ex.P4 is the FIR

Ex.P5 is the Crime Detail Form

Ex.P6 is FSL report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

CC/335/2018 Acquitted

PS Jagadevpur vs Govindu Barthulome and 3 others

17 Oct 2024

C.C.No. 335 of 2018 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - AT GAJWEL.

Thursday, this the 17 th day of October, 2024

Present: Smt. V. Sowmya, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel.

C.C.No. 335 of 2018

Between State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station Jagadevpur. …Complainant.

And

A1 – Govindu Barthulome, S/o Julian, Age: 68 yrs, Occ: Agril., (The case against A1 is abated)

A2 – Govindu Raju, S/o Barthulome, Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Bike Mechanic,

A3 – Govindu David, S/o Barthulome, Age: 38 yrs, Occ: Driver,

A4 – Govindu Arlaiah, S/o Julian, Age: 60 yrs, Occ: Agril.,

All are R/o Alirajpet village, Jagadevpur mandal, Siddipet Dist.

...Accused.

Offences u/s.: 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC.

-o0o-

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the A.P.P. Gajwel on behalf of the State and of Sri A. Rammurthy and T. Prakash, Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The brief facts of the case are that on 10-06-2015 at 17.00 hrs, the defacto complainant/Smt. Virthanala Sai Laxmi/PW1 came to police station and gave police report by alleging that, in the year 2010 she has purchased AC 08-08 gts., of agricultural land at the outskirts of Alirajpet village in Sy.No. 167/a. She made fencing around said land with pillars

C.C.No. 335 of 2018 Page 2 and planted mango tress in the land. On 03-06-2015 at night hours, the accused/A1 to A4 intentionally trespassed into her land and damaged mango trees and fencing pillars by keeping previous land disputes in mind, as such she approached the police and gave report to the police for taking action. On her report the Pw4 registered a case in Cr.No. 52/2015

U/Sec 447, 427, 504 r/w 34 of IPC, issued FIR to all concerned and took up the investigation. In the course of investigation, PW4 examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, and went to scene of offence situated at the agricultural land of Pw1 at the outskirts of Alirajpet village and secured the presence of PW3 and LW4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch and recorded the statements of other witnesses. And on 24-06-2015 morning at 1000 hrs., the accused/A1 to A4 voluntarily came to police station and surrendered

before Pw4 and on interrogation the accused/A1 to A9 admitted their guilt.

As such Pw4 served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused/A1 to A4 and released on bail after furnishing sureties. Later after elaborate investigation the Pw4 filed charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A4 for committing the offences u/sec 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.This court has taken cognizance against accused/A1 to A4 for the offences u/s. 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC. At this stage the accused/A1 reported died and death certificate filed, hence the case against A1 is abated.

3.On appearance of accused/A2 to A4, copies of case documents was furnished to them u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. They are examined u/sec 251 of

Cr.P.C for the charge sheet allegations levelled against accused/A2 to A4

U/sec 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.No. 335 of 2018 Page 3

4.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (4) witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs. P1 to P10. As LW2 died, this court has closed the evidence of LW2. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW4.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused/A2 to A4 are examined u/sec 313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence voiced against them to which they pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused/A2 to A4 for the offences u/sec. 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

7.The prosecution all together examined 4 witnesses P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 is the eye witness to the incident, P.W.3 is the panch witness to the scene of offence and seizure panchanama and P.W.4 is the investigating officer.

Evidence On Record:

8.PW1 who is the complainant deposed that in the year 2010 she purchased 8 acres of land at Alirajpet Village from one Bala Swamy and others, since from the date of purchase she in the possession of that land. She constructed a fencing and planted mango trees in the said land.

In the year 2015, the accused/A1 to A4 tress-passed into her agricultural land and damaged the mango trees and compound fencing kadies. One of the neighbor LW3/Venkat reddy informed her about the incident. Soon after receiving information she went and saw that her mango mango crop

C.C.No. 335 of 2018 Page 4 and compound fencing kadies were totally damaged. She placed the matter before the village elders and as per their advise she went to police station and lodged a report against the accused A1 to A4 for criminally trespassing into her land and damaging the crop and the compound fencing kadies. At the time of lodging the report she handed over the said land documents to the SHO. Later she lodged the report and she was examined by the police. Later the documents Ex P2 to Pw5 marked on her behalf.

9.Pw2 who is the eye witness, he deposed that PW1 is having land beside his land in Sy.No. 167 and there is a diary farm beside his agricultural land. In the year 2015 at about 07.00 Pm when he was going from daily farm he saw the accused A1 to A4 came in car and passing through his agricultural field. After half an hour he heard a sound and went to PW1 fields and saw that the accused/A1 to A4 criminally trespassed in to the land PW1, and he saw the accused A1 to A4 damaged the fencing stones and A2 and A3 cutting mango trees. When he questioned A1 about the reason for damaging the trees, kaddi stones he told that the lands belongs to A1. Then he informed about the incident to

PW1. Later PW1 lodged a report. On the next day he was examined by the police.

10.PW3 who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed that he know LW4. The agricultural lands of PW1 and the accused/A1 to A4 are situated side by side. At about 9 to 10 years back police visited the land in Sy.No.167, and enquired about the altercation between accused and PW1 and they conducted scene of offense panchanama by noting the boundaries. He along with LW4 signed the panchanama. He identified his signatures on the panchanama and

C.C.No. 335 of 2018 Page 5 rough sketch.

11.PW4 who is the investigating officer deposed that on 10-06- 2015 at 1700 hours, he received a complaint of PW1, he registered a case in Cr.No.52/2015 U/s.447, 427 r/w.34 of IPC and issued FIR. During course of investigation he examined and recorded statement of PW1 at police station. On 11-06-2016 he visited scene of offence and secured two mediators LW4, PW3 and conducted scene of panchanama by drawing the rough sketch of scene of offence, he recorded statements of PW2 and

LW2. On 24-06-2015 at 1000 hours, the accused/A1 toA4 voluntarily surrendered before him and admitted their guilt, as such he issued 41 notice to A1 to A4. Later after conducting detailed investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4.

Arguments:

12.The prosecution argues that the accused A1 to A4 by keeping the previous enemity due to land disputes, on 03-06-2015 they criminally tresspassed into the agricultural land of P.W.1 and damaged the fencing stones, mango trees and committed offence u.section 447 and 427 of IPC.

13.The learned counsel for accused A1 to A4 argues that the accused persons are innocent, they never trespassed into P.W.1 land and did not damaged the fencing stones and mango tress, due to land disputes between the parties, the P.W.1 bore a grudge and filed this false case and falsely implicated accused A1 to A4 in this crime and the accused persons shall be acquitted

14.Heard arguments of both sides, to substantiate the offence u/section 447 and 427 of IPC , the burden is on the prosecution to prove

C.C.No. 335 of 2018 Page 6 that the accused A1 to A4 criminally tresspassed into the P.W.1 land and damaged the stone pillar and mango trees and caused wrongful loss to

P.w.1.

15.The offence 'Criminal tresspass' is defined u.sec.441 of IPC Sec.441 Criminal Tresspass :

"Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence,is said to commit “criminal trespass”."

16.The essential element of criminal trespass is the intention to commit an offense. In Kanwal Sood v. Nawal

Kishore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that a "mere occupation of another person's property, even if illegal, does not constitute criminal trespass if there is no intention to commit an offense."

17.The burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the accused persons intentionally tresspassed into the property of the P.W.1 to commit an offence. The defacto complainant is examined as P.W.1, she deposed that one of his neighbor P.W.2 informed her that the accused A1 to A4 entered into her land and damaged the mango crop and fencing stones, at the time of incident she was not present, the person who saw the incident is P.W.2, he is the eye witnesses to the incident, the P.W.2 is having

C.C.No. 335 of 2018 Page 7 agricultural land besides P.W.1 land, he deposed that he saw the accused

A1 to A4 came in car, went to pw.1 fields, after half an hour he heard sound from Pw.1 fields, he went and saw that the accused A1 to A4 damaged the fencing stones and saw A2 and A3 cutting mango trees. The panch witness P.W.3 to the scene of offence panchanama partly supported the prosecution by deposing that he saw the damaged stone pillars on northern side, he did not deny his presence at the time of panchanama.

The investigating officers P.W.4 conducted scene of offence panchanama, in the rough sketch map of panchanama, the P.W.4 shown damaged pillars on northern side an damaged mango trees which is corroborating with

P.W.3 evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 is corroborating with each other, all the witnesses supported the prosecution case. The evidence of

P.w.1 to P.W.3 is unshaken and the counsel of accused persons except giving suggestion did not adduce any evidence in disproving the existence of facts.

18.The prosecution filed four registered sale deeds Ex.P2 to P5 which proves that in the year 2010 the defacto complainant purchased

Ac.8.08 gts., of agricultural land in survey no. 167/a situated at outskirts of Alirajpet village under four registered sale deeds Ex.P2 to P5 from vendors Govindu Joiaiah, Govindu Balaswamy, Govindu Mikel francis and

Govindu Aruna joythi, Karre Mallaiah, karre Saillu and Kare Yellaiah.

19.The Ex.P2 to P4 proves that the P.W.1 is in lawful possession of the agricultural land in survey no.167, the counsel for the accused A1 to

A4 did not file any documents claiming that the land in survey no 167 belongs to them. The eye witness P.W.2 saw the accused A1 to A4 entering into the property of P.W.1, since the accused A1 to A4 are not having any land adjoining to P.w.1 land, such entry to P.W.'1s agricultural

C.C.No. 335 of 2018 Page 8 land without permission of P.W.1 is unlawful. However, mere entry is not an offence u/sec 447 of IPC unless some offence has been committed. The eye witness P.W.3 stated that he saw A1 to A4 damaged the fencing stones and A2 and A3 cutting the mango tree and damaging the crop.

Admittedly there are civil disputes pending between the P.W.1 and the accused persons, some of the vendors of the P.W.1 are the family members of accused A1 to A4 which proves that A1 to A4 intentionally entered into P.w.1 land to cause wrongful loss to P.W.1. There is no dispute with regard to the fact of pending land cases between the parties, through the evidence of P.w.3 it is proved that the accused A1 to A4 damaged the fencing stones and mango tress in the P.W.1 property.

20.That the land disputes pending between the parties are the main motive to commit a crime and the intention behind unlawful entry to

P.w.1's land is to cause the wrongful loss to the P.W.1. The motive behind the crime and the intention of A1 to A4 in committing the mischief Act has been successfully proved by the prosecution. The prosecution successfully proved the guilty of the accused A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence u.sec 447 and 427 of IPC. The accused A1 died during pendency of trial and the case against him was abated.

21.In the result: The accused A2 to A4 are proved guilty for the offence u.sec 447 and 427 of IPC and they are convicted u.section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation on my official laptop, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of October,

2024.

PRL. JCJ-CUM-JMFC

GAJWEL

C.C.No. 335 of 2018 Page 9

22.The accused A2 to A4 are questioned as to the quantum of sentence prescribed for the offence U/sec.447 and 427 of IPC. The accusedA2 to A4 having understood the same, prayed the court that they will not repeat or commit any offences in future and begged to take lenient view and acquit them. The plea of the accused A2 to A4 are considered and the offence committed by the accused persons are serious in nature and it is not a fit case to release the accused A2 to A4 under Probation of Offenders Act.

23.The accused A2 to A4 are sentenced to to pay the fine of

Rs.500/- for the offence under Section U/sec. 447 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1500 for the offence u.sec.427 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused A2 to A4 shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month for each offence, which shall run concurrently. The bail bonds of the accused/A2 to A4 shall be cancelled and the sureties on record are discharged.

24.The accused A2 to A4 are informed about their right to prefer an appeal to the appellate court against the judgment passed by this court.

The accused A2 to A4 are also informed about their right to seek legal aid if they don’t have means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal to the

Hon’ble District Court.

25. The copy of this judgment is given to the accused/A2 to A4 at free of cost in compliance of Sec.363 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as the accused/A2 to A4 are found guilty and sentenced.

C.C.No. 335 of 2018 Page 10

Typed to my dictation on my official laptop, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of October,

2024.

PRL. JCJ-CUM-JMFC

GAJWEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Prosecution:Defence:

PW1 Vithanala Sai Laxmi -None -

PW2 Shambaiahgari Venkat Reddy

PW3 Yenugula Ramchandra Reddy

PW4 M. Veeraiah

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:Defence:

Ex P1 Report -Nil-

Ex P2 is the Original document vide no. 2726/2010 executed by Govindu

Jogaiah in favour of PW1

Ex P3 is the Original document vide no. 2834/2010 executed by Govindu

Balalaxmi in favour of PW1

Ex P4 is the Original document vide no. 2187/2011 executed by Govindu

Mikel Francis and Govindu Aruna Jyothi in favour of PW1

Ex P5 is the Original document vide no. 2994/2010 executed by Karre

Mallaiah, Karre Sailu and Karre Yellaiah in favour of PW1

Ex P6 is the Signature of PW3 on Scene of offence panchanama

Ex P7 is the Signature of PW3 on Rough sketch

Ex P8 is the FIR

Ex P9 is the Scene of offence panchanama

Ex P10 is the Rough sketch

Material Objects Marked

NIL

PRL. JCJ-CUM-JMFC

GAJWEL

OS/205/2020

Talla Chandra Goud vs Talla Lavany

16 Oct 2024

O.S.No.205/2020 Date: 16-10-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: GAJWEL

PRESENT:- Smt. Sowmya Vardha,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL.

Wednesday, the 16h day of October, 2024.

O.S.No. 205 of 2020

Between:

Talla Chandra Goud, S/o: Malla Goud, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agril., R/o: Chowderpally village, Wargal mandal, Siddipet Dist.

…Plaintiff

And

1. Talla Lavanya, W/o Mallesh Goud, Age: 35 yrs,

2. Talla Mallesh Goud, S/o Narayana, Age: 45 yrs,

Both are Occ: Agril., R/o: Chowderpally village, Wargal mandal,

Siddipet Dist.

... Defendants

CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION

Plaint Filed U/ Order VII Rule 1 r/w Sec.26 of Code of Civil Procedure,

1908

Date of presentation of plaint: 22.09.2020

Date of registration of plaint: 22.09.2020

Date of Judgment: 14-10-2024

This suit came before me on 26.09.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. B. Bhasker and T. Prakash counsels for Plaintiff and the defendants was set exparte and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The present suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants, praying for grant of Perpetual Injunction, restraining the defendants, their 1

O.S.No.205/2020 Date: 16-10-2024

agents, servants, henchmen or anybody on their behalf from interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff over the agricultural land in Sy.No. 690/AA to an extent of Ac 0.15 ½ gts., wet land situated at Chowderpally village, Wargal mandal, Siddipet Dist. and bounded on:

Boundary Description of boundary

EastPanadi (Way)

WestLand of Defendants

NorthLand of Padige Narayana

South Land of Pogula Raju and Padige Yadagiri

Herein after referred as “Suit schedule Land ”.

2.Case of the Plaintiff: (i) That the plaintiff is the owner, pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule land and it is the ancestral property of plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff namely Talla Malla Goud was the owner and pattedar of land in Sy..No. 690 to an extent of AC 0-31 gts.

and his father died leaving him and his elder brother namely Talla Narayana.

And that he and his brother partitioned the land and got Ac 0.15 ½ gts. each in the suit survey number. The plaintiff got the land on eastern side and his brother got the land on the western side. Since then they are cultivating the land separately and plaintiff dug bore well and also constructed a sump for storage of water. The revenue authorities has recorded the names of plaintiff and his brother and issued pattedar pass book for their respective shares.

(ii)That the defendants who are son and daughter in law of his brother Narayana who died long back, are the adjacent land holders and developed covetous eyes towards the plaintiff and without having any right, 2

O.S.No.205/2020 Date: 16-10-2024

title or interest over the suit schedule property are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit land and came to suit land on 18-09-2020 with antisocial elements and obstructed the plaintiff from cultivation of the suit land and also tried to cause damage to sump existing in the suit land. But the plaintiff could resisit the illegal interference of the defendants with great difficulty with the help of family members and neighbors. While leaving the defendant warned the plaintiff that will come again to the suit land and occupy the suit land at any costs.

As such plaintiff has approached this court by filing this suit.

3.Case of the Defendants: Summons were served on 09-02- 2024 on defendants and defendants called absent, as such service of summons held sufficient and defendants were set exparte.

4.Now let us see whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of

Perpetual Injunction against defendants or not?

5.To substantiate the case, the Plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and

Exhibits A.1 to A.4 were marked and no independent witnesses were examined.

Arguments:

6.a) For the Plaintiff: Heard.

b)For the Defendants: Nil.

Answer to the Point:-

7.To prove the case, PW.1 filed chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, wherein he deposed by reiterating the contents of plaint.

O.S.No.205/2020 Date: 16-10-2024

8.The counsel for the plaintiff contends that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of suit schedule lands, the defendants without having any claim, title or possession over the suit schedule lands interfering into peaceful possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property.

9.The counsel for the plaintiff filed the documents Ex.A1 to A4 as mentioned in the appendix below.

10.On perusal of pleadings and documents filed by the plaintiff, originally the father of plaintiff lata Talla Malla Goud was the pattedar of land in Sy. no. 690 to an extent of Ac.0-31 gts and in possession of suit schedule property, after his death the suit schedule property is inherited by the plaintiff and his brother Talla Narayana and they partitioned the suit land about 20 years back, by dividing into two equal shares, the plaintiff and his brother got Ac.0-15 1/2 gts., each .

11.The pattedar passbook of plaintiff under Ex.A1 , the pahani

Ex.A2 and A4, 1-B namuma Ex.A3, filed by plaintiff proves his title and continuous possession over the suit schedule lands. The defendants were set exparty and the facts of the plaintiff are not denied , there is no rebuttal evidence of the case set up by the plaintiff.

12.In suit for perpetual injunction the primary consideration is that the plaintiff should be in the lawful possession of suit schedule property as on date of filing suit, which the plaintiff has reasonably proved. Hence this court feels that the plaintiff has discharged the burden cast upon him. When the burden shifted to the defendants to disprove the case of the plaintiff, 4

O.S.No.205/2020 Date: 16-10-2024

they remained exparte and in the said circumstances this court feels that the suit of the plaintiff can be decreed in his favour.

13.In the result : the suit is decreed without costs, and the defendant, legal heirs, followers and any one claiming through them are here by permanently restrained from interfering into the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule lands. Pending IA’s are closed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III on my official laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 16th day of October, 2024.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W.1: T. Chandra GoudNil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Original Pattedar pass book

Ex.A2CC of pahani for the year 2003-04

Ex.A3Meeseva copy of 1-B namuna

Ex.A4Meeseva pahani, dated 16-09-2020

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 5

Order Record 205 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/25/2016	Siddipeta Lachireddy vs The Thahasildar	17 Oct 2024	Dismissed with costs	—
CC/335/2018	PS Jagadevpur vs Govindu Barthulome and 3 others	17 Oct 2024	Convicted	Acquitted
CC/1038/2018	Ps Jagdevpur vs Mudavth Narsimlu	17 Oct 2024	Aquittal	Acquitted
OS/205/2020	Talla Chandra Goud vs Talla Lavany	16 Oct 2024	Decreed	—
CC/518/2024	Gajwel ps vs Mathin Mohammed	10 Oct 2024	Aquittal	Acquitted
CC/831/2018	Manda Pentareddy vs Billa Shyamsundar	08 Oct 2024	Convicted	—
OS/501/2021	Appanapally Madhavi vs Devagari Raju	30 Sep 2024	Decreed	—
CC/285/2024	PS Excise Gajwel vs Medini Ramalinga Reddy	30 Sep 2024	Aquittal	—
CC/286/2024	PS Excise Gajwel vs Panjala Karunkar goud	30 Sep 2024	Aquittal	—
CC/287/2024	PS Excise Gajwel vs Panjala Narisimulu	30 Sep 2024	Aquittal	—
CC/408/2017	PS Begumpet vs Ganga Srinivas and 3 others.	30 Sep 2024	Aquittal	—
CC/260/2020	Ps Jagadevpur vs Vinod Guguloth @ Vinod Kumar	23 Sep 2024	Aquittal	—
CC/461/2017	PS Begumpet vs Kadulla Swamy	23 Sep 2024	Aquittal	—
OS/43/2024	VAnarajavilasam Vasudevan Anantha Kumary vs K.P.Rajkumar	20 Sep 2024	Decreed	—
OS/265/2021	Karre Narsamma vs Bompally Ramesh	20 Sep 2024	Decreed	—
CC/200295/2016	PS Begumpet vs Jinka Sathyanarayana and 8 others	11 Sep 2024	Convicted	—
CC/200294/2016	PS Begumpet vs Jinka Lingam	09 Sep 2024	Convicted	—
CC/292/2018	PS Begumpet vs Kongari Yellam	21 Dec 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/19/2019	Ps Gajwel vs Pallapu Gangaraju	20 Dec 2023	Convicted	—
CC/200363/2016	PS Begumpet vs Parvathi Nagulu Goud	20 Dec 2023	Convicted	—
CC/648/2021	PS Gajwel vs K. Sathaiah	19 Dec 2023	Aquittal	—
STC/275/2021	PS Gajwel vs C. Sudhakar Reddy	19 Dec 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/293/2018	PS Begumpet vs Sk Mahaboob Basha	18 Dec 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/913/2021	PS. Gajwel vs Thumma raju	18 Dec 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/747/2021	PS. Gajwel vs Keesari Linga Goud	15 Dec 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/626/2018	PS Jagadevpur vs Cheelasagaram Kishore	12 Dec 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/200342/2018	PS Jagadevpur vs Md. Lal Mohammad	12 Dec 2023	Aquittal	—
OS/43/2023	Potala Muralimohan vs Smt. Thigulla Lalitha	11 Dec 2023	Dismissed No Costs	—
OS/72/2020	Bandari Gopaiah vs Barigela Ilaiah	08 Dec 2023	Dismissed No Costs	—
CC/975/2015	Naini Rama Swamy Goud vs Battikadi Swamy goud	08 Dec 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/1782/2023	PS GAJWEL vs Chandra Shekar Reddy Kothapeta	08 Dec 2023	Convicted	—
CC/4739/2021	PS Gajwel vs Kethavath Srinivas Nayak	08 Dec 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/800/2023	PS. Jagadepur vs Narsimha Reddy Etti reddy	07 Dec 2023	Aquittal	—
OS/107/2022	Tripuraneni Nava Krishna Choudary vs Saireddy Cahndrasekhar Reddy	06 Dec 2023	Dismissed No Costs	—
CC/344/2018	PS Jagadevpur vs Shilasagarma Raju	06 Dec 2023	Aquittal	—
OS/41/2016	Bomma Elisha vs Kompally Alias Ammolla Swamy	04 Dec 2023	Dismissed with costs	—
OS/202/2021	Gorlakadi Swamy vs Appala Balaiah	01 Dec 2023	Dismissed No Costs	—
OS/305/2021	Shatham Punyavathi vs Baki Laxmi	24 Nov 2023	Dismissed No Costs	—
OS/425/2021	Mysigari Mallamma vs Achangari Rangamma	24 Nov 2023	Dismissed No Costs	—
OS/531/2021	G.V.L. N. Murthy vs Gobburi Pavan Kumar	24 Nov 2023	Dismissed No Costs	—
OS/154/2015	Smt Peugu alias Karre Narsamma vs Perugu Bakka Chnadraiah	23 Nov 2023	Decreed	—
CC/886/2021	PS. Gajwel vs Chetireddy MAnik Reddy	22 Nov 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/533/2018	A. Rajappa vs MD. Nazeeroddin	20 Nov 2023	Convicted	—
CC/1785/2023	P S Jagadevpur vs Suresh Kumar Mood	20 Nov 2023	Convicted	—
OS/44/2022	Sandaboina Yadaiah vs IDBI Bank	17 Nov 2023	Dismissed No Costs	—
OS/247/2021	Dhuduka @ Gandla Narsaiah vs Kudikayala Yadhamma	14 Nov 2023	Dismissed with costs	—
CC/160/2018	Ps Jagdevpur vs Battu Narsimhareddy	14 Nov 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/344/2021	PS Gajwel vs Mittapally Sathish	14 Nov 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/606/2018	Excise Gajwel vs Bollam Sudhakar	14 Nov 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/428/2020	State of Telangana vs Alwal Ashok	08 Nov 2023	Convicted	—
CC/673/2023	PS GAJWEL vs GangaKumar Roy	08 Nov 2023	Convicted	—
CC/676/2023	PS. Gajwel vs Nerudugamma Kishore Kumar	08 Nov 2023	Convicted	—
CC/1708/2023	PS. Gajwel vs Babu Talari	08 Nov 2023	Convicted	—
CC/768/2021	PS Gajwel vs G. Nagaraju	07 Nov 2023	Aquittal	—
OS/102/2020	Yengu Yellaiah vs Yengu Balaiah	06 Nov 2023	Decreed	—
CC/40/2023	PS begumpet vs Mallesham Posani	03 Nov 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/142/2020	Ps Jagadevpur vs Bhahu singh Maloth	01 Nov 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/1658/2022	Excise Gajwel vs Babburi Rangaiah Goud	01 Nov 2023	Aquittal	—
OS/139/2015	Muthigalla Manikya Rao vs Bayyaram Satyanarayana goud	31 Oct 2023	Dismissed with costs	—
OS/421/2021	Singireddy Bhoopal Reddy vs Gudla Mallesh Goud	31 Oct 2023	Dismissed with costs	—
CC/431/2023	PS. Gajwel vs Jangoni saikumar	31 Oct 2023	Convicted	—
CC/614/2018	PS Jagadevpur vs Gugloth Moti Ram	31 Oct 2023	Aquittal	—
OS/150/2023	Madireddy Lakshma Reddy vs The Thasildar, Wargal mandal, Siddipoet District.	30 Oct 2023	Dismissed No Costs	—
OS/171/2015	Thutakuri Muthyam Reddy. vs Thutakuri Lalithamma.	30 Oct 2023	Dismissed with costs	—
CC/710/2020	P.S Begumpet vs Naveen Thippani	26 Oct 2023	Convicted	—
CC/695/2019	PS Jagadevpur vs Udutha Venkatesh	19 Oct 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/6265/2021	PS. Gajwel vs Vsmanne Laxmi	19 Oct 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/325/2019	Ps Jagdevpur vs Lingala Raghavulu	18 Oct 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/158/2018	Ps Jagdevpur vs Kolle Yellaiah	16 Oct 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/510/2018	Udem Sugunamma vs A. Mallareddy	12 Oct 2023	Convicted	—
CC/830/2018	Vudem Sai Reddy vs A Mallareddy	12 Oct 2023	Convicted	—
CC/490/2023	PS. Gajwel vs Navya Markanti	11 Oct 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/628/2021	PS Gajwel vs KanneBoina Sanjeeva Reddy	11 Oct 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/654/2021	PS Gajwel vs Jangam Jayamma	10 Oct 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/951/2021	PS. Gajwel vs Boravena Sunitha	09 Oct 2023	Aquittal	—
OS/156/2016	Chithakindi @ Darsharrambabau vs D. Yadagiri and 5 others	21 Jul 2023	Decreed	—
OS/177/2022	Shiraboina Bhagyamma vs Shiraboina Chinna Mallesh	21 Jul 2023	Decreed	—
CC/143/2023	PS. Gajwel vs Bhagath Goud Burra	21 Jul 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/238/2019	Ps Jagdevpur vs Kandukuri Kanakaraju	21 Jul 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/383/2020	Ps Gajwel vs Mogudampally Nagender	21 Jul 2023	Aquittal	—
OS/102/2023	Kasala Chandram Goud @ Chandra Goud vs Naramaina Dheshpathi	20 Jul 2023	Decreed	—
OS/219/2015	Mutyala Vittlachari vs Soppari Sailu	20 Jul 2023	Decreed	—
CC/574/2021	PS Gajwel vs N.Gopal	18 Jul 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/575/2021	PS Gajwel vs N. Narsaiah	18 Jul 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/422/2017	PS Jagdevpur vs Aitha Ramulu	12 Jul 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/1070/2018	Ps Jagdevpur vs Bukya Surendhar	11 Jul 2023	Aquittal	—
EP/17/2022	Myakala Bixapathi vs Thota Gopala Krishna	10 Jul 2023	Decreed	—
CC/717/2021	PS Gajwel vs Julphikar	10 Jul 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/1099/2018	Ps Jagadevpur vs Thuppa Rajalingam	10 Jul 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/1506/2022	Excise Gajwel vs Thouti Naresh Goud	10 Jul 2023	Aquittal	—
OS/36/2023	Pasula Manjula @ Neela Nagalaxmi vs Neela Laxmi	30 Jun 2023	Decreed	—
CC/527/2018	Ps Jagdevpur vs Guguloth Venkatesh	30 Jun 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/758/2021	PS Gajwel vs Gadde Yellaiah	30 Jun 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/514/2023	Ps Gajwel vs Parvatham Narsimlu	28 Jun 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/1399/2022	PS. Gajwel vs Dasari Karnakar	28 Jun 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/394/2021	PS.Gajwel vs Jilla Narsimlu	27 Jun 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/728/2021	PS Gajwel vs Juned	16 Jun 2023	Aquittal	—
OS/500/2021	Syed Naseema Begum vs Mangali Babu	14 Jun 2023	Decreed	—
CC/528/2023	State of Telangana vs Harinadha Reddy Malladi	14 Jun 2023	Aquittal	—
CC/1177/2022	PS. Gajwel vs Shetti Karnakar	14 Jun 2023	Aquittal	—

Showing 100 of 205 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2024		6
Sep 2024		11
Dec 2023		20
Nov 2023		21
Oct 2023		17
Jul 2023		15
Jun 2023		11
May 2023		14
Apr 2023		15
Mar 2023		9
Feb 2023		21
Jan 2023		16

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has V. Sowmya handled?

V. Sowmya has handled 206 court orders since 2022 at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 8 orders per month.

What types of cases does V. Sowmya hear?

Based on available records, V. Sowmya primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex.

Where is V. Sowmya currently posted?

V. Sowmya is posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex, Siddipet, Telangana.

Are judgments by V. Sowmya available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by V. Sowmya are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does V. Sowmya dispose cases?

V. Sowmya disposes approximately 8 cases per month, based on 206 orders handled over their tenure at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex.

Since when is V. Sowmya serving?

V. Sowmya has been serving at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex since 2022.

Case Types

CC 70%

OS 29%

EP 0%

STC 0%

Posting History

Sep 2022 — Oct 2024

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel · 206 orders
Sep 2022 — Sep 2022

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 3

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Moola Swathi Goud

Prl Junior Civil Judge Gajwel

436 orders

Sri C.Manveer

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional J...

0 orders

← View all judges at Gajwel, JCJ Court Complex