Sri V.Venkateswara Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ATMAKUR

Present: Sri V.Venkateswara Rao,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Atmakur.

Thursday, the 10th day of April, 2025.

SESSIONS CASE No.204/2024

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station. … Complainant

Versus

1. Thota Anjaneyulu @ Tota Anjaneyulu, age 35 years, S/o Eranna, Nagalooty Gudem, Byrlooty, Atmakur Mandal

2. Thota Naganna @ Tota Naganna, age 37 years, S/o Veeranna @Eranna, Nagalooty Gudem, Byrlooty, Atmakur Mandal (The case against A2 is abated as he died) … Accused

This case is coming on 09-04-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G. Bathukulaiah, Advocate for the accused No.1, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police station, filed charge-sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 307 r/w 34 IPC in Crime No.257/2022 of

Atmakur Police Station.

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

(a) Lw.1 is the resident of Nagaluty Gudem of Atmakur Mandal.

The complainant is living by attending coolie works. The complainant blessed with one daughter. The complainant is nurturing a dog. Beside his house. Tota Eranna sons Tota

Anjaneyulu (accused A1) and Tota Naganna (accused A2) houses are 2 situated. They (accused No.1 and 2) are also nurturing a dog. On 16.11.2022 morning at about 10.15 hours while the complainants dog is playing in front of his house, mean while Tota Anjaneyulu’s (accused A1) dog came and bitten complainants dog and Lw.1 beaten Tota Anjaneyulu (accused A1) dog. Then Tota Anjenyulu (accused A1) and Tota Naganna (accused A2) both together came to the complainant (Lw.1) asked the complainant if they (accused A1 and A2) will kill the complainant who will rescue the complainant with an intention to kill the complainant, Tota Anjeneyulu (accused

A1) shot an arrow on the complainant and caused blood injury on left side ribs. Then Tota Naganna (accused A2) shot an arrow on the complainant and caused blood injury on left elbow. On that complainant made huge cries, his wife Ankamma (Lw.2) and his mother in law Palu Ankamma (Lw.3) and some other came to the complainant. A1 and A2 both ran away from there. Later the complainant along his wife came to Government Hospital, Atmakur.

(b) The doctor removed the arrow from the complainant body and gave treatment to the complainant. Mean while police came and recorded the complainant statement. Basing on the strength of the statement of the complainant, ASI 149 of Atmakur Police Station (Lw.12) registered a case in Cr.No.257/2022 U/s 324, 307 r/w 34

IPC of Atmakur Police station and investigated into this case. During the course of investigation, ASI 149 of Atmakur PS (Lw.12) examined and recorded the statements of Lws.1 to 7 in which, they all stated and corroborated with the version of FIR in all material facts. He 3 also visited the scene of offence and drawn the rough sketch to that effect. During the course of investigation on 16.11.2022 at 14.30 hrs the ASI 149 of police, Atmakur police station (Lw.12) seized the crime weapons i.e., one arrow as it was used at the time of commission of offence undercover of panchanama in the presence of panchayatdars (Lws.8 and 9). During the course of investigation on 18.11.2022 at 8.30 hrs the S.I of Police, Atmakur Police station (Lw.13) arrested the accused A1 and A2 at Byrluty check post,

Srisailam road, Atmakur mandal in the presence of panchayatdars (Lws.8 and 10) under cover of panchanama and seized the crime weapons i.e., one bow as it was used at the time of commission of offence undercover of panchanama in the presence of panchayatdars (Lws.8 and 10) forwarded them to judicial custody for remand. The civil assistant surgeon, Government Hospital, Atmakur (Lw.11) who treated the injured Lw.1 issued wound certificate as grievous in nature. Basing the wound certificate the S.I of Police, Atmakur

Police station (Lw.13) alter the section of law 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC to 326, 307 r/w 34 IPC. Thus the accused A1 and A2 themselves rendered the offences and they are liable for punishment U/s 326, 307 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge.

03.On appearance of accused the case was committed to the

Court of Sessions, Kurnool Division. After registering the case under

Section 326, 307 r/w 34 IPC in S.C.No.204/2024, it was made over to this Court for trial and disposal according to law.

4

04.After receiving summons from this Court, the accused No.1 is appeared before this Court. A2 reported died. Death certificate of A2 filed and case against A2 is abated. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor explained the case of prosecution to the Court after perusing record, charges under Sections 326, 307 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code were framed against the accused No.1, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.During trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.8 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P15 and Mos.1 and 2. The accused No.1 is examined under section 313 C.r.P.C by explaining incriminating material for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

06. Heard the arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused No.1.

07.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 326, 307 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

08.POINT:-

The version of the prosecution is that Pw.1 is the resident of

Nagalooty Gudem, Atmakur Mandal. The accused also resident of same village. On 16.11.2022 at about 10.15 am the pet dog of Pw.1 playing in front of his house by that time the pet dog of accused came there and attacked the dog of Pw.1 and bite the said dog. Due 5 to that Pw.1 beaten pet dog of accused. Immediately, A1 and A2 came there and started quarrel with Pw.1, A1 shot at an arrow towards Pw.1 and caused injury on his left side ribs, A2 also shot at an arrow towards Pw.1 and caused injury on his left elbow. Due to that Pw.1 cried loudly, immediately his wife and mother in law came there on their arrival the accused left the place. Pw.2 and 3 shifted

Pw.1 to the hospital, Atmakur at hospital the police recorded the statement of Pw.1. Later on he was shifted to general hospital,

Kurnool for better treatment. Based on the statement given by Pw.1 case was registered against the accused. During pendency of the case A2 died thereby the case against A2 is abated.

09. The defence of the accused No.1 is total denial of the offence.

10. To prove the case of the prosecution the injured cum defacto complainant Dasarai Nagaraju examined as Pw.1. He deposed in his chief examination that at about three years back he went to the forest to collect the fruits and climbed a tree by that time by slipping his leg he fell down from the tree into thorny bushes on that he received injury on his left chest and left shoulder. Immediately his wife and his mother in law shifted him to the hospital, Atmakur. In the hospital he lost his conscious he regain his conscious at hospital, Kurnool. He have not given any report to the police.

Further deposed that at hospital, Atmakur the police obtained his signature on a blank paper. He does not know the contents on it.

Since his evidence is entirely contrary to the case of the prosecution, 6 he declared as hostile witness and cross examined by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor.

11.The wife of Pw.1 D.Ankamma examined as Pw.2. She deposed in her chief examination that at about three years back on one day her husband went to forest to collect fruits on slipping his left he fell down from tree and fallen into thorny bushes. Further deposed that her husband received injuries on his left chest and left shoulder.

Immediately they shifted him to hospital, Atmakur from there to

Kurnool hospital for better treatment. Further deposed that the accused never shooted any arrow towards her husband at any time.

Further deposed that she does not know whether her husband gave any report to the police. Since her version also against the case of prosecution, she also declared as hostile witness and cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

12. The mother in law of Pw.1 G. Pala Ankamma examined as Pw.3.

She also deposed as the same lines of Pw.1 and 2 in her chief examination. Thereby she also declared as hostile witness and cross examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

13. One of the alleged eye witness Chenchu Pothaiah examined as

Pw.4. He deposed in his chief examination that he does not know anything with regard to the case and also not examined himself in view of his evidence. He declared as hostile witness and cross examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

7

14. One of the mediators of scene observation report and seizure report by name Nallabothula Venkateswarlu who is V.R.O examined as Pw.5. He deposed in his chief examination that on 16.11.2022 the police, Atmakur summoned him to the police station to sign on a seizure report accordingly he went to the police station at the request of the police he signed on the report, he does not know the contents on the report. Again on 18.11.2022 the police, Atmakur summoned him to come to police station to sign on a arrest panchanama of accused accordingly he went to the police station he signed on the report. He does not know the contents of the report.

So also on 17.11.2022 he went to the police station as summoned by the police and the police obtained his signature on scene observation report. He does not know the contents on the report.

Since his evidence is against the case of prosecution, he declared as hostile witness and cross examined by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor.

15. The other punch witness Meer Yunus examined as Pw.6. He also turned hostile and cross examined by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor.

16. The doctor who provided first-aid to the Pw.1 R.V. Chiranjeevi examined as Pw.7. He deposed in his chief examination that on 16.11.2022 at about 12.25 pm Pw.1 came to the hospital with one assistant with an arrow peeped into his left chest and with injury, he provided initial treatment without removing the said arrow as the 8 required equipment not available in the hospital. Immediately after completion of initial treatment he referred the patient to Government

General Hospital, Kurnool. The medical officer government general hospital, Kurnool opined that E FAST-visible of shadow noted in left chest (Hemotharax) symptom of emphysema, chest X-ray PA view normal study to that effect he issued wound certificate. Ex.P10 wound certificate of Pw.1. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. In the cross he deposed that the patient not informed that who is responsible for the arrow wound on his left chest. It is true there are chances to self infect injury.

17. The investigating officer in this case G. Krishna Murthy examined as Pw.8. He deposed in his chief examination that on 16.11.2022 the Lw.12/G. Vijay Bhaskar, A.S.I, received M.L.C from

Government Hospital, Atmakur. Immediately he proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of Pw.1 and he returned to the police station and registered the same in case in Cr.No.257/2022

U/s 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC issued original FIR to the Honourable

Court and copies to all concerned officials. On the same day he picked up Pw.5, Lw9/G. Moshanna and went to the hospital there he examined Pw.1 to 3 and recorded their statements and seized a arrow which peeped into the chest of Pw.1 under the cover of seizure report in the presence of Pw.5,Lw.9/G. Moshanna. On the next day he proceeded to the scene office located Nagaloti Gudem house of

Pw.1 he prepared rough sketch of scene of offence, he examined.

Lw.4/U Lingamurthy, Pw.4 and Lw.6/Linganna and recorded their 9 statements, he also prepared scene observation report in the presence of Pw.5 and Lw.9/G. Mushanna. On 18.11.2022 he took up further investigation, on the same day he arrested A1 and A2 at

Byrlooti checkpost, Srisailam road in the presence of Pw.5 and Pw.6 and also recorded confessional statements of A1 and A2. He brought the A1 and A2 to the police station and after completion of due formalities he sent them to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Atmakur seeking judicial remand. On 29.12.2022 he has received wound certificate of Pw.1 based on the opinion in the wound certificate he altered the section of law into 326 from 324. After completion of investigation he has filed charge sheet. Pw.1 to Pw.4 stated before Lw.12 as in Ex.P2 to P5 and he was cross examined by the counsel for the accused.

18. While advancing arguments the counsel for the accused pointed out that even the version of the prosecution that A1 and A2 shot at an arrow towards Pw.1 and Pw.1 received injury on his left ribs and left elbow. Whereas in the evidence of Pw.1 categorically stated that due to fell down from the tree he sustained injuries. Further argued that the accused falsely implicated in this case due to rivalry between family of Pw.1 and accused and without conducted proper enquiry the police implicated the accused in this case and request the court to acquit A1 by extending benefit of doubt.

19. A perusal of the record the version of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 caused bleeding injuries on Pw.1 with an arrow. The motive 10 for the offence Pw.1 beat pet dog of accused, whereas Pw.1 categorically deposed in his chief examination that as he fell down from the tree he received injuries. Further stated that accused are no way responsible for his injury. The wife and mother in law of

Pw.1 also gave evidence before the court they stated in their evidence that due to fell down from the tree Pw.1 received injuries.

They also stated that the accused never shot at any arrow towards

Pw.1. As per the version of the prosecution in the presence of Pw.5 the police observed scene of offence and seized Mo1 and 2 and arrested A1 and A2 under the cover of reports. Whereas Pw.5 categorically deposed before the court that he went to the police station at the request of police he signed on the report and he further deposed that no scene observation report, no seizure and no arrest happened in his presence. The other mediator Pw.6 also deposed as the same lines of Pw.5. Thereby the evidence of Pw.5 and 6 not supported the case of the prosecution. The doctor who alleged to treat Pw.1 examined as Pw.7. He deposed in his cross examination that there is a possibility in self inflect injury.

20. A perusal of the record since the material witnesses turned hostile the proving of factum rests on the evidence of investigating officer. The investigating officer deposed before the court with regard to the registration of FIR, Seizure of property and arrest of accused..

Even the investigating officer deposed as per the lines of his investigation his evidence should be corroborated with any other independent witness, in the absence of any other independent 11 witness with corroboration of evidence of investigating officer, the evidence of investigating officer not carrying any legal sanctity and it is hit by section 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

21. A overall perusal of the entire material on record since the material witnesses turned hostile there is any other credible evidence against the accused to convict them. Thereby the evidence of Pw.1 to 8 not corroborated with each other and particularly the evidence of doctor not coupled with the evidence of Pw.1 who is injured. Thereby the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

22.In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 307 r/w 34 IPC, accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

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

The case against A2 is abated as he died.

The case property i.e., Mo.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao

Assistant Sessions Judge, Atmakur

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: Dasari Naga Raju NONE- 12

PW.2: D. Ankamma

PW.3: G. Pala Ankamma

PW.4: Chenchu Pothaiah

PW.5: Nallabothula Venkateswarlu

PW.6: Meer Yunus

PW.7: Dr. R.V. Chiranjeevi

PW.8: G. Krishna Murthy

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature on the report.

Ex.P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Ex.P3: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P4: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P5: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4

Ex.P6: Signature on the report dated 16.11.2022

Ex.P7: Signature on the report dated 17.11.2022

Ex.P8: Signature on the report dated 18.11.2022

Ex.P9: Signature on the report dated 18.11.2022

Ex.P10: Wound certificate of Pw.1

Ex.P11: FIR

Ex.P12: Seizure Report dated 16.11.2022

Ex.P13: Scene observation report dated 17.11.2022

Ex.P14: Confessional Statement of A1 and A2 dated 18.11.2022

Ex.P15: Rough Sketch of scene of offence

For Defence: -Nil-

Material objects Marked

M.O.1: Bow

M.O.2: Arrow

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao

Assistant Sessions Judge, Atmakur

// TRUE COPY//

13 14

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ATMAKUR

Present: Sri V.Venkateswara Rao,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Atmakur.

Thursday, the 10th day of April, 2025.

SESSIONS CASE No.204/2024

TABULAR STATEMENT UNDER RULE 67 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE, 1990.

Name of the Police Station: Atmakur Police Station.

Crime Number: 257/2022

Description of Accused

1. Thota Anjaneyulu @ Tota Anjaneyulu, age 35 years, S/o Eranna, Nagalooty Gudem, Byrlooty, Atmakur Mandal

2. Thota Naganna @ Tota Naganna, age 37 years, S/o Veeranna @Eranna, Nagalooty Gudem, Byrlooty, Atmakur Mandal (The case against A2 is abated as he died)

Date of

Occurrence: 16-11-2022 Complaint: 16-11-2022 Apprehension of accused: 18-11-2022 (A1 and A2) Release on bail: 09.12.2022 (A1 and A2) Committal: 12-08-2024 Date of receipt of records in : 08-10-2024

Sessions Court

Date of numbering: 09-10-2024 Commencement of trial: 11-03-2025 Closure of trial: 08-04-2025 Date of Judgment: 10-04-2025

Sentence or order of the Court:

The accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 307 r/w 34 IPC, accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

15

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

The case against A2 is abated as he died.

The case property i.e., Mo.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay:Vide diary extract in PRC No.27/2023 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur.

In the Court of Sessions:The trial ended on 08.04.2025,

arguments were heard on 09.04.2025 and the Judgment was pronounced on 10-04-2025.

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ATMAKUR

Copies submitted to 1)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P, Amaravathi, through the Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, 2)The Hon’ble Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, 3)The Director of Prosecutions, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada.

Copies to 4)The Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Atmakur, 5)The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, 6)The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Asst.Sessions Judge’s Court, Atmakur.

// TRUE COPY//

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ATMAKUR

Present: Sri. V.Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Friday, the 12th day of May, 2023.

INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.16 of 2022

01Shaik Khaja Hussain, S/o Chinna Allabakash, aged about 39…. Petitioner years, Muslim, Coolie, R/o H.No.5-82, Maseed Veedhi,/Debtor Kothapalli Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Nandyal District.

Versus

01Beesakkagari Venkata Ramudu S/o Yellaiah, aged 35 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 02Narra Naga Linga Reddy S/o Narra Nagi Reddy, aged 46 years, Hindu, Agriculturist-cum- Chits Business, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 03Konijeti Veeranjaneyulu, S/o Konijeti Subbaiah, age 39 years Hindu, Chit Business, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 04Smt.Lakshmi Narasimha, W/o Hanumanthu, aged 48 years, Hindu, Employee, R/o Swaraj Nagar, Atmakur Town and Mandal,Nandyal District. 05Yella Rami Reddy, S/o Yella Bala Subba Reddy, aged 48 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 06Baleeswara Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy, aged 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 07Boreddy Siva Rami Reddy, S/o Siva Nagi Reddy, aged 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal,Respondents/ Nandyal District. Creditors 08Boreddy Ravindra Reddy, S/o Venkata Swamy, aged 45 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 09Vijayudu, S/o Balachandra Achari, aged 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 10Mallikarjunachari, S/o Balachandra Achari, aged 39 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District 11Tailor Pullaiah, S/o Eltharla Beesanna, aged 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal,District. 12Gas Rama Krishna, S/o Chinthamanu Rosaiah, aged 58 years, Hindu, Agriculturist R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 13Poyyi Venkataswamy Reddy, S/o Poyyi Seshireddy, aged 56 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 14Karemjinnu Ranga Swamy, S/o Ayyappa, aged 65 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District.

2 15Vadla Lingamaiah Achari, S/o Vadla Jambulaiah, aged 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 16Venkatarathnam Achari, S/o Vadla Jambulaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District 17Telugu Ramanaiah, S/o Sangem Naganna, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District 18Sangem Naganna, S/o Ramanaiah, aged about 70 years, Hindu, Business, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District.

19Smt.Dhanalakshmi, W/o Jogi Ramudu, aged 42 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 20Kethavath Mangamma Bai, W/o Mallaiah Naik, aged about 70 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 21Venkata Ramana Yadav, S/o Anjaneyulu, aged 42 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 22Srinivasa Goud, S/o Anjaneyulu, aged 58 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 23Sekhar Goud, S/o Krishna Goud, aged 48 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 24Narayana Goud, S/o Chinna Yenganna, aged 52 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 25Ramana Goud, S/o Chinna Yenganna, aged 48 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 26Krishna Goud, S/o Chinna Yenganna, aged 49 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 27Chakali Chennaiah, S/o Krishnanna, aged 52 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 28Yella Linga Reddy, S/o Yella Subba Reddy, aged 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 29Mallikjarjuna Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy, aged 45 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 30Kasi Viswanatha Reddy, S/o Venkateswara Reddy, aged 45 years, Hindu, Agriculturist R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 31Chinthamanu Venkatesh Yadav, S/o Rama Subbanna, aged 36 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 32Pahilman, S/o Hajimiah, aged 40 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District.

3 33Boreddy Ramana Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, aged 58 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District.

34Chilakala Bhupal, S/o Venkataswamy Yadav, aged 42 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 35Krishnamurthy Yadav, S/o Tangedancha Ramudu, aged 48 years, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 36Gajula Khaja Hussain, S/o Khaja Hussain, aged 60 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 37Sreekantha Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, aged 38 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 38Boya Sivudu, S/o Swamanna, aged 38 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 39Boya Rangamma, W/o Boya Narasimhulu, aged 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 40Boya Venkateswarlu, S/o Jambanna, aged 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 41Marthapu Samelu, S/o Swamidasu, aged 48 years, Hindu Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 42Smt.Chandra Bai, W/o Sunkanna Naik, aged 38 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 43Telugu Lalithamma, W/o Telugu Chinnaiah, aged 70 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 44Jayamma, W/o Agustian, aged 58 years, Christian, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 45Boya Ramalingam, M/o Gurugu Lingamma, aged 35 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 46Boreddy Ravindra Reddy, S/o Eeswara Reddy, aged 40 years Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 47Ravikumar Setty, S/o Bharath Setty, aged 35 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 48I.Narayana Naik, S/o Sunkanna Naik, aged 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 49Sudhakar Yadav, S/o Not known to the petitioner, aged 55 years, Hindu, Finance Business, R/o Karivena Village, Atmakur Mandal, Nandyal District. 50Yella Srinatha Reddy, S/o Yella Balu Reddy, aged 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Bavapuram Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Nandyal District.

4 51Smt.Lakshmidevi, W/o Pala Jagadeesh, aged 55 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 52Venu Goud, S/o Rama Krishna Goud, aged 45 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 53Boraboina Sunkanna Yadav, S/o Narayana, aged 55 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 54Pogula Venkateswarlu Yadav, S/o Pogula Ramudu, aged 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 55Devanna, S/o Lazar, aged 60 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 56Pala Sankar, S/o Boreddy Lakshmi Reddy, aged 38 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 57Tappeta Ruthamma, W/o Tappeta Imanual, age 55 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 58Sreenivasulu, S/o Not Known to the petitioner, aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, APSRTC Bus Stand Back Side, Near Sivalayam Temple, R/o Atmakur Town and Mandal, Nandyal District. 59Bhaseerun, W/o Mabasha, aged 48 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 60Ummar, S/o Chakali Naganna, aged 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Sivapuram Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Nandyal District. 61Basapogu Raju, S/o Basapogu Venkata Swamy, aged 38 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Madugula Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Nandyal District. 62Chakali Lakshmi, W/o Chakali Maddileti, aged 35 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 63Diwan, S/o Jahangeer Basha, aged 52 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, R/o Veerapuram Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Nandyal District. 64Anuradha, D/o Rangaswamy, Karem Jinnu, aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 65Manapati Seshamma, S/o Manapati Jambanna, aged 55 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 66Hussain Basha, S/o Abdul Nabi, aged 40 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, R/o Rudravaram Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Nandyal District. 67Jayarami Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, aged 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District.

******

5

This petition is fled by the petitioner under Secs. 10 to 13 of Indian Provincial Insolvency Act to declare him as a insolvent ad to discharge him from his debts and grant such other reliefs and costs of the petition.

This petition coming on this day i.e., on 12-05-2023 before me in the presence of Sri.M.Phazul Rahiman, Advocate for the petitioner/Debtor and of Sri.P.Venkata Narasimhudu, Advocate for R20; and R1 to R19, R21 to R67 were remained exparte; and this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

PW.1 called absent, despite of condition order the petitioner has not showing any interest to proceed with the matter, hence petition is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12 th day of May, 2023.

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined) -NIL

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ATMAKUR

Present: Sri V.Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Friday, the 12th day of May, 2023.

INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.16 of 2022

01Shaik Khaja Hussain, S/o Chinna Allabakash, aged about 39…. Petitioner years, Muslim, Coolie, R/o H.No.5-82, Maseed Veedhi,/Debtor Kothapalli Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Nandyal District.

Versus

01Beesakkagari Venkata Ramudu S/o Yellaiah, aged 35 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 02Narra Naga Linga Reddy S/o Narra Nagi Reddy, aged 46 years, Hindu, Agriculturist-cum- Chits Business, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 03Konijeti Veeranjaneyulu, S/o Konijeti Subbaiah, age 39 years Hindu, Chit Business, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 04Smt.Lakshmi Narasimha, W/o Hanumanthu, aged 48 years, Hindu, Employee, R/o Swaraj Nagar, Atmakur Town and Mandal,Nandyal District. 05Yella Rami Reddy, S/o Yella Bala Subba Reddy, aged 48 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 06Baleeswara Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy, aged 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 07Boreddy Siva Rami Reddy, S/o Siva Nagi Reddy, aged 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal,Respondents/ Nandyal District. Creditors 08Boreddy Ravindra Reddy, S/o Venkata Swamy, aged 45 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 09Vijayudu, S/o Balachandra Achari, aged 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 10Mallikarjunachari, S/o Balachandra Achari, aged 39 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District 11Tailor Pullaiah, S/o Eltharla Beesanna, aged 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal,District. 12Gas Rama Krishna, S/o Chinthamanu Rosaiah, aged 58 years, Hindu, Agriculturist R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 13Poyyi Venkataswamy Reddy, S/o Poyyi Seshireddy, aged 56 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 14Karemjinnu Ranga Swamy, S/o Ayyappa, aged 65 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District.

15Vadla Lingamaiah Achari, S/o Vadla Jambulaiah, aged 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 16Venkatarathnam Achari, S/o Vadla Jambulaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District 17Telugu Ramanaiah, S/o Sangem Naganna, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District 18Sangem Naganna, S/o Ramanaiah, aged about 70 years, Hindu, Business, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 19Smt.Dhanalakshmi, W/o Jogi Ramudu, aged 42 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 20Kethavath Mangamma Bai, W/o Mallaiah Naik, aged about 70 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 21Venkata Ramana Yadav, S/o Anjaneyulu, aged 42 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 22Srinivasa Goud, S/o Anjaneyulu, aged 58 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 23Sekhar Goud, S/o Krishna Goud, aged 48 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 24Narayana Goud, S/o Chinna Yenganna, aged 52 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 25Ramana Goud, S/o Chinna Yenganna, aged 48 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 26Krishna Goud, S/o Chinna Yenganna, aged 49 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 27Chakali Chennaiah, S/o Krishnanna, aged 52 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 28Yella Linga Reddy, S/o Yella Subba Reddy, aged 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 29Mallikjarjuna Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy, aged 45 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 30Kasi Viswanatha Reddy, S/o Venkateswara Reddy, aged 45 years, Hindu, Agriculturist R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 31Chinthamanu Venkatesh Yadav, S/o Rama Subbanna, aged 36 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District.

32Pahilman, S/o Hajimiah, aged 40 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District.

33Boreddy Ramana Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, aged 58 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District.

34Chilakala Bhupal, S/o Venkataswamy Yadav, aged 42 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 35Krishnamurthy Yadav, S/o Tangedancha Ramudu, aged 48 years, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 36Gajula Khaja Hussain, S/o Khaja Hussain, aged 60 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 37Sreekantha Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, aged 38 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 38Boya Sivudu, S/o Swamanna, aged 38 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 39Boya Rangamma, W/o Boya Narasimhulu, aged 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 40Boya Venkateswarlu, S/o Jambanna, aged 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 41Marthapu Samelu, S/o Swamidasu, aged 48 years, Hindu Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 42Smt.Chandra Bai, W/o Sunkanna Naik, aged 38 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 43Telugu Lalithamma, W/o Telugu Chinnaiah, aged 70 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 44Jayamma, W/o Agustian, aged 58 years, Christian, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 45Boya Ramalingam, M/o Gurugu Lingamma, aged 35 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 46Boreddy Ravindra Reddy, S/o Eeswara Reddy, aged 40 years Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 47Ravikumar Setty, S/o Bharath Setty, aged 35 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 48I.Narayana Naik, S/o Sunkanna Naik, aged 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 49Sudhakar Yadav, S/o Not known to the petitioner, aged 55 years, Hindu, Finance Business, R/o Karivena Village, Atmakur Mandal, Nandyal District. 50Yella Srinatha Reddy, S/o Yella Balu Reddy, aged 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Bavapuram Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Nandyal District.

51Smt.Lakshmidevi, W/o Pala Jagadeesh, aged 55 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 52Venu Goud, S/o Rama Krishna Goud, aged 45 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 53Boraboina Sunkanna Yadav, S/o Narayana, aged 55 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 54Pogula Venkateswarlu Yadav, S/o Pogula Ramudu, aged 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 55Devanna, S/o Lazar, aged 60 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 56Pala Sankar, S/o Boreddy Lakshmi Reddy, aged 38 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 57Tappeta Ruthamma, W/o Tappeta Imanual, age 55 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 58Sreenivasulu, S/o Not Known to the petitioner, aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, APSRTC Bus Stand Back Side, Near Sivalayam Temple, R/o Atmakur Town and Mandal, Nandyal District. 59Bhaseerun, W/o Mabasha, aged 48 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 60Ummar, S/o Chakali Naganna, aged 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Sivapuram Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Nandyal District. 61Basapogu Raju, S/o Basapogu Venkata Swamy, aged 38 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Madugula Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Nandyal District. 62Chakali Lakshmi, W/o Chakali Maddileti, aged 35 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 63Diwan, S/o Jahangeer Basha, aged 52 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, R/o Veerapuram Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Nandyal District. 64Anuradha, D/o Rangaswamy, Karem Jinnu, aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 65Manapati Seshamma, S/o Manapati Jambanna, aged 55 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. 66Hussain Basha, S/o Abdul Nabi, aged 40 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, R/o Rudravaram Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Nandyal District. 67Jayarami Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, aged 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village and Mandal, Nandyal District.

*************

This petition is fled by the petitioner under Secs. 10 to 13 of Indian Provincial Insolvency Act to declare him as a insolvent ad to discharge him from his debts and grant such other reliefs and costs of the petition.

Petition presented on 15-06-2022 and and fled on 17-06-2022.

Court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Article-11 (i)(ii) Schedule-II(1) of the APCF & SV Act, 1956.

This petition coming on this day i.e., on 12-05-2023 before me in the presence of Sri.M.Phazul Rahiman, Advocate for the petitioner/Debtor and of Sri.P.Venkata Narasimhudu, Advocate for R20; and R1 to R19, R21 to R67 were remained exparte, and this Court doth order and decree as follows:

1) That the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default; and

2) That there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 12 th day of May, 2023.

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

Memo of Costs

NIL (not certifed)

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

SCHEDULES

A. SCHEDULE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (LIABILITIES)

SL.NAME OF THE CREDITORAMOUNTNAME OF DEBT

NO.

1.Beesakkagari Venkata Ramudu3,00,000-00Pronote

2.Narra Naga Linga Reddy1,50,000-00‘’

3.Konijeti Veeranjaneyulu2,60,000-00‘’

4.Smt.Lakshmi Narasimha6,00,000-00‘’

5.Yella Rami Reddy1,00,000-00‘’

6.Baleeswara Reddy1,00,000-00‘’

7.Boreddy Siva Rami Reddy1,00,000-00‘’

8.Boreddy Ravindra Reddy50,000-00‘’

9.Vijayudu50,000-00‘’

10. Mallikarjunachari1,00,000-00‘’

11. Tailor Pullaiah85,000-00‘’

12. Gas Rama Krishna50,000-00‘’

13. Poyyi Venkataswamy Reddy1,00,000-00‘’

14. Karemjinnu Ranga Swamy50,000-00‘’

15. Vadla Lingamaiah Achari90,000-00‘’

16. Venkatarathnam Achari50,000-00‘’

17. Telugu Ramanaiah1,00,000-00‘’

18. Sangem Naganna40,000-00‘’

19. Smt.Dhanalakshmi30,000-00‘’

20. Kethavath Mangamma Bai1,00,000-00‘’

21. Venkata Ramana Yadav50,000-00‘’

22. Srinivasa Goud1,00,000-00‘’

23. Sekhara Goud70,000-00‘’

24. Narayana Goud1,50,000-00‘’

25. Ramana Goud80,000-00‘’

26. Krishna Goud30,000-00‘’

27. Chakali Chennaiah40,000-00‘’

28. Yella Linga Reddy90,000-00‘’

29. Mallikarjuna Reddy50,000-00‘’

30. Kasi Viswanatha Reddy50,000-00‘’

31. Chinthamanu Venkatesh Yadav1,50,000-00‘’

32. Pahilman3,00,000-00‘’

33. Boreddy Ramana Reddy85,000-00‘’

34. Chilakala Bhupal1,00,000-00‘’

35. Krishnamurthy Yadav40,000-00‘’

36. Gajula Khaja Hussain90,000-00‘’

37. Sreekantha Reddy1,40,000-00‘’

38. Boya Sivudu20,000-00‘’

39. Boya Rangamma50,000-00‘’

40. Boya Venkateswarlu40,000-00‘’

41. Marthapu Samelu50,000-00‘’

42. Smt.Chandra Bai1,00,000-00‘’

43. Telugu Lalithamma1,15,000-00‘’

44. Jayamma40,000-00‘’

45. Boya Ramalingam90,000-00‘’

46. Boreddy Ravindra Reddy30,000-00‘’

47. Ravikumar Setty30,000-00‘’

48. I.Narayana Naik50,000-00 +‘’ 17,000-00

49. Sudhakar Yadav2,00,000-00‘’

50. Yella Sreenatha Reddy50,000-00‘’

51. Smt.Lakshmidevi50,000-00‘’

52. Venu Goud1,00,000-00‘’

53. Boraboina Sunkanna Yadav50,000-00‘’

54. Pogula Venkateswarlu Yadav30,000-00‘’

55. Devanna30,000-00‘’

56. Pala Sankar50,000-00‘’

57. Tappeta Ruthamma1,00,000-00‘’

58. Sreenivasulu80,000-00‘’

59. Bhaseerun1,50,000-00‘’

60. Ummar3,00,000-00‘’

61. Basapogu Raju3,00,000-00‘’

62. Chakali Lakshmi40,000-00‘’

63. Diwan1,00,000-00‘’

64. Anuradha50,000-00‘’

65. Manapati Seshanna30,000-00‘’

66. Hussain Basha1,00,000-00‘’

67. Jayarami Reddy40,000-00‘’

Total amount of Rs.65,52,000-00

B. SCHEDULE PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER (ASSETS)

Two shirts and two trousers and total worth of Rs.500/-.

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ATMAKUR.

PRESENT: Sri.V.Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Friday, the 22nd day of September, 2023

APPEAL SUIT No.02 of 2022

1. D.Siromani, W/o Late Benjamin, aged about 60 years, Pensioner. Died by L.Rs.

2. Nandyal Nirmal Albert Patrick, S/o Benjamin, aged about 57 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

3. John Vidyakar Anand, S/o Benjamin, aged about 71 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

4. Nandyal Mary Vinolia, D/o Benjamin, aged about 68 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

5. Nandyal Milka Virginia Devakrupa, D/o Benjamin, aged about 60 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

6. Nandyal Therisa Victoria, D/o Benjamin, aged about 62 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

7. Nandyal Angel Helda Veronica, D/o Benjamin, aged about 61 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

8. Roseline Vimala Kumari Nandyal, D/o Benjamin, aged about 59 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

9. Nandyal Philomina Vinaya Devi, D/o Benjamin, aged about 55 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 10.Nandyal Clement Vinod Kumar, S/o Benjamin, aged about 47 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

(Appellants 2 to 10 are Legal Heirs of Appellant No.1)

2 11.Nandyal Babu Divakar Devadanam, S/o Benjamin, aged about 71 years, Employee, Both are Christians, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. … Appellants/Defendants

Versus

Kalubandi Rajasekhar, S/o Yohan, aged about 30 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Pamulapadu Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.… Respondent/Plaintif

Appeal fled on behalf of the Appellants/Defendants under Order 41(1) CPC against the decree and Judgment in

O.S.No.42/2012, dt.25-02-2020 passed by the Junior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

This appeal suit coming on 08-09-2023 for fnal hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad and

Sri.B.Nagesh, Advocates for the Appellants/Defendants and of

Sri.K.Govinda Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff and having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful defendants against the decree and Judgment in Original Suit

No.42/2012 dated 25-02-2020 passed by the Junior Civil Judge,

Atmakur, which suit was fled by the plaintif seeking relief of

Permanent Injunction against the defendants and for costs.

02.For the sake of convenience and brevity the parties in the appeal are referred to, as they were arrayed in the suit.

3

03.The contents of the respondent/plaintif in the plaint are that the plaint schedule property is a Government Poramboku land, the said land assigned to the plaintif by the Tahsildar,

Pamulapadu under D.Namoona Patta. Since then the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till today. The revenue authority also issued Pattadar Pass Book, Title

Deed in respect of the schedule property in favour of the plaintif.

Further version is that the defendants No.1 and 2 are no way concerned with the plaint schedule property and they planning to occupy the same with highhanded acts with the support of local political leaders.

04.On the other hand, the contention of the appellants/defendants in the statement is that the husband of defendant No.1 by name Nandyala Benjamin and her son

Devadanam i.e., D2 are Ex-Servicemen. So, in the year 1979-1980 the Government granted D-Form assigned patta in favour of both of them in respect of Sy.No.385/10A to an extent of Ac.5.00 and in

Sy.No.367/2 to an extent of Ac.5.32 cents respectively. Further version is that subsequently as the original pattas are lost, they also obtained duplicate pattas on 03-07-1992 and since the date of allotment husband of D1 and D2 are cultivating their lands without any interruption till today. Further version is that the husband of frst defendant worked at Kurnool and Nandyal as a

Paster during that period the father of the plaintif cultivated the 4 suit schedule land for some years. Taking advantage the father of the plaintif created the revenue records and false pattas in favour of plaintif and his wife and in order to grab the property fled the false suit. Further version is that the defendant also submitted representation to the Tahsildar, Pamulapadu through Joint

Collector, Kurnool and the matter is pending enquiry before R.D.O.,

Kurnool.

05.After framing of issues, the Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Atmakur conducted trial and after recording the evidence on both sides decreed the suit in favour of the plaintif by holding a fnding that the plaintif established his possession over the schedule property.

06.Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants preferred this appeal with the following grounds:-

1. The Judgment and Decree dated 25-02-2020 of the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur in O.S.No.42/2012 is against law weight of evidence and broad probabilities of the case.

2. The Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur failed to appreciate the evidence of D1 to D6 in which is categorically they stated how they acquired the title over the property and possession of the property.

3. The Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur had given much importance to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 who are wife and husband they are very much interested in their case in order to knock away the property which belongs to the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

4. The Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur failed to see the plaint schedule property is a Government property and it was given to the husband of the father of the DW.1 and DW.1 5 since they served in a defense services for a prolonged time and in order to provide the livelihood to them Government assigned the land and basing on their considering possession and enjoyment and support of their possession Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 handed over to DW.1.

5. The Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur failed to considered with regard to the Patta’s Ex.A1 an enquiry is pending before the RDO, Kurnool under Ex.B9 even otherwise the Ex.A1 is issued by the then Tahsildar subsequent to Ex.B3 without cancelling Ex.B3. Thus a serious dispute with regard to the title of the property was raised by the appellants. Since there is a serious dispute of the title over the property the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur ought to have dismiss the suit with a direction the respondent herein i.e., plaintif in main suit can fle a suit for declaration of title and possession.

6. The fndings of the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur in

O.S.No.42/2012 is not based on oral or documentary

evidence and it depends only basing on surmises. The

Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur failed to the plaintif

created Adangal before fling the suit. The Hon’ble Junior Civil

Judge, Atmakur failed to appreciate the contention of the

citation reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court, page No.2033.

7. The Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur failed to see by seeing the entire evidence on record that the permanent patta granted in favour of father of DW.1 much prior to the Ex.A1. Taking advantage of absence of the appellants in the town, the respondent entered into the possession of the schedule property and claiming the injunction. Since the appellants are absolute owners of the property the respondent cannot claim injunction against the appellants who are the true owners of the property.

07.The counsel for the respondent/plaintif contending that the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur rightly passed the

Judgment, dt.25-02-2020, the said Judgment does not calls any interference and prays the Court dismiss the appeal.

08.Heard both sides. No additional evidence is adduced in the appeal.

6

09.Based on the pleadings on both sides and oral submissions made by them, the points for determination are that

1) Whether the Decree and Judgment, dt.25-02-2020 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur is liable to be set aside?

2) To what relief?

10.Point No.1:

The version of the respondent/plaintif is that the

Government granted D-Form patta in favour of plaintif and also the name of the plaintif mutated in all revenue records and further version is that the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till today. On the other hand, the version of the appellants/defendants is that the Government granted D-Form patta in favour of husband and son of D1 to an extent of Ac.10.32 cents in respect of Sy.Nos.385/10A and 367/2.

To determine the fact, the Junior Civil Judge’s Court let in evidence on both sides. In the cross examination of DW.1, he categorically deposed that the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Further deposed that they got patta in the year 1971 and they raised crops for about 10 years in some intervals. Further deposed that he does not have any Adangals or any other records to show that they raised crops for some years in the suit schedule property. Further deposed that he has given the representations by stating that Kalubandi Raja Sekhar and

Sarojamma have in possession of suit schedule property and 7 asking them to resume the same to him and his mother Siromani.

Moreover, DW.4 who is Tahsildar, Pamulapadu deposed in his chief examination that with regard to the land covered under suit schedule property an enquiry report for cancellation of patta is pending with Joint Collector. If the patta is cancelled, all the passbooks would be cancelled automatically so also the online record. Further deposed that he has conducted enquiry and came to know that they were issued passbooks but their records does not show that there were issued pattas. In the cross examination he stated that it is true that patta No.247 shows that it was allotted to one Kalumandi Raja Sekhar under Ex.B11. Further deposed that it is true that Kalumandi Raja Sekhar is in possession of the land and all the revenue records including online records are also in his name. Further deposed that if the pattadar do not cultivate the land within three years, the patta would be cancelled by adopting due procedure.

11.Based on the above evidence, admittedly, the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the time of fling of the suit. Even the same is admitted by the defendants. Whereas the version of the defendants is that he fled a representation before the R.D.O. to resume his name and cancel the patta issued to the respondent/plaintif. Moreover, the version of the Tahsildar is that the plaintif is in the possession of the schedule property and the revenue records also shows the name 8 of the plaintif in concerned revenue records in respect of the schedule property. Moreover, the Tahsildar, Pamulapadu addressed a letter to Joint Collector in RCA/175/2012, dated 28-12-2017 under Ex.B12 stating that “In view of the above circumstances and factual things I submit that the second time assignment of Government land made to Kalabandi Rajasekhar, S/o K.Yohan for Sy.No.367/2 (Ac.532) of Pamulapadu Village without issuing notice to the (previous) original assignee who in Ex-service men and also by not cancelling the previous D.Patta is irregular and not in accordance with assignment rules and regulations and also prescribed procedure is liable for cancellation and restore the land to the original assignee” and he requesting the Joint Collector that the subsequent D.Patta granted to Sri.K.Rajasekhar, S/o Kalubandi Yohan may be cancelled under the provision of BSO.15(18). The PPB and T.C. may also be cancelled”.

12.In view of the Ex.B12, the Tahsildar recommended the

RDO to cancel the patta issued in favour of the plaintif and resume the name of defendants in concerned with the schedule property. Admittedly the said proceedings pending before the RDO,

Kurnool.

13.A perusal of the record, it is settled principle that to get the relief of injunction the party must prima-facie established possession over the schedule property. As the relief of injunction is equitable relief. Here in this case, there is no dispute with regard to the possession of the plaintif over the schedule property so also it is admitted fact that originally the disputed land belongs to the Government and there are pending proceedings before RDO for consideration of the issue. If the outcome of the result of the 9

RDO in RCA proceedings in favour of the defendants, defnitely the defendants are entitled for the land in dispute. Since the possession of the plaintif not in dispute over the schedule property, the passing of decree in favour of plaintif is nothing wrong whereas the relief of injunction should be except under due process of law.

14.A perusal of the entire material evidence on record, this

Court not found any infrmity in the Judgment passed by the Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur and the said Judgment does not calls

any infrmity. Accordingly, the point is answered against the appellants.

15.Point No.2: In the result, the appeal is dismissed, no costs, whereas in view of the fnding in the Judgment, the relief that granting

Permanent Injunction by the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur dt.25-02-2020 in favour of the plaintif with operation by except under due process of law.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of September, 2023.

Sd/-V..Venkateswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

Appendix of Evidence

No Additional Evidence adduced on both sides in the appeal

Sd/-V.V.Rao.

SCJ, ATK.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ATMAKUR.

PRESENT: Sri.V.Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Friday, the 22nd day of September, 2023

APPEAL SUIT No.02 of 2022

12.D.Siromani, W/o Late Benjamin, aged about 60 years, Pensioner. Died by L.Rs. 13.Nandyal Nirmal Albert Patrick, S/o Benjamin, aged about 57 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 14.John Vidyakar Anand, S/o Benjamin, aged about 71 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 15.Nandyal Mary Vinolia, D/o Benjamin, aged about 68 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 16.Nandyal Milka Virginia Devakrupa, D/o Benjamin, aged about 60 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 17.Nandyal Therisa Victoria, D/o Benjamin, aged about 62 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 18.Nandyal Angel Helda Veronica, D/o Benjamin, aged about 61 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 19.Roseline Vimala Kumari Nandyal, D/o Benjamin, aged about 59 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 20.Nandyal Philomina Vinaya Devi, D/o Benjamin, aged about 55 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 21.Nandyal Clement Vinod Kumar, S/o Benjamin, aged about 47 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

(Appellants 2 to 10 are Legal Heirs of Appellant No.1)

11 22.Nandyal Babu Divakar Devadanam, S/o Benjamin, aged about 71 years, Employee, Both are Christians, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. … Appellants/Defendants

Versus

Kalubandi Rajasekhar, S/o Yohan, aged about 30 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Pamulapadu Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.… Respondent/Plaintif

This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful defendants against the decree and Judgment in Original Suit No.42/2012 dated 25-02-2020 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, which suit was fled by the plaintif seeking relief of Permanent Injunction against the defendants and for costs.

Appeal presented on 03-04-2021 and fled on 21-11-2022.

Memorandum of Valuation:

Jurisdiction value of the suit in the lower Court is Rs.10,000/- and Court Fee of Rs.786/- was paid under Sec.26(c) of the APCF & SV Act.

Value of the appeal is the same as in the lower Court i.e., Rs.10,000/- and court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under Sections 49 of the APCF & SV Act, 1956.

This appeal suit coming on 08-09-2023 for fnal hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad and

Sri.B.Nagesh, Advocates for the Appellants/Defendants and of Sri.K.Govinda Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff this Court doth order and decree as follows:

That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed, no costsf

That in view of the fnding in the Judgment, the relief that granting Permanent Injunction by the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur dt.25-02-2020 in favour of the plaintif is hereby with operation by except under due process of law.

12

That the Appellants/Defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.4,048/-and the Respondent/Plaintif do bear his own costs of Rs.2,202/- in the appeal.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 22 nd day of September, 2023.

Sd/-V..Venkateswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

LOWER COURT COSTS

For PlaintifFor Defendants (Rs.) (Rs.) Stamp on vakalat2-002-00 Stamp on plaint786-000-00 Stamp on Process200-000-00 Advocate fee2,000-002,000-00 Writing&Typing100-00100-00 Charges ======================== Totals (Rs.) 3,088-00 2,102-00 ========================

APPEAL COSTS

(Costs Shown only)

DescriptionFor Appellants/For Respondent/ DefendantsPlaintif Rs.Rs. Stamp on Appeal786-000-00 Stamp on Vakalat2-002-00 Process fee60-000-00 P.W Charges100-00100-00 Typing Charges100-00100-00 Sr.Advocate fee 2,000-00 2,000-00 Jr.Advocate1,000-000-00 ======================== == 4,048-002,202-00 ======================== ==

Sd/-V..Venkateswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

13

SCHEDULE

(As per Lower Court Decree)

Land situated within the village limits of Pamulapadu Village, Atmakur Sub-Division, Kurnool District.

S.No. Extent 367/2 Ac.5.00 cents.

Boundaries:

East:Land of Yerragudur Goud.

West:Land of Jangala Jambulu and Rama Naik.

North:Alaganoor Channel..

South:Land of Vadde Venkata Swamy.

Sd/-V..Venkateswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

Copy to the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, along with entire L.C Records.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ATMAKUR.

PRESENT: Sri.V.Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Friday, the 22nd day of September, 2023

APPEAL SUIT No.03 of 2022

1. D.Siromani, W/o Late Benjamin, aged about 60 years, Pensioner. Died by L.Rs.

2. Nandyal Nirmal Albert Patrick, S/o Benjamin, aged about 57 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

3. John Vidyakar Anand, S/o Benjamin, aged about 71 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

4. Nandyal Mary Vinolia, D/o Benjamin, aged about 68 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

5. Nandyal Milka Virginia Devakrupa, D/o Benjamin, aged about 60 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

6. Nandyal Therisa Victoria, D/o Benjamin, aged about 62 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

7. Nandyal Angel Helda Veronica, D/o Benjamin, aged about 61 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

8. Roseline Vimala Kumari Nandyal, D/o Benjamin, aged about 59 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

9. Nandyal Philomina Vinaya Devi, D/o Benjamin, aged about 55 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 10.Nandyal Clement Vinod Kumar, S/o Benjamin, aged about 47 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

(Appellants 2 to 10 are Legal Heirs of Appellant No.1)

2 11.Nandyal Babu Divakar Devadanam, S/o Benjamin, aged about 71 years, Employee, Both are Christians, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. … Appellants/Defendants

Versus

Kalubandi Sarojamma, W/o Yohan, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Pamulapadu Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.… Respondent/Plaintif

Appeal fled on behalf of the Appellants/Defendants under Order 41(1) CPC against the decree and Judgment in

O.S.No.43/2012, dt.25-02-2020 passed by the Junior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

This appeal suit coming on 08-09-2023 for fnal hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad and

Sri.B.Nagesh, Advocates for the Appellants/Defendants and of

Sri.K.Govinda Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff and having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful defendants against the decree and Judgment in Original Suit

No.43/2012 dated 25-02-2020 passed by the Junior Civil Judge,

Atmakur, which suit was fled by the plaintif seeking relief of

Permanent Injunction against the defendants and for costs.

02.For the sake of convenience and brevity the parties in the appeal are referred to, as they were arrayed in the suit.

3

03.The contents of the respondent/plaintif in the plaint are that the plaint schedule property is a Government Poramboku land, the said land assigned to the plaintif by the Tahsildar,

Pamulapadu under D.Namoona Patta. Since then the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till today. The revenue authority also issued Pattadar Pass Book, Title

Deed in respect of the schedule property in favour of the plaintif.

Further version is that the defendants No.1 and 2 are no way concerned with the plaint schedule property and they planning to occupy the same with highhanded acts with the support of local political leaders.

04.On the other hand, the contention of the appellants/ defendants in the statement is that the husband of defendant No.1 by name Nandyala Benjamin and her son Devadanam i.e., D2 are

Ex-Servicemen. So, in the year 1979-1980 the Government granted D-Form assigned patta in favour of both of them in respect of Sy.No.385/10A to an extent of Ac.5.00 and in Sy.No.367/2 to an extent of Ac.5.32 cents respectively. Further version is that subsequently as the original pattas are lost, they also obtained duplicate pattas on 03-07-1992 and since the date of allotment husband of D1 and D2 are cultivating their lands without any interruption till today. Further version is that the husband of frst defendant worked at Kurnool and Nandyal as a Paster during that period the father of the plaintif cultivated the suit schedule land 4 for some years. Taking advantage the father of the plaintif created the revenue records and false pattas in favour of plaintif and his wife and in order to grab the property fled the false suit. Further version is that the defendant also submitted representation to the

Tahsildar, Pamulapadu through Joint Collector, Kurnool and the matter is pending enquiry before R.D.O., Kurnool.

05.After framing of issues, the Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Atmakur conducted trial and after recording the evidence on both sides decreed the suit in favour of the plaintif by holding a fnding that the plaintif established his possession over the schedule property.

06.Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants preferred this appeal with the following grounds:-

1. The Judgment and Decree dated 25-02-2020 of the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur in O.S.No.43/2012 is against law weight of evidence and broad probabilities of the case.

2. The Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur failed to appreciate the evidence of D1 to D6 in which is categorically they stated how they acquired the title over the property and possession of the property.

3. The Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur had given much importance to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 who are wife and husband they are very much interested in their case in order to knock away the property which belongs to the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

4. The Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur failed to see the plaint schedule property is a Government property and it was given to the husband of the father of the DW.1 and DW.1 since they served in a defense services for a prolonged time 5 and in order to provide the livelihood to them Government assigned the land and basing on their considering possession and enjoyment and support of their possession Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 handed over to DW.1.

5. The Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur failed to considered with regard to the Patta’s Ex.A1 an enquiry is pending before the RDO, Kurnool under Ex.B9 even otherwise the Ex.A1 is issued by the then Tahsildar subsequent to Ex.B3 without cancelling Ex.B3. Thus a serious dispute with regard to the title of the property was raised by the appellants. Since there is a serious dispute of the title over the property the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur ought to have dismiss the suit with a direction the respondent herein i.e., plaintif in main suit can fle a suit for declaration of title and possession.

6. The fndings of the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur in

O.S.No.43/2012 is not based on oral or documentary

evidence and it depends only basing on surmises. The

Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur failed to the plaintif

created Adangal before fling the suit. The Hon’ble Junior Civil

Judge, Atmakur failed to appreciate the contention of the

citation reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court, page No.2033.

7. The Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur failed to see by seeing the entire evidence on record that the permanent patta granted in favour of father of DW.1 much prior to the Ex.A1. Taking advantage of absence of the appellants in the town, the respondent entered into the possession of the schedule property and claiming the injunction. Since the appellants are absolute owners of the property the respondent cannot claim injunction against the appellants who are the true owners of the property.

07.The counsel for the respondent/plaintif contending that the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur rightly passed the

Judgment, dt.25-02-2020, the said Judgment does not calls any interference and prays the Court dismiss the appeal.

08.Heard both sides. No additional evidence is adduced in the appeal.

6

09.Based on the pleadings on both sides and oral submissions made by them, the points for determination are that

1) Whether the Decree and Judgment, dt.25-02-2020 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur is liable to be set aside?

2) To what relief?

10.Point No.1:

The version of the respondent/plaintif is that the

Government granted D-Form patta in favour of plaintif and also the name of the plaintif mutated in all revenue records and further version is that the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till today. On the other hand, the version of the appellants/defendants is that the Government granted D-Form patta in favour of husband and son of D1 to an extent of Ac.10.32 cents in respect of Sy.Nos.385/10A and 367/2.

To determine the fact, the Junior Civil Judge’s Court let in evidence on both sides. In the cross examination of DW.1, he categorically deposed that the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Further deposed that they got patta in the year 1971 and they raised crops for about 10 years in some intervals. Further deposed that he does not have any Adangals or any other records to show that they raised crops for some years in the suit schedule property. Further deposed that he has given the representations by stating that Kalubandi Raja Sekhar and

Sarojamma have in possession of suit schedule property and 7 asking them to resume the same to him and his mother Siromani.

Moreover, DW.4 who is Tahsildar, Pamulapadu deposed in his chief examination that with regard to the land covered under suit schedule property an enquiry report for cancellation of patta is pending with Joint Collector. If the patta is cancelled, all the passbooks would be cancelled automatically so also the online record. Further deposed that he has conducted enquiry and came to know that they were issued passbooks but their records does not show that there were issued pattas. In the cross examination he stated that it is true that patta No.248 shows that it was allotted to one Kalumandi Raja Sekhar under Ex.B10. Further deposed that it is true that Kalumandi Raja Sekhar is in possession of the land and all the revenue records including online records are also in his name. Further deposed that if the pattadar do not cultivate the land within three years, the patta would be cancelled by adopting due procedure.

11.Based on the above evidence, admittedly, the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the time of fling of the suit. Even the same is admitted by the defendants. Whereas the version of the defendants is that he fled a representation before the R.D.O. to resume his name and cancel the patta issued to the respondent/plaintif. Moreover, the version of the Tahsildar is that the plaintif is in the possession of the schedule property and the revenue records also shows the name 8 of the plaintif in concerned revenue records in respect of the schedule property. Moreover, the Tahsildar, Pamulapadu addressed a letter to Joint Collector in RCA/175/2012, dated 28-12-2017 under Ex.B11 stating that “In view of the above circumstances and factual things I submit that the second time assignment of Government land made to Kalabandi Rajasekhar, S/o K.Yohan for Sy.No.367/2 (Ac.532) of Pamulapadu Village without issuing notice to the (previous) original assignee who in Ex-service men and also by not cancelling the previous D.Patta is irregular and not in accordance with assignment rules and regulations and also prescribed procedure is liable for cancellation and restore the land to the original assignee” and he requesting the Joint Collector that the subsequent D.Patta granted to Sri.K.Rajasekhar, S/o Kalubandi Yohan may be cancelled under the provision of BSO.15(18). The PPB and T.C. may also be cancelled”.

12.In view of the Ex.B11, the Tahsildar recommended the

RDO to cancel the patta issued in favour of the plaintif and resume the name of defendants in concerned with the schedule property. Admittedly the said proceedings pending before the RDO,

Kurnool.

13.A perusal of the record, it is settled principle that to get the relief of injunction the party must prima-facie established possession over the schedule property. As the relief of injunction is equitable relief. Here in this case, there is no dispute with regard to the possession of the plaintif over the schedule property so also it is admitted fact that originally the disputed land belongs to the Government and there are pending proceedings before RDO for consideration of the issue. If the outcome of the result of the 9

RDO in RCA proceedings in favour of the defendants, defnitely the defendants are entitled for land in dispute. Since the possession of the plaintif not in dispute over the schedule property, the passing of decree in favour of plaintif is nothing wrong whereas the relief of injunction should be except under due process of law.

14.A perusal of the entire material evidence on record, this

Court not found any infrmity in the Judgment passed by the Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur and the said Judgment does not calls

any infrmity. Accordingly, the point is answered against the appellants.

15.Point No.2:

In the result, the appeal is dismissed, no costs, whereas in view of the fnding in the Judgment, the relief that granting

Permanent Injunction by the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur dt.25-02-2020 in favour of the plaintif with operation by except under due process of law.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of September, 2023.

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao.

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

Appendix of Evidence

No Additional Evidence adduced on both sides in the appeal

Sd/-V. V. Rao.

SCJ, ATK.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ATMAKUR.

PRESENT: Sri.V.Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Friday, the 22nd day of September, 2023

APPEAL SUIT No.03 of 2022

12.D.Siromani, W/o Late Benjamin, aged about 60 years, Pensioner. Died by L.Rs. 13.Nandyal Nirmal Albert Patrick, S/o Benjamin, aged about 57 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 14.John Vidyakar Anand, S/o Benjamin, aged about 71 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 15.Nandyal Mary Vinolia, D/o Benjamin, aged about 68 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 16.Nandyal Milka Virginia Devakrupa, D/o Benjamin, aged about 60 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 17.Nandyal Therisa Victoria, D/o Benjamin, aged about 62 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 18.Nandyal Angel Helda Veronica, D/o Benjamin, aged about 61 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 19.Roseline Vimala Kumari Nandyal, D/o Benjamin, aged about 59 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 20.Nandyal Philomina Vinaya Devi, D/o Benjamin, aged about 55 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. 21.Nandyal Clement Vinod Kumar, S/o Benjamin, aged about 47 years, Christian, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

11

(Appellants 2 to 10 are Legal Heirs of Appellant No.1)

22.Nandyal Babu Divakar Devadanam, S/o Benjamin, aged about 71 years, Employee, Both are Christians, R/o 40-37-L-22G1, River View Colony, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. … Appellants/Defendants

Versus

Kalubandi Sarojamma, W/o Yohan, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Pamulapadu Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.… Respondent/Plaintif

This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful defendants against the decree and Judgment in Original Suit No.43/2012 dated 25-02-2020 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, which suit was fled by the plaintif seeking relief of Permanent Injunction against the defendants and for costs.

Appeal presented on 03-04-2021 and fled on 21-11-2022.

Memorandum of Valuation:

Jurisdiction value of the suit in the lower Court is Rs.10,000/- and Court Fee of Rs.786/- was paid under Sec.26(c) of the APCF & SV Act.

Value of the appeal is the same as in the lower Court i.e., Rs.10,000/- and court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under Sections 49 of the APCF & SV Act, 1956.

This appeal suit coming on 08-09-2023 for fnal hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad and

Sri.B.Nagesh, Advocates for the Appellants/Defendants and of Sri.K.Govinda Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff this Court doth order and decree as follows:

That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed, no costsf

That in view of the fnding in the Judgment, the relief that granting Permanent Injunction by the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur dt.25-02-2020 in favour of the plaintif is hereby with operation by except under due process of law.

12

That the Appellants/Defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.4,048/-and the Respondent/Plaintif do bear her own costs of Rs.2,202/- in the appeal.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 22 nd day of September, 2023.

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao.

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

LOWER COURT COSTS

For PlaintifFor Defendants (Rs.) (Rs.) Stamp on vakalat2-002-00 Stamp on plaint786-000-00 Stamp on Process200-000-00 Advocate fee2,000-002,000-00 Writing&Typing100-00100-00 Charges ======================== Totals (Rs.) 3,088-00 2,102-00 ========================

APPEAL COSTS

(Costs Shown only)

DescriptionFor Appellants/For Respondent/ DefendantsPlaintif Rs.Rs. Stamp on Appeal786-000-00 Stamp on Vakalat2-002-00 Process fee60-000-00 P.W Charges100-00100-00 Typing Charges100-00100-00 Sr.Advocate fee 2,000-00 2,000-00 Jr.Advocate1,000-000-00 ======================== == 4,048-002,202-00 ======================== ==

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao.

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

13

SCHEDULE

(As per Lower Court Decree)

Land situated within the village limits of Pamulapadu Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

S.No. Extent 385/10A Ac.5-00 cents.

Boundaries:

East:Land of Vijaya Kumari.

West:Land of Kalubandi Yesanna.

North:Land of Police Moulali.

South:Land of Jangala Masanna.

Sd/-V.Venkateswara Rao.

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

Copy to the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, along with entire L.C Records.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ATMAKUR.

PRESENT: Sri.V.Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur

Wednesday, the 20th day of September, 2023

APPEAL SUIT No.05 of 2019

1. A.Murthuja, S/o Ali Saheb, aged 71 years, Muslim, Agriculture, R/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

2. Shaik Anwar Hussain @ A.Anwar Hussain, S/o A.Murthuja, aged 36 years, Muslim, Agriculture, R/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Appellants/Plaintifs

Versus

Nandimalla Nagendra Goud, S/o Ramanna Goud, aged 63 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Respondent/Defendant

Appeal fled on behalf of the Appellants/llaintifs under Order XLI Rules 1 ClC against the decree and Judgment dated 29-06-2019 in Original Suit No.130/2012 passed by the Junior

Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Between:-

1. A.Murthuja, S/o Ali Saheb, aged 63 years, Muslim, Agriculture, R/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

2. Shaik Anwar Hussain @ A.Anwar Hussain, S/o A.Murthuja, aged 28 years, Muslim, Agriculture, R/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.… Plaintifs

And

Nandimalla Nagendra Goud, S/o Ramanna Goud, aged 55 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Defendant 2

This appeal suit coming on 06-09-2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.Murali Mohan and

Sri.B.Nagesh, Advocates for the appellants/plaintifs and of

Sri.T.Mallikarjun Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent/Defendant; and having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful plaintifs against the decree and Judgment in Original Suit

No.130/2012 dated 29-06-2019 passed by the Junior Civil Judge,

Atmakur, which suit was fled by the plaintifs seeking Specifc lerformance to direct the defendant to register the sale deed in favour of the 2nd plaintif in pursuance of the sale deed dated 19-12-2011 and the same was dismissed on 29-06-2019.

02.For the sake of convenience and brevity the parties in the appeal are referred to, as they were arrayed in the suit.

03.The version of the appellants/plaintifs in the plaint in

O.S.No.130/2012 is that the defendant is the absolute owner of

the schedule property, he sold away the same to the frst appellant herein for consideration of Rs.18,000/- i.e., 12 years prior to 2004 and the possession also given to the frst appellant herein. Since then the frst appellant is in the possession of schedule property. Further version is that later the defendant executed a stamped agreement of sale in favour of frst plaintif on 28-08-2004. Further version is that the frst plaintif has been demanding the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in 3 favour of the frst appellant, but the defendant has been procrastinating the same on some pretext or the other. Further version is that the frst plaintif ultimately demanded for execution of registered sale deed in favour of frst plaintif in the month of December, 2011. The defendant demanded

Rs.1,00,000/- as the price of the schedule property hiked. After negotiations in the presence of elders, the frst plaintif agreed to pay Rs.62,500/- and sale deed prepared on 1912-2011 and after payment of stamp duty under Challan and after the defendant put signatures on the sale papers, he left the place without giving any information. Thereby the appellants/ plaintifs fled the suit before the Junior Civil Judgess Court, Atmakur sought relief of Specifc lerformance of Contract.

04.On the other hand, the respondent/defendant fled written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint.

The defendant herein also fled a suit against the appellants herein sought relief of lermanent Injunction. Both the suits clubbed and the evidence let in O.S.No.09/2012 and the Junior

Civil Judgess Court, Atmakur passed common Judgment on the

both the suits in O.S.No.09/2012 and O.S.No.130/2012 on 29-06-2019.

05.Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein preferred this appeal before this Court on the following grounds:

1. The decree and Judgment of the Honsble Trial Court is against to the weight of evidence and against to the 4 principles of settled law and as such the decree and Judgment is liable to be set aside.

2. The Honsble Trial Court went wrong while deciding the issue “Whether the suit is barred by limitation or not?”.

The Honsble trial court unnecessarily run after agreement of sale which was ripen into the SALE DEED Ex.B5 and failed to consider that once the sale deed was executed the agreement of sale carries no value in the eye of law and mentioning of the same in the sale deed is not a mandatory one.

The Honsble trial court failed to catch the nexus of the case that the cause of action for the suit arose from the date of jump over by Nandimalla Nagendra Goud/defendant/ respondent herein, without presenting the sale deed for registration before the registrar after got executing the sale deed, but not from the date of the agreement of sale and as such the Honsble trial court came to a wrong conclusion and gave a wrong fnding that the suit is barred by limitation.

The Hosble trial court observations that “even though there is no stipulation of time in the agreement of sale for executing a registered sale deed, despite of it, he came to the conclusion that part one of Art.54 of Limitation Act applies, gave a fnding that the suit was barred by limitation” – was nothing but misreading of the evidence and facts of the case.

Therefore the fnding of the Honsble trial court that the suit is barred by time is liable to be set aside.

3. The Honsble trial court not gave any fnding that the Ex.B5 – Sale deed (unregistered) is not duly signed by the Nandimalla Nagendra/defendant/respondent herein.

Once the Nandimalla Nagendra got executed sale deed Ex.B5.

Once the execution of the sale deed is proved Ex.B5 – When it is not the case of the defendant/respondent/ Nandimalla Nagendra Goud that he did not know the contents of the sale deed.

The Honsble trial court ought to have decree the suit for specifc performance in favour of the appellant No.2/appellants and against the defendant rather than 5 dismissing the same and as such the decree and Judgment is liable to be set aside.

4. The Honsble trial court failed to consider the settled law that if the trial court found that the plaintif is out of possession in a suit for specifc performance, it can grant relief of possession also even at the stage of execution of the decree as it is a consequential of plea for possession and as such the decree and Judgment of Honsble trial court is liable to be set aside.

5. Under any circumstances that the Honsble trial court out to have decree the suit O.S.No.130/2012 in favour of the plaintifs/appellants against to the defendant/respondent.

06.On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent/defendant contending that the Junior Civil Judgess

Court, Atmakur rightly dismissed the suit after appreciation of the evidence on record, hence the Judgment passed by the

Junior Civil Judgess Court, Atmakur, dt.29-06-2019 does not calls any interference.

07.Heard both sides. No additional evidence is adduced in the appeal.

08.Based on the appeal grounds and based on the oral submissions by the counsel for the respondent/defendant, the points for determination are that

1. Whether the Judgment, dt.29-06-2019 passed by the Junior

Civil Judgess Court, Atmakur is liable for set aside?

2. Whether the appellants/plaintifs herein entitled for Specifc lerformance of Contract as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6

09.Points No.1 and 2:

As per the version of the appellants/plaintifs herein is that the frst appellant purchased the schedule property from the respondent/defendant 12 years prior to 2004 for consideration of Rs.18,000/-. Subsequently a stamp agreement of sale executed on 28-08-2004, possession also delivered to the frst appellant/1st plaintif herein and the appellants has been in possession of schedule property since the date of his purchase.

But the defendant has not executed the registered sale deed in favour of the frst appellant/1st plaintif herein. On further demand of the defendant, the frst plaintif agreed to pay

Rs.62,500/- on 19-12-2011 sale deed also prepared, stamp duty also paid, after prepare the sale deed the defendant herein signed on the document and left the place without informing anything to the appellants.

10.The Junior Civil Judgess Court, Atmakur after appreciation of evidence came to a conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. Since the suit is dismissed on the limitation aspect, this court has to see on what circumstances the claim of the appellants/plaintifs barred by limitation. As per the version of the appellants is that 12 years prior to 2004 the frs appellant purchased the schedule property from the defendant, a sale agreement executed on 28-08-2004 under consideration of

Rs.18,000/-. The sale deed prepared on 19-12-2011 and 7 appellant agreed to pay additional sale consideration of

Rs.62,500/-. After gone through the above version of the appellants, a doubt is created in the mind of court that what prevented the appellants to issue a legal notice to the defendant demanding him to register the regular sale deed in favour of the appellants after enter into agreement with defendant that was not done even at the stage of enter into agreement on 28-08- 2004 or prior to the agreement and also before fling of the suit.

The entire action of the appellants herein not shows any demand to register the schedule property in favour of appellants. Moreover as per his version possession also delivered to the frs appellant i.e., since beginning 12 years prior to 2004 but he failed to produce any single document to establish his possession over the schedule property. Moreover it is settled principle that the time is not essence of contract but based on the circumstances of the each case it can be considered from the date of demand whereas here in this case from the beginning i.e., prior to 2004 since 2011 there is no any demand to register the property in favour of appellants/plaintifs.

11.The counsel for the appellants at the time of arguments cited a decision of our Honsble High Court between

K.V.Srinivasulu Naidu and others Vs. V.Bhaskar and

others. After gone through the fnding of above cited decision with great scrutiny, the facts and circumstances are not 8 application to the present case on hand. Thereby, the above said cited decision not applicable to the present case. Moreover

Ex.B5 which un-registered sale deed not carries any legal sanctity in the eye of law.

12.The Junior Civil Judgess Court, Atmakur after gone through the entire material available on record, rightly came to a conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, the

Judgment passed by the Junior Civil Judgess Court, Atmakur does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the points are answered.

13.Point No.3:

In the result, the appeal is dismissed, no costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed

by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20 th day of September, 2023.

Sd/-V. Venkateswara Rao.

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

Appendix of Evidence

No Additional Evidence adduced on both sides in the appeal

Sd/-V.V.Rao.

SCJ, ATK.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ATMAKUR.

PRESENT: Sri.V.Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur

Wednesday, the 20th day of September, 2023

APPEAL SUIT No.05 of 2019

3. A.Murthuja, S/o Ali Saheb, aged 71 years, Muslim, Agriculture, R/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

4. Shaik Anwar Hussain @ A.Anwar Hussain, S/o A.Murthuja, aged 36 years, Muslim, Agriculture, R/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Appellants/Plaintifs

Versus

Nandimalla Nagendra Goud, S/o Ramanna Goud, aged 63 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Respondent/Defendant

Appeal fled on behalf of the Appellants/llaintifs under Order XLI Rules 1 ClC against the decree and Judgment dated 29-06-2019 in Original Suit No.130/2012 passed by the Junior

Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Between:-

4. A.Murthuja, S/o Ali Saheb, aged 63 years, Muslim, Agriculture, R/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

5. Shaik Anwar Hussain @ A.Anwar Hussain, S/o A.Murthuja, aged 28 years, Muslim, Agriculture, R/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.… Plaintifs

And

Nandimalla Nagendra Goud, S/o Ramanna Goud, aged 55 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, 10

Kurnool District. … Defendant This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful plaintifs against the decree and Judgment in Original Suit No.130/2012

dated 29-06-2019 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur,

which suit was fled by the plaintifs seeking Specifc lerformance to direct the defendant to register the sale deed in favour of the 2nd plaintif in pursuance of the sale deed dated 19- 12-2011 and the same was dismissed on 29-06-2019..

Appeal presented on 16-08-2019 and fled on 16-08-2019.

Memorandum of Valuation:

Jurisdiction value of the suit in the lower Court is

Rs.62,500/- and Court Fee of Rs.2,706/- was paid under Sec.20 and 39 of the AlCF & SV Act.

Value of the appeal is the same as in the lower Court i.e., Rs.62,500/- and court fee of Rs.2,706/- is paid under Sections 49 of the AlCF & SV Act, 1956.

This appeal suit coming on 06-09-2023 for fnal hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.M.Murali Mohan and

Sri.B.Nagesh, Advocates for the Appellants/llaintifs and of Sri.T.Mallikarjun Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent/Defendant; this Court doth order and decree as follows:

That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed, no costs;

That the Decree and Judgment dated 29-06-2019 passed in Original Suit No.130/2012 on the fle of Junior Civil Judgess Court, Atmakur, be and the same is hereby confrmed;

That the Appellants/llaintifs do bear their own costs of Rs.8,335/-and the Respondent/Defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.3,777/- in the appeal.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 20 th day of September, 2023.

Sd/-V. Venkateswara Rao.

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

11

LOWER COURT COSTS

For llaintifsFor Defendant (Rs.) (Rs.) Stamp on vakalat2-002-00 Stamp on plaint2,706-000-00 Stamp on lrocess100-000-00 Advocate fee3,575-003,575-00 Writing & Typing Charges100-00100-00 ======================== Totals (Rs.) 6,483-00 3,677-00 ========================

APPEAL COSTS

(Costs Shown only) DescriptionFor Appellants/ llaintifsFor Respondent/ Rs.Defendant Rs. Stamp on Appeal2,706-000-00 Stamp on Vakalat2-002-00 lrocess fee65-000-00 l.W Charges100-00100-00 Typing Charges100-00100-00 Sr.Advocate fee 3,575-00 3,575-00 Jr.Advocate1,787-000-00 ======================== == 8,335-003,777-00 ======================== ==

Sd/-V. Venkateswara Rao.

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur.

SCHEDULE

(As per Lower Court Decree) Survey No.1193Extent: Ac.1-25 cents

All that part and parcel of an extent of Ac.1-25 cents, 0-56 hectors by name Siddepalli Dova Chenu latta No.2141 and Title Deed No.613531 within the boundaries of:

East:Land belongs to Dewan Shah. West:Siddepalli Rastha. North:Musthapalli Rastha. South:Land belongs to lullareddy.

Sd/-V. Venkateswara Rao.

Senior Civil Judge,

Atmakur. Copy to the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, along with entire L.C Records.

12