Sri.V.Srinivas

1 of 14 OS 93/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY

Present : Sri V. Srinivas

Senior Civil Judge

Kamareddy

Tuesday, this the 16th day of August, 2022

O.S.No. 93 of 2017

Between:

Smt. Shahnaz Begum @ Shahnaz Ara, W/o. Gulam Younus Khan, D/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Khader, aged 47 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No.4-2-42, Hatai Street, Nizamabad. … Plaintiff

And

1.Mohammed Abdul Muqeem, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Khader, aged 56 year, Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No.5-3-365, Vidyanagar Colony, Kamareddy.

2.Mohammed Abdul Saleem, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Khader, aged 59 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.No.4-1-1/3, Khan Estate, Flat No.2-1, Naiz Khana Gate, King Koti, Nampally, Hyderabad, at present residing at H.No.9-2-32, Mustaidpura, Nizamabad.

3.Mohammed Abdul Nayeem, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Khader, aged 48 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No.9-17-300, Hashmi Colony, Nizamabad.

4.Mohammed Abdul Khaleel, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Khader, aged 45 years, Occ: Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal Village & Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

5.Smt. Bilquees Jahan, W/o. Siddi Masood Hussain, D/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Khader, aged 49 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o. Degloor, Maharashtra, presently residing at Rahmatnagar, Near Hyder Function Hall, Nanded, Maharashtra.

6.Ankam Gangadhar, S/o. Bhoomaiah, aged 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-48/1, Ramareddy Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District.

2 of 14 OS 93/2017

7.Emba Srinivas, S/o. Sudershan, aged 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-72/1, Talamadla Village, Ramareddy Mandal, Kamareddy District.

8.Kurri Laxmipathi, S/o. Rajaiah, aged 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-56, Issanpally Village, Ramareddy Mandal, Kamareddy District.

9.Madas Rajalingam, S/o. Narayana, aged 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.11-21, Ramareddy Village & Mandal, Kamareddy District.

…Defendants

This Suit is coming on 26.07.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Rajender Reddy, Advocate, Nizamabad for the Plaintiff and Sri M.A. Saleem, Advocate for Defendant No.2, Sri M. Venkatram Reddy, Advocate for Defendant No.3 and Defendant Nos.1, 4 to 9 have remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following -

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

Plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/6 th share in the suit schedule properties and for cancellation of register sale deed bearing Doc.No.11208/2016 dated 22-10-2016 executed by the defendant No.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.6 to 8.

Schedule ‘A’ property consisting of House bearing No.4-9-98 & 99 and the open place situated at Islampura Colony of Kamareddy Town (hereinafter referred as Schedule ‘A’ property). Schedule ‘B’ Property consisting of land in Sy.No.131/5 admeasuring Ac.00-26 gts situated at Elchipur Village, Kamareddy Mandal & District (hereinafter referred as ‘B’ Schedule Property).

2. Brief facts of the plaintiff case : That the defendant No.1 to 4 are real brothers and defendant No.5 is the real sister of the plaintiff.

3 of 14 OS 93/2017

Father of the plaintiff namely Mohammed Abdul Khader and mother namely Smt. Sadiqua Begum died leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 5 as their legal heirs and successors to all their estate and properties. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 are governed by Hanafi Law. During life time of Mohammed Abdul

Khader, he has purchased the suit schedule property in the name of his wife namely Smt. Sadiqua Begum out of his own funds. The plaintiff was receiving her share from the income derived from ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, but the defendant No.1 to 4, they have stopped paying her share in the said income for the last 5 years. The defendant No.1 to 4 have been postponing the payment of her share from the said income with one or other reasons. The plaintiff has requested the defendant No.1 to 4 to give her lawful share in the suit schedule properties for which the defendant No.1 to 4 have given assurance to give her lawful share. While things stood thus, on 29- 10-2016, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 to 4 in collusion with one another, they have executed register sale deed bearing Doc.No.11208/2016 dated 22-10-2016 in favour of the defendant No.6 to 9 in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property to deprive the lawful share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has verified at the office of the Sub-Registrar and she found that the defendant No.1 to 4 have executed the above mentioned register sale deed in favour of the defendant No.6 to 9 in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property. The sale transaction in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property in between the defendant No.1 to 4 and defendant No.5 to 9 is illegal, since the plaintiff is holding her undivided interest in the ‘B’ schedule property.

The plaintiff is entitled for her 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties, but the defendant Nos.1 to 4 to avoid to give her share they have executed the register sale deed, the plaintiff has issued 4 of 14 OS 93/2017 legal notices to the defendant No.1 to 4 demanding for partition of the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.1 & 2 having received the said notices, they have not given any suitable reply to the said notices. The plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits for the last 5 years, but the plaintiff claiming future mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the present suit filed by the plaintiff.

3. The defendant Nos.1 & 4 to 9 having received notices, they have not filed the written statement, hence they were set exparte.

4.The defendant No.3 filed his separate written statement, admitting relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 and also it is admitted by the defendant No.3 that their parents died leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 5 herein. It is submitted by the defendant No.3 that ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule properties are purchased by mother of the plaintiff namely Smt. Sadiqua Begum

It is denied that the father of the plaintiff purchased the above said properties. It is further submitted that during the life time of parents of the plaintiff, her marriage was performed by giving huge dowry in cash, gold and jewelries at the time of her marriage. It is further submitted that the plaintiff used to approach her parents by showing her grievance about the additional dowry demands on behalf of her in-laws and used to receive huge amounts in cash and in terms of gold. The parents of the plaintiff contributed considerable amounts to the plaintiff for acquisition of the immovable properties which is now stands in her name at Nizamabad and other places, as such, the plaintiff extracted huge cash from her parents. After death of their father, the plaintiff necked out her mother from her house asking her to go to the house of her sons. It is further submitted that the ‘B’ 5 of 14 OS 93/2017 schedule property consisting only Ac.00-24 gts over the spot on measurements, when it was sold to defendant No.6 to 9. The said fact of intending sale of ‘B’ schedule property was informed to the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 5 and after their expressing consent for sale by other defendants and showing their no-objection for execution of register sale deed in favour of defendant No.6 to 9.

The plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the fact of receiving amount of her legal share out of sale consideration amount through the defendant No.1 & 4, but she has not passed any receipt for the said payment under the pretext to that the defendant No.1 & 4 are claiming only the said amount equivalent to 1/10 th share and not to the equivalent of 2/10 th share as anticipated by her. The defendant

No.5 also received 1/10 th share without any objection and passed receipt for the same. The plaintiff remained silent for considerable period after receipt of above stated amount of sale consideration.

Subsequently, the plaintiff got issued legal notice through her advocate making false contentions suppressing all the real facts and claiming additionally alleged share in the ‘A’ schedule property. The defendant No.1 & 4 asked the plaintiff for the reasons making for such false allegations, even after receipt of amount of her share through them, she kept quite for some days stating that she will not file any suit in the matter. It is further submitted that in view of the shortage of water supply major portion of the ‘A’ schedule property is remaining vacant. The eastern side portion of the house is also vacant for the considerable period. The rent of all the portion of the ‘A’ schedule house is being collected by the defendant No.1 in which all the defendant No.1 to 5 including the plaintiff have their legal share. The entire rents have to be deposited before this Court pending disposal of the suit to safeguard the interest of all the parties 6 of 14 OS 93/2017 therein.

It is further submitted that the defendant No.1 to 4 have legally executed the register sale deed bearing Doc.No.11208/2016 dated 22-10-2016 in favour of the defendant No.6 to 9 for the absolute share in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property, therefore the said registered sale deed is valid and legally binding on the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 5 for the facts and circumstances stated herein

before. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for partition of ‘B’

schedule property and for cancellation of the register sale deed. It is further submitted that the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 5 are governed by Muhammadan Law, therefore a female issue can get one share and the male issue can get two shares in the properties acquired. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled any share in the ‘B’ schedule property, since the above said property was sold away. The plaintiff is entitled for 1/10 th share in the ‘A’ schedule property only. It is further submitted that in the above said circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in facts or in law. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.The defendant No.2 though filed a separate written statement, the averments raised in his written statement more or less similar with that of the averments of raised by the defendant No.3 in his written statement.

In addition to that, the defendant No.2 claimed that the ‘B’ schedule property purchased by him in the name of his father namely

Mahammed Abdul Khader as a mark of respect being the elder member of the family at the said relevant time. The ‘B’ schedule land mutated in the revenue records in the name of his father in pursuance of the register sale deed. After death of their father the ‘B’ 7 of 14 OS 93/2017 schedule land mutated in the name of his mother namely Smt.

Sadiqua Begum being the elder member of the family and it was standing in her name till her death and even thereafter. It is further claimed that the plaintiff has necked out their mother to the house of the defendant No.2, when she was under immediate attention for her serious bed ridden paralytic condition of her lower part of the body and the plaintiff did not care even to visit the ailing mother at any time, thereafter she passed away. Taking into consideration of the affection showed by the defendant No.2, during the above critical condition of health and services rendered by the defendant No.2 and his wife. In such condition mother of the defendant No.2 orally bequeathed the ‘A’ schedule property in favour of the defendant No.2 on 15-02-2019 and the defendant No.2 has accepted the same.

Therefore, the defendant No.2 became absolute owner of the ‘A’ schedule property. The defendant No.1 is looking after the management of the tenancy affairs, repairs and renovation of the said building on behalf of the defendant No.2, since the date of the said gift settlement. The defendant No.2 also visit ‘A’ schedule property himself personally most of the times for the purpose of it’s management. The ‘A’ schedule property renovated recently by constructing septic tank etc., by the defendant No.2. The defendant

No.1 & 3 to 5 have knowledge of the said factum of gift in favour of the defendant No.2 by their mother, the defendant No.2 could not get ‘A’ schedule property mutated in his name as the other defendants including the plaintiff have been postponing to cooperate for the said process. The claim of the plaintiff for the alleged mesne profits is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that ‘A’ schedule property is getting an average monthly income of Rs.25,000/- is false.

It is further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances 8 of 14 OS 93/2017 stated above the plaintiff, defendant No.1 & 3 to 5 are not entitled for partition and right to get mesne profits from the ‘A’ schedule property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Based on the rival pleadings, the following Issues are framed for trial.

“1) Whether the suit schedule properties are Matruka properties of father of the plaintiff ?

2) Whether the plaintiff possession is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/6 th share as prayed for ?

3) Whether the document bearing No.11208/2016 executed by the defendant No.1 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.6 to 9 is null and void and not biding on the plaintiff to the extent of her share ?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mesne profits @ Rs.50,000/- per annum till the decree of actual possession of the allotted share to the plaintiff ?

5) To what relief ?”

7.The plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 and brought on the record Exs.A1 to A9 documents i.e., True Copy of sale deed bearing

Doc.No.11208/2016 dated 22-10-2016, Statement of Encumbrance on property dated 27-01-2017, Valuation Certificate in respect of the land in Sy.No.131/5, Valuation Certificate in respect of House Nos.98 & 99, Legal Notice dated 01-11-2016 and postal receipts, Statement of Encumbrance on property in respect of the land in Sy.No.131/5.

8.The defendant No.2 & 3 though they have filed their written statements, but they failed to enter into the witness box to lead 9 of 14 OS 93/2017 evidence in support of their contention.

9. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

10. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 :

“1) Whether the suit schedule properties are Matruka properties of father of the plaintiff ?

2) Whether the plaintiff possession is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/6 th share as prayed for ?”

It is the case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties are matruka properties of the plaintiff and the defendant

No.1 to 5. The parents of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 5 died leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 5 and ‘A’ & ‘B’ scheduled properties and same are inherited by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 as legal heirs of their parents. Therefore, the plaintiff is having undivided interest in the suit schedule properties, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

11,The defendant No.2 & 3 filed their separate written statements.

The defendant No.2 claimed that mother of the defendant No.2 in consideration to the services rendered by the defendant No.2 to his mother when she was paralyzed, she has bequeathed the ‘A’ schedule property in favour of the defendant No.2, during her life time by oral gift deed, the said fact is aware by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 & 3 to 5. Further, it is the contention of the defendant No.2 is that the ‘B’ schedule property was acquired by the defendant No.2 with his own funds and got registered in the name of his father as he was elder of the family at relevant point of time.

10 of 14 OS 93/2017

After death of his father ‘B’ schedule property mutated in the name of his mother and since then in the records it is continuing in the name of their mother. The ‘B’ schedule property sold by the defendant No.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.6 to 9 after obtaining consent from the plaintiff and the defendant No.5 and they have paid their respective share amount out of the sale consideration, therefore, the plaintiff and defendant No.5 are not entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property.

12.The claim of the defendant No.3 is that the suit schedule property was purchased by the mother of the plaintiff and defendant

No.1 to 5 with her own funds. The above said properties are not purchased by their father. Further, it is the contention of the defendant No.3, they have validly sold ‘B’ schedule property in favour of defendant No.6 to 9 after obtaining consent from the plaintiff and defendant No.5 and they have received their share amount from the sale consideration, therefore, the register sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 to 4 in favour of the defenant No.6 to 9 is binding on the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 5. It is further contention of the defendant No.3 is that the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 4 are entitled for partition and separate possession in respect of the ‘A’ schedule property, since it is undivided matruka property.

13.A perusal of the rival pleadings of both the parties, it is not in dispute the parents of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 have expired. The defendant No.2 though claimed that the ‘A’ schedule property gifted by his mother during her life time in favour of the defendant No.2 and ‘B’ schedule property purchased by him with his own funds in the name of his father, later it was mutated in the name 11 of 14 OS 93/2017 of his mother, but the same fact not proved by the defendant No.2 by entering into the witness box. The defendant No.3 also did not entered into witness box to prove that the ‘B’ schedule property sold by the defendant No.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.6 to 9 after obtaining consent from the plaintiff and the defendant No.5 and they have paid their respective share amount out of sale consideration.

Though the defendant No.2 & 3 pleaded their case, they did not proved by entering into the witness box. On the other hand the plaintiff as PW1 filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and entered into the witness box and brought on the record Ex.A1 to

A9 documents in support of her contention. The defendant No.2 & 3 have cross examined PW1 in respect of their contention, but they have not elicited any facts in support of their contention. On combined reading the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff though the plaintiff did not filed any documents to show that the suit schedule properties actually standing in the name of their father and mother but in view of the fact that the defendant No.2 & 3 did not proved their contention, it can be hold that the suit schedule properties are matruka properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 are entitled for partition and separate possession of their respective shares, since the plaintiff is having undivided interest over the suit schedule property.

14. Issue No.3:

“3) Whether the document bearing No.11208/2016 executed by the defendant No.1 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.6 to 9 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of her share ?”

In view of the fact that the parents of the plaintiff died leaving 12 of 14 OS 93/2017 behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5, the suit schedule properties are succeeded by them as legal heirs and the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 5 have not partitioned the suit schedule properties metes and bounds, the plaintiff is having undivided interest over the suit schedule properties and the rights of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 have not crystal clear in respect of the suit schedule property. Admittedly the defendant No.1 to 4 have executed the register sale deed in favour of the defendant No.6 to 9 in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property. The plaintiff is having undivided interest in the ‘B’ schedule property since the said property is devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 5 after death of their mother. The defendant No.1 to 4 had alienated undivided interest of the plaintiff also over the ‘B’ schedule property in favour of defendant No.6 to 9. Until and unless the undivided interest of the plaintiff has made clear, by way of partition, the defendant No.1 to 4 have no right to alienate the ‘B’ schedule property in favour of defendant No.6 to 9 through register sale deed, therefore, the register sale deed bearing Doc.No.11208/2016 dated 22-10-2016 will not confer any right over the defendant No.6 to 9 in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property, therefore, it can be hold that the register sale deed bearing Doc.No.11208/2016 dated 22-10-2016 is null and void document.

15. Issue No.4:

“4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mesne profits @ Rs.50,000/- per annum till the decree of actual possession of the allotted share to the plaintiff ?”

The plaintiff not brought on the record any evidence to show that the suit schedule properties are deriving the income of 13 of 14 OS 93/2017

Rs.50,000/- per annum, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of mesne profits.

16. Issue No.5 : To what relief?

In view of the finding arrived in issue No.1 to 3 the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/10 th share in the suit schedule properties, since the male and female issue as per

Mohammadan Law entitled for 2:1 ratio of the share in Matruka properties. It is needless to say that the defendant No.6 to 9 may work out their equities through the defendant No.1 to 4 in respect of their share in the ‘B’ schedule property, since they have sold undivided interest in the ‘B’ schedule property in favour of defendant

No.6 to 9.

17.In the result, the suit is decreed partly and preliminarily, for partition and separate possession of 1/10 th share of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. The defendant Nos.6 to 9 may work out their equity against the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property in respect of their share. There is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of August, 2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.

14 of 14 OS 93/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Plaintiff:

PW-1 Smt. Shahnaz Begum @ Shahnaz Ara.

For Defendants:

- None -

D OCUMENTS MARKED

F or Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : True Copy of Register Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.11208/2016,

dated 22.10.2016

Ex.A2 : Statement of Encumbrance on property dated 27.01.2017.

Ex.A3 : Valuation Certificate in respect of the land in Sy.No.131/5.

Ex.A4 : Valuation Certificate in respect of the House No.98 & 99.

Ex.A5 : Legal Notice dated 01.11.2016 issued to the defendants and Eight (08) Postal Receipts.

Ex.A6 : Unserved/Returned Legal Notice and its acknowledgment issued to defendant No.4 (Mohammed Abdul Kaleel).

Ex.A7 : Unserved/Returned Legal Notice and its acknowledgment issued to defendant No.3 (Mohammed Abdul Nayeem).

Ex.A8 : Postal Acknowledgments (05 in number).

Ex.A9 : Statement of Encumbrance on property in respect of the land in Sy.No.131/5.

For Defendants:

- NIL -

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.

1 of 17 OS 66/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY

Present : Sri V. Srinivas

Senior Civil Judge

Kamareddy

Tuesday, this the 16 th day of August, 2022

O.S.No. 66 of 2015

Between:

Smt. Saleema Begum, W/o. Shaik Mahboob Ali, Age:53 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1-5-441, Gandhinagar Colony, Kamareddy- 503111.

… Plaintiff

And

1.The Municipal Commissioner, Kamareddy, O/o. The Municipal Council, Kamareddy Town & District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

2.Town Planning Officer, O/o. The Municipal Council, Kamareddy Town & District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

…Defendants

This Suit is coming on 27.07.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.S. Yella Nand Gupta and Sri B. Bala Krishna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri P. Jaya Prakash, Additional Govt. Pleader, for Defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following -

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

Plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants etc., from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of her two open plots bearing Nos.22 and 23 lies in LP.No.331/81 in 2 of 17 OS 66/2015

Sy.No.23/AA admeasuring 711.1 Sq. yards equivalent to 611.5 Sq.

meters situated at Ramareddy Road, within the Municipal Limits of the Kamareddy Town (hereinafter referred as ‘the suit schedule property’).

2. Brief facts of the plaintiff case : That the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.5615/2007 dated 12-10-2017. The husband of the plaintiff namely Shaik Mahaboob

Ali, S/o Shaik Hussain, gifted the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, since then the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owner. The plaintiff with an intention to construct a residential building, she has applied to the Municipal

Council, Kamareddy, for permission by submitting the relevant documents. The Municipal Council, Kamareddy (defendant No.1) has granted permission for construction of building for the first floor vide Proceedings No.G1/136/MCK/103/2007-08 dated 01-02- 2008 and approved the sanctioned plan. Accordingly, the plaintiff has started construction of foundation as per the approved plan.

The said house was partly completed within 3 years. The plaintiff has constructed the house by following the set back rules and she has left the set back more than the required. The plaintiff has constructed the house without any deviation of sanctioned plan but the defendant No.1 has issued notice to the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff has constructed the house in deviation of the sanctioned plan by encroaching 40 feet width road. The plaintiff has been constructing her house as per the sanctioned plan, but the defendant No.1 has issued notice to harass the plaintiff, since 3 of 17 OS 66/2015 the plaintiff has not fulfilled the demand of illegal gratification of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff has issued suitable reply notice

dated 03-11-2015 to the defendant No.1 through their counsel.

The defendant No.2 who is the Town Planing Officer visiting frequently the suit schedule property and calling husband and children of the plaintiff and demanding illegal gratification. Since, the plaintiff has not fulfilled their demand, they have threatened that they will dismantle the structures raised by the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 & 2 are influenced persons and they have support of the political, anti social elements, if the illegal activities of the defendants has not stopped with the effective orders they may dismantle the structures of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

3. The defendant No.1 & 2 jointly filed their written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff herein has attained ownership of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered gift settlement deed bearing

Doc.No.5615/2007 dated 12-10-2007 from her husband Shaik

Mahaboob Ali, S/o. Shaik Hussain. It is further submitted by the defendants that Shaik Mahaboob Ali who is the husband of the plaintiff has executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour

Shaik Mubeen D/o. Shaik Mahaboob Ali in respect of northern portion open plot No.23 in Sy.No.23/AA in LP.No.313/81 vide

Doc.No.5617/2007 and rectification deed bearing No.4855/2015.

On the same day, the husband of the plaintiff executed a registered gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.5619/2007 in favour of Parveen, W/o. Shaik Shakeel who is daughter of Shaik 4 of 17 OS 66/2015

Mahaboob Ali and the said documents rectified vide rectification deed bearing Doc.No.4854/2015, in respect of the southern portion of the open plot No.23 lies in Sy.No.23/AA vide LP.No.331/1981.

The plaintiff has made construction encroaching 40 feet width layout road. The husband of the plaintiff has executed three documents in respect of the open plot No.23 in favour of the plaintiff and his two children. After execution of the registered gift deed in favour of the children of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not having any land in open plot No.23. Smt. Shaik Mubeen and Smt.

Parveen, they have applied for permission to the defendant No.1 in respect of the open plot No.23 and the defendant No.1 has granted construction permission vide Proceeding No.G1/106/BA/227/2015

dated 26-06-2015 and proceeding No.G1/103/BA/224/2015 dated

26-06-2015 respectively and they have constructed their respective houses in open plot No.23.

The defendants further submitted that they have granted permission to the plaintiff for construction of ground floor residential building in open plot No.22 & 23 lying in Sy.No.23/A vide LP.No.331/81, but the said permission is valid only for 3 years from the date of the orders. The plaintiff has started construction in the year 2015 after lapses of 3 years. The said construction is deemed to be unauthorized as the validity of the permission has lapsed by the date 31-01-2011. The plaintiff has misrepresented the above said facts and filed the present suit.

The defendants further submitted that the construction made by the plaintiff is unauthorized and the said construction is with an 5 of 17 OS 66/2015 encroachment of 40 feet width road. Therefore, the defendant

No.1 has issued notices dated 06-10-2015 and 09-10-2015, which clearly showing that the plaintiff has constructed the house in deviation of the sanctioned plan by encroaching 40 feet width road. The first notice was served upon the plaintiff on 09-10-2015 and the second notice was affixed at the constructions premises, since the plaintiff refused to take the notice. A final notice was also issued but the plaintiff refused to receive the said notice and the same was affixed at the premises of the plaintiff construction (The deviations of the plaintiff construction and particulars of encroachment have given in a tabulated form). It is further submitted by the defendant, that they have followed the due procedure of law by issuing notices to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff is making unauthorized construction by encroaching 40 feet road. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief from the Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Based on the rival pleadings, the following Issues are framed for trial.

“1) Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing of this suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff possession is interfered by the defendants?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

4) To what relief ?”

5) In addition to the above said issue the following additional issue framed.

6 of 17 OS 66/2015

Additional Issue No.1:

“Whether this Court is having pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the Suit ?”

5.The plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 and brought on the record Exs.A1 to A6 documents i.e., Gift Settlement deed bearing

Doc.No.5615/2007 dated 12-10-2007, Proceedings of the

Commissioner, Municipal Council, Kamareddy dated 01-02-2008,

Sanctioned Plan approved by the Municipal Council, Kamareddy,

Notice dated 06-10-2015, Reply notice dated 03-11-2015 and

Valuation Certificate issued by SRO, Kamareddy. The plaintiff in support of her case one independent witness namely Sunuguri

Venkati, examined as PW2 to prove interference by the defendants.

On behalf of the defendant No.1 & 2, the Town Planing

Supervisor of defendants office examined as DW1 and he brought on the record Ex.B1 to B8 documents i.e., Authorization letter issued by the defendant No.1 in favour of the DW1, Notice dated 06-10-2015, 09-11-2015, 16-11-2015, Gift Settlement deed bearing

Doc.No.5617/2007 dated 12-10-2007 and it’s Rectification deed bearing Doc.No.4855/2015 dated 29-05-2015, Gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.5619/2007 and it’s Rectification deed bearing

Doc.No.4854/2015.

6. The Learned Advocate Commissioner is examined as CW-1 and Exs.C1 to C4 documents are marked i.e., Advocate

Commissioner Report, Warrant of Commissioner, notices issued to 7 of 17 OS 66/2015 both the parties, Layout Plan and the photographs with CD.

7. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

8. Issue No.1 & 2:

“1) Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing of this suit?

2) whether the plaintiff possession is interfered by the defendant?”

Both the issues are discussed jointly to avoid repetition of the facts, since both the issues are interrelated and the said issues are about the dispute of possession of the plaintiff and interference by the defendants.

It is the contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1 has granted permission for construction of the house in open plot

No.22 & 23 vide Ex.A2 Proceedings of the Commissioner. As per the approved plan covered under Ex.A3 without any deviation, the plaintiff has semi constructed the house in the year 2008 itself, but the defendant No.1 & 2 interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, alleging that the plaintiff has constructed the house in deviation of the sanctioned plan and by encroaching into the 40 feet width layout road.

9.On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendant No.1 & 2 is that the plaintiff is not absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The husband of the plaintiff has executed two register 8 of 17 OS 66/2015 gift deeds in favour his two children namely Shaik Mubeen and

Parveen in respect of the open plot bearing No.23 in LP.No.331/81 lies in Sy.No.23/AA. They have obtained permission from the

Municipal Council, Kamareddy for construction of their respective houses vide Proceeding No.G1/106/BA/227/2015 dated 26-06-2015 and G1/103/BA/224/2015 dated 26-06-2015 and they have constructed their houses. Thereafter, the plaintiff has started construction of the house in the year 2015 in contravention of the conditions referred in Ex.A2 Sanctioned Proceedings. In fact, the said Ex.A2 proceedings are valid up to 31-01-2011 but the plaintiff without renewing the said proceedings she has started construction in the year 2015. The construction of the plaintiff is in deviation of the sanctioned plan and unauthorized construction by encroaching into 40 feet width layout road.

10. In support the contention of both the parties they have lead their evidence. It is appearing that the documentary evidence which brought on the record by the both the parties is demonstrating the contentions of the respective parties rather than the oral evidence adduced by both the parties.

11.There is no dispute that the husband of the plaintiff namely

Shaik Mahaboob Ali has executed registered gift deed bearing

Doc.No.5615/2007 dated 12-10-2007 (Ex.A1) in favour of the plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has obtained permission from the defendant covered under Ex.A2 proceedings

dated 01-02-2008. It is also not in dispute that the defendant No.1

has issued notice covered under Ex.A4 dated 06-10-2015 to the 9 of 17 OS 66/2015 plaintiff to stop construction of the house of the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff has constructed the house in deviation of the sanctioned plan and encroaching into the 40 feet road.

12.Now, it has to be seen whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the defendant NO.1 & 2 has interfere the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The relevant documents required to decide this issue are Ex.A1 gift deed of the plaintiff dated 12-10-2007, Ex.B5 Registered gift deed executed by the husband of the plaintiff in favour of Shaik Mubeen and its rectification deed bearing Doc.No.4855/2015 dated 29-05-2015 (Ex.B6), Ex.B7 registered gift deed bearing Doc.No.5619/2007 and its rectification deed bearing Doc.No.4854/2015 dated 29-05-2015 executed by the husband of the plaintiff in favour of Smt. Parveen.

13. A perusal of the Ex.A1 document, it is appearing that the husband of the plaintiff has gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, which is consisting of plot No.22 & 23. The suit schedule property is covering plot No.22 & 23 lies in Sy.No.23/

A in LP.No.331/81. The said gift deed was executed on 12-10- 2007. further a perusal of the Ex.B5 registered gift deed and Ex.B6 rectification deed, which is showing that the husband of the plaintiff on 12-10-2007 itself vide Ex.B5 & B6 documents, he has alienated northern portion of the open plot No.23 in favour of Shaik

Mubeen. Further, a perusal of the Ex.B7 & B8 documents it is showing that the husband of the plaintiff on 12-10-2007 itself he has alienated southern portion of the open plot bearing No.23 lies 10 of 17 OS 66/2015 in Sy.No.23/A in LP.No.331/81 in favour of Smt. Parveen. It is appearing that the husband of the plaintiff on 12-10-2007 itself he has executed three registered gift deeds ie., Ex.A1, Ex.B5 and

Ex.B6 in favour of the plaintiff and his two children namely Shaik

Mubeen and Smt. Parveen in respect of the open plot bearing

No.23 lies in Sy.No.23/A in LP.No.331/1981. It is not denied by the plaintiff that Shaik Mubeen and Smt. Parveen has obtained permission in respect of the open plot No.23 and they have constructed their respective houses. The above said fact itself is showing that the husband of the plaintiff on 12-10-2007 itself, he has alienated open plot No.23 in favour of his two children namely

Shaik Mubeen and Smt. Parveen through Ex.B5 and B7 registered gift deeds and the said documents subsequently rectified vide

Ex.B6 & B8 documents respectively. When the husband of the plaintiff has alienated and delivered the possession of open plot

No.23 in favour of his two children, there is no question of the plaintiff is in possession of the entire suit schedule property consisting of plot No.22 and 23 as on the date of filing of the suit.

The plaintiff has lost her possession over the open plot No.23 when her husband of the plaintiff executed Ex.B5 & B7 registered gift deeds in favour of her two children but the plaintiff has suppressed the above said fact and she has applied to the defendant No.1 for granting of permission to construct the house in open plot No.22 &

23. However, the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Kamareddy, for the best reasons known to him, he has granted permission for construction of the house vide Ex.A2 without verifying the documents and available of the land in plot No.22 & 23. Here is the real culprit is the defendant No.1 & 2 who without verifying the 11 of 17 OS 66/2015 documents of the plaintiff and ground reality they have approved the plan of the plaintiff which leads to encroachment into the 40 feet width road which can be inferred from the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner.

15.The learned Advocate Commissioner has submitted his report under Ex.C1, the learned advocate Commissioner has submitted that the suit schedule property is consisting of Plot No.22 & 23 and the structures there in are measuring size 137 feet on front side and 170 feet on the back side. The learned Advocate

Commissioner also drawn the sketch map of the mulgies constructed in open plot No.22 & 23 including the dismantle mulgies. The measurement given by the learned Advocate

Commissioner for the said mulgies showing that towards eastern side the length of the construction is 170 feet from north to south and towards western side 137 feet from north to south. Whereas the Municipality has given permission to construct the residential house in 100 feet width from east to west towards northern side and 60 feet width towards southern side from east to west. The above said measurements given by the learned Advocate

Commissioner, itself is showing that the plaintiff has constructed the mulgies by encroaching into the land which not belongs to her in deviation of the sanctioned plan.

16.Further, it is appearing that the plaintiff has obtained permission for construction of the residential house under Ex.A2 but from the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner it is appearing that the plaintiff has constructed the mulgies 12 of 17 OS 66/2015 (Commercial purpose) which is completely deviation of the sanctioned plan.

17.The plaintiff while deposing as PW1 she denied during the cross examination that her husband has gifted the property to her daughters in the part of the suit schedule property i.e., plot No.22 & 23. later, the plaintiff has admitted that her husband has gifted the property to her daughter in part of plot No.23. The above said admission of the plaintiff during the cross examination itself is made crystal clear that the husband of the plaintiff has alienated plot No.23 in favour of his two children through Ex.B5 and B7 gift deeds and the plaintiff is not in possession of the entire suit schedule property i.e., plot No.22 & 23.

18.The plaintiff examined PW2 who is neighbor of the plaintiff to prove that the defendants interfering with the construction of the plaintiff. During cross examination PW2 has deposed that for 11 years he has been residing at Gandhi Nagar Colony near to the house of plaintiff. PW2 further stated that he does not knew how the plaintiff acquired the suit plot. PW2 further stated that the suit plot located in Sy.No.64. He further stated that he does not know the layout plan number of the plaintiff and he further stated he not known the plot number of the plaintiff. He further stated that, he not known what are the conditions imposed by the defendants while granting permission to the plaintiff for the construction of the house. He further stated that he has no knowledge whether the defendant has issued notice to the plaintiff for removal of encroachment.

13 of 17 OS 66/2015

19.As seen the evidence of PW2 it is clear that he has deposed what he want to depose, without having knowledge about the facts of this case. PW2 has mentioned the plot number, survey number and layout plan number and fact notices issued by the Municipal

Council, Kamareddy and details of the permission in his chief examination, but coming to the cross examination, he has expressed complete ignorance about the above said facts. The plaintiff has examined PW2 to prove that the defendant has interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, but PW2 in his cross examination he has completely expressed ignorance about the facts of this case.

20.A perusal of the documentary evidence of the plaintiff and defendant and oral evidence of the plaintiff it is clear that the plaintiff has lost her possession in respect of the open plot no.23 way back in the year 2007, after execution of the Ex.B5 & Ex.B7 register gift deed by her husband, therefore, it can be hold that the plaintiff is in not possession of the entire suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, therefore, there is no question of interference by the defendants.

21. Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

Since the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for.

14 of 17 OS 66/2015

22. Additional Issue No.1:

“Whether this Court is having pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the Suit ?”

Initially this issue is not framed, however it will not cause any prejudice to the either party to the suit, framing the issue at later stage, since, the issue is the legal one.

A perusal of the averments of the plaint at paragraph No.23, the market value of the suit schedule property is Rs.6,68,500/- as on the date of filing of this suit. However, the plaintiff has notionally valued the suit under section 26 (c) of Telangana State

Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 for Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, he has paid the court fee of Rs.3,572/-. The said value for of the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction of the

Court and for payment of the Court fee. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge Court as on the date of filing of this suit, as per section 5 of AP Civil Courts Act, 1972 is in between

Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. But the plaintiff herein notionally valued the subject matter of this suit for Rs.30,000/- only and later it was enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, the above said value of the subject matter of this suit is not within limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this court is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, since the plaintiff has valued this suit for Rs.50,000/- only.

15 of 17 OS 66/2015

23. Issue No.4 : To what relief?

The plaintiff failed to prove that she is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, not only that, the plaintiff not valued the suit within the limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff liable to be dismissed on the above said grounds.

24. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of August, 2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

or Plaintiff: F

PW-1 : Saleema Begum (Plaintiff).

PW-2 : Sunuguri Venkati.

For Defendants:

DW-1 : Sri A. Rajesh (Town Planning Supervisor).

Court witness:

CW-1 : B.Tirupathi (Learned Advocate Commissioner) 16 of 17 OS 66/2015

D OCUMENTS MARKED

F or Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Gift Settlement deed bearing Doc.No.5615/2007 dated 12.10.2007

Ex.A2 : Proceedings of the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Kamareddy dated 01-02-2008

Ex.A3 : Sanctioned Plan approved by the Municipal Council, Kamareddy, Notice dated 06-10-2015

Ex.A4 : Notice dated 06-10-2015

Ex.A5 : Reply notice dated 03-11-2015

Ex.A6 : Valuation Certificate issued by SRO, Kamareddy

For Defendants:

Ex.B1 :Authorization letter issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Kamareddy dated 21.02.2022.

Ex.B2 : Notice dated 06.10.2015.

Ex.B3 : Notice dated 09.11.2015. Ex.B4 : Notice dated 16.11.2015.

Ex.B5 : Certified Copy of the Gift Settlement deed bearing Doc.No.5617/07, dated 12.10.2017.

Ex.B6 : Certified Copy of the Rectification deed bearing Doc.No.4855/2015, dated 29.05.2000.

Ex.B7 : Certified Copy of the Gift Settlement deed bearing Doc.No.5619/2007 dated 12.10.2007.

Ex.B8 : Certified Copy of the Rectification deed bearing Doc.No.4854/2015, dated 29.05.2000.

17 of 17 OS 66/2015

For Court Witness :

Ex.C1 : Advocate Commissioner Report.

Ex.C2 : Warrant of Commissioner.

Ex.C3 : Notices issued to both the parties.

Ex.C4 : Layout Plan and the photographs with CD.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.

1 of 12 SC 57 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT KAMAREDDY

Present: Sri V. SRINIVAS

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

Thursday, the 04th day of August, 2022

S.C. No. 57 of 2022

1. Name of the Complainant :The State represented by S.H.O of P.S., Gandhari.

2. Name of the accused:Karrolla @ Yerrolla Swamy, S/o. Karrolla Sailu, aged about 23 years, Occ: Student, Caste: Madiga,R/o.H.No.4-3/2, Karpol Village, Lingampet Mandal, Kamareddy District.

3. Charges:Under Section 306 of IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Plea of the accused:Not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6. Sentence or order :The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and Sec.4 of DowryProhibitionAct, accordingly he is acquitted for the same, under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri N. Damodhar Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by:SriR.B.Rameshchand, Advocate, Kamareddy, for Accused.

2 of 12 SC 57 of 2022

This case coming before me for final hearing on 01.8.2022 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri R.B.Rameshchand, Advocate,Kamareddy for the accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Gandhari filed charge sheet against the accused leveling the charge under

Section 306 of IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act alleging as follows:

2.The accused namely Karrolla @ Yerrolla Swamy (hereinafter referred as ‘accused’) and the deceased namely Rayala Soundarya (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) are fell in love with each other and they have in love for a period of 2 years. The deceased has informed about her love affair with the defacto complainant, who is father of the deceased. On such information, pre-marital ceremony was conducted in between the accused and the deceased. The accused after few days of conducting pre-marital ceremony, he has started harassment towards the deceased in a phone call that he will required dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and a motor cycle, otherwise he will not marry the deceased. On 18-02-2021 at about 10:00 AM the accused called the deceased over a phone and again demanded the deceased for dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and a motor cycle. The conversation between the accused and the deceased heard by the defacto complainant, the deceased has disclosed about the harassment by the accused for want of dowry. The family members of the deceased has consoled the deceased. The deceased due to harassment of the accused for want of dowry she has consumed herbicide and attempted to commit suicide. Immediately they have 3 of 12 SC 57 of 2022 shifted the deceased to one Rajamouli Hospital at Gandhari Village, where she treated for few days and discharged. Again on 02-03-2021 the deceased was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad, while undergoing treatment she died on 10-03-2021. The defacto complainant by stating the above said facts filed complaint to take necessary action against the accused.

3. Basing on the above said complaint, PW9/S. Srikanth, SI of

Police of P.S., Gandhari has registered a case in Crime No. 26 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC & Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act and issued Ex.P5 FIR. During the course of investigation, PW-9 has examined and recorded the statement of defecto-complaintant, who is examined as PW1 and handed over the

CD file to PW8 to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased and scene of offence panchanama. PW9 has examined and recorded the statements of the relatives of the deceased. PW8 has conducted the scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased covered under Ex.P2 & P3 respectively.

The medical officer who has conducted postmortem examination, he has issued his opinion under Ex.P4 stating that the deceased has died due to herbicide poisoning namely Paraquat diocholride. After completion of the investigation LW14/Susheel Kumar, Asst. Sub-

Inspector of Police has filed charge sheet against the accused leveling the charge under Section 306 of IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, stating the above said facts.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy taken the case on file against the accused and committed the case in PRC

No.14 of 2021 to the Court of Sessions, Nizamabad. The Hon’ble Prl.

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad took the case on file for the offence

punishable under Section 306 of IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition 4 of 12 SC 57 of 2022

Act against the accused and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

5. After appearance of the accused based on the material available on record as well as the allegations leveled in the charge sheet, the following charges are framed:

“Firstly :

That prior to the death of the deceased Rayala Soundarya, daughter of LW-1/Rayala Sailu, you Accused being the relative of the deceased Soundarya, fell in love and developed relationship with the deceased for the last 2 years and the same has been informed to the parents and that you Accused agreed to marry her and accordingly engagement was performed. After engagement, you Accused started telephoning the deceased by demanding dowry of Rs.2,00,000./- and a motor cycle, otherwise you Accused expressed your disagree to marry her and that you Accused continuously harassed the deceased by demanding dowry to get marriage, due to your continuous harassment, the deceased Soundarya committed suicide by consuming Paraquat Dichloride a Herbicide poison, thus you Accused abetted the deceased Soundarya to commit suicide and thereby you Accused committed an offence punishable Under Section 306 IPC and within my cognizance.

Secondly :

That prior to the death of the deceased Rayala Soundarya, daughter of LW-1/Rayala Sailu, you Accused being the relative of the deceased Soundarya, fell in love and developed relationship with the deceased for the last 2 years and the same has been informed to the parents and that you Accused agreed to marry her and accordingly engagement was performed. After engagement, you Accused started telephoning the deceased by demanding dowry of Rs.2,00,000./- and a motor cycle, otherwise you Accused expressed your disagree to marry her and that you Accused continuously harassed the deceased by demanding dowry to get marriage, and thereby you Accused committed an offence punishable Under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and within my cognizance ” 5 of 12 SC 57 of 2022

The accused after understanding the charge Under section 306 IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, framed against him, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, it has examined

PWs.1 to 9 out of 14 cited witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 documents. The prosecution given up the evidence of LW4/Rayala

Ushaiah, LW7/Rayala Madaiah, LW9/Ramula Madaiah, LW10/Ramula

Rajavva and LW14/Susheel Kumar.

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

U/sec 313 Cr.P.C. explaining him incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge Under Section 306 of IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?”

Point :

10.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that the deceased and the accused has fell in love with each other thereafter the elders of both the parties has agreed their love and performed pre-marital ceremony. Subsequent to the pre- marital ceremony the accused has started harassing the deceased mentally for want of dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/- and a motor cycle. The accused at the time of pre- 6 of 12 SC 57 of 2022 marital ceremony, he has informed to the defacto-complainant that he has not required any dowry for his marriage with the deceased but subsequently, the accused changed his attitude and started demanding dowry and the accused harassed the deceased, that without fulfilling the demand of dowry their marriage will not perform.

Therefore, the deceased has disgusted over her life, committed suicide by consuming herbicide.

11.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that the defacto-complainant and his family members has harassed the deceased to perform her marriage with her brother-in-law, who is husband of PW2. It is the case of the accused is that PW2 has not blessed with children after her marriage, therefore, the defacto- complaintant forced the deceased to marry husband of PW2, for which the deceased is not interested, therefore, she has committed suicide by consuming herbicide.

12.It is to be noted that though, it is the case of the accused that the defacto-complainant who is father of the deceased has forced the deceased to marry, husband of PW2, for that reason the deceased has committed suicide, but no material evidence brought on the record in support of their contention and not elicited anything during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, except it was suggested to the prosecution witnesses about their contention that the father of the deceased forced the deceased to marry his son-in- law. Except that there is no evidence to substantiate their contention.

13.Now it is relevant to extract the provision of section 306 IPC with which the accused has charged. Section 306 IPC reads as follows:

7 of 12 SC 57 of 2022 “306 IPC: Abetment of suicide:

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of the such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to ten years, and shall also liable to fine.”

14. A bare reading of Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove first that the suicide has been committed by the person, secondly, the person who said to have abetted to commit suicide has played active role in commission of the suicide by the deceased.

Coming to the aspect of commission of suicide by the deceased, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of medical officer and mediators for the inquest panchanama.

15.The medical officer is examined as PW7 who deposed that he has conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and sent the viscera to the FSL for analysis and report. He has received (Ex.P3) FSL report from the forensic science laboratory and based on the said report, he has issued his final opinion stating that the deceased has died due to herbicide poisoning namely

Paraquat dicholride.

16.The mediators for the inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased has deposed that the police has conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased. He has opined that the deceased committed suicide by consuming herbicide. The evidence of the medical officer and PW6 who is the mediator for the inquest panchanama is corroborated, and it is established that the deceased committed suicide. Even there is no dispute from the side of the defence that the death was caused due to consuming herbicide by the deceased. Therefore, it can be hold that the deceased has 8 of 12 SC 57 of 2022 died by consuming herbicide by herself and her death is suicidal death.

17. Now it has to be seen whether the the accused person abetted the deceased to commit suicide and he has instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The gist of the evidence of PW1 to PW4 who are father, sister and elders of the caste persons of the deceased respectively they have in one voice stated that the deceased has attempted to commit suicide by consuming herbicide since the accused has harassed the deceased for the want of dowry prior to marriage of the deceased with the accused person.

18.A perusal of the evidence of PW1 to PW4 there is no direct evidence to show that the accused has harassed the deceased for want of dowry. PW1 has stated that he had heard during the conversation between the accused and the deceased in a phone about demand of the dowry by the accused but there is no evidence on the record about the conversation between the deceased and the accused over a phone. PW2 who is sister of deceased has deposed that her sister fell in love with the accused and they have performed pre-matrial ceremony of the deceased with the accused after the accused informed to them that he will not demand any dowry, but subsequently the accused has started harassing her sister for want of dowry and the same was informed by her sister to her. PW2 further stated that since the accused demanded dowry, her sister has committed suicide by consuming herbicide. PW3 and PW4 who are circumstantial witness, they have deposed about love affair in between the deceased and the accused and also performing of pre- marital ceremony. PW3 and PW4 are not direct witness to the demand of dowry by the accused. In fact, PW1 and PW2 also not direct witness to the demand of dowry by the accused.

9 of 12 SC 57 of 2022

19.It is to be noted that after consuming herbicide by the deceased, she is admitted firstly in one hospital at Gandhari village, where she got treatment for few days and thereafter discharged from that hospital. On 02-03-2021 the deceased again admitted at Govt.

Hospital, Nizamabad, while undergoing treatment, she has died on 10-03-2021, thereafter only the defacto-complainant has lodged complaint with the police. The deceased has allegedly consuming herbicide on 18-02-2021, she is alive about 20 days after consuming herbicide but it was not taken any steps by the Hospital authorities to get record dying declaration of the deceased and the defacto- complainant not filed any complaint against the accused. When the deceased admitted in the hospital while consuming herbicide it is the duty of the hospital authorities to take steps to record dying declaration of the deceased during her life time. It is the contention of the defacto complainant that the accused has demanded dowry over a conversation in between the deceased and the accused in a mobile phone therefore, the deceased has consumed poison, but there is no evidence placed on record to show that the deceased has received phone call on 18-02-2021 from the accused with a demand of dowry.

20.Even if assume that the accused demanded dowry, which is not amount to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

21. Now it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of

NCT of Delhi), reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, wherein at Para

No.19, it was held as follows:

“19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar, where the accused by his acts or by continued course of conduct creates 10 of 12 SC 57 of 2022 such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that:

i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct, which may even be a wilful silent until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words, or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge, or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mense rea is necessary concomitant of instigation.”

22. In the above said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that where the accused by his acts or omission or by a continuous course of conduct create such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide and the said act of the accused must coupled with intention, then, it can be said that the accused instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

23. As seen from the entire evidence on record, absolutely there is no material to show that the accused with an intention to provoke the deceased to commit suicide, he has created such circumstances that the deceased has left with no option except to commit suicide. It is the case of the prosecution is that, since the accused demanded the deceased for want of dowry, she had disgusted over her life and committed suicide, which is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, unless and until the accused actuated with intention to abet the deceased to commit suicide. The entire evidence on record 11 of 12 SC 57 of 2022 showing absence of intention entertained by the accused person, therefore, it can be hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused person, for the charge under Section 306 IPC.

24.The investigation officer who has issued FIR and recorded the statements of witnesses is examined as PW9, who deposed what he has done during the course of investigation but his evidence is not much helpful for the prosecution to connect the accused with this crime. During the cross examination of the PW9, he has admittedly stated that, he has not collected call data pertaining to the deceased and the accused mobile phone. PW1 has stated that the accused harassed the deceased in a phone call in between the accused and the deceased on 18-02-2021 in such circumstance the investigation officer ought to have collected the call data of the accused and the deceased.

25.The prosecution though examined PW1 to PW4, it has failed to bring the direct evidence on the record to show that the accused has demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and a motorcycle after performance of pre-marital ceremony of the accused and the deceased. Therefore, it can be hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

26.The prosecution however charged the accused with the offence punishable under section 306 IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it has failed to prove that the accused has instigated the deceased to commit suicide and also the demand of dowry by him, therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquittal for the above said charges.

12 of 12 SC 57 of 2022

27.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, accordingly he is acquitted for the same, under Section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed by Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04th day of August, 2022.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Prosecution : F or Defence:

PW.1 : Rayala Sailu (Father of the deceased) -None - PW-2 : Rayala Jyothi (Sister of the deceased) PW-3 : Rayala Sanjeevulu. PW-4 : Gundali Rajaiah. PW-5 : Rayala Chinna Sailu. PW-6 : Radhuri Varthaiah. PW-7 : Dr. Praveen, CAS (Medical Officer). PW-8 : S. Venkateshwaarlu (Investigation Officer). PW-9 : S. Srikanth (Investigation Officer).

OCUMENTS MARKED D

F or Prosecution : Ex.P1 Complaint. Ex.P2Crime Detail Form. Ex.P3Inquest Panchanama. Ex.P4Final Opinion. Ex.P5FIR.

For Defence: - NIL -

Material Object: - NIL -

Asst. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

1 of 9 SC.255/2021

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT KAMAREDDY

Present: Sri V. SRINIVAS

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

Friday, the 05th day of August, 2022

S.C. No. 255 of 2021

1. Name of the The State represented by SHO : Complainantof P.S., Sadashivnagar.

2. Name of accused:Adla Rajaiah @ Yedla Rajaiah, S/o. Rajaram, Age:50 years, Caste: SC (Mala), Occ: Govt. Teacher,R/o.H.No.4-6/1, Ambedkar Colony, Lingampally Village, Sadashivnagar Mandal, Kamareddy District.

3. Charges:U/Section 436 of IPC

4. Plea of the accused:Not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6. Sentence or order :The accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 436 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the same, under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

7. Prosecution conducted :Sri N. Damodhar Reddy byAdditional Public Prosecutor

8. Accused defended by:Sri K. Siddaramulu Advocate,Kamareddyfor Accused.

2 of 9 SC.255/2021

This case coming before me for hearing on 03-08-2022 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K. Siddaramulu, Advocate for Accused and having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that there are previous disputes in between the accused namely Adla Rajaiah @ Yedla Rajaiah (hereinafter referred as ‘the accused’) and the defacto complainant namely Kamilla Lingaiah. The accused having previous grudge against the defacto complainant, he has set ablaze to the hut of the defacto-complainant on 28-01-2021, in the intervening night hours and the same was witnessed by the defacto-complainant, when he woke up to attend nature call.

The defacto-complainant immediately called neighbors, who came there and controlled the fire, meanwhile the accused also came there and stand in between the public then the defacto - complainant has questioned about the acts of the accused, then the villagers namely Gundelly Sailu, Kisari Pedda Sailu and Yedla

Lingam convinced the defacto-complainant and they have gave assurance that they will call the accused to the panchayath, but the accused did not attended the said panchayath, therefore, the defecto-compliainant has filed complaint under Ex.P1 against the accused stating the above said facts.

2. PW-8/Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Sadashivnagar registered a case in Cr.No. 19 of 2021 for the offence punishable under section 436 IPC against the accused by issuing Ex.P9 FIR.

3 of 9 SC.255/2021

During the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and proceeded to the scene of offence along with PW1, where he has conducted scene of offence panchanama covered under Ex.P10 in the presence of two mediators i.e., PW6 and PW7. On the same day, he has examined and recorded the statement of PW2 to PW4. On 31- 01-2021, he has again visited Lingampally village, where he has secured the presence of PW5 and LW6/Kisari Sailu and recorded their statements who corroborated the statement of PW1. While the investigation was in progress the accused obtained anticipatory bail, therefore, PW8 after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the accused levelling the charge under section 436 IPC.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy taken the case on file against the accused and committed the case in PRC No. 10 of 2021 to the Court of Sessions, Nizamabad.

The Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad took the case on file for the offences punishable under Section 436 of IPC against the accused and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

4. After appearance of the accused, based on the material available on record as well as the allegations leveled in the charge sheet, the following charge is framed:

That on 28-1-2021 during the wee hours, when the defacto complainant/Lw-1/Kamella Lingaiah woke up to 4 of 9 SC.255/2021 attend the calls of nature, at the same time LW-1/Lingaiah found you Accused while setting ablaze the hut of the complainant where his family members are living and on seeking the LW-1/Lingaiah, you Accused fled away from the scene of offence, thus you accused committed mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause,or knowing it to be likely to cause destruction of the said property, thereby you Accused committed an offence punishable Under Section 436 IPC and within my cognizance.

5. The accused after understanding the charge Under section 436 of IPC, framed against him, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case of prosecution, it has examined

PWs.1 to 8 out of 9 cited witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to

P10 documents. The prosecution given up the evidence of witnesses namely LW6/Kisari Sailoo.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec 313 Cr.P.C. explaining him incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same, and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

5 of 9 SC.255/2021 “Whether the Accused set ablaze the hut of PW-1 to kill

PW-1 and his wife and thereby the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the charge Under Section 436 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?”

Point:-

10.The defacto-complainant having alleged in the Ex.P1 complaint that the accused has set ablazed his hut in the intervening night hours and the same found by the defacto- complainant when he woke up for attending nature call, but coming to his testimony, he has completely destroyed the entire prosecution case by deposing that he do not know who set ablazed his hut. He further deposed that in the morning hours the police came to the spot and they have obtained his signature on some written papers. PW1 further stated that he is not aware whether the police has examined and recorded his statement on the date of visiting the scene of offence. Since,

PW1 has not supported the case of the prosecution, the learned prosecutor has declared the witness hostile and tested him in his cross examination, but nothing could elicited during the cross examination, finally it was suggested about allegation in his complaint and statement before the police, for which PW1 has denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P2 that on 28-01-2021 in the intervening night hours when he woke up to attend nature call then he has witnessed that the accused set ablazed his hut and fled away from the spot. Even the learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor suggested his allegations of PW1 in his 6 of 9 SC.255/2021 cross examination, PW1 denied that the occurrence of the alleged incident, therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not helpful to the prosecution.

11.PW2 to PW5 who are circumstantial witness to the alleged incident, they have completely expressed ignorance about occurrence of the alleged incident and they have deposed that in the night hours the hut of PW1 was found in fire but they have stated they do not know who set ablazed. During the cross examination PW2 to PW5 denied to have stated as in Ex.P3 to P6 that they came to know from PW1 that the accused was set ablazed the hut of PW1.

12.The prosecution has examined the mediator for the scene of offence panchanama as PW6 & PW7. PW6 & PW7 has stated that the police had obtained their signatures on some papers by calling to the scene of offence, but they have completely expressed ignorance for what reason the police has obtained their signatures on the panchanama. During the cross examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, PW6 & PW7 denied to have stated that the police has conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence.

13.The investigation officer examined as PW8, he has deposed that on 28-01-2021 at about 07:00 PM he has received complaint from PW1 based on which he has registered a case in

Cr.No.19/2021 for the offence under section 436 IPC and issued

Ex.P9 FIR. During the course of investigation, he has examined 7 of 9 SC.255/2021 and recorded the statement of PW1 and on the next day, he has visited the scene of offence, where he secured the presence of two mediators PW6 and PW7 and in their presence, he prepared scene of offence panchanama covered under Ex.P10. PW8 further stated that he has examined and recorded the statements of PW2 to PW5 and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the accused. He further deposed that PW1 to PW5 stated before him in their statements covered under Ex.P2 to P6.

14.A perusal of the evidence of the investigation officer, he has stated that he initiated the investigation after receiving the complaint from PW1 and thereafter he visited the scene of offence where he recorded the statements of the witnesses but

PW1, he has deposed that the police obtained his signature on the compliant, except that he do not know any thing about the lodging of the complaint with the police. The remaining prosecution witnesses who are examined as PW2 to PW5, they have denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P2 to P6.

Since, there is no corroborating to evidence to the evidence of investigation officer, the material witness PW1 who himself turned hostile and did not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore much weight cannot be attached to the evidence of investigation officer. A perusal of the entire evidence on the record, there is no absolute evidence to connect the accused with this crime. In the absence of any evidence against the accused, it can be hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

8 of 9 SC.255/2021

15. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 436 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the same, under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed by Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 05th day of August, 2022.

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Prosecution : F or Defence:

PW.1 : Kamilla Lingaiah (Defacto-complainant). - None -

PW-2 : Kamilla Prasad.

PW-3 : Kamilla Bhasker.

PW-4 : Gundelli Sailoo

PW-5 : Edla Lingam.

PW-6 : Yellareddy Ramesh.

PW-7 : Sandhu Anand Rao.

PW-8 : J. Naresh (Investigation Officer)

OCUMENTS MARKED D

F or Prosecution :

Ex.P1 Complaint given by PW-1

Ex.P2Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1.

9 of 9 SC.255/2021

Ex.P3 Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2.

Ex.P4 Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3.

Ex.P5Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4.

Ex.P6Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW5.

Ex.P7Signature of PW6 on the Crime Detail Form.

Ex.P8Signature of PW7 on the Crime Detail Form.

Ex.P9F.I.R.

Ex.P10Crime Detail Form.

For Defence: NIL

Material Object: NIL

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy

10 of 9 SC.255/2021

1 of 7 OS.No.106/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:- SRI V. SRINIVAS,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.

Monday, the 22nd day of August, 2022

OS. No. 106 of 2017

Between:-

Myathari Papaiah, S/o. Laxmaiah, aged 58 years, Occ: Business & Agriculture, R/o. Bhiknoor Village & Mandal, Kamareddy District.

... Plaintiff

And

Bakkolla Pochaiah, S/o. Shankaraiah, aged 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Beside Dr. Siddaramulu Hospital, Rajampet Village & Mandal, Kamareddy District.

... Defendant

This suit coming before me on this the 16th day of August, 2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Nanda Ramesh, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Sri Mayaa Suresh, Advocate for the Defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following :-

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

1.This suit is filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.3,50,000/- along with future interest @ 24 % per anum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant and plaintiff are well acquaintance with each othe,r out of their acquaintance the defendant requested the plaintiff for hand loan of 2 of 7 OS.No.106/2017

Rs.3,50,000/- for his family necessities. On 14-08-2016 the plaintiff had given the said amount to the defendant and the defendant has executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day in consideration of the receipt of the said amount agreeing to repay the amount whenever demanded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has requested and demanded the defendant several times to repay the said amount but the defendant postponed one or other pretext. The plaintiff inspite of repeated demands for payment of the said amount, the defendant failed to repay and intentionally avoided for the payment, therefore, the plaintiff is not having any option except to file the present suit. Hence, the present suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement denying that the plaintiff and defendant are having well acquaintance with each other and out of the said acquaintance the defendant has approached the plaintiff and requested hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/-. It is further denied that the plaintiff has given the said amount and in consideration the defendant has executed the promissory note in favour the plaintiff on 14-08-2016. It is further denied that the defendant has received the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant submitted that, he has never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and not executed any promissory note in 3 of 7 OS.No.106/2017 favour of the plaintiff. The facts stated by the plaintiff are self inventory and concocted. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Based on the rival pleadings the following issues are framed for trial:

1) “Whether the defendant executed suit promissory note on 14-08-2016 for consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and it is binding upon the defendant ?”

2) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount from the defendant ?”

3) “To what relief ?”

5.Heard.

6.The plaintiff himself examined has PW1 and marked Ex.A1 suit promissory note and Ex.A2 receipt dated 14-08-2016. The defendant though filed written statement denying that he has executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff but the defendant in support of his case did not lead any evidence. The defendant failed to enter into the witness box by filing his chief affidavit though he was cross examined PW1 by putting his case to PW1.

7. Issue No.1 & 2:

1) “Whether the defendant executed suit promissory note on 14-08-2016 for consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and it is binding upon the defendant ?”

2) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount from the defendant ?” 4 of 7 OS.No.106/2017

The Plaintiff examined as Pw1 and he deposed that the defendant is well acquainted to him and out of the said acquaintance the defendant has approached the plaintiff and requested hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/-, the plaintiff has given the said amount to the defendant on 14-08-2016 and the defendant has executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in consideration of the receiving of the said amount and agreed to repay to the plaintiff whenever demanded by the plaintiff, but the defendant has avoided to repay the said amount in spite the plaintiff several times demanded for repayment of the said amount.

8.The defendant has cross examined PW1 and during the cross examination PW1 has stated that he is doing his caste profession at

Bombay City, but his children and family members are residing at

Bhiknoor village. PW1 further deposed that he went to Bombay City for his livelihood. He further deposed that the suit amount earned by him by doing his caste profession (Dhobi). He further stated that he do not remember who scribed Ex.A1 promissory note. He further admitted that himself and the defendant are illiterates. He further deposed that he had given the suit amount to the defendant at

Rajampet Village. He denied that the suit promissory note created by him for the purpose of this case. It is denied by the PW1 that the defendant did not executed suit promissory note in favour of the 5 of 7 OS.No.106/2017 plaintiff and the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration.

9.A perusal of the evidence of PW1, he has consistently spoken that the defendant has obtained loan and in consideration the defendant has executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant though cross examined PW1 but he did not elicited anything to prove that the suit promissory note not executed by the defendant and the same not supported by the consideration.

The documentary evidence and oral evidence of the plaintiff establishing that the defendant has borrowed the suit amount from the plaintiff and he has executed the suit promissory note and receipt covered under Ex.A1 and A2 respectively. The defendant though filed his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff but he failed to prove his pleaded case by leading sufficient evidence in support of his case. In such circumstance, it can be hold that the suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- by agreeing to repay the suit amount to the plaintiff whenever demanded by him, but later he avoided to repay the same to the plaintiff inspite the plaintiff demanded several times. Hence, the issue No.1 & 2 answered in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the suit promissory note is binding on the defendant.

6 of 7 OS.No.106/2017

10. Issue No.3: “To what relief ?”

In view of the finding arrived in issue No.1 & 2 the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant. The plaintiff has pleaded that he is entitled future interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount from the date of the suit to date of realization of the amount, but Ex.A1 promissory note is silent about the interest amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled 6% per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of realization of the suit amount.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit to till the realization of the suit amount. The defendant is directed to pay the said amount to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of the order.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of August, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Kamareddy 7 of 7 OS.No.106/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFDEFENDANT

Pw1: Myathari Papaiah- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1: Promissory Note dated 14-08-2016.

Ex.A2: Receipt dated 14-08-2016 issued by the defendant.

DEFENDANT :

- Nil -

Senior Civil Judge,

Kamareddy