Sri V.Venkateswara Rao

1 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION): AT VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, III Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026

OS No.51/2021

Between:

Ayyanki Jeevaratnam, S/o. Jasuva, Age 45 years, Medical Profession, R/o. GVR Street, Opposite Aswani Hospital, Eluru Road,Gudivada- 521 301, Krishna District.

.. Plaintiff

Vs

1. Bhuthapati Vijayasree, W/o. Pagadam Kristaphar, age 50 years, Presently R/o.D.No. 17-16-16, CK Reddy Road, Baptispalem, Vijayawada – 520 003, Krishna District.

2. Bhuthapati Sumathisree,W/o.Chiluvuru Ravi, Age 43 years, House Maker, R/o.D.No. 43, Block No. 611, HSR Layout, 27th Main Bangalore – 560 102.

.. Defendants

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 10-04-2026 in the presence of Sri Somu Krishnamurthy, Advocate for plaintiff and

Sri T.Anjaneyulu Advocate for defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2

set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. Suit is filed by the plaintiff a) for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the sale deed

dated 14.05.2015 vide document No. 5492/2015 registered on the file of

2 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Joint Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada and consequently for possession over the plaint schedule property from the first defendant b) Damages for unauthorized occupation of the plaint schedule property at

Rs. 2,72,000/- from the first defendant c) Future damages at Rs.

10,000/- per month payable by the 1st defendant from the date of the suit to till date of possession over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

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

(a) The contention of the plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property admeasuring an extent of 101 Sq.yds of site along with partly RCC roofed and partly ACC roofed structure bearing Door No.17-16-16 situated at Baptist palem. C.K.Reddy Road,

Vijayawada, more fully described in the schedule given hereunder schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 14-05-2015 vide

Document and herein after referred the same as schedule property.

The Plaintiff purchased the Vijayawada for valid and valuable sale consideration and got mutated his name in the No.5482/2015 registered on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Gandhi Nagar, municipal records and he has been enjoying the same with absolute right title and possession. One Late ate Smt.Bhuthapati Sugunamma.

W/o. Edward, during her life time, purchased the plaint schedule 3 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., property, with her own money, under a registered sale deed dated 23- 09-1974 vide Document No 3353/1974 from one Smt. Murikipudi

Kamalamma and others for valid and valuable sale consideration and she took possession over the schedule property and got her name mutated in municipal records and she had been enjoyed the same till her last breath. Both the defendants and one Smt.Arunasree, Late

Benarji and Smt. Anithasree are the children of the said Late

Smt. Bhuthapati Sugunamma.

(b) Further contention is that Smt. Bhuthapati Sugunamma, during her life time, in her sound and disposing state of mind, executed a Will on 22-11-2004 and got the same notarized and died on 20-10-2011 keeping the said Will as her last and final Will. The said Smt. Bhuthapati Sugunamma, by virtue of the said Will, bequeathed the schedule property to her only son the said Bhuthapati

Benarji and soon after the death of the said Smt. Bhuthapati

Sugunamma, the said Will dated 22-11-2004 came into existence and her only son the said Sri Benarji acquired title and taken possession over the plaint schedule property and he enjoyed the same with absolute rights. the said Sri Bhuthapati Benarji being absolute owner of the plaint schedule property sold the same to the plaintiff for a valid and valuable consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakh 4 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., only) to meet his domestic necessities and for his family welfare, under a registered sale deed dated 14-05-2015 and got the same registered as Doct. No.5492/2015 on the file of the Joint Sub

Registrar, Vijayawada. The said Sri Bhuthapati Benarji having received the entire sale consideration of Rs.15 lakhs from the plaintiff, delivered possession over the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on the even date under the said sale deed. The said sale deed is validly executed and conveyed title over the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and he is the bonafide purchaser. Since then, the plaintiff has been enjoyment the plaint schedule property with absolute rights, title and possession and got his name mutated in municipal records.

(c) Further contention is that the plaintiff after his purchase got the plaint schedule property renovated with minor repairs and colors. Subsequently, the said Bhuthapati Benarji requested the plaintiff to let out the premises on rent and the plaintiff had also consented for the same as he was his family friend, quiet long time, right from the time he worked as Gateman at Dosapadu station for south central railway. Thus, the plaintiff let out the plaint schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the said

Bhuthapati Benarji, who inducted as tenant in plaint schedule property on 01.07.2015 in the presence of his sister Smt. Bhuthapati 5 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Arunasri and her husband Sri Jayakar Johnson, Smt. G.Ruthamma and Sri B.Paul and others. There was no practice of issuing rent receipt and there was no lease deed in respect of tenancy, as the plaintiff is a layman in procedures.

(d) Further contention is that, while the matter stood thus that defendant deserted her husband and had been living in the vicinity of the plaint schedule property. Further, the wife of the said Bhuthapati

Benarji deserted him and reached to her parents house and living along with her children. Later on, the health of the said Bhuthapati

Benarji started deteriorating due to malfunctioning of his lungs and liver and he was under treatment The 1st defendant taking advantage of the situation, conveniently made a proposal to her brother the said

Bhuthapati Benarji that it would not safe for him to live alone and that she is also living alone and that she would stay along with him in the plaint schedule property to take care of him and accordingly she had been living, under the shelter of her brother the said Bhuthapati

Benarji. gradually the health of the said Bhuthapati Benarji, become worse day by day. Considering, the same as advantage, the 1st defendant in connivance of the 2nd defendant, having known the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property filed a suit in

O.S.No.670 of 2018, which is pending on the file of the Hon'ble II

6 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, for partition, against her rest of family

members and against the plaintiff for partition of the paint schedule property and other property and also sought for declaration of the sale deed of the plaintiff and the other sale deed executed by the said

Bhuthapati Benarji in favour of his other sister in respect of other property are null and void and for other reliefs, with a sole intention to grab the plaint schedule property, by illegal means, as if she the plaint schedule property is in her joint possession and enjoyment and with other false and frivolous averments and on concocted documents that her mother the said Smt.Bhuthapati Sugunamma cancelled her earlier Will dated 22-11-2004 and executed another Will dated 20-12- 2010 bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of all her children, etc... There is no lota of truth in the averments of the plaint in the said suit in O.S. No. 670/2018 The alleged Will dt 20-12-2010 alleged! executed by Late Smt Bhuthapati Sugunamma is nothing forged and fabricated Will Both the defendants and her sisters and other relatives and every one in their locality are very much aware about the sale transaction and the execution of the sale deed by the said Sri Bhuthapati Benarji in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. The efforts of the well-wishers including the said Sri Bhuthapati Benarji, who also scolded the defendants for filing 7 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., the said suit and advised them to with draw the same but proved futile. The said Sri Bhuthapati Benarji died on 09-11-2018 due to ill health and he paid rents till the tenancy month of October, 2018.

(e) Further contention is that the first defendant had taken complete possession over the plaint schedule property and continuing un-authorisedly from the ie., w.e.f. 09-11-2018 and the date of death of the said Bhuthapati Benarji possession of the first defendant over the plaint schedule property is unauthorised and illegal and she is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff soon after the obsequies of the said Bhuthapati Benarji, went to the plaint schedule property in the first week of December, 2018 and demanded the first defendant to vacate and hand over the plaint schedule property and that the said Sri Bhuthapati Benarji has not paid the rent for the month of November, 2018 but she denied to comply the demand and she also denied the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property on the pretext that she filed the said suit in

O.S.No.670/2018 for partition and for declaration of the plaintiff's title

deed is void and illegal. The elders in the locality and the elder sister of the defendants assured that they would prevail on the first defendant and get her vacated and hand over the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff, but in vain. The plaintiff waited till date but 8 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., there is no change in the attitude of the defendants. The defendants or their sisters or other family members have no right or title over the plaint schedule property and the same is the absolute property of the plaintiff. Since both the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff by filing the suit in O.S.No.670/2018, referred supra, the second defendant is also shown as proper and necessary party. Similar type of plaint schedule property would fetch a rent not less than

Rs. 10,000/- per month in the vicinity. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for Declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property, for possession from the first defendant and for damages, etc., Hence the suit.

3. The averments in the written statement of the defendant No.1 in brief are as follows:

(I) The plaint schedule property was absolute property of the defendant’s mother Buthapati Suganamma who purchased the the plaint schedule Property under registered Sale Deed in the year 1974 from

Murikipudi Kamalamma, Wife of Krupanandam and others Vide

Registered Document No.3353 of 1974 dated 23-9-1974. The mother of the defendants executed a unregistered 'Will' On 23-11-2004 and subsequently Cancelled the said Will and executed another Will dated 20-12-2010 with regard to plaint schedule property and other properties which was her last Will. As per 'Will' dated 20-12-2010, the plaint 9 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., schedule Property to be devolved upon the defendants and other children of the Bhuthapathi Suganamma equally. The mother of the defendants staying with the first defendant during her life time in the plaint schedule property and the first defendant and her family also residing in the plaint schedule property and property tax and other taxes are stands in the name of the defendants' mother. The defendant No.2 was also residing in the plaint schedule property until her husband got job in Bangalore and thereafter, she shifted to her family to Bangalore.

(ii) Further contention is that the first defendant and her family is residing since long back along with her mother in the plaint schedule property. The children of the first defendant used to go school from the plaint schedule property. The brother of the first defendant namely

Bhuthapathi Benarji was residing along with his wife and children separately at different places as he as was worked at Machilipatnam as

Gangman in SC Railway. The brother of first defendant namely Benarji was not resided in the plaint schedule property as alleged by the plaintiff.

After death of her mother, as one of legal heir, the first defendant and her family has been residing in the family. The first defendant did not desert her husband as alleged by the plaintiff. Due to differences, the husband of the defendant is residing separately and he visited the house of first defendant to see his children occasionally.

10 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

(iii) Further contention is that in the month of April 2018, the

Municipal Staff brought property demand notice to the first defendant who is residing in the plaint schedule property and when the first defendant herein saw the demand notice, she became shocked and in the property tax, the mentioned as owner. After that, when the plaintiff herein name was defendants s obtained Certified Copy of Sale Deed and came to know that the their brother Bhuthapati Benarji sold away the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff herein On 14-5-2015 under

Registered Sale Deed Vide No.5492 of 2015, SRO., Vijayawada by suppressing the 'Will' dated 20-10-2010 and said sale is not valid under law as the plaint schedule property is joint and constructive possession of the defendants and other children of Bhuthapathi Suganamma. The defendants believes that the said sale deed was created by the plaintiff, the brother of defendants namely Bhuthapathi Benarji and sister of the defendants namely Bhuthapathi Arunasree with collusive manner to cause wrongful loss to the defendants. The plaintiff is nearest relative of the husband of the defendants' sister Arunsree.

(iv) Further contention is that the defendants also obtained

Certified Copy of another property and after knowing the contents, they became hocked. Though, Bhuthapathi Benarji had no absolute right over the said property with false contents, executed Sale Deed in favour of his 11 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Sister Arunsaree 'Will' as alleged in the said Bale Deed executed by

Bhuthapati Benarjee in SRO, Vijayawada. In fact, the father of the defendants never executed any On 14-5-2015 Vi Registered Document

No.5491 of 2015, clearly shows that said property is ancestral property of the defendants' favour of his sister Bhuthapati Arunsree. The recital of said sale deed their father have joint and constrictive possession and enjoyment over father Buthapati Edvert. Thus, the defendants and the other children of plaint schedule property and other immovable property.

Thus, the above said two Sale Deeds are not valid under law as those properties are joint sisters and brother. As per law, the defendants and the sisters, brother are and constructive possession and enjoyment of the defendants and their entitle equal rights over the plaint schedule property and other immovable property are entitle 1/5th share each. In the above stated circumstances, the defendants got issued notice to the plaintiff and other legal heirs of Bhuthapathi Suganamma and requested them to co-operate for partition of the plaint schedule property and another property equally as per law and demanded the plaintiff herein not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of of plaint schedule property in any manner in which, the first defendant is residing through their Advocate On 02-06-2018 under Registered Post With

Acknowledgment Due and as other family members of the defendants and 12 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., the plaintiff herein not co-operated, the defendants filed a Suit for

Partition of 5 equal shares and allot 1/5th share each to the defendant and other family members respectively as per law and for consequential relief to declare the above said two registered Sale Deeds executed by

Bhuthapathi Benarji in favour of the plaintiff herein (Document No.5492 of 2015, SRO., Vijayawada dated14-5-2015) and in favour of Bhuthapathi

Arunsree (Document No.5491 of 2015, SRO., Vijayawada dated 14-5- 2015]) respectively in respect of another property to be declared as null and void as which are not binding on the defendants' right over the plaint schedule property and other property and for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff herein not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1 defendant in the plaint schedule property in any manner and other relief, which was numbered as O.S.No.670 of 2018 on the file of Hon'ble Il Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and during the pendency of the above suit, the brother of the defendants herein namely

Bhuthapathi Benarji died On 09-11-2018 in testate leaving his behind back his wife and minor female child. As he died in testate, his share to be allotted to his legal heirs as such, they were added as parties in the said suit i.e., O.S.No.670 of 2018, which, pending.

(v) Further contention is that the suit is not maintainable on the ground non-joinder of necessary parties also. With regard to possession 13 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since long back, the first defendant herein filing documents for this Hon'ble kind perusal. The first defendant herein also filing Copy of Neat Copy of the plaint in

O.S.No.670/2018. The plaintiff is not entitled any reliefs as alleged in the

plaint because, his Vendor had no absolute rights over the plaint schedule property. After demise of Bhuthapati Benarji, his wife and children are residing one room in the plaint schedule property as they have right over the plaint schedule property and there is no cause of action and alleged cause of action is false and prayed the Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for Trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs. 2,72,000/- for unauthorized occupation as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future damages at Rs. 10,000/- per month as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial on behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and documents marked on behalf of plaintiff as Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 and one more witness examined as PW2.

On behalf of defendants, the 1st defendant herself examined as DW1 14 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., and two more witnesses examined as DW2 and DW3 and they are 3rd parties to the suit and Ex.B1 to Ex.B12 were marked on their behalf.

6. Heard the learned counsels for the plaintiffs and defendants.

Written arguments filed by the both parties.

7. ISSUE NO.1:

The version of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property under the original of Ex.A1. He purchased the schedule property on 14.05.2015 under registered document.

Further version is that the vendor of the plaintiff being absolute owner of the schedule property by virtue of Will dated 22.11.2004 executed by Smt. Bhuthapathi Suganamma who is mother of vendor of the plaintiff, he sold away the property to the plaintiff for a valid consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- and delivered the possession over the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on even date under the said sale deed. Further version is that subsequently the vendor of the plaintiff requested him to let out the premises on rent and plaintiff had also consented the same as he was his family friend. The plaintiff let out the plaint schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- and the vendor of the plaintiff inducted as a tenant in the schedule property on 01.07.2015. Further version is that while staying in the schedule property, the health condition of the vendor of the plaintiff gradually become worse day by day. Subsequently, the vendor of the 15 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., plaintiff Bhuthapathi Benarji died on 09.11.2018 and he paid rents till the tenancy month of October, 2018. After death of said Benarji, the 1st defendant had taken complete possession over the plaint schedule property from the date of death of said Bhuthapathi Benarji

I.e, w.e.f 09.11.2018. Thus, the possession of the 1st defendant over the plaint schedule property us is unauthorized and illegal and she is liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff. Further version is that soon after the death of Benarji, the plaintiff went to the plaint schedule property in the 1st week of December, 2018 and demanded the 1st defendant to vacant and hand over the plaint schedule property and that the said Sri Bhuthapathi Benarji has not paid the rent for the month of November, 2018 but she denied to comply the demand and she also denied the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property on the pretext that she filed the said suit in OS No.

670/2018 for partition and for declaration of the plaintiff’s title deed is void and illegal. Further version is that the defendant or their sisters or other family members have no right or title over the plaint schedule property and same is the absolute property of the plaintiff.

8.On the other hand the version of the 1st defendant is that the schedule property absolute property of mother of the defendants by name Bhupathi Suganamma. She purchased the said property in the 16 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., year 1974 from Murikipudi Kamalamma under registered sale deed.

Further version is that the mother of the defendants executed a unregistered will on 23.11.2004 in favour their brother Benarji subsequently she canceled the said will and executed another will under the original of Ex.B6 dated 20.12.2010 with regard to plaint schedule property and other properties which was her last Will.

Thereby the plaint schedule property to be devolved upon the defendants and other children of the Bhuthapathi Sugunamma equally. Further version is that the brother of the 1st defendant namely Benarji was residing along with his wife and children separately at different places as he as was worked at Machilipatnam as Gangman in SC Railway. The brother of the 1st defendant namely

Benarji was not resided in the plaint schedule property as alleged by the plaintiff. Further version is that in the month of April, 2018, the

Municipal staff brought demand notice to the 1st defendant who is residing in the plaint schedule property and when the 1st defendant herein saw the demand notice, she became shocked and in the property tax, the plaintiff herein name was mentioned as owner.

When the defendants obtained certified copy of sale deed and came to know that their brother Bhuthapati Benarji sold away the schedule property to the plaintiff by suppressing the Will dated 20.10.2010.

17 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Further version is that Bhuthapathi Benarji had no absolute right over the said property. Further version is that subsequently after came to know the registered sale deed dated 14.05.2015, the defendants filed suit in OS 670/2018 on the file of II Additional Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada for partition of the schedule

property along with property and seeking cancellation of sale deed

dated 14.05.2015 and the plaintiff is not entitled any relief as alleged

in the plaint because his vendor has not absolute rights over the plaint schedule property.

9.To establish the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination and he was cross examined by the counsel for the defendants, in the cross he stated that he has seen the Will dated 20.12.2010. He knows the younger brother of first defendant by name

Benarjee. He used to work in Dosapadu at Gudivada in Railways. he does not know whether there are any documents related to plaint schedule property in the name of Benarjee. Further deposed that he has not issued any notice to the defendants 1 and 2 prior to filing of this suit. He has not having any documentary proof to show that first defendant is living separately from her husband. It is true that presently first defendant is living in the plaint schedule property.

18 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Witness adds that he has given the plaint schedule property for rent to one Benarjee, later the 1st defendant is living in the said house with her children only. He has not filed any document to show that he has given the plaint schedule property for rent to one Benarjee. It is true that the said Benarjee is brother of defendants. Further deposed that he filed the receipts from the year 2015. He know one Aruna Sri who is elder sister of defendants. Further deposed that he does not know any documentary proof to show that he purchased the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-. A suggestion was posed to him that he has no capacity to purchase the schedule property for Rs. 15,00,000/- with a help of Benarjee and others and he created original of Ex.A1/Sale Deed and the same is denied by him.

10.To support the case of the plaintiff, one Gangipogu Ruthamma examined as PW2 she also reproduced the contents of the plaint in her chief examination and he was cross examined by the counsel for the defendants, in the cross she stated that one Vijayasri/1st defendant filed the suit against Jeevaratnam/ plaintiff. The suit is filed by Vijayasri that her mother executed a Will in her favour against

Jeevaratnam. It is true that she has appeared and deposed her evidence as DW4 in OS No. 670/2018 on the file of II Addl. Civil 19 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada. Further deposed that it is true

that both the parents have affection towards their children. Further deposed that there is no proof to show that the Will dated 22.11.2004 is the last Will of Bhuthapati Sugunamma. Witness added that herself and some other person have signed the said Will.

11.To establish the defense of the defendants, the 1st defendant examined as DW1 she also reiterated the contents of written statement in her chief examination and she was cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiff, in the cross she stated that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to her mother. Her mother died in the year 2011. it is true her mother during her life time executed a

Will on 22.11.2004 in respect of schedule property in favour of her brother. It is true that she filed a suit on the file of II Addl. Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada in OS No. 670/2018 for partition.

The plaint schedule property is shown as item No.1 of schedule property in the suit. It is true that suit, judgment passed on 24.02.2025. Witness adds that she preferred appeal against that judgment It is true in that judgment there is a finding that the plaint schedule property is not liable for partition. Witness confronted that certified copy of decree and judgment in OS 670/2018 dated 24.02.2025 and admitted the same is marked as Ex.A12. Further 20 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., deposed that her brother Benarjee died on 08.11.2018. Further deposed that it is true that after demised of her mother neither herself nor her family members filed an application before Municipal

Corporation for mutation of their names in respect of suit schedule property. It is true after the death of her mother they have not intimated to the bank i.e., Durga Cooperative Bank with regard to the death of her mother and with regard to the clearance of loans. She has not possessed any document to show that herself and D2 are residing in the schedule property. Further deposed that she has been residing in a house nearby house of K.Vinod Anand. Further deposed that it is true she deposed in the evidence in OS No. 670 / 2018 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada that her mother and brother resided in the plaint schedule property until their demise. It is true she filed a criminal case against her husband about 6 or 5 years back. Witness adds that the said case was not registered. It is true that the property tax with regard to the schedule property not stands in her name as well as her sister’s name at any time. She has not made any enquiry with regard to the Ex.A1/Sale deed at any time. She came to know with regard to existence of

Ex.A1 only in the year 2018. Further deposed that it is true her brother born and brought up in the schedule property and he resided 21 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., in the schedule property till sold the property under Ex.A1. Her brother died while staying in the schedule property. A suggestion was posed to her that she has been staying in the schedule property unathorizedly and she has to pay damages of Rs. 10,000/- per month since November, 2018 till her vacation and same is denied by her.

12.To prove the original of Ex.B6/Will the defendants got examined one of the attestord of the Will Kopparthi Dazy Rani as DW2, she deposed in her chief examination with regard to execution of original of Ex.B6 and her presence at the time of execution Will and she was cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiff, in the cross she stated that she knows respective pleas of parties in the present suit. It is true that she gave evidence on behalf of 1st defendant in the suit in

OS No. 670/2018 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Vijayawada. By the time she reached, the Will already prepared. She gone through the contents of the Will. She went to the house of Sugunamma prior to Ex.B6. Sugunamma sent one woman, she does not know her name who called her house. After she reached the house the mother of the 1st defendant informed her that she intending to execute a Will in favour of her children. She also informed to her previously also she executed a Will. Further deposed 22 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., that she went to the house of Sugunamma at about 4.30 – 5.00 PM

When she went to the house prior to one week of Ex.B6. By that time nobody was present at the house. Further deposed in the suit in OS

No. 670/2018 that one week prior to 20.12.2010 Sugunamma called her and one Vinod Anand ( her cousin) for discussion. Further deposed that she signed as a witness on the Will executed by

Sugunamma under Ex.B6 She has no idea whether she deposed in the evidence in OS no. 670/2018 that she signed at first, thereafter

Vindod Anand singed in her presence. A suggestion was posed to her that herself, 1st defendant and Vinod Anand created Ex.B6 and brought in existence, the same is denied by her.

13.The wife of Late Bhuthapati Benarji, Buthapati Prameela examined as DW3 and she also deposed as same lines of DW1 in her chief examination and she was cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiff, in the cross she stated that she got Aadhar Card and house hold card and also voter I.D. Her address particulars mentioned in the above cards as Vijayawada. She can produce the above documents

before the court if necessary. She is getting Widow pension from the

village of Lemalle. Further deposed that she is residing in the house located at Palaveedhi. She knows the defendants filed a suit for partition. Further deposed that on 20.12.2010 she was stayed at 23 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Vijayawada at C.K.Reddy Road House. On 20.12.2010 her mother in law executed a Will in favour of all the family members giving equal rights. She gone through the contents of the said Will. The said will executed in her presence. Further deposed that she has not mentioned in the chief affidavit that the schedule property sold away by her husband to the plaintiff. Further deposed that herself and defendants 1 and 2 are residing in the house located in C.K.Reddy

Road I.e, in schedule property. Since two years the 2nd defendant not residing in the schedule property.

14.The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants seeking reliefs of declaration over the plaint schedule property and seeking possession of the schedule property and also seeking damages for unauthorized occupation of plaint schedule property and also seeking future damages for Rs. 10,000/- per month payable by the 1st defendant. It is settled law that to get the relief of declaration, the placement has to make out his perfect title over the schedule property. To prove the title over the schedule property, the plaintiff filed the original of Ex.A1 saying he purchased the schedule property from late Bhuthapati Benarji for Rs. 15,00,000/- and immediately he took possession over the schedule property subsequently at the request of his vendor he let out the schedule property to him for a 24 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/-. Subsequently, the vendor of the plaintiff died, the defendants unauthorizedly staying in the schedule property without vacate even demanded by the plaintiff.

15.Based on the pleadings on both sides, the admitted facts are that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to the mother of the defendants, it is also admitted fact that the mother of the defendants executed a Will under Ex.A2 dated 22.11.2004. It is also admitted fact that the late Bhuthapati Benarji sold away the schedule property to the plaintiff under the original of Ex.A1. These are the admitted facts born out of record. The main contention of the defendants is that the mother of the defendants executed another

Will under original of Ex.B6 dated 20.12.2010 by canceling the

Ex.A2/Will bequeathing the schedule property equally to all the children of their mother and based on the Will, all the children Late

Smt.Bhuthapati Sugunamma got only right over the schedule property. Since the Late ate Smt.Bhuthapati Sugunamma cancelled the earlier Will and their brother Bhuthapati Benarji has not got any right to execute registered sale deed in respect of schedule property in favour of plaintiff.

16.Since the defendants admitted Ex.A2/Will there is no need to prove the same as there is a settled principle that admitted facts need 25 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., not be proved. The other factum of proving in this case is to execution of original of Ex.B6/Will. To prove the same the defendants examined one of the attestors of Ex.B6, she deposed that in her presence the

Smt.Bhuthapati Sugunamma executed Will in favour of her children.

Admittedly the DW2 is relative of the defendants and also there are major discrepancies from the cross of DW2. In the existence of suspicious in evidence of DW2, her evidence can not be taken as trustworthy and it can not be believable. Moreover as per the version of the defendants, the Will executed in the year 2010 if it so what prevented the defendants to mutated their respective names towards their shares in the concerned authority but that was not done in this case. The plaintiff to prove his case filed the certified copy of registered sale deed it was marked as Ex.A1 and claiming title over the property under the said document. Since the defendants failed to establish that Ex.B6/Will they can not took a defense that their brother has not got any right to sold the property under Ex.A1 to the plaintiff.

17.In view of the above circumstances and discussion supra, the plaintiff established that he purchased the schedule property under the original of Ex.A1/Sale Deed.

18. ISSUE NOS.2 AND 3 26 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

The plaintiff also sought reliefs of damages for unauthorized occupation of plaint schedule property at Rs. 2,72,000/- from the 1st defendant and also seeking future damages at Rs. 10,000/- per month payable by the 1st defendant from the date of suit till the date of possession over the plaint schedule property. The version of the plaintiff is that after get registered the property, he took possession over the property, subsequently at request of his vendor he let out the schedule property to his vendor for a monthly rent @ Rs. 5,000/-.

Except the oral testimony of the plaintiff, he has not filed any single scrap of paper to establish that he let out the premises to his vendor.

In the absence of any proof, the landlord and tenant relationship not established, thereby the plaintiff can not sought reliefs of damages and future damages.

19.While advancing the arguments the counsel for the plaintiff cited a decision reported between “Prem Singh and ORS /

Appellants Vs Birbal and Ors/ respondents in Civil Appeal No.

2412/2006 dated 02.05.2006 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”

and after gone through the above cited decision with great respect, the said decision amply application to the present case. On the other hand the counsel for the defendants also cited a decision reported between “State of Madha pradesh/ Appellant Vs Nomi Sigh and 27 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

another / respondents in Civil Appeal No. 3050 of 2015, dated

24.03.2015 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India” and after gone through the averments of the above cited decision are entire different from the averments of the case on hand thereby the above said cited decision not applicable to the present case.

20.In view of the above mentioned circumstances and discussion supra, the plaintiff established his title over the schedule property and defendants are staying in the schedule property and the plaintiff is failed to prove that he let out the premises to Bhuthapati Benarji for the rent @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. Accordingly issue No.1 answered in favour of plaintiff and issue Nos. 2 and 3 answered against the plaintiff.

21. ISSUE NO.4

In the result,suit is partly decreed with costs declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 14.05.2015 and the defendants are directed to vacate the schedule property and handover the same to the plaintiff within two months from the date of decree. The other reliefs sought 28 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., by the plaintiff that damages for unauthorized occupation and future damages are hereby dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao,

III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined for)

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Ayyanki JeevaratnamDW1: Buthapati Vijayasree PW2: Gangipogu Ruthamma DW2: Kopparthi Dazy Rani DW3: Bhuthapati Prameela

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of sale deed dt. 14.05.2015. Ex.A2:Certified copy of Will dt. 22.11.2004. Ex.A3:Certified copy of plaint in OS No. 670/2018. Ex.A4:Certified copy of notice issued by Municipal Corporation dated 06.09.2017. Ex.A5:Certified copy of receipt dt. 19.02.2021. Ex.A6:Certified copy of property tax receipt dt. 18.02.2021. Ex.A7:Another certified copy of property tax receipt dt. 13.02.2023. Ex.A8:Certified copy of drainage tax receipt dt. 18.02.2021. Ex.A9:Another certified copy of property tax dt. 02.03.2024. Ex.A10:Certified copy of dairy 2015. Ex.A11:C/c of the sale deed dated 23.09.1974 vide document No. 3353/1974, dated 02.08.2024. Ex.A12:Decree and judgment passed in OS 670/2018 on the file of 29 OS 51/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., the Hon’ble II Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Viajaywada dated 11.11.2025. Ex.A13:Portion of the deposition of DW2 dated 24.11.2025. Ex.A14:Portion of the deposition of DW2 dated 24.11.2025.

DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1:LIC policy certificate dated 12.08.2011. Ex.B2:Aadhar card of first defendant. Ex.B3:Voter ID of first defendant. Ex.B4:HDFC ERGO General Insurance company ltd sent a letter to the first defendant with regard to health policy dated 24.11.2017. Ex.B5:Master Roll of Bhuthapati Benarji brother of the defendants, during the period 01.10.2016 to 31.03.2017 issued by Station Manager, South Central Railway, Machilipatnam. Ex.B6:Certified copy of Will dated 20.12.2010. Ex.B7:Certified copy of neat copy of plaint in OS No. 670/2018 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Vijayawada. Ex.B8:Certified copy of Housing Loan letter issued by SBH, Vijayawada in favour of first defendant bearing A/c. No. 62170858213, dated 10.02.2017. Ex.B9:Certified copy of demand notice issued by Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, dated 12.04.2014. Ex.B10:Certified copy of tax receipt paid by first defendant, dated 21.09.2016. Ex.B11:Certified copy of demand notice issued by Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada dated 02.06.2016. Ex.B12:Certified copy of Gas Sanction Certificate issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, dated 02.03.2013.

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao,

III ACJ(SD)/VJA.,

1 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION): AT VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, III Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 24th day of April, 2026

OS No.83/2021

Between: Smt. Donepudi Jayasree, W/o. Sambasiva Rao, Age 57 years, R/o. D.No. 8-39, Katuru Vilage, Vuyyuru Mandal, Krishna District.

.. Plaintiff

Vs

1. Chigurupati Nageswara Rao, S/o. Mallaiah, Age 76 years, R/o.D.No. 12-72, Penamaluru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. (Died) 2.Pedarla Rajeswari,W/o. Siva Nageswara Rao, Age 55 years, R/o.D.No. 3-143, Guntupalli, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.

3. Yalamanchili Vanisri, W/o.Siva Naga Prasad,Age 53 years, R/o. Plot No. 253, D.No. 8-249/1, Sitapuram Colony, Poranki village,Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

4. Pedarla Ajay Kumar, S/o.Siva Nageswara Rao, Age 30 years,R/o.D.No. 3-143, Guntupalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.

5. Pedarla Vijay Kumar,S/o. Siva Nageswara Rao, Age 28years,R/o.D.No. 3-143, Guntupalli village, Ibrahimpatanm Mandal, Krishna District.

6. Chigurupati Yasodha, W/o. Late Chigurupati Nageswara Rao, Age 72 years, R/o.D.No. 12-72, Penamaluru village and Mandal, krishna District.

.. Defendants

(Defendant No.6 added as L.R of the deceased 1 st defendant as per the orders passed in IA No. 661/2022, dated 14.08.2023 ) 2 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 17-04-2026 in the presence of Sri N.Durga Prasad, Smt. N.Durga Jhansi Rani,

Sri. C.Srinivasa Rao, Sri K.Ajay and Sri S.Lakshmi Kanth, Advocates

for plaintiff and Sri G.Narayana Swamy, Advocate for defendant No.1

and Smt. Padma, Smt. K.Sasikala, Advocates for defendants No.2, 4

and 5 and Sri G.N.Swamy, Advocate for defendant No.6 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. Suit is filed by the plaintiff 1) preliminary decree for partition of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property into 4 equal shares according to good and bad qualities and by metes and bounds and order delivery of separate possession of one each such share to the plaintiff and for partition of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares according to good and bad qualities and by metes and bounds and order delivery of separate possession of one such share to the plaintif i(a)

Preliminary decree for partition of the proposed 1/4th share of the defendant No.1 in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares according to good and bad qualities and by metes and bounds and order delivery of separate possession of one each such share to the plaintiff and for partition of the proposed 1/4th share of the defendant No.1 in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares according to good and bad qualities and by metes and bounds and order delivery of separate possession of one such share to the 3 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., plaintiff. (Para No.i(a) added as per the orders of the Hon’ble court passed in IA

No. 347/2023, dated 30.04.2024) 2. To grant permission to apply final decree in terms of preliminary decree. 3. Declare that the registered gift deeds bearing Doc No. 2389/2018 and 2388/2018, dated 17.05.2018 on the file of SRO, Kankipadu stood in the name of defendants 4 and 5 respectively are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff as the same were executed fraudulently by the 1st defendant, thereby liable to be canceled the said gift deeds. 4. For costs of the suit.

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

(a) The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1 is the father, defendants 2 and 3 are the sisters to the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of the defendant No.2. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 constitute Hindu Joint Family. Subsequent tot he death of father and mother of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 and his brother partitioned their ancestral properties in the year 1993 and in which defendant No.1 got the plaint schedule properties and other properties towards his share. While so, as the said properties are ancestral properties, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are enjoying as joint family properties. Except the plaint schedule properties, the remaining properties disposed off by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 jointly and thereby enjoying the plaint schedule properties as joint 4 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., family properties. Defendant No.1 is being a father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 looking after the said properties. The plaintiff recently came to know that defendant No.1 executed a two gift deeds

dated 17.05.2018 vide document No. 2389/2018 and 2388/2018 of

SRO, Ibrahimpatanm by gifting an extent of 33.1/2 and 32 cents of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendant

No.4 and 5 respectively. On reliable enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the said Gift deeds are executed with a fraudulent intention to avoid share of the plaintiff in the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. As the plaint schedule property is a joint family proper, defendant No.1 has no manner of right to execute the said gift deeds without participation of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. As such, the said gift deeds are sham and nominal and not binding to the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. Even though the execution of the so called gift deeds, the item No.1 of the schedule property did not deliver to the defendants 4 and 5 by the defendant No.1 and as such, the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the defendant No.1. In view of the same, the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is also in joint possession of plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3. the execution of the gift deeds for the item

No.1 of the plaint schedule property is nothing but fraudulent one 5 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., and as such those documents are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

(b) Further contention is that the plaintiff demanded the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff. For which all the defendants kept quite without giving proper answer to the plaintiff.

Subsequently, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants on 04.02.2021 for partition of the plaint schedule properties and the defendants received the same and the defendant No.1 only got issued a reply with all false averments and thereby denied to allot the share to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff constrained to file this suit.

During the pendency of the suit, the 1 st defendant died on

28.08.2022 leaving behind him herself, defendants 2, 3 and 6

as his legal heirs to succeed his 1/4th share in the plaint

schedule properties. As such, the plaintiff is having right to get

1/4th share in the 1/4th share of defendant No.1.

(Added as [er the per the orders of the Hon’ble Court passed in IA No. 347/2023, dated 30.04.2024).

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to seek partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allot 1/4th share to the plaintiff with reference to the good and bad qualities and delivery of possession of such share to the plaintiff.

6 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

The plaintiff is entitled to seek partition of the proposed

1/4th share of the defendant No.1 in the plaint schedule

properties into four equal shares and allot 1/4th share to the

plaintiffs and delivery of possession of such share to the plaintiff.

(Added as [er the per the orders of the Hon’ble Court passed in IA No. 347/2023, dated 30.04.2024). Hence the suit.

3. The averments in the written statement of the defendant No.1

and same was adopted by the defendants 2, 4 and 5 in brief are as

follows:

(I) The 1st defendant’s father Chigurupati Mallaih was blessed with two sons by name Nageswara Rao I.e, the 1st defendant and Radha

Krishna Murthy. Chigurupati Mallaiah died intestate on 21.06.1987 leaving behind his wife and two sons to succeed to his properties.

Subsequently the wife of Chigurupati Mallaiah died on 22.02.1993. Later on 20.03.1993 this defendant and his brother got partitioned their properties on 20.03.1993 by executing a partition list according to their oral partition in the year 1988. As per the partition list dt. 23.03.1993 ‘A’ scheduled properties fell tot he share of this defendant I.e, Nageswara

Rao and ‘B’ scheduled properties fell to the share of this defendant’s brother Radhakrishna Murthy and ever since then this defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties that fell to his share

I.e, ‘A’ schedule properties. As per the ‘A’ schedule, land in an extent of

A.c7 ½ cents in Penamaluru village and Maldal, Krishna District I.e, Item 7 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

No.2 of the plaint schedule property and land in an extent of ..54 cents in

RS No. 95/1 of Penamaluru village and Mandal, Krishna District and land in an extent of Ac. 1.80 cents in RS No. 313/5 of Poranki village,

Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District and land in an extent of Ac. 0.62 ½ cents in Poranki village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District I.e, Item

No.1 of the plaint schedule property, all theses properties fell to the share of this defendant. This defendant was blessed with 3 daughters namely

1. Donepudi Jaya Sree ie., the plaintiff herein, 2. Pedarla Rajeswari, the 2nd defendant and 3. Yalamanchili Vani Sri the 3rd defendant. This defendant performed the marriages of his daughters in the year 1980, 1988 and 1990 respectively with all lanchanams.

(ii) Further contention is that by the time of the plaintiff’s marriage there was an oral family arrangement in between the family members of this defendant that his first daughter I.e, the plaintiff will be gifted the property which stood in the name of Mallaiah in an extent of Ac. 0.70 cents in RS No. 488/1of Poranki village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna

District as Pasupukukuma property, the second and third daughters ie., 2nd and 3rd defendants will be gifted the land in extent of Ac. 0.90 cents each out of Ac. 1.80 cents in RS No. 313/5 of Poranki village and it was agreed that this defendant and his wife will retain the remaining property including the plaint schedule properties to their share towards their 8 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., maintenance as well as their family expenses. Later in the year 1982 as per the instructions of in laws of the plaintiff, this defendant along with his father late Mallaiah and brother Radha Krishna Murthy sold an extent of Ac. 0.70 cents iN RS No. 488/1 of Poranki Village, Penamaluru

Mandal, Krishna District and entrusted the sale proceeds to the in laws of the plaintiff as Pasupukunkuma and the plaintiff’s in laws purchased properties at Katuru village with the said sale proceeds. Subsequently, on 04.09.1999 as per the wish of his daughters this defendant sold out an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents to third parties vide document No.

2779/1999 on the file of SRO, Kankipadu and the sale proceeds of Ac.

0.90 cents were given to his 2nd daughter I.e, 2nd defendant. The 3rd daughter I.e, 3rd defendant was given Ac. 0.10 cents ale proceeds as also the remaining extent of Ac. 0.80 cents out of an extent of Ac. 1.80 cents land mentioned supra was gifted to her on the same date under a registered document No. 2778/1999 on the file of SRO, Kankipadu.

Thus this defendant settled his properties accordingly to his daughters asper their family arrangement arrived at the time of their marriages.

(iii) Further contention is that Land in an extent of Ac 0-54 cents was sold away by him to meet the family expenditure as also the marriage expenditure of his 3 daughters and the same is well known and done with the consent of his daughters. As per the Family Arrangement the Plaint 9 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Schedule properties were settled to this Defendant and his wife exclusively for the purpose of their maintenance and the same was agreed upon by his 3 Daughters and their husbands. As such this Defendant has become the Absolute owner of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the Plaint

Schedule Properties. Thereafter this Defendant and his wife were totally neglected by his three daughters as such they sought the shelter of their 2nd daughter's sons namely Pedarla Ajay ie the 4th Defendant and

Pedarla Vijay Kumar i.e., the 5th Defendant for their livelihood and well being. This Defendant and his wife were taken care of by their two maternal grandsons i.e., the 4th and 5th Defendants. This Defendant humbly submit his anguish to this Hon'ble Court that the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.3 neglected him and his wife at the dawn of their life leaving them to their fate, during the pandemic period as well as old age medical exigencies, leaving to winds the parental bondage tending this

Defendant and his wife to untold physical and mental suffering. On the other hand instituting suits and dragging this Defendant to the courts of law for their greedy ends clearly reveal the collusive nature of the Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant. This Defendant and his wife are under the care and protection of Defendants 2, 4 and 5, else they would have been on road and their existence would have been at stake. This Defendant as a token of gratitude for the selfless valuable services rendered by his two 10 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., maternal grandsons, i.e., the 4th and 5th Defendants out of love executed two Registered Gift Deeds on 17.05.2018, vide Document Nos.2388/2018 and 2389/2018 with regard to Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule Properties.

This Defendant had settled the Joint family properties as per their Family

Arrangement to his three daughters and now this Defendant is at liberty to deal with the Plaint Schedule Properties as per his whims and fancies and the question of Partition of the same into 4 equal shares and the claim of the Plaintiff as to ¼th share in the Plaint Schedule Properties does not arise and the same is the case with the rest of his two daughters i.e., 2nd and 3rd Defendants. There is no cause of Action for the Plaintiff and the alleged cause of Action is nothing but a fictitious cause of Action created by the Plaintiff for the purpose of the present Suit. The plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed in the suit.

4. The averments in the Additional written statement of the defendant No.6 in brief are as follows:

(I) the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3 neglected her and her husband pandemic period as well as old age medical exigencies, leaving to at the dawn of their life leaving them to their fate, during the winds the paternal bondage tending this Defendant and her husband to untold physical and mental suffering. On the other hand instituting suits and dragging the 1st Defendant and this Defendant to the Courts of Law for their greedy ends clearly reveal the collusive nature of the Plaintiff and 3rd Defendant.

11 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

This Defendant along with her husband are under the care and protection of Defendant No.2, 4 & 5, else they would have been on road and their existence would have been at stake. The 1st Defendant as a token of gratitude for the selfless valuable services rendered by his to maternal grandsons, i.e., 4th & 5th Defendants out of love executed to

Registered Gift Deeds on 17-05-2018, vide documents Nos. 2388/2018 & 2389/2018 with regard to item No. 1 of the plaint schedule properties.

The 1st Defendant has settled the joint family properties as per their family arrangement to his 3 daughters and as such the 1st Defendant is at liberty to deal with Plaint Schedule Properties as per his whims and fancies and the question of partition of the 1st Defendant's share into equal shares and the claim of the Plaintiff as to ½ share in the Plaint

Schedule Properties does not arise and the same is the case with the rest of his two daughters i.e., the 2nd & 3rd Defendants. The 6th defendant husband I.e, 1st defendant died on 28.08.2022 and the obsequies of her husband were performed by defendants 4 and 5 and they have expended for the 11th day ceremony of their maternal grand father I.e, 1st defendant therein. After the demise of their maternal grandfather the 4th and 5th defendants have been taking care of their maternal grand mother I.e, this defendant herein. The 1st Anniversary death ceremony of the 1st defendant was also performed by the 4th and 5th defendants exclusively.

12 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Neither the plaintiff nor 3rd defendant expended a single pie towards the funeral,obsequies as also the 1st anniversary death ceremony of their father I.e, the 1st defendant herein. The plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought by her in the neat copy of the plaint including the relief sought at 1(a) of para no.8 at page no.7 and 8of the neat copy of the plaint. There the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the issues are settled for Trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the item No.1 and item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff with metes and bounds as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the proposed 1/4th shares of the defendant No.1 in the item No.1 and item No.2 of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff with metes and bounds as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration that the registered gift deed bearing Doc. No. 2389/2018 and 2388/2018 dated 17.05.2018 on the file of SRO, Kankipadu in the name of defendants 4 and 5 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial on behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and documents marked on behalf of plaintiff as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 On behalf of defendants, the 6th defendant herself examined as DW1 and Ex.B1 was marked on their behalf.

13 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

7. Heard the learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendants.

8. ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:

Issue No.1 to 3 taken up altogether as the discussion and out come of these issues most probably one and the same and to avoid the reputation all these issues answered at a time and out come of issue Nos.2 and 3 bearing upon the issue No.1 which decides the results of the suit.

9.The version of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant is the father of the plaintiff and plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the 1st defendant. Further version is that in the year 1993, the 1st defendant and his brother partitioned their ancestral properties, the 1st defendant got plaint schedule properties and other properties towards his share. While so, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are enjoying as joint family properties. Except plaint schedule properties, the remaining properties deposed off by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 jointly and thereby they enjoying the plaint schedule properties as joint family properties. Further version is that recently plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant executed original of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in favour of 4th and 5th defendants who are the sons of 2nd defendant in respect of item No.1 of plaint schedule property without any manner of right. Further version is that the gift deeds executed by 1st defendant are sham and nominal and not binding on the plaintiff and 14 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., defendants 2 and 3. Further version is that the plaintiff demanded the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff. For which all the defendants kept quite without giving any proper answer to the plaintiff. On that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 04.02.2021 for partition of the plaint schedule properties, the defendants received the same and the 1st defendant only got issued a reply notice with all false averments.

10.On the other hand the version of the defendants is that the father of the 1st defendant Mallaiah died on 22.02.1993. Later on 20.03.1993 this defendant and his brother got partitioned their properties on 20.03.1993 by executed a partition list according to their oral partition in the year 1988. As per the partition list dt.

20.03.1993 ’A’ scheduled properties fell to the share of 1st defendant and ‘B’ scheduled properties fell to the share of his brother

Radhakrishna Murthy and ever since then this defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties that fell to his share. Further version is that as per ‘A’ schedule land in an extent of

Ac. 7 ½ cents in Penamaluru village I.e, item No.2 of plaint schedule property and land in an extent of 0.54 cents in RS No. 95/1 of

Penamaluru village of land an extent of Ac. 1.80 cents in RS No.

15 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., 313/5 of Penamaluru village of land an extent of Ac. 0.62 ½ cents in

Poranki village I.e., item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, all theses properties fell to the share of 1st defendant. Further version is that by the time of marriage of plaintiff there was an oral family arrangement in between the family members of 1st defendant. As per the family arrangement, the plaintiff will be gifted the property which stood in the name of Mallaiah an extent of Ac. 0.70 cents in RS No.

488/1 of Poranki village towards Pasupukukuma. The 2nd and 3rd daughters will be gifted the land in extent of Ac. 0.90 cents each out of Ac. 1.80 cents in RS No. 313/5 of Poranki village and it was agreed that this defendant and his wife retain the remaining property including the plaint schedule properties to their share towards their maintenance as well as their family expenses. Further version is that in the year 1982 as per the instructions of in laws of the plaintiff, 1st defendant along with his father late Mallaiah and brother Radha

Krishna Murthy sold an extent of Ac. 0.70 cents in RS No. 488/1 of

Poranki Village and entrusted the sale proceeds to the in laws of the plaintiff as Pasupukunkuma and in laws of the plaintiff purchased properties at Katuru Village with the said sale proceeds. Further version is that thereafter the 1st defendant and his wife were totally neglected by his three daughters as such they sought the shelter of 16 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., their grand sons I.e, 4th and 5th defendants namely Pedarla Ajay and

Pedarla Vijay Kumar for their livelihood and well being. So as a token of gratitude for selfless valuable services of the defendants 4 and 5 out of love and affection, the 1st defendant executed original of Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 in favour of 4th and 5th defendants in respect of item No.1 of schedule property. Further version is that so far item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, the 1st defendant executed a Will under

Ex.B1 bequeathing the property of 4th and 5th defendants and created life interest to his wife 6th defendant.

11.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 reiterated the contents of the plaint in her chief examination and she was cross examined by the counsel for the defendants, in the cross she stated that she filed the present suit against Ajay and Vijay

I.e, D4 and D5. Her father Chigurupati Nageswara Rao that is D1 is no more. Further deposed that prior to filing of the suit she got issued legal notice to the defendants under Ex.A3. Further deposed that she can not say the survey number of the suit schedule property.

The extent of schedule property 60 cents. She can not say all the boundaries of schedule property. Further deposed that after death of her father her mother added as 2nd defendant in this suit. She also filed written statement she has gone through the averments of the 17 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., statement filed by her mother. It is true her father executed a Will

dated 28.04.2021 in favour of her mother by creating life interest

subsequently vested reminder to D4 and D5 after demise of D6. As per partition list dated 20.03.1993, her father fell to the share of a house located in Penamaluru village and land an extent of 60 cents located in Penamaluru Revenue Village. Further deposed that her father used to cultivate lands during his life time. Her marriage was performed on 05.08.1981, by the time of her marriage her grand father Mallaiah was alive. It is true her father made a proposal at the time of her marriage he will settle land an extent of 70 cents in RS No. 488/1 of

Poranki village. She does not know whether the said property was sold to one Vemuri Basavamma under registered sale deed dated 18.02.1982. Further deposed that she purchased land in Katuru village. It is true in Katuru Village she got land. Further deposed that she does not remember in which year she purchased the said land.

It is true herself, her father, D2 executed the gift deed of an extent of 90 cents in favour of D3 under registered gift deed. It is true herself, her father, D3 and D4 sold an extent of 1 cent in survey No. 303/5 of

Penamaluru village under registered sale deed. It is true by the time of her marriage, her grand father, her father and her junior paternal uncle decided which properties to settle to three daughters herself, D2 18 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., and D3. It is true her father sold away land an extent of 54 cents in

RS No. 95/1 in Penamaluru village for their family and marriage expenses of three daughters. After sold away the properties item

No.1 and 2 of schedule property reminded during the life time of her father. Except the schedule property there is no other property stands in the name of her father by the time of his death. Further deposed that her father and mother resided in Penamaluru village.

Further deposed that after she came to know the existence of the

Will which filed by her mother she has not taken any steps to cancel the said Will.

12.To prove the defense of the defendants, the 6th defendant

Smt.Chigurupati Yasodamma examined as DW1, she also reiterated the contents of the written statement in her chief examination, she was cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiff, in the cross she stated that she did not possess any document to show that land an extent of 70 cents in Poranki village intended to given to plaintiff or they gave the same to the plaintiff. So also no document to show that property given to D2 and D3 under the documents. No partition deed among deceased first defendant and his three daughters. She has no documentary proof to show that they sold the land an extent of 70 cents and sale proceeds given to the in laws of the plaintiff in turn 19 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., they purchased some landed property at Katuru Village. Further deposed that she has not possessed any document to show that they sold the land an extent of 1 Acre to 3rd parties on 04.09.1999 and sale proceeds of 90 cents out of 1 Acre given to second defendant and sale proceeds for 10 cents given to 3rd defendant.

13.The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking partition of plaint schedule property into four equal shares and claiming one such share to the plaintiff and other relief sought by the plaintiff that for declare the original of Ex. A1 and Ex.A2 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. It is settled principle that to get the relief of partition, the plaintiff has to establish that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property and there is no prior partition, so also the plaintiff has to shown all the properties which liable for partition and all the parties which are actually entitled for share in the property. In this case the version of the plaintiff is that after death of father of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant and his brother Radhakrishna Murthy partitioned their joint family properties, the plaint schedule property and other property fell to the share of father of the plaintiff who is first defendant. Some of the properties disposed off by the plaintiff, D1 to

D3 and plaint schedule property reminded in the name of father of the plaintiff which liable for partition into four equal shares.

20 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

14.On the other hand the version of the defendants is that there was a family arrangement among the family members, as per the arrangement, the land an extent of Ac. 0.70 cents given to the plaintiff and subsequently she was sold away and sale proceeds entrusted to the in laws of the plaintiff in turn the in laws of the plaintiff purchased the land in Katuru Village. Like so the defendants 2 and 3 also given to the sale proceeds for the land an extent of

Ac. 1.00 cents. The plaint schedule property kept in the possession of 1st defendant and his wife for their welfare and medical expenses.

During last days, the three daughters of the 1st defendant have not taken care of the 1st defendant and his wife thereby the 1st defendant executed gift deed under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in favour of 4th and 5th defendants who are the sons of 2nd defendant. As they are taking much care of the welfare of the 1st defendant. Subsequently the 1st defendant executed a Will under Ex.B1 in favour fo 4th and 5th defendants in respect of item No.2 of the schedule property by creating life interest to the 6th defendant who is wife of 1st defendant.

15.Based on the above set off facts and pleadings the question

before, decided that Whether the plaint schedule property is liable for

partition or not?. As per the version the deceased/1st defendant, there was a family arrangement and some properties given to his 21 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA., daughters and the plaintiff has not got any right to interfere with the remaining property which retain in the possession of 1st defendant, as the 1st defendant became absolute owner of the property, since after partition with his brother, the said property became his self acquired property but not ancestral property. In this regard, the plaintiff categorically admitted that there was a partition between plaintiff and his brother Radha Krishna Murthy. Based on this admission it is solely came to the conclusion that the plaint schedule property along with other properties is self acquired property of 1st defendant. If it so he has got every right to alienate the property as per his wish and will.

The plaintiff herself categorically admitted in her cross examination that it is true by the time of her marriages her grand father, her father and her junior paternal uncle decided which properties to settle to three daughters I.e, herself, D2 and D3. As per their admission there was a settlement among the family members to settle the properties.

Further stated that it is true in Katuru Village she got land. She does not remember in which year she purchased the said land. As per the above admission admittedly she purchased the land in Katuru Village.

In the existence of above statement she purchased land in Katuru

Village with sale proceeds given by her parents can not be ruled out.

Moreover admittedly the father of the plaintiff executed Will under 22 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Ex.B1 in respect of item No.2 of the schedule property whereas the plaintiff not seeking any relief in the suit against the said Will.

16.In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff failed to establish that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property and failed to establish that the plaint schedule property not self acquired property of 1st defendant.

17.In view of the above circumstances and discussion supra, the plaintiff can not get the relief of partition and declaration that original of Exs. A1 and A2 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

Accordingly Issue Nos. 1 to 3 answered.

18. ISSUE NO.4

In the result,suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao,

III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined for)

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Donepudi JayasreeDW1: Chigurupati Yasodamma 23 OS 83/2021 III ASCJ/VJA.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Mee-seva copy of registered gift deed dated 17.05.2018 vide doc No. 2389/2018. Ex.A2:Mee-seva copy of registered gift deed dated 17.05.2018 vide doc No. 2388/2018. Ex.A3:Office copy of legal notice issued to the defendants dated 04.02.2021. Ex.A4:Acknowledgments five in number. Ex.A5:Reply notice issued by first defendant dated 25.02.2021.

DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1:Certified copy of registered Will executed by first defendant in favour of defendants 4, 5 and 6 dated 28.04.2021.

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao,

III ACJ(SD)/VJA.,

1

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

I Add JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.

Present : Vatram Venkateswara Rao,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum – I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid. Friday, this the 14th day of July, 2023.

CC.No.507/2015

Between :

The State : Sub – Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Town Police Station.

….. Complainant.

AND

1. Matta Ranga Rao, Son of Chinnaiah, 30 years, SC-Madiga, Bapunagar, Nuzvid.

2. Laagu Veerababu, Son of Istraiah, 27 years, SC-Madiga, Bapunagar, Nuzvid.

3. Yalamarthi Sudarsanam, Son of Nageswara Rao, 30 years, SC- Madiga,VattigudipaduVillage, Agiripalli Mandal.

4. Kaalidasu Ramesh, Son of Sobhanadri, 20 years, SC-Madiga, NTR Colony, Nuzvid.

5. Bollipamu Ravi, Son of Moshe, 22 years, SC-Madiga, Bapunagar, Nuzvid.

6. Gudelli Joji, Son of Raju, 19 Years, SC-Madiga, Bapunagar, Nuzvid.

7. Kolikipamula Raju, Son of Ranga Rao, 19 years, Madiga, Bapunagar, Nuzvid.

8. Abbudasari Nagaraju, Son of Israil, 35 years, SC-madiga, Bapunagar, Nuzvid.

9. Matta Vivekanand, Son of Chinnaiah, 22 years, SC-Madiga, Bapunagar, Nuzvid.

2

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023

10. Godavarthi Rambabu, Son of Bikshalu, 23 years, SC- Madiga, Bapunagar, Nuzvid.

11. Natta Nageswara Rao, Son of Bala Krishna, 29 years, SC- Mala, Bapunagar, Nuzvid.

12. Kapa Srinivasa Rao, Son of Maheswara Rao, 42 years, Kamma, TDP Mandal President, Ravicherla, Nuzvid Mandal.

13. Parepalli Siva Bhavani, Wife of Chalapathi, 38 years, Gowda, Ramannagudem.

14.Ranimekala Syam Kumar, Son of Sivannarayana, 25 years, Uppara, Ramannagudem.

15.Vissampalli Vinod, Son of Mallikarjunarao, 19 years, Madiga, Ramannagudem.

16. Kurakula Srinivasa Rao @ Auto Srinu, Son of Venkateswara Rao, 25 years, Yadava, Ramannagudem.

17. Sandipamu Venkateswara Rao @Venkatesu, Son of Suraiah, 31 years, SC-Madiga, Ramannagudem.

18. Mullangi Venkateswara Rao, Son of Subbarao @ Musalaiah, 33 years, Madiga, Ramannagudem.

19. Mullangi Venu, Son of Krishna, 30 years, SC-Madiga, Ramannagudem.

20. Seelam Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu, Son of Krishna Rao, 35 years, Kapu, Ramannagudem.

21. Parepalli Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra, Son of Chalapathi, 20 years, Gowda, Ramannagudem.

22.KalapalaBiyandris,Wifeof Venkateswara Rao, 45 years, SC- Madiga, DWAKRA Group District Animator, Ramannagudem.

3

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023 23.KalapalaPradeep,Sonof Venkateswara Rao, 20 years, SC- Madiga,TruckAutoDriver, Ramannagudem.

24.Vemula Prasad, Son of Nancharaiah, 25years,Vaddera,Coolie, Ramannagudem Village.

25. Pamujula Sambasiva Rao, Son of Venkateswara Rao, 19 years, SC- Madiga, Ramannagudem.

26. Sayala Shadrak, Son of Krishna, 25 years, SC-Mala, Vattigudipadu Village.

27. Mirayala Srinivasa Rao, Son of Veera Swamy, 32 years, Veera Bhadra, Ramannagudem Village.

28. Mullangi Sunitha, Wife of Govardhan, 40 years, SC-Madiga, Ramannagudem Village, [Wife of Ex-Sarpanch, Ramannagudem].

29.Yaaram Dileep Kumar, Son of Baburao, 21 years, SC-Mala, Nehrupeta, Nuzvid.

30. Pillim Dileep Kumar @ Pandu, Son of Baburao @ Francis, 19 years, SC-mala, Nehrupeta, Nuzvid.

31. Korabandi Vijay @ Chinni Nani, Son of Anand, 20 years, SC- Mala, Nehrupeta, Nuzvid. (Died and abated)

32. Gaddam Naresh Babu @ Naresh @ Suthi, Son of Bhaskara Rao, 20 years, SC-Mala, Nehrupeta, Nuzvid.

33. Merugu Ramesh @ Koya, Son of Late Irmiya, 21 years, SC- Mala, (Died and abated) Nehrupeta, Nuzvid.

34. Manne Jyothi, Wife of Late Mariyamma, 30 years, SC- Madiga, Coolie, Ammavarithota, Nuzvid.

35. Saripalli Anil Kumar, Son of Philips Raju, 22 years, SC- Mala, Nehrupeta, Nuzvid.

4

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023

36. Sandipamu Koteswara Rao, Son of Venkaiah, 70 years, SC- Madiga, Bapunagar, Nuzvid.

37.Lagu Rangarao, Son of Narayana, 25 years, SC-Madiga, Bapunagar, Nuzvid.

38. Mullangi Ravi, Son of Krishna, 26 years, SC-Madiga, Ramannagudem Village.

39.Gandipuri Sunil Kumar, Son of Arogyaswamy, 20 years, SC- Madiga, Ramannagudem Village.

40. Moran Sailendra, Son of Bhavani Sankar, 19 years, Padmasali, Ramannagudem Village.

41.KalakantiKaasibabu,Sonof Venkateswara Rao, 21 years, Nai- Brahmin, Vattigudipadu Village.

42. Miryala Venkateswara Rao, Son of Ramulu, 26 years Veera Musti, Ramannagudem Village.

43.Chokka Chanti, Son of Jayaraju, 22 years, SC-mala, Nehrupeta, Nuzvid.

44.TagaramRamana@Venkata Ramana, Wife of Venkateswara Rao, 25 years, SC-Madiga, Pothureddipalli Village, Nuzvid Mandal.

45.Prathipati Swaroop, Son of Prasad, 25 years, SC-Madiga, Ramannagudem Village.

Initially, cognizance taken against Accused No.1 to Accused

No.45 and numbered as Calender Case 171 of 2011, later the case against Accused No. 11, 31, 33, 45 is split up, and assigned a new case number as C.C.No.507 of 2015, as per the Docket Orders,

dated 23.07.2015 in Calender Case No. 171 of 2011. Accused No.33 is

5

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023 died and case against Accused No.33 is abated on 15.07.2016.

Accused No.31 died and the case against Accused No.31 is abated on 30.01.2023.

…. Accused No.11, 33,33 & 45

***

This case coming before me on 12.07.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant Sri. Vaka Raj Kumar, counsel for Accused No.45, upon hearing the arguments on the side of both parties, upon perusal of the entire material available on record, and upon having been stood over consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Town Police Station has filed Charge-sheet against the Accused No.1 to 45 for the offence under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property

Act, 1984, in Crime No.131 of 2009 of Nuzvid Town Police Station.

2. The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that,

On 09.06.2009, at 19:00 hours, it was reported by

LW.1, that on 09.06.2009 at about 06:30 hours, one of the R.T.C. Driver of Bus bearing No.AP16 TX 5707, while coming from R.T.C. Depot,

Nuzvid to outside, dashed against another R.T.C. Bus bearing

No.AP16TX 2632, which was parked by the road side, due to which one Velpula Venkateswara Rao, Son of Chennaiah, 38 years, SC-Madiga, Ramannagudem Village, crushed in between both the R.T.C. Buses and died on the spot with severe bleeding injuries, which is subject matter of the case in Cr.No.130/2009, under

Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 of Nuzvid Town P.S.

b]On knowing about the death information, at about 09:30 hours, some villagers and sympathizers of M.R.P.S [Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi] and agitators with mob gathered 6

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023 i.e., Accused No.1 to Accused No.45 at R.T.C. Bus stand, Nuzvid and demanded to do justice, and pay compensation to the family members of the deceased, and suddenly all the mob armed with

Sticks, Iron Rods and Stones attacked on the R.T.C. Buses, which were parked nearby R.T.C. Bus Depot, Nuzvid and damaged the Mirrors of 20 Buses and caused loss to a tune of Rs.6,00,000/- to the R.T.C.,

E]During the course of investigation, LW.1, R.T.C.Bus

Driver, and other private Bus drivers were examined i.e.,

Sambangi Dhanunjaya Rao, Tulimelli Bhaskara Rao, Sammeta

Nagarjuna Rao, Tummalapalli Rajaratnam, Potluri Sambasiva Rao,

Shaik Chand Basha and Mareedu Subba Rao [LWs.1 to 7], and the Police Staff were examined as K.V.S.R.K.Kumar, Abdul

Shukoor, B.Taviriya Naik and A.Anil Kumar [LWs.8 to 11], and recorded their Statements. The agitation and Rasta Roko done by

Political Parties and M.R.P.S. Sympathizers were got photographed by Sunkara Srinivasa Rao and Sunkara Gopi Krishna [LWs.12 and 13], and the same was witnessed by the elders Meduru

Nageswara Rao and Muthavarapu Lakshminarayana [LWs.14 and 15], and identified the Matta Ranga Rao [Accused No.1] and

Parepalli Siva Bhavani [Accused No.13] and informed about their address particulars. Some of the Accused acts were published in

Daily News Papers, and about 20 R.T.C. Buses were damaged when the mob i.e., Accused damaged with Stout Sticks, Stones and

Iron Rods. On 10.06.2009, the scene of offence were observed and got drafted an Observation Reports of the scene by the

Mediators, namely, Bethapudi Atchaiah and Rachprolu Vijaya Rao [LWs.45 and 46] and seized Crime Weapons i.e. Iron Rods,

Sticks, and Stones, besides broken Glass pieces under a cover of 7

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023

Mediators Report.

F]During the course of investigation and basing on the evidence of the Witnesses No.16 to 44, who identified the Accused, while committing crime, on 11.06.2009, the

Accused No.1 to 9, on 15.06.2009, the Accused No.10, 15 to 21, 24 to 27, on 16.06.2009, the Accused No.23, 29 31 to 33 and 35, on 29.06.2009, the Accused No.13, 14, 28, 30, 36 to 43 and on 21.10.2009, the Accused No.34 were arrested by the LW.48, and sent them to Judicial Custody. On 13.07.2009, the Accused No.22, on 27.07.2009, the Accused No.45 and on 03.12.2010, the

Accused No.12 surrendered before this Court. On 22.11.2010, the

Accused No.44, and on 05.01.2011, Accused No.11, were arrested by the LW.49 and sent them for remand. After completion of the investigation, LW.49 filed the Charge-sheet.

3. The case was taken on file against the Accused No.1 to 45 for the offence under Section 3, of Prevention of Damage to

Public Property Act, 1984.

4. On 23.07.2015, this Case against the Accused No.11, 31, 33 and 45 was split up from the Case in CC.No.171/2011, and was registered as C.C.No.502 of 2015, by issuing Non Bailable Warrants against the Accused No.11, 31, 33 and 45. Accused No.33 is died and case against Accused No.33 is abated on 15.07.2016. Accused No.31 died and the case against Accused No.31 is abated on 30.01.2023.

5. On appearance of the Accused No.11 and Accused No.45, the copies of the case documents were furnished under Section 207,

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accused No.11 and Accused No.45 are examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code and the charge under section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property 8

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023

Act, 1984, read over and explained to the Accused No.11 and

Accused No.45 for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has filed memo stating that this case split up from

CC.No.171/2011 and the same is disposed off, hence to proceed with

the evidence recorded in CC.No.171/2011. Therefore the evidence recorded in CC.No.171/2011 i.e., PW.1 to PW.24, Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and

MO.1 to MO.13 considered in this case.

7.After closing the prosecution evidence, Accused No.11 and

Accused No.45 are examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure

Code, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The Accused No.11 and

Accused No.45 denied those circumstance as false and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.

8. Heard on both sides and perused the records.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution had proved the guilt of the

Accused No.11 and Accused No.45 for the offence punishable under Section 3, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

a]To establish the guilt of the Accused No.11 and

Accused No.45, this court has taken the evidence recorded in

CC.No.171/2011 i.e., PW.1 to PW.24, Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and MO.1 to MO.3.

[b]. As per Report under Ex.P.1, on 09.06.2009, at about 06:30 A.M. in front of Commercial Complex, located 9

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023

before A.P.S.R.T.C. Depot, Nuzvid, the Bus bearing No.AP16 TX

2632 was parked, and the Bus bearing No.AP16 TX 5707 driven by its driver in a high speed and in negligent manner and dashed the

Bus and moved forward and one person was crushed in between the two Buses and died on the spot; and that he came to know that the name of the deceased is Velpula Venkateswara Rao of

Ramannagudem; and that some persons, namely Natta Nageswara

Rao, Kapa Srinivasa rao, W/o. Ex-Sarpanch of Ramannagudem and some others did 'Rasta Roko' up- to 09:30 A.M., and as the owner of

Hire Bus did not give proper reply and as the RTC did not declare the ex-gratia, at about 09:30 A.M., all of them became angry, the wife of Ramannagudem, Ex.Sarpanch, stated that the males will not come forward till the ladies move, and along with the remaining ladies, she hit Buses present there with stones and the remaining persons along with the activists of MRPS came with sticks, iron rods and big stones, and hit the APSRTC Buses and Hire Buses; and damaged the mirrors, and caused loss to RTC; and that 12

A.P.S.R.T.C Buses were damaged and 8 Hired Buses were damaged.

[c]. As per Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act, 1984, it provides as follows :

Section 3, Mischief causing damage to public

property - Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub- section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.

1. Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being -

2. The Prevention of Damage to Pubic Property Act, 1984:

10

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023 a. any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy; b. any oil installation; c. any sewage work; d. any mine or factory; e. any means of public transportation or of tele- communications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith. shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

[d]. As per Ex.P.1, the names of the two persons were specifically mentioned as Natta Nageswara Rao, and Kapa Srinivasa

Rao and one lady is described as wife of Ex-Sarpanch of

Ramannagudem, some other persons were said to have been involved in the incident. It also shows that PW.1 had given the

Report, as if he had witnessed the entire incident. But, in the evidence, PW.1 stated that he was at Vijayawada on 09.06.2009, and he came to know about crushing of one person between two

Buses, and he left to Vijayawada and came to Nuzvid by 09:00 A.M., and while he was negotiating with some of the persons present there, some among them broke the Buses with rods and sticks and pelted tones. Regarding these aspects of PW.1 coming to Nuzvid after receiving information and his negotiating with the public are not 11

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023 at all mentioned in Ex.P1.

[e] As per the evidence of PW.1, he deposed that 12

Buses were damaged and out of them 8 Buses were on Hire with A.P.S.R.T.C., and remaining 8 buses belongs to A.P.S.R.T.C.

But, in Ex.P.1, 20 Buses were said to have been damaged, and out of them 8 Buses were shown as Hired Buses. So, regarding the number of R.T.C. Buses being damaged by the offenders, the contents in Ex.P.1, and the evidence of PW.1 are contrary. PW.1 further deposed that he had mentioned the names of some persons who participated in the incident, on enquiry with the security guards.

But, the said aspects are not mentioned in Ex.P.1, PW.1 did not even state, the names of the Accused persons involved in the incident. He did not even identify the Accused persons as the offenders. He simply stated that due to time gap, he could not identify the offenders. So, the evidence of PW.1 is not helpful to establish the identity of the

Accused, as the persons involved in the incident.

[f]. With regard to group of persons damaging the windows of R.T.C. Buses, the evidence of PW.2, PW.3, PW.4,

PW.5, PW.12, PW.13, PW.15, PW.18, PW.19, PW.20, PW.21, PW.23 and

PW.24 is relied upon by the Prosecution. PW.2 deposed that nearly 30 persons came to his Bus bearing No.AP11 Z 4965, and broke the front mirrors of the Bus, PW.3 deposed that nearly 30 people came to the Bus bearing No.AP11 Z 3612, and broke the front mirrors and side window glasses of the Bus. PW.4 deposed that some among the mob started damaging the R.T.C. Buses, which were stationed on the road, due to traffic jam. PW.5 deposed that he came to the duty and found the glasses, of the Bus were broken.

PW.12 deposed that when he returned to the Bus, somebody 12

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023 had broken the glasses of the Bus. PW.13 deposed that a big mob came with rods and started damaging the Bus. They broke the front window screen of his Bus, bearing Registration No. AP 11

Z 4933, and caused loss to a tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. PW.15 deposed that a big mob came and broken the glass of his Bus and also other vehicles stationed there, due to traffic jam. PW.18, who was the then S.H.O. of Nuzvid Town P.S., deposed that he received information and proceeded and found that all the people gathered there, and started damaging the vehicles which were held-up in the Traffic Jam and they damaged many Buses.

PW.19 deposed that the many of the relatives of the deceased came and damaged the R.T.C. Buses. PW.20 also deposed that mob were hurled stones and the glasses of his Bus were broken, front side mirrors of the Bus were damaged with sticks and the side mirrors of the Bus were damaged with pelting of stones. PW.21 deposed that Accused No.11 and about 30 persons damaged around 20 Buses, which were lying on the road. PW.23 also deposed that mob were hurling stones and glasses of Buses were broken. PW.24 deposed that by the time of his arrival to the scene of offence, he noticed that the Buses were damaged. So, the evidence of all these witnesses would clearly shows that a group of persons have damaged Buses by pelting stones and beating with sticks and rods. So, the cause of damage to public property is established.

[g]. Now, it has to be seen whether the Prosecution is able to establish that the Accused persons in this case are the persons who are involved this incident. PW.1 had clearly deposed that he cannot identify the offenders due to time gap.

PW.2 and 3 deposed that they cannot say whether the Accused 13

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023 persons present in the box were present among the offenders on the date of the offence. They were treated as hostile, they denied having stated the names of the persons as in Ex.P2 and

P3. PW.4 simply deposed that he cannot identify the offenders.

PW.12 deposed that he did not witness the incident and he could not identify anyone among the offenders. PW.13 also deposed that he cannot identify the offenders due to time gap and that he did not have a good look on them, on the date of the offence, as there was a big mob. PW.15 deposed that he cannot say the names of the offenders and he cannot identify them. PW.19 deposed that he cannot identify the Accused persons due to time gap. PW.20 also deposed that he cannot identify the persons who hurled the stones. PW.23 also deposed that he cannot identify those persons who hurled the stones.

[h]. PW.18 alone deposed that the Accused No.11 and 12 have participated the incident, even in his Cross-examination also, he reiterated the same. PW.21 deposed that Accused No.11 and his mob damaged the Buses lying around the mob. PW.24, who is the

Investigation Officer deposed regarding his going to the scene of offence and controlling the situation, and about his doing investigation in the matter, and arresting the Accused on different dates. So, except the evidence of PW.18, PW.21 and PW.24, there is no other evidence to establish the identity of the Accused as the offenders, involved in the incident. Though, PWs.5 to 11, 14, 16, 17, 22 were examined by the Prosecution to establish their case, they did not support the case of Prosecution and turned hostile, even in their

Cross-examination, they have denied having stated as in Ex.P4 to

P10, P.11, P.13. Mere marking of the Statements of the witness 14

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023 is not sufficient to establish that the Accused are the persons involved in the incident. Only the evidence of police officials, i.e.,

PW.18, PW.21 and PW.23 show the identity of Accused No.11. In absence of any corroborating evidence from independent witnesses and as the witnesses who were examined had turned hostile, it can be said that the identity of the Accused persons as the offenders is not established by the Prosecution.

[i]. Apart from the above said aspects, the exact damage caused to each and every Bus mentioned in Ex.P.1 are not established. PW.1 did not depose anything regarding the extent of damage caused. The

Bus drivers who were examined as P.Ws.2 to 5, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 23, did not depose regarding the exact extent of damage actually caused to the Buses. Apart from it the Investigation Officer, i.e., P.W.23 also admitted that P.W.1 did not mention the value of the damage caused in the incident; and that A.P.S.R.T.C. witnesses did not state about the value of the damage caused in the incident in their Statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; and that he did not receive any report from the owners of the Hire

Buses. As seen from the evidence of P.W.24, he did not even make any attempt to assess the damages caused to the A.P.S.R.T.C.

Buses, and its Hired Buses.

[j]. Regarding the identity of the Accused persons,

P.W.24 admitted that the names of the Accused were not mentioned in

Ex.P.16. Further deposed that basing on the photographs, and Statements of the witness, they Registered the case against the Accused, the said 21 Photographs along with C.D. were marked as Ex.P.15. As seen from the Photographs, it is not clear that a mob of persons or single person is hurling stones at the Bus or 15

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023 beating the Buses with sticks. In his evidence or in the Charge-sheet,

P.W.24 did not specify as to which Photograph pertains to which of the

Accused and who had identified such Accused persons. The evidence of P.W.24 is totally silent in this regard. Apart from it, P.W.24 deposed that he gave instructions to P.W.18 to take Photographs of the situation at the scene of offence. But, P.W.18 deposed that he had got Video- graphed the incident through a Video-grapher. Taking Photographs is entirely different from taking the Video-graph. P.W.24 did not depose anything regarding the Video-graphy of the incident. He did not depose whether the C.D. pertained to Video-graph or to the

Photograph. So, regarding the identity of the Accused, there is no direct evidence. Only the Accused No.11 was identified by P.W.18 to P.W.21 and the remaining Accused were not at all identified. Furthe, as per the case of Prosecution, the deceased belongs to Madiga

Community and upon his death, his relatives and the persons belonging to M.R.P.S., which deal with Madiga Community.

[k]. P.W.18 simply stated that he can identify the

Accused Kapa Srinivasa Rao. But, he did not identify the said Accused person among the Accused in this case in open court. So, the evidence of P.W.18, P.W.21 and P.W.24 alone are not sufficient to establish the identity of the Accused No.1 to Accused No.45.

[l]. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.24, the situation at the scene of offence was controlled at about 12:30 P.M; and that

P.W.1 gave the Report at about 07:00 P.M; and that he prepared the

Scene Observation Report in Ex.P.17, and the Rough Sketch in Ex.P.18 on 10.06.2009, at about 07:00 A.M. M.Os.1 to 6 were said to have been seized under Ex.P.18. P.W.21 further deposed that he seized M.Os.7 to 13 on 10.06.2009, at about 12:00 Noon, and 16

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023 the Rough Sketch in Ex.P20 was prepared at that time. As seen from the Scene Observation Report, in Ex.P.17, all the damaged Buses were upon the Road. Even as per Ex.P.19 also, the Buses were said to be on the Road. When the situation was controlled on the date of incident itself, i.e., 09.06.2009, by 12:30 P.M., then why the Buses and

M.Os.1 to 13 were kept on the Road is not explained either by P.W.1 or by P.W.24. If really the Buses and M.Os.1 to 13 were upon the Road for more than one day, then there would have been heavy traffic jam and public would suffer. So, the availability of the Buses and M.Os.1 to 13 on 10.06.2009, at about 12:00 Noon becomes suspicious. This suspicion was not cleared by P.W.24. Further, Ex.P.18 and P.20, Rough sketches prepared on the next day of the incident would show the location of the Buses, which is not possible as stated supra. Moreover, the Mediators for Ex.P.17 to P.19 were not examined by the Prosecution and their evidence was closed, as the

Prosecution did not bring them in-spite of granting sufficient time. The

Prosecution did not take any steps to get the evidence of the

Mediatiors recorded. So, in the absence of evidence of Mediators, the seizure of M.Os.1 to 13 under Ex.P.17 and P.19 cannot be believed.

[m]. As per the evidence of P.W.18, he secured the Video- grapher from Ramaraju Photo Studio, Nuzvid, and his name is Srinivasa Rao [LW.12]. Though, he was cited as list of witness in the

Charge-sheet, he was not examined by the Prosecution and his evidence was closed. The Prosecution did not take any steps to examine L.W.12 to prove the Photographs and C.D. under Ex.P.15. So, the Ex.P.15 cannot be considered as a proof.

[n]. As per the evidence of P.W.18, P.W.21 and P.W.24, all the Accused were allegedly present at the scene of offence, when the 17

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023 incident occurred. P.W.24 clearly admitted that he did not arrest the

Accused, at the time of incident. When such a grave incident had occurred, then what prevented P.W.24 from arresting the

Accused No.1 to Accused No.45, without any proper evidence in this regard, the silence of P.W.24 would create a much doubt upon the case of Prosecution.

[o]. So, in view of the above discussion, this Court concludes and holds that the Prosecution failed to establish guilty of the Accused No.11 and Accused No.45 for the offence under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, beyond all the reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Accused No.11 and Accused

No.45 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, the Accused No.11 and Accused No.45 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act-1984, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable under Section under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act-1984. The bail bonds of Accused

No.11 and Accused No.45, if any shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under Section 437(A) Criminal

Procedure Code. The material objects nos.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this is the 14th day of July, 2023.

Sd/-Vatram Venkateswara Rao

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – I Addl.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

P.W.1: Sambangi Dhanunjaya Rao. P.W.2: Tulimelli Bhaskara Rao.

18

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023

P.W.3: Sammeta Nagarjuna Rao P.W.4: Potluri Sambasiva Rao. P.W.5: Mareedu Subbarao. P.W.6: Giri Suresh Kuamr P.W.7: Latike Kumari. P.W.8: Raparla Venkateswara Rao P.W.9: Latike Srinivasa Rao. P.W.10: Meduru Nageswara Rao. P.W.11: Kanchipogu Vijaya Kumar P.W.12: Gunduboina Gopala Krishna P.W.13: Tagaram Yesu. P.W.14: Mullangi Govardhan. P.W.15: Banavathu Sakru. P.W.16: Mullangi Srinivasa Rao P.W.17: Garisepalli Seetharama Raju P.W.18: K.V.S.R.K.Kumar. P.W.19: P.Murali Krishna. P.W.20: Uppu Rambabu. P.W.21: B.Taviriya Naik. P.W.22: Udayagiri Krupa Rao P.W.23: Shaik Mahaboob Ali. P.W.24: P.Ramachandra Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Town P.S.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

None

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Report of PW.1, dated 09.06.2009. Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2. Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3. Ex.P4 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6. Ex.P5 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7. Ex.P6 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.8 . Ex.P7 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.9. Ex.P8 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.10 Ex.P9 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.11. Ex.P10: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.14 Ex.P11: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.17

Ex.P12: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.20 Ex.P13:Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.22. Ex.P14:Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.23. Ex.P15: Photographs along with C.D. Ex.P16: Original FIR 19

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023

Ex.P17: Scene Observation Report, dated 10.06.2009, at 07:00 AM. Ex.P18: Rough Sketch. Ex.P19: Scene Observation Report, dated 10.06.2009, at 12:00 noon. Ex.P20: Rough Sketch.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE

PROSECUTION

M.O.1: One Iron Rod 4 feet in length. M.O.2: One Iron Rod 3 ½ feet in length. M.O.3: One Wheel Bolt. M.O.4: One Iron Pipe 3 feet 7 inches in length. M.O.5: 5 Sticks length of 5 feet each.

M.O.6: 4 big Stones and 2 Small stones. M.O.7: Glass Pieces. M.O.8: One Iron Rod covered with Iron Pipe is 4 feet 2 inches in length. M.O.9: One Small Iron Pipe about 2 feet 8 inches length. M.O.10: One Stout Stick is 4 feet in length. M.O.11: One Stick 3 ½ feet in length. M.O.12: One Stick 4 feet in length. M.O.13: One Stick about 3 feet 4 inches in length.

Sd/-Vatram Venkateswara Rao

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – I Addl.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.

20

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRAILBLE ON THE FILE OF

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum- I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID

C.C.No.507/2015

Date of taken on file :23.07.2015

Apprehension of Accused :Judicial remand

Commencement of Trail:07.07.2023

Close of Trial:12.07.2023

Judgment:14.07.2023

Complainant :The State Rep., by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Town Police Station.

Name of the Accused:11.Natta Nageswara Rao, Son of Bala Krishna, 29 years,SC-Mala, Bapunagar, Nuzvid.

45.Prathipati Swaroop, Son of Prasad, 25 years,SC-Madiga, Ramannagudem Village.

Offence:Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Finding:Accused are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C.

Result::In the result, the Accused No.11 and Accused No.45 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act-1984, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable under Section under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act-1984. The bail bonds of Accused No.11 and Accused No.45, if any shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under Section 437(A) Criminal Procedure Code. The material objects nos.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation of Delay::Initially, cognizance taken against Accused No.1 to Accused No.45 and 21

CC.No.507 of 2015 I AJCJ-cum- IAJFCM,NZD

State vs Natta Nageswara rao & another Dt: 14.07.2023 numbered as Calender Case 171 of 2011, later the case against Accused No. 11, 31, 33, 45 is split up, and assigned a new case number as C.C.No.507 of 2015, as per the Docket Orders, dated 23.07.2015 in Calender Case No. 171 of 2011. Accused No.33 is died and case against Accused No.33 is abated on 15.07.2016. Accused No.31 died and the case against Accused No.31 is abated on 30.01.2023. On 21.06.2023, Accused No.11 and Accused No45 examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C,. During the course of trial, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has filed memo stating that this case split up from CC.No.171/2011 and the same is disposed off, hence to proceed with the evidence recorded in

CC.No.171/2011. Therefore the

evidence recorded in CC.No.171/2011 i.e., PW.1 to PW.24, Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and MO.1 to MO.13 considered in this case. Accused No.11 and Accused No.45 examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C., on 12.07.2023 and heard arguments on same day. On 14.07.2023, Judgment

pronounced.

Sd/-Vatram Venkateswara Rao

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – I Addl.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.

Present : Vatram Venkateswara Rao,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum – I Addl. Judicial Magistrate

of First Class, Nuzvid.

Thursday, this the 16 th day of January, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.699 of 2017.

(Crime No.194/2017 of Nuzvid Rural Police Station)

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police Station… Complainant.

- And -

1. Boddu Balaji, S/o Krishna Rao, 33 years, Gollapalli village, Owner of the proclainer.

2. Varugu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 35 years, Gollapalli, Driver of tractor No. AP16DP8273.

3. Chennu Raghu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 22 years, Golapalli, Driver of tractor AP16TD6754.

4. Bonala Siva Rama Krishna @ Siva, S/o Subba Rao, 23 years, Gollapalli, Driver ofAP16CF9158.

5. Potru Venkateswara Rao, S/o Anjaneyulu, 22 years, Gollapalli Driver of Tractor F/R.

6. Palagani Chenna Kesava Rao, S/o Venkat Ratnam, 22 years, Gollapalli Driver of Tractor No.AP16TB6723.

7. Sayala Ravi,S/o Venkata Ratnam, 22 years, Gollapalli, Driver of tractor No.AP-16-TB-6723.

8. Bonala Siva s/o Jagan Mohan Rao, 30 years, Gollapalli Driver of tractor No.AP-16-CZ-8161.

9. Bonala Dasaradha Ram s/o Venkata Satyanarayana, 37 yrs, , Gollapalli, Driver of Tractor No.AP-16-TG-8337.

2

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025

10. Reddi Ram Babu s/o Gopaiah, 28 yrs, Gollapalli Driver of tractor No.AP-37-BE-2921.

11. Kuppala Sampath Kumar s/o Sudhakar Babu, 27 years, Dum Dum Gardens, Nuzvid Town. … Accused Nos.1 to 11

This case was placed before mefor final hearing on 03.01.2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of

Sri M.Basava Rao and Sri. Ch. Arjun Rao, Advocates for accused Nos.1 to 11 and upon perusing the record and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police Station., has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 11 in connection with Crime

No.194/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 353, 379 of IPC,

Section 3 OF PDPPAct and Section 23 of AP WALTAct.

The brief facts of the prosecution as per charge sheet are as follows:

[a] On 23.9.2017 at about 16.00 hrs in Devaragunta village, LW.1 received information about illegal quarrying. On that LW.1 accompanied with

VRO’S of Tukkuluru, Gollapalli, Potireddipalli and visited Devaragunta area.

There they found the illegal quarrying taken place in RS No.35 and on enquiry, they learnt through accused No.1 as the bund belongs to one Lenin of Gollapalli and they have no permission for quarrying and when they asked them to stop quarrying, accused Nos.1 to 11 did not listen and in the meantime eight tractors with load moved ahead and when they chased the tractors and tried to stop, but the tractors moved into and unloaded the material at spinning mill and thereby requested for necessary enquiry and action against the persons involved in illegal quarry as per law.

3

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025 [b] Basing on the report of LW.1/Bheemadolu Gabriyelu,

LW.7/M.Chiranjeevi/SI of police, Nuzvid Rural PS registered the same as FIR in Crime No. 194/2017, U/s 353, 379 IPC, Section 23 of AP WALTA Act, 3 of

PDPPACT, verified the place of offence, observed scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and served notices to the accused U/s 41-A Cr.P.C.,

03. This case was taken on file for the offence under section 353, 379 of IPC, Section 23 of AP WALTA Act and section 3 of PDPP Act , against the accused Nos.1 to No.11 and numbered the same as Calendar Case

No.699/2017.

04. On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 11, copies were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

05. Accused Nos.1 to 11 are examined under under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C and Charge U/Sec.240 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.

353, 379 IPC, Section 3 of PDPP Act against accused Nos.1 to 11. The contents of charge were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the guilt, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 11, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Exhibits P1 and P2.

07. After closing the prosecution evidence, accused Nos.1 to 11 examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused Nos.1 to 11 denied those circumstance as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

08. Heard the arguments on both sides.

09. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution had proved the guilt of the Accused

4

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025

Nos.1 to 11 for the offence punishable under Section 353, 379 IPC

and section 3 of PDPP Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

a] To establish its Case, the Prosecution has examined the Defacto

Complainant as PW.1 and VROs PW.2 and PW.4 who accompanied PW.1,

Thasildar as PW.4 and PWs.5 and 6 are investigation officers and got Exs.P1 and P2 marked through them. Ex.P1 is the Report of Pw.1, Ex.P2 is the First

Information Report in Crime No.194/2017, dated 24.09.2017.

11 . The gist of evidence of PW.1 is that on 23.09.2017, he received a phone call from Deveragunta about illegal mining at 04.00 PM, he along with

PW.2, LW.3/Shaik Saida, PW.3 proceeded to Gollapalli spinning mill. There they found tractors with trailers loading earth, they tried to stop them but the drivers of the tractors did not stop and went into the spinning mill. Then they went into the spinning mill, the management of the mill talked to them with rashly and sent out them. On that they proceeded to Vempadu Gutta situated in Survey No.35, where illegal mining was doing. There they found Proclainer of accused No.1. From there, they came to Nuzvid and forwarded a report through Thasildar, Nuzvid to Nuzvid Rural Police.

12.During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that he prepared Ex.P1 in M.R.O office, on the same day he presented the same to

Nuzvid Rural Police at police station. He noted down the registration numbers of tractors at the place of offence and mentioned the same in ExP1. He do not know whether Endowment people through R.D.O conducting auction of quarries in survey No.35 and he do not know whether quarries are running for about 50 years in Survey No.35 and they did not observe the quarries and their size and its excavating area and he cannot say the boundaries to the quarry and he do not know whether Survey No.35 belongs to Gollapalli village and the entire in that survey Number belongs to Raghunadha swamy temple, and that some of the land belongs to Vempadu revenue village is in Nuzvid 5

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025 mandal. and he denied the suggestions made by the counsel that Vempadu revenue village does not belong to Nuzvid mandal, belongs to Pedapadu manal of Eluru district that there was no quarrying took place on the date of our visit and that we did not go to the Vempadu gutta and that he along LW.2,

LW.3/Shaik Saida and PW.3 never proceeded to Gollapalli spinning mill and never found Tractors with trailers loading earth and they never tried to stop them and that they never found proclainer of accused No.1 at Survey No.35 and that Accused are no way concerned in this case and that he mentioned tractor number in ExP1 on information supplied by others who are against accused and that he gave ExP1 complaint against accused due to political pressure.

13.P.W.2 deposed that on 23.09.2017 at about 4.00 pm, he received a phone call from LW.5 and asked him to go to Devaragunta, as there was quarrying the earth along with other VROS/ PW1, LW.3/Shaik Saida and

PW.3. Accordingly, they went to Vempadu village hamlet of Gollapalli and found proclainer and 8 tractors, He asked driver of proclainer whether is there any permission to quarry gravel and he replied that he had no such permission. On that they directed him to stop the work but he did not obey their direction. From there, they followed the loaded tractors and they went inside the Vantage spinning mill, Gollapalli, They also went in side the spining mill, but the manager of mill obstructed us on the ground of permission. They informed the same to PW.4. On the instruction of PW.4, they (4 VROs) filed

Ex. P1 complaint before SHO, Nuzvid Rural PS.

14.During the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he has no idea about the place of alleged quarrying as the said place is not in his jurisdiction and he can't say boundaries to the alleged place and the said place comes under the revenue village of Gollapalli. But the said Vempadu village is not in records of Nuzvid mandal and he cannot say who wrote Ex.P1 complaint and he signed Ex. P1 at Vempadu village after going through it's 6

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025 contents. He deposed in his chief examination that after reporting the matter to PW.4, and after receipt of instructions from PW.4 only they prepare Ex.P1.

They did not enquire the said Lenin as to his obtaining licence or permission to quarry and the particulars of quarry regarding which material is quarrying is not mentioned in Ex.P1, and the measurements of quarry. He did not give any complaint to mines Department. They went to the alleged place of offence, are on bikes. There are two kilometers distance between the place of quarrying and spinning mill and there is possibility to stop the tractors on the way as we are proceeding on bikes, but they did not stop and that to know they the place of unloading only, they did not stop the tractors. They did not inform the matter to police over phone and they gave written report to Tahsildhar but the same is not mention Ex. P1 and they filed Ex.P1 on the directions of PW.4 only.

PW.2 denied the suggestions made by the counsel for accused that he did not sign Ex.P1 in Vempadu village and that PW.4 got foisted false case through them against accused No. 1 to 11.

15.PW3 deposed that on 23.09.2017 at about 04.00pm, PW.1 informed to him that, illegal quarey took place at Devaragunta and LW.5 directed to go there along with other VRO'S and requested him to come to that place. On that, he, PW1, PW2. LW.3/Shaik Saida went to Devaragunta and enquired about illegal quarrying and reached Vempadu Agraharam area where Proclainer loading the gravel into tractors. They asked owner of the

Proclainer i.e.. accused no.1 to stop the quarrying, but accused No.1 refused

to stop the work, loaded gravel into 8 tractors and moved further. They followed the said tractors, the said tractors went inside the Vantage spinning mill, Gollapalli, they also went in side the spinning mill but the watchman of mill obstructed them on the ground of permission. They complained the same to PW.4. On the instruction of PW.4, they he 4 VROS filed Ex. P1 complaint

before SHO, Nuzvid Rural PS. During the course of cross-examination, PW.3

admitted that he along with PW2 and LW.3/Shaik Saida jointly presented 7

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025

ExP1 report to police on 24-09-2017 at about 10.00.a.m. ExP1 is in the hand writing of PW1. ExP1 is prepared at 10.00p.m. on 23-09-2017 at M.R.O office in the presence of PW.4, he gone through the contents of ExP1 before giving evidence on 24-09-2023. SI of police took his statement later but it is not on the date of presentation of ExP1. He did not submitt any documentary proof to show that he was on duty on the date of incident to police. There is no order copy from MRO directing them to go the alleged place. They did not attempt to know either the ownership or its survey number of the place where quarrying is going on. They did not attach any FMB copies with ExP1 showing the details of place where quarrying happens. They did not mentioned in

ExP1 about the material which was quarrying and he does not know the difference between Gravel and Rubbies. He know the difference between

Gravel and Kankara. They mentioned in ExP1 only registration numbers of 5 tractors and remaining 3 tractors were F/R and they did not mention either in

ExP1 or before police that the registration number of trailers and their existence and without trailer, a tractor cannot carry any Gravel or quarry material and the registration number of Proclainer is not mentioned in ExP1 or

before police, so also the area of quarry took place is also not mentioned in

ExP1. PW.3 denied the suggestions made by the counsel for accused that there is no quarrying took place as deposed by him and that is the reason and that on 23-09-2017, they did not go to the alleged place and did not asked the owner of Proclainer l.e., accused No.1 to stop the quarry and that the 8 tractors did not load the Gravel an moved further in the Spinning mill and that the watchman of mill never obstructed and that they filed this false case only for statistical purpose.

16.PW.4 deposed that on 23.09.2017 at 04.00 P.M, he received a phone call about illegal mining at Devaragunta village. On that, he instructed

PW1 over phone to go to Devaragunta village and stop the illegal mining work.

On that, he requested him for additional support as the place of mining is 8

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025 located remotely. Then she instructed PW2, LW.3/Shaik Saida and PW.3 to go with PW1 to stop the illegal mining work. At about 08:00p.m. PW1 informed her over phone that the said mining took place in Survey number 35 comes under the Revenue village of Vempadu and it is under the occupation of Lenin babu and Accused No.1 conducting mining work with his people and transporting the Gravel to Vintage spinning in 8 tractors. As it is night time and he was no available to PW1, PW1 to PW3 and LW.3/Shaik Saida submitted

ExP1 written report to police through her. PW.4 denied the suggestions made by the counsel for accused that he forwarded ExP1 to SHO Nuzvid Rural PS after going through the contents therein at 11.00a.m, on 24-09-2017 and he did not mention the time in ExP1. ExP1 only the registration number of tractors are mentioned and it is not possible to transport Gravel with tractors.

The Government leased the Vempadu Agraharam gattu area in Survey number 35 to private persons in an public auction previously and the quarrying running from the last 15 years. PW.4 denied the suggestions made by the counsel for accused that he did not submit any papers to police regarding quarrying license or prohibition of quarrying. He made correspondence Asst

Director Mines Department regarding the quarrying and they enquired and they levied fine and collected the same before releasing the vehicles, but he did not file those correspondence papers. He was examined on the same day of Ex.P1 by Sl of police. He handed over the papers relating to correspondence made with Asst Director Mines Department to Police. He did not seize the transported Gravel and there is 7 or 8kms distance between

Nuzvid MRO office and Devaragunta village or Survey number 35, no quarrying took place newly in Survey number 35 of Vempadu, he did not initiate any proceedings to seize the Gravel in Vintage spinning mill but he directed Asst Director Mines department PW1 to PW3 and LW.3/Shaik Saida did not request me for police force and that there is no village in the name of

Vempadu in Nuzvid mandal PW.4 denied the suggestions made by the counsel for accused that 30minutes time is enough to PW1 to PW3 and 9

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025

LW.3/Shaik Saida to report the matter to me about the illegal mining and that that there is no Gravel and there is Rubbies in Survey number 35. witness volunteers that all rubbies and gravel mixed together in the alleged place and that PW1 to PW3 and LW.3/Shaik Saida were not on duty on 23-09-2017 and that he forwarded ExP1 without going through the contents only for statistical purpose regarding illegal mining and that accused Nos.1 to 11 did not come any offence as reported and deposed by them.

17.P.W.5 deposed that he received ExP1 written report from PW1 on 24.9.2017 at 12.00pm. Basing on ExP1 he registered a case in crime number 194/2017, U.Sec 353, 379 of IPC, Sec 23 of AP Volta Act and Sec 3 of

P.D.P.P.Act. ExP2 is FIR. He submitted original FIR to court and copies to concerned. He examined PW1, PW2, LW.3/Shaik Saida and PW3 at my police station and recorded the statements. He visited the scene of offence on the same day situated at Vempadu village and prepared rough sketch. There he examined PW4. He seized 8 tractors from the respective owners from their respective houses. He handed over all the 8 tractors and one Proclainer to

PW4/M.R.O. later he handed over the case file to PW.6 for further investigation. During the course of cross-examination, PW.5 admitted that he did not enquire as to who scribed ExP1, as per the record the alleged offence took place on 23.09.2017 at 04.00p.m, but, ExP1 presented before him on 24- 09-2017 at 12.00p.m. He do not make any enquiry about the causing delay in presenting ExP1 and there is no mention in ExP1 that he received it from

PW1. There is no mention in ExP1 that it is forwarded from PW4 through PW1 to PW3 and only tractor (engine) numbers were mentioned in ExP1 and alleged that Gravel was transported through the said tractors but not trailers.

The tractors were not seized under mediators report. He did not obtain any certification from the concerned authority for the alleged place from where quarrying took place and he did not enquire about the owner of the place and whether he obtained any license for such quarrying. He did not measure or 10

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025 got measured either the quarried area or the quarried material transported and denied the suggestions made by the counsel for accused that the request of

PW4 for their statistical purpose as such he did not enquire about the ownership of place or the license and that about the measurements of quarried are or quarried material and that he did not examine any of the witnesses as deposed by him and that he never visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch as such he did not file it in to court and that no quarrying took place and no quarry material transported as deposed by him and that he registered and conducted investigation without following procedure at the instance of revenue people.

18.PW.6 deposed that on 11.10.2017, he received CD file from PW.5, on the same day he issued 41- A Cr.P.C., notice to you and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. During his cross examination P.W.6 admitted that except issuane of 41-A Cr.P.C., notice to accused Nos.1 to 11 and filing of charge sheet he did not do anything in this case and denied the suggestion that he filed charge sheet mechanically against accused Nos.1 to 11 without having any material against them.

19.On perusal of evidence of P.W.5, it clearly shows the insufficiency in conducting investigation as to places of offence and as to how the accused committed the offences, alleged etc and in collecting material from concerned government authorities. It is important to note that MRO office, Nuzvid and

Nuzvid Rural Police station situated at one place intervening by a road. During his cross examination, P.W.5 clearly admitted that there is no explanation for delay in lodging FIR. Unexplained delay in lodging and registering FIR, definitely fatal to the case of prosecution. It could not be understand, that how it is possible to transport gravel with tractors without trailers. P.W.1 mentioned only tractors numbers in Ex.P1 report but not trailer numbers.

P.W.5 also failed to collect the trailer numbers in his investigation.

11

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025

20.As per the contention of the counsel for accused, the place of offence where the quarrying took place does not come under the jurisdiction of

Nuzvid Rural Police Station. All the witnesses deposed and the entire record shows that the alleged illegal quarrying took place in S.No.35 of Vempadu village, during their cross examination admitted that the said village belong to

Pedavegi Mandal of Eluru District and they do not know whether part of the said S.No.35 comes under Nuzvid mandal. The investigation also not conducted on the lines of jurisdiction and no piece of paper placed before this court showing that the alleged place of offence belongs to Nuzvid Mandal.

P.W.5 did not prepare even rough sketch of place of offence. He neither examined revenue people or surveyor or collected any MAPS to prove that the said place comes under Nuzvid Mandal.

21.P.W.1 to P.W.4 also admitted that some of the land pertaining to

Vempadu revenue village belong to Nuzvid Mandal and that he does not know whether entire land in S.No.35 belongs to Gollapalli and belongs to

Raghunadha Swamy temple and that Endowment people through RDO conducting auction of quarries in S.No.35 and he can not say the boundaries to the quarrying area. There is clear oral evidence as to Vempadu village does not come under Nuzvid mandal and that the quarrying place is under the occupation of one Lenin babu. Prosecution did not choose to examine said

Lenin Babu or other revenue people to prove their case. The said Lenin Babu is not either the complainant or the witness. P.W.5 also did not collect any material regarding lease or occupation or possession of the quarrying area.

22.Regarding the offence under section 379 of IPC, there is no word of theft either in Ex.P1 or in the evidence of prosecution. Further, the owner or possessor of the property is the person have right to complain the offence.

Prosecution failed to prove the ownership/possession of revenue people over the alleged place of offence in this case. Further, on perusal of entire evidence there is no iota of evidence placed before this court as to obstruction 12

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025 of duties of government servant or deter the public servant from doing his duties by accused No.1 to No.11. It is the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 that they asked drivers of tractors to stop the work but they refused to stop and move further. On that P.W.1 to P.W.4 followed the tractors, into the spinning mill and the staff of spinning mill talked rashly and sent them out. P.W.1 to

P.W.3 never deposed that they were deterred or obstructed by accused No.1 to 11 from doing their duties Thus, there is no sufficient evidence against

Accused No.1 to No.11 for the offence under section 353 of IPC.

23.Since the prosecution failed to establish that the alleged place of offence i.e., Vempadu gattu is public property, the offence under Section 3 of

PDPP Act against accused No.1 to No.11 also not established. P.W.1 to

P.W.4 did not deposed about the identity of accused No.1 to No.11. Further it is mentioned in Ex.P.1 and in the evidence of P.W.1 that A1 informed him that he is the driver cum owner of Proclainer, found at the quarrying place. There are no names of other accused any where in the record. More over, there is no evidence of seizing tractors, trailers, Proclainer and handing over them to

MRO, Nuzvid as deposed by P.W.5. MRO who deposed as P.W.4 did not state any thing about the seizure and handing over of tractors, trailers and

Proclainer. No evidence placed before this court that A1 to A11 are the owners of tractors, trailers and proclainer. Further, PW.1 stated that he found proclainer only at Vempadu gutta, whereas other witnesses stated that they found only one proclainer and 8 tractors. Thus, there is no corroboration in the oral evidence of PW.1 and other witnesses.

24.The cardinal principal in trial of criminal cases is, the prosecution must prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. As per the above discussion made in this case, this court came to conclusion that there is no sufficient material placed before this court to believe that Accused Nos.1 to 11 committed the offence under Section 353, 379 of IPC and Sec.3 of

P.D.P.P.Act. Hence, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the 13

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025 offence U/Sec 353, 379 of IPC and Sec.3 of P.D.P.P.Act against accused

Nos.1 to 11 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

25.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 11 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353, 379 IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Section 353, 379 IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 11 if any shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuables if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused Nos. 1 to 11 had not undergone any remand period.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of January, 2025.

Sd/-Vatram Venkateswara Rao

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NUZVID.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:-For Defence: PW1 : Eda Pandu Ranga Rao N I L. PW2 : Sk.Eesub PW.3: G.B.V.Prabhakar PW.4: D.Vanajakshi PW.5: V.Satish PW.6: M.Chiranjeevi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:- Exhibit P1: Report of PW.1. Exhibit P2: First Information Report For Defence :- NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -.

Sd/- Vatram Venkateswara Rao

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NUZVID.

14

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.

Present : Vatram Venkateswara Rao,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum – I Addl. Judicial Magistrate

of First Class, Nuzvid.

Thursday, this the 16 th day of January, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.699 of 2017.

(Crime No.194/2017 of Nuzvid Rural Police Station)

1Date of Offence23.09.2017 2Date of Complaint24.09.2017 3Date of Apprehension of AccusedNotice served U/s 41-A Cr.P.C., 4Date of Commencement of Trial27.02.2023 5Date of Closure of Trial30.12.2024 6Date of Judgment16.01.2025 7ComplainantSub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid P.S. (Cr.No.194 of 2017 of Nuzvid Rural Police Station.) 8Name of the Accused1. Boddu Balaji, S/o Krishna Rao, 33 years, Gollapalli village, Owner of the proclainer.

2.Varugu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 35 years, Gollapalli, Driver of tractor No. AP16DP8273.

3.Chennu Raghu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 22 years, Golapalli, Driver of tractor AP16TD6754.

4.Bonala Siva Rama Krishna @ Siva, S/o Subba Rao,23 years, Gollapalli, Driver ofAP16CF9158.

5.PotruVenkateswaraRao,S/o Anjaneyulu, 22 years,Gollapalli Driver of Tractor F/R.

15

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025 6.Palagani Chenna Kesava Rao, S/o Venkat Ratnam,22 years, Gollapalli Driver of Tractor No.AP16TB6723.

7.Sayala Ravi,S/o Venkata Ratnam, 22 years, Gollapalli, Driver of tractor No.AP- 16-TB-6723.

8.Bonala Siva s/o Jagan Mohan Rao, 30 years,Gollapalli Driver of tractor No.AP-16- CZ-8161.

9.Bonala Dasaradha Ram s/o Venkata Satyanarayana, 37 yrs, , Gollapalli, Driver of Tractor No.AP-16-TG-8337.

10.Reddi Ram Babu s/o Gopaiah, 28 yrs, Gollapalli Driver of tractor No.AP-37-BE- 2921.

11. Kuppala Sampath Kumar s/o Sudhakar Babu,27 years, Dum Dum Gardens, Nuzvid Town.

9OffenceUnder Section 353,379 IPC and sec.3 of PDPP Act.

10Plea of AccusedPleaded Not guilty.

11FindingA1 to A11 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353,379 IPC and sec.3 of PDPP Act.

12ResultIn the result, the accused Nos.1 to 11 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353, 379 IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Section 353, 379 IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 11 if any shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked non- 16

CC.No.699/2017 I ACJ(JD)-cum- IAJFCM

State Vs Boddu Balaji & 10 others Dt:16.01.2025 valuables if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused Nos. 1 to 11 had not undergone any remand period.

13Explanation for delayOn 29.12.2017, cognizance taken against accused for the offence under Section 353, 379 IPC, Sec 3 of AP WALTA Act and section 3 of PDPP Act IPC and numbered as C.C.No.699/2017. On 09.12.2022, copies of documents is furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C and on the same day accused are examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 353,379 IPC and sec.3 of PDPP Act and the trial commenced on 27.02.2023 and closure of trial is on 30.12.2024 and on same day accused is examined U/Sec 313 Cr.P.C, on 03.01.2025 heard arguments of both sides. On 16.01.2025 judgment is

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Vatram Venkateswara Rao

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NUZVID.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam //True Copy//

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NUZVID.

1 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA.,

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION): AT VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, III Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 09th day of April, 2026

OS No.128/2019

Between:

1.Akkala Raja Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Subbarao, Age 75 years, Permanent R/o. Kondapalli village, at present R/o. D.No. 301, Arpita Residency, Ijjath Nagar, Hitech Madapur, KV Rangareddy District – 500 081, Telangana State.

2. Akkala Jaganmohana Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Subba Rao, Age 70 years, Permanent R/o. Kondapalli Village, at present R/o. D.No. 2-2- 3/1/B/4, Flat No. 103, Venkatachala Vihar, Durgabai Desh Mukl Colony, Sivam Road, Jamai Osmania, Hyderabad - 500 007, Telangana State (Died).

3. Akkala Venkata Gangadhara Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Subba Rao, Age 62 years, Permanent R/o. Kondapalli Village, at present R/o. Flat No. 206, G-Block, Giridhari Executive Park, Near Kali Mandir, Peeran Cheruvu, Gandipeta Mandal, Rangareddy District – 500 091, Telagana State.

4. Gujula Madhuri Devi, W/o. Late Akkala Jagan Mohan Rao, Age 62 years,R/o. D.No. 1-9-286/3,Flat No. 202, Thirumala Hibiscus Apartments, Ramnagar Gundu, Vidyanagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State – 500 044.

5. Akkala Manjusha, W/o. Jagam Uday Adithya, Age 43 years, R/o. Flat No. 302, Padma Raga Apartments, Raghavendra 2 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Colony,Kondapur, Vajra Srinivasam, Raghavendra Colony, Kondapur district, K.V.Rangareddy District.

6. Akkala Arjun, S/o. Late Akkala Jagan Mohana Rao, aGe 42 years, R/o. D.No. 1-9-286/3, Flat No. 202, Thirumala Hibiscus Apartments, Ramnagar Gundu, Vidyanagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 044. (Plaintiffs No. 4 to 6 are added as per the orders passed by the Hon’ble court in IA No. 45 / 2025,

dated 24.06.2025)

.. Plaintiffs

Vs

1. Akkala Nagendra Prasad, S/o. Akaala Pardha Saradhi, Age 48 years, R/o. D.No. 11-56, Kondapalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.

2. Akkala Pardha Saradhi, S/o. Late Gangadhara Rao, Age 91 years, R/o. D.No. 11-56, Kondapalli village, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. (Died)

3. Smt. Seelamsetty Lakshmi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Age 56 years, R/o. D.No. 20-8-2/5A, Ayodya Nagar, Vijayawada City, Krishna District.

4. Smt. Ganta Parvathi, W/o. Ganta Srinivasa Rao, 53 years, R/o. D.No. 16-108/7/157, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad City, Ranga Reddy.

5. Smt.Tota Annapurna, W/o. Late Srinivasa Devarao, Age 51 years, R/o. D.No. 20-8-2/5A, Ayodya Nagar, Vijayawada City, Krishna District.

6. Smt. Puppala Kasi Annapurna Gangeswari, W/o. Late Puppala Adhinarayana, Age 64 years, R/o. D.No. 20-8-8/A, FF-1, Opp. Surya Bala Apartments, New Ayodhya Naar, Vijayawada.

(defendant No.6 is added as per the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court in IA No. 535/2022, dated 07.03.2024)

.. Defendants

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 26-03-2026 in the presence of Sri M.Sateesh Babu, Sri M.Siva Krishna, Advocates 3 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., for plaintiffs and Sri Avula Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocates for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. Suit is filed by the plaintiffs a). Declaration of the plaintiffs title over “X1, H, L, K” of the plaint plan of an extent of 332 Sq. yards out of plaint schedule property gifted to the 1st defendant by the defendants 2 to 5 through the gift deed bearing No. 2302 / 2015, dated 08.05.2015 is the property of plaintiffs and for consequential delivery of possession of the same from 1st defendant within a time fixed by the Hon’ble court, b). For cancellation of gift deed vide document No. 2302 /2015, dated 08.05.2015 of the suit schedule property as null and void as far as plaintiffs concerned.

OR alternatively,

To declare that to the extent of 332 Sq.Yards of out of plaint schedule property the gift deed document No. 2302 /2015, dated 08.05.2015 is not binding under unenforceable, voidable document and for costs of the suit.

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

(a) The contention of the plaintiffs is that the plaint schedule property is located at Kondapalli Village in Sy.No. 389/1A of

Ibrahimptanm SRO, Rough plaint plan showing the plaint schedule 4 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., property. One Akkala Gangadhara Rao is grand father of the plaintiffs and father of the 2nd defendant herein. Akkala Gangadhara Rao had five sons by name 1. Akkala Venkateswara Rao, 2. Akkala Pardha

Saradhi, 3. Akkala Venkata Subba Rao, 4. Akkala Babu Rao and 5.

Akkala Jaya Rama Rao. The said Akkala Gangadhara Rao during his life time way back in or around 1950th year separate his property and allotted 1. 600 Sq.yards A,B,C,D of the plaint plan to Akkala

Venkateswara Rao, 2. 600 Sq.yards B,C,E,F of the plaint plan to

Akkala Pardhasaradhi, and 3. 1000 Sq.Yards G,H,L,K,I of the plaint plan to Akkala Venkata Subba Rao and 4, Akkala Babu Rao –

Agricultural land and 5. 288 Sq.yards M,N,O, L of the plaint plan of site along with tiled house to Akkala Jayarama Rao. No partition deed or settlement deed was executed to that affect regarding the family settlement. That from out of 1000 Sq.Yards allotted to plaintiffs father they have alienated an extent of 502.22 Sq.Yards as per three sale deeds vide document No. 661/1990, dated 01.08.1990, document No.

334/1993, dated 15.03.1993 and Document No. 335/1993, dated 15.03.1993 and retained 497.78 Sq.Yards undivided among themselves. Akkala Pardha Saradhi the 2nd defendant herein during the year 1967 purchased an extent of 450 Sq.Yards T,U,V,W,Y of the 5 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., plaint plan as per registered document No. 4413 / 1967, dated 19.12.1967.

(b). Further contention is that the father of the plaintiffs Akkala

Venkata Subba Rao died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs to succeed his property since then the plaintiffs are in symbolic joint possession and enjoyment of the property left behind by their father.

While, so, due to the declaration of capital city, Amaravathi the prices hiked and the 2nd defendant herein who is the paternal uncle (father’s brother) without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and with collusion with defendants 1 to 5 herein with each other, brought into existence of registered gift deed bearing document No. 2302 of 2015, dated 08.05.2015 at SRO, Ibrahimpatanm said to have been executed in favour of 1st defendant herein by the defendants 2 to 5 without having any absolute rights or title over the suit schedule property. The 2nd defendant taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs, with a malafied intention gifted the property of 332 Sq.Yards belongs to the plaintiffs from out of their vested and property of 497.78 Sq.Yards.

The said 332 Sq.Yards belongs to plaintiffs is shown as “X1, H, L, K” of the plaint plan.

(c). Further contention is that the above said gift deed executed in favour of 1st defendant by defendants 2 to 5 is not valid as per law 6 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., and it is not binding upon the plaintiffs. As per the recitals of the gift deed, the 2nd defendant as 1st executants of the document stated that from out of 1070 Sq.yards of the plaint schedule property 288

Sq.Yards of site and tiled house therein and an extent of 332 Sq.Yards of site together 620 Sq.Yards was mentioned as his “Ancestral” property devolved upon him in lieu of oral partition and an extent of 450 Sq.Yards was purchased by him as per sale document No.

4413/1967, dated 19.12.1967 and the same was recited in the document and the same was gifted by him to the 1st defendant out of love and affection. The plaintiffs apprises the Hon’ble court that the 2nd defendant along with defendants 3 to 5 herein have gifted immovable plaint schedule property of 1070 Sq.Yards as per registered gift deed document No. 2302/2015, dated 08.05.2015.

The 2nd defendant with a view to grab the property of plaintiffs brought into existence of the alleged gift deed. The 2nd defendant and defendants 3 to 5 have no manner of right to gift the property to 1st defendant.

(d). Further contention is that due to the personal affairs and for employment though they are natives of Kondapalli, they are constrained to lead their life at Hyderabad and they have got no knowledge of the execution of the gift deed by defendants 2 to 5 in 7 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., favour of 1st defendant herein, taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs, In fact few days back only the plaintiffs came to know regarding the execution of gift deed in favour of 1st defendant herein.

The plaintiffs apprises that the gift deed is not binding upon them to the extent of 332 Sq.Yards out of 1070 Sq.Yards of plaint schedule property. The document is collusive document and voidable document. The defendants without any manner of right executed the document as such the document is not binding upon the plaintiffs.

Due to the hike in prices with a view to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs, the defendants fraudulently transferred the property in favour of 1st defendant and thus liable to be canceled.

(e) Further contention is that the plaintiffs came to know reliably that basing on the alleged gift deed, the 1st defendant is trying to apply for mutation in revenue records. After knowing the same the plaintiffs made several demands personally and through mediators to come forward for cancellation of the said alleged gift deed, but the defendants made deaf ear and more over the plaintiffs came to know that the 1st defendant is trying to sell away the suit schedule properties to 3rd parties basing on the said gift deed, dated 08.05.2015 vide document No. 2302 / 2015 obtained from defendants 8 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., 2 to 5 in a fraudulent manner which is not valid under law and not binding on the plaintiffs.

(f) Further contention is that due to hike in prices of the land value, the defendants likely to transfer the property to their kith and kin. Further, the plaintiffs learnt that the defendants with a view to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs trying to change the structure of the property by giving the same for development. The defendants are making hectic efforts to transfer the property or to make structural changes with a view to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant fraudulently in collusion with defendants 3 to 5 got transferred the property in favour of 1st defendant herein. The plaintiffs have got joint right title and interest over an extent of 332

Sq.yards out of plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs without their knowledge, the transfer of property brought into existence and thus fraud was played upon them, and thus it is liable to be cancelled.

The gift settlement deed dt. 08.05.2015 vide document No.

2302 /2015 being fraudulently transferred becomes null and vide and unenforceable document and it is not binding upon the plaintiffs and it is liable to be cancelled. That few days back in the month of July, 2019, the plaintiffs questioned regarding the transfer of the property the defendants gave evasive replies did not cooperated for cancellation 9 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., of the document. The plaintiffs reliably learnt that the defendants are contemplating to manipulate further collusive alienation in favour of their kith and kin for the plaint schedule property with the intention of defrauding the plaintiffs further. Giving of prior notice to defendants will further defeat the rights of the plaintiffs as such no prior notice given by the plaintiff’s to the defendant due to lack of time. Thus, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit towards declaration of their title over 332. Sq.Yards out of 1000 Sq.Yards of plaint schedule property and for cancellation of gift deed vide document No. 2302 / 2015, dated 08.05.2015 as unenforceable, voidable document. Hence the suit.

3. The averments in the written statement of the defendants in brief are as follows:

(I) After the death of father of the 2nd defendant, in the oral partition between sons of Akkala Gangadhara Rao, an extent of 1228 Sq.yards of site was allotted to 2nd defendant. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant has purchased an extent of 450 Sq.Yards shown in the plaint plan from Hask

Ahmod and other vide under a Regd. Sale Deed No. 4413 / 1967 on 30.09.1967. Subsequently, on 08.05.2015 the defendants 2 to 5 executed a Dhakal Deed in favour of 1st defendant vide document No.

2302 / 2015. The 1st defendant who has been in possession and enjoyment of the properties he got under document No. 2302 / 2015. An 10 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., extent of 1070 Sq.Yards under document No. 2302 / 2015 exclusively belong to the 2nd defendant’s family. The plaintiffs have nothing to do with the same. The defendants 2 to 5 never executed any document in respect of the property belong to the plaintiffs. The property covered by the Regd. Gift Deed never belonged to the plaintiffs or their father subsequent to the partition. The suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs father died, leaving behind, his wife, three daughters and three sons as such, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The daughters of the plaintiff’s father and their mother are necessary parties to the suit. The plan filed along with the plaint is not correct. It does not reflect the correct measurements and ground realities. The plaintiffs are trying to mis-represent the facts and gain something wrongfully at the costs of the defendants. The suit as framed is not correct. The suit is not properly valued. The court fees paid is not correct. The defendants deny the other allegations which are not expressly traversed herein. Therefore, the defendants pray that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for

Trial.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that they are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property as prayed for?

11 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA.,

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of gift deed of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial on behalf of plaintiffs, the 3rd plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and documents marked on behalf of plaintiffs as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and one 3rd party examined on behalf of plaintiffs as PW2. On behalf of defendants, the 1st defendant himself examined as DW1 and one more witness examined as DW2 and he is 3rd party to the suit and no documents were marked on their behalf.

7. Heard the learned counsels for the plaintiffs and defendants.

6. ISSUE NO.1 and 2:

Issue Nos. 1 and 2 taken up initially as the discussion and out come of those issues most probably one and the same and only to avoid reputation of discussion answering these two issues at a time moreover the out come of issue No.2 entirely bearing upon the issue

No.1 which decides the result of the suit.

7.The version of the plaintiffs is that the grand father of the plaintiffs and father of the deceased / 2nd defendant Akkala

Gangadhara Rao had five sons and all the five sons during life time of

Akkala Gangadhar Rao separated his property and allotted 600

Sq.yards to Akkala Venkateswara Rao, 600 Sq.Yards to Akkala 12 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Pardha Saradhi, 1000 Sq.Yards to Akkala Venkta Subba Rao who is the father of the plaintiffs and allot agricultural land to Akkala Babu

Rao and allot 288 Sq.Yards along with tiled house to Akkala

Jayarama Rao and no partition deed or settlement deed was executed to that affect. Further version is that out of 1000 Sq.yards allotted to the plaintiff’s father they have alienated an extent of 502.22 Sq.Yards under Ex.A2 to Ex.A4. Further version is that the deceased / 2nd defendant is paternal uncle of the plaintiffs without their knowledge with the collusion of the defendant 1, 3 to 5 brought into existence of registered gift deed dated 08.05.2015 said to have been executed in favour of 1st defendant without having any right, title over the suit schedule property. Further version is that the gift deed (Ex.A1) not valid as per law and it is not binding upon the plaintiffs.

8.On the other hand the version of the defendants is that after the death of father of the 2nd defendant, in the oral partition among the sons of Akkala Gangadhara Rao an extent of 1228 Sq.yards of site was allotted to the 2nd defendant. Subsequently 2nd defendant has purchased an extent of 450 Sq.Yards from Hask Ahmod and others on 30.09.1967. Subsequently on 08.05.2015 the defendants 2 to 5 executed Dhakal Deed in favour of 1st defendant and the 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the properties. Further 13 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., version is that an extent of 1070 Sq.yards exclusively belongs to the 2nd defendant’s family. The plaintiffs have nothing to do with the same. The defendants 2 to 5 never executed any document in respect of the property belongs to the plaintiffs and the property covered under Ex.A1 never belongs to the plaintiffs. Further version is that the father of the plaintiffs died leaving behind his wife, three daughters and three sons. The plaintiffs not shown their mother and sisters as parties to the suit thereby suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

9.To establish the case of the plaintiffs, the 3rd plaintiff himself examined as PW1 he reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination and he was cross examined by the counsel for the defendants, in the cross he stated that he filed the suit to construct the compound wall to their property. He went to the plaint schedule property in the year 2013 during the period of his daughter’s marriage. Further stated that as the defendant No.2 stated that they are not having land to construct compound wall to the back side land adjacent to the land sold by them. Further deposed that there is a averment mentioned in Ex.A2 that they have 1000 Sq.yards of land.

He is having in possession of land in an extent of 166 Sq.Yards out of 498 Sq.yards. The defendant No.2 occupied the land towards 14 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., northern side of their land. Further deposed that the land situated in northern side of the land sold which was under Ex.A4. The northern side boundary in Ex.A4 is remaining land of them. Further deposed that as there are no survey number they mentioned door number in the documents sold by them ie., Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. The survey number is Ex.A2 was mentioned as 389/1A. Further deposed that the property under Ex.A5 is situated towards northern side of their land. As per Ex.A5 the southern boundary was recited as “ Meetaluku

Stalam Haddu” the witness adds that the naming of “Meetaluka

Aasthi” that means the said land pertains to the family. Further deposed that he does not remember the contents in the written statement. Further deposed that he can not say the measurements of their existing property boundaries. He does not know whether 1000 Sq.yards were mutated in revenue records and so also

Panchayat records. Further deposed that he did not file any documentary proof to show that Akkala Jayarama Rao house property in 288 Sq.Yards. Further deposed that they are in possession of 498

Sq.yards out of 1000 Sq.yards till now.

10.To support the version of the plaintiffs one Karanam Sarada examined as PW2, she deposed in her chief examination that they purchased vacant site in an extent of 150 Sq.yards in the name of 15 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., her husband Karanam Venkata Subba Rao from Pabbathi

Pushpavathi vide registered sale deed document No. 59/1999.

Further deposed that originally their vendor I.e, Pabbathi

Pushpavathi purchased the said site from Akkala Jayalakshmi and her sons I.e, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 herein under registered document.

Further version is that their northern side boundary is the vacant site of Jayalakshmi and plaintiffs in an extent of 332 Sq.Yards and the said fact was reflected in the sale deed. She was cross examined by the counsel for the defendants, in the cross she stated that she does not know the survey number mentioned in their document she does not know how much extent owned by deceased 2nd defendant in that area. Further deposed that the plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendants claiming right over the property an extent of 332

Sq.Yards. Further deposed that she does not know whether in her chief affidavit the site an extent of 332 Sq.Yards mentioned belongs to the plaintiffs or not. Further deposed that she does not know western side holder of site of Radhakrishna. She does not know the total extent possessed by plaintiffs and also defendants.

11. To establish the defense of the defendants, the 1st defendant

Akkala Nagendra Prasad examined as DW1 he also reiterated the contents of the statement in his chief examination and he was cross 16 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., examined by the counsel for the plaintiffs, in the cross he stated that he does not know whether the joint family property partitioned among the brothers of his father during life time of his grand father. He does not know whether any properties fell to the shares of sisters of his father during life time of his grand father. It is true in Ex.A1 it is recited that the property under the deed succeeded his father by his grand father. Further deposed that the land under Ex.A1/ Gift deed an extent of 1228 Sq.Yards. He does not know whether Akkala

Gangadhara Rao and three others sold away property to 3rd parties under three documents. Further deposed that except Ex.A1 his father and his sisters have not executed any gift deed in his favour. Further deposed that it is true on 11.05.2015 his father and his sisters executed a gift deed in his favour for an extent of 600 Sq.Yards. It is true in the above said gift deed also mentioned tiled house, Daba and

Shed mentioned.

12. To support the version of the defendants one 3rd party by name

Sunkara Chandini Kumari examined as DW2, she deposed in her chief examination that she is a tenant of 1st defendant and she has been running a ration shop near the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property belongs to Akkala Pardhasaradhi. The said

Akkla Pardhasaradhi acquired the same through succession from his 17 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., father. The 1st defendant is having 1670 Sq.yards of site which includes the plaint schedule property. She was cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiffs, in the cross she stated that she does not know who filed the suit. She knows the suit filed against S/o.

Pardhasaradhi. She does not know the details of case of the plaintiffs. She does not know the documents of the plaintiffs as well as the neighboring owners. Pardhasaradhi registered the site in the name of his son but she does not know that which are the documents stands in the name of Pardhasaradhi as well as his son. Further deposed that she has not gone through the document executed by

Pardhasaradhi in the name of his son.

13.The plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking relief of declaration declaring their title for an extent of 332 Sq.Yards and also seeking further relief of cancellation of original of Ex.A1 which executed by D2 to D5 in favour of D1. It is settled principle that to get the relief of declaration, the plaintiffs strictly prove their perfect title over the property by adducing documentary evidence. Here in this case, the version of the plaintiffs is that way back in 1950’s the grand father of the plaintiffs partitioned the property among their sons. In the said partition, the father of the plaintiffs fell to the share of 1000 Sq.yards to that effect no partition deed executed and it is oral partition.

18 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Further version of the plaintiffs is that after death of father of plaintiffs, they sold away 502 Sq.Yards out of 1000 Sq.Yards under

Ex.A2 to Ex.A4 to the 3rd parties, remaining extent of 498 Sq.Yards in the possession of plaintiffs. Further version is that without knowledge of the plaintiffs their junior paternal uncle deceased / 2nd defendant executed a gift deed under the original of Ex.A1 in favour of his son i.e., 1st defendant including 332 Sq.Yards which belongs to the plaintiffs.

14.On the other hand the specific version of the defendants is that the property under Ex.A1 exclusively belongs to the 2nd defendant and 2nd defendant never executed any deed covering the property of the plaintiffs at any time.

15.To prove the version of the plaintiffs, they filed documents which marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Ex.A1 is gift settlement deed executed by D2 to D5 in favour of 1st defendant and it is disputed document in the suit and Ex.A2 to A4 are the sale deeds under which the plaintiffs sold away the sites. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of sale deed under which the 2nd defendant purchased the site from Hask

Ahmod and others it is the un-disputed document. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that in oral partition, the father of the plaintiffs fell to the share of 1000 Sq.Yards whereas except their oral 19 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., testimony there is no any proof to show that the father of the plaintiffs got share of 1000 Sq.Yards in oral partition. Moreover the plaintiffs failed to file any document showing their possession over the property despite of alleged partition effected in the year 1950’s.

Admittedly the plaintiffs sold way the sites under Ex.A2 to A4 to 3rd parties and they are claiming the site an extent of 332 Sq.yards which is located on the northern side of boundary of Ex.A4, except this they are not filed any proof to show that the site an extent of 332 Sq.Yards belongs to them. This is the suit for declaration to get the relief of declaration, the plaintiffs has to prove their title by filing the documents which stands in their names. Here in this case, the plaintiffs claiming site an extent of 332 Sq.yards based on the Ex.A2 to Ex.A4 by saying that the northern side site also belongs to them.

16.On the other hand the specific contention of the defendants is that the site which given to the 1st defendant under the original of

Ex.A1 exclusively belongs to the 2nd defendant and some extent he succeeded from his father and some extent he acquired under Ex.A5 that is the version of the defendants.

17.Moreover admittedly the father of the plaintiffs got three daughters and wife whereas they were not shown as parties to the 20 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA., suit thereby definitely the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

18.A overall perusal of the entire material on record, the plaintiffs failed to establish that they are absolute owners of the X1,H,L,K marked portion of the plaint plan an extent of 332 Sq.Yards.

Therefore, in view of the afore said mentioned circumstances, the plaintiffs failed to establish their case. Accordingly issue Nos. 1 and 2 answered against the plaintiffs.

19. ISSUE NO.3

In the result,suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 09th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao,

III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined for)

PLAINTIFFS: DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Akkala Venkata DW1: Akkala Nagendra Prasad Gangadhara RaoDW2: Sunkara Chandini Kumari PW2: Karanam Sarada

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of gift deed dated 08.05.2015 vide doc. No. 2302 / 2015.

21 OS 128/2019 III ASCJ/VJA.,

Ex.A2:Certified copy of sale deed dated 01.08.1990. Ex.A3:Certified copy of sale deed dated 15.03.1993 vide doc No. 334/1993. Ex.A4:Certified copy of sale deed dated 15.03.1993 vide doc. No. 335/1993. Ex.A5:Certified copy of sale deed dated 19.12.1967 vide doc. No. 4413/1967.

DEFENDANTS:

-None-

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao,

III ACJ(SD)/VJA.,