Sri Vaddi Hari Kumar

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM II ADDL. JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, MAHABUBNAGAR.

O n this Saturday, this the 30 th day of March, 2024

Present:Sri. Vaddi Hari Kumar, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

C.C. No. 254 of 2016

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Hanwada. …Complainant AND

Varla Narsimulu S/o Ramulu, Age: 26 Years, Occ: Driver of Auto bearing No.AP22-X-8270, R/o Kothapet Village of Hanwada Mandal.

...Accused

*****

This case is coming on 30.03.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP for the complainant and Learned Legal-Aid Counsel Sri.K.Rajesh, Advocate for Accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada P.S, laid charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 338 of

IPC and Sec.196 and 181 of M.V.Act.

2.In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 14.05.2016 at 16:00 hours, LW-1/Sri.Nusyavath Seviya Naik, lodged a report stating that on 10.05.2016 he performed festival of Lord Pochamma at his vilalge, for which his brother-in-law Kethavath Redya Naik was coming to his house from Kakarjarla village on motor cycle bearing No.AP22-E-8601 to attend the said festival. In the meantime, on the way in the limits of Venkatamma Kunta Thanda the driver of auto bearing No.AP22-X-8270 came from opposite

Spl. JFCM P and E, MBNR

Page 2 CC No. 254 of 2016, dt.30.03.2024 direction in rash and negligent manner with high speed, and hit the motor cycle of complainant’s brother-in-law, as a result he received injuries on his head and right hand. Immediately some of the passersby shifted Government Head Quarters Hospital,

Mahabubnagar and from there to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar and from there to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment.

As such he came to the Police station today and lodged petition.

Further he came to know the name and particulars of driver of crime vehicle as Narsimulu S/o Ramulu R/o Kothapet Village, who already gave dash to, two unknown persons near the said place.

Hence, he requested to take necessary legal action against the driver of the crime vehicle/accused as per law.

Basing on the above report, LW-7/S.I of Police, Hanwada P.S registered a case in Cr. No.57/2016 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.337 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW-7 examined and recorded the statement of

LW-1 at police station and visited the visited the scene of offence, and conduced scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., LWs-4 and LW-5, examined and recorded the statement LW-2 and futher visited NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, examined and recorded the statement of LW-3/Redya

Naik/Injured.

3. On 08.06.2016 LW-7 served a notice U/Sec 41-A Cr.P.C to accused, and on furnishing sufficient sureties by the accused,

LW-7 instructed him to appear before the Hon’ble court after receiving summons. The LW-6/Dr.Pushpalatha, who treated the

LW-3 issued medical certificate. After collecting all material documents and after completion of entire investigation, LW-7 filed charge sheet against accused.

4.This court has taken cognizance for the offense punishable

U/Sec.338 of IPC and Sec.196 and 181 of M.V.Act against accused.

On appearance of him, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated Under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., and accused is

Spl. JFCM P and E, MBNR

Page 3 CC No. 254 of 2016, dt.30.03.2024 examined U/Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec.338 of IPC and Sec.196 and 181 of M.V.Act of IPC by explaining the accusation leveled against him in his vernacular language, for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined

PWs-1 to PW-6 and Exhibits P1 to P6 were marked Exs.P1 to P6.

The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW-6. Thus the closure of the prosecution evidence.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material evidence available against him for which he denied the same and pleaded false implication and reported no defense evidence on his behalf. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

7.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. The learned APP argued that, thIn the result,this DVC is allowed in part as follows.

(i)Directing respondent No.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the aggrieved person and her minor son towards their maintenance and shelter from the date of this order.

Respondent No.1 shall directed to pay the same on or before 10th of every succeeding month;

(ii) Directing the respondent No.1 to return the 05 tulas of Gold and Rs.1,50,000/- net cash and other household articles to the petitioner which was given by the parents of petitioner as dowry at the time of marriage.

(iii) Directing the respondents prohibiting to further commit any act of Domestic Violence against the petitioner under Sec.18 of the Act.

(iv)In case of breach of the orders passed above by the respondents, they will be liable for the punishment under

Spl. JFCM P and E, MBNR

Page 4 CC No. 254 of 2016, dt.30.03.2024

Sec.31 of the DVC Act, and as per Rule.15(vii) of the said act and the violator will be held for penal liability to pay

Rs.20,000/- fine or imprisonment for one year.e prosecution established the guilt of the accused person with the evidence available on record beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.

On the other hand the defence counsel argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused and he was falsely implicated in this case and accordingly prayed to acquit the accused.

8. Now the point for determination of the case is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of

accused for the offense punishable U/Sec.338 of IPC and

Sec.181 and 196 of M.V Act., beyond all reasonable doubts?

9. Point: I have carefully perused the evidence available on record. To substantiate its story, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses out of cited 07 witnesses. PW-1 is the complainant/bother-in-law of Injured, PW-2 is the eye witness,

PW-3 is the injued PW-4 and PW-5 are the panchas for scene of offence and PW-6 is the Investigation Officer, who did entire investigation in this case.

10.PW-1/Injured/Redya Naik, deposed before this court that, at about 08 years ago, he went to attend Pochamma festival at

Boyapally near Kothapeta village on his bike and when he reached nearby a thanda one auto came from opposite side of his bike and hit him and he became unconscious and he sustained injury on his head and he got injuries both ears and nose and entire right side of body and he was shifted to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar and for better treatment further shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and he was was examined by Police Hanwada at NIMS Hospital,

Hyderabad.

During cross examination he stated that he do not know the date of accident and one auto dashed to him and he do not

Spl. JFCM P and E, MBNR

Page 5 CC No. 254 of 2016, dt.30.03.2024 know the auto number and he cannot identify the owner of auto and he do not have insurance to his motorcycle and his brother-in- law i.e., PW-2 lodged report before police and he do not know the contents of the report. He denied the suggestion that he fall down by himself and sustained injuries and that at the instance of his family members the case was filed against accused.

11.PW-2/Nunsavath Sevya Naik, deposed before this Court that, PW-1 was brother-in-law and at about 8 year ago he lodged a report before police Hanwada stating that, PW-1 was met with an accident at Venkatammakunta Thanda one auto came from

Kothapeta to Mahabubnagar in an opposite direction his brother- in-law coming on bike to attend a function in their home at

Dayalamarri Thanda and the auto driver came in high speed and negligent manner with intoxication mode and hit his brother-in- laws bike due to which he sustained injuries on his head and hands, and they were shifted him to SVS hospital, Mahabubnagar the Doctors suggested for better treatment to NIMS Hospital,

Hyderabad and he lodged report before Police Hanwada under

Ex.P1 and he came to know crime vehicle driver as Narmsimulu and he was resident of Kothapet village, and he can identify the accused who was present at Court dock and also stated that Police examined him and recorded his statement.

During cross examination he stated that he lodged report

before police on the next day of accident and he did not witnessed

the accident directly and he came to know about the accident through some others and on enquiry only he came to know about the name of driver of auto. He denied the suggestin that PW-1 fallen himself and sustained injuries and in order to claim compensation, this false case was foisted against accused.

12.PW-3/Anjaneyulu, Panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama, deposed before this Court that about 05 to 06 years ago Police Hanwada obtained his signatures on some blank papers without informing the purpose and no scene of offence

Spl. JFCM P and E, MBNR

Page 6 CC No. 254 of 2016, dt.30.03.2024 panchanama conducted in their presence and in the presence of

PW-4 and he identified his signature on the scene of offence panchanama under Exhibit P2. Subsequently, he was declared hostile and the learned APP with the permission of the court cross examined him but nothing was elicited to support the prosecution version.

13.PW-4/Kondanna, another panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama, deposed before this Court that, he knows

PW-3, he belongs to his village and at about 08 years ago Police

Hanwada came to the shop of PW-3 and stated that they are conducting panchanama with regard to one accident occurred near

Kothapet village and done by their village by the name Narsimulu, the said Narsimulu was an Auto Driver with regard to that accident police conducted panchanama and obtained his signature and he identified his signature on the scene of offence panchanama under

Exhibit P3. Subsequently, he was declared hostile and the learned

APP with the permission of the court cross examined him but nothing was elicited to support the prosecution version.

14.PW-5/G.Laxmaiah, Investigation officer in his chief evidence simply deposed about the line of investigation and registering of FIR and filing of charge sheet.

During cross examination he deposed that he received report from PW-2 and he was the brother-in-law of accused and he visited the scene of offence on 14.05.2016 at about 04:30 P.M., and by the time he went to scene of offence there was one eye witness namely Ramesh/PW-2 and there were several persons gathered at scene of offence and he examined the eye witness i.e., PW-2 and the distance between scene of offence and police station is about 5

K.Ms., and he was there at scene of offence nearly for one hour and the panch witnesses belongs to Kothapet Village and PW-2 is not belongs to Kothapet Village and the eye witnesses was examined at scene of offence and he has not received any complaint that the accused caused an accident before this incident. He testified that on the same date of accident, PW-2 did not lodged the report and

Spl. JFCM P and E, MBNR

Page 7 CC No. 254 of 2016, dt.30.03.2024 that they have not conducted any drunk and drive test to accused.

He denied the suggestion that PW-1 fallen down by himself and lodged false report against accused and accused is no way concerned with offence and he laid false charge sheet against accused.

15.PW-6/G.Laxmaiah, Eye witness deposed before this

Court that, he do not know PW-2 but he know the accused and on 10.05.2016 while he was coming from Venkatamma Thanda to

Pilligundu Thanda on his bike along with his brother namely

Mudavath Ramesh at Kothapeta High School, one auto came in opposite direction with high speed and negligently dashed to their bike and did not stopped the auto and proceeded and again the said auto dashed to some others and he sustained injuries on his head at right side and on his hip and there after he went to hospital for the treatment and after three days he went to police station Hanwada and informed about the accident to the SI of

Police and he came to know that the said auto does not belongs to accused but belongs to some other person who was owner and the said owner assured them that he will borne all the medical expenses incurred by them and he asked policed to take the report but police informed that PW-2 already lodged report and he can identify the driver of the auto who caused the accident and he was present at Court dock and also stated that police examined him and recorded his statement.

During cross examination he deposed that he do not remember the exact date when he went to police station and he did not lodged any report before police and he has not submitted any medical reports to show that he has taken a medical treatment and he did not witnessed the accident in this case caused by the accused and on inquiry only he came to know about this accident.

He denied the suggestion that in order to support PW-2, he was deposing false and he do not know the names of other persons who received injuries in this case and that at the instance of police he was deposing false.

Spl. JFCM P and E, MBNR

Page 8 CC No. 254 of 2016, dt.30.03.2024

16.In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses and this Court carefully gone through the evidence of PWs-1 to PW-6. PW-1, who is injured deposed that after the auto hit his bike, he become unconscious and sustained injuries on his head, ears and nose and his right side of body.

During coss examination he testified that he do not know the date of accident and he do not know the auto number and he do not know the contents of the report and he can not identify the person who dashed with auto. PW-1 clearly deposed that after the accident he become unconscious. PW-1 evidence and

Ex.P6 medical certificate clearly suggesting that PW-1 sustained injuries. But the question is whether the accused caused the said accident and the PW-1 sustained injuries in the said accident. The evidence of PW-1 is silence with regard to the identity of the accused and his involvement in the accident. He simply deposed that one auto came from opposite direction and hit his bike.

Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 alone is not sufficient to prove the prosecution case.

17.Another crucial witness in this case is PW-2, who lodged a report. PW-2 deposed that the auto driver came in high speed and in negligent manner with intoxication mode and hit the bike of PW- 1 and PW-1 sustained injuries. Further deposed that he came to know the crime vehicle driver was Narsimulu and he is resident of

Kothapet Village. During cross examination he testified that he did not witnessed the accident directly and he came to know about the same through some other and on enquiry only he came to know about the name of the driver of auto. Hence, from the evidence of

PW-2 it is clear that, it is only an hearsay evidence. Moreover, PW-2 is not a direct witness to the accident. Further he deposed that he lodged a report on the next day of accident, whereas as seen from the record the accident was occurred on 10.05.2016 and he lodged a report on 14.05.2016 and there is nearly four days of delay in lodging report after the accident. Hence this court is of the view that the evidence of PW-2 is not reliable and trustworthy.

Spl. JFCM P and E, MBNR

Page 9 CC No. 254 of 2016, dt.30.03.2024

18.In the present case PW-3 and PW-4 are the panch for scene of offence panchanama and they turned hostile and not deposed anything in favour of prosecution. PW-3 deposed that police obtained his signature on some blank papers without informing the purpose and no scene of offence panchanama was conducted in his presence and in the presence of PW-4. PW-4 during cross examination denied the suggestion about conducting of scene of offence panchanama. Learned APP after obtaining permission from this Court, cross examined them but nothing has been elicited to substantiate the prosecution story.

19.PW-5, who is investigation officer testified that he visited the scene of offence and by the time he went there, and there was one eye witness namely Ramesh/PW-6 was present and there were several person gathered at scene of offence, but he examined only PW-6. Therefore, here in this case PW-6 is another crucial witnesses and I have thoroughly perused his evidence.

PW-6 deposed that one auto came in opposite direction and in high speed and negligently dashed to his bike and again the said auto dashed to some others, who is injured in this case. He sustained injuries and thereafter he went to hospital for treatment and after 03 days he went to police station and informed the same to the S.I of Police. PW-6 asked the police to take the report, but police informed that PW-2 already lodged report.

20.During cross examination PW-6 deposed that he do not remember the exact date when he went to police station and he did not lodged any report before the police and not submitted any medical report to show that he has taken the medical treatment. If at all PW-6 sustained injuries and taken medical treatment, certainly he would have file the medical reports before this Court.

PW-6 at least could have deposed that he was having medical reports with him, however he did not state the same. He further testified that he did not witnessed the accident in this case and on

Spl. JFCM P and E, MBNR

Page 10 CC No. 254 of 2016, dt.30.03.2024 enquiry only came to know about the accident. On one hand he deposed that the auto after hitting his bike, again it was dashed to some others and on the other hand during cross examination he testified that on enquiry only he came to know about the accident.

He further testified that he do not know the names of other persons who received injuries in this case. Therefore, this court is of the view that the evidence of PW-6 also seems to be unreliable.

During the course of arguments learned legal-aid defence counsel submitted that PW-6 is a planted witness and only in order to claim compensation this accused was falsely implicated in this case. He further argued that if at all the PW-6 have seen the driver of the auto, what prevented the investigation officer to conduct Test

Identification Parade to identify the accused. However this court is of the view that simply because the investigation officer did not conduct Test Identification Parade, it cannot be said that the prosecution witnesses are untrustworthy. However, as seen from the evidence of prosecution the evidence of PWs-1, PW-2, PW-5 and

PW-6 are not sufficient, reliable and trustworthy and there are material discrepancies in their evidence, therefore a conviction cannot be based on their unreliable evidence. Further as seen from

Ex.P1 report, there is no mention about the name of Accused and his descriptive particulars.

It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the court.

Therefore, in view of the above discussion this Court is of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused as such the benift of doubt should be given to the accused, therefore he is entitled for acquittal.

Spl. JFCM P and E, MBNR

Page 11 CC No. 254 of 2016, dt.30.03.2024

21. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.338 of IPC and Sec.196 and 181 of

M.V Act. The accused is acquitted U/Section. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds taken from the accused U/sec 437-A of Cr.P.C shall be in force for 06 months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.The accused was remanded to judicial custody by this Court on 06.03.2024 and the

Jail Authorities of District Jail, Mahabubnagar are directed to release the accused immediately if he is not required in any other cases.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 30 th day of March, 2024.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:

PW-1: Redya Naik PW-2: Nunsavath Sevya Naik PW-3: Anjaneyulu PW-4: Kondanna PW-5: G.Laxmaiah, Investigation Officer. PW-6: Jarpula Ramesh.

For Defence:

--Nil--

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report. Ex.P2: Portion of Signature of PW-3 on Ex.P5. Ex.P3: Portion of Signature of PW-4 on Ex.P5. Ex.P4: FIR. Ex.P5: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P6: Medical Certificate of PW-1.

For Defence -NIL-

Spl. JFCM P and E, MBNR

Page 12 CC No. 254 of 2016, dt.30.03.2024

Material Objects Marked

--Nil--

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

Spl. JFCM P and E, MBNR

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM II ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Saturday, this the 30 th day of March, 2024

Present: Sri Vaddi Hari Kumar,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum II Addl. JCJ, Mahabubnagar.

DVC No. 01 of 2024

Between :

Boya Navya W/o Shiva, Age: 22 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.2-73, Chinnadarpally Village of Hanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

.....Petitioner.

A N D

1. Shiva S/o Jangaiah, Age: 23 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Smt.Saythyamma W/o Jangaiah, Age: 50 Years, Occ: Housewife,

3. Jangaiah S/o Bal Nagaiah, Age: 55 Years, Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o Yedirepally Village of Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagar Kurnool District.

.. Respondents.

Sub:- Petition filed U/Sec. 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

@ @ @

This Case came before me for final hearing on 28.03.2024 in the presence of Sri.M.Ramesh, Advocate for Petitioner and the Respondents remained set ex-parte. Upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by wife against her husband and his relatives under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') with a prayer to grant,

(i) Order for maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance of herself and her minor son.

Page 2 DVC.No. 01 of 2024.

(ii)Order the respondents to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation under section 22 of the Act for the aggrieved person for the physical and mental suffering.

(iii)Order to return the dowry of Rs.1,50,000/-, 05 tulas of gold and other house hold articles to the aggrieved person, and

(iv)Order to provide residence to the petitioner.

2.The case of the Aggrieved person as averred in the complaint, in brief, is as follows:

She is the legally wedded wife of Respondent No.1 and their marriage was performed on 12.08.2021 at Yedirepally Village of

Thimmajipet Mandal of Nagar Kurnool District as per the customs and rites prevailing in their community and the same is subsisting.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of Respondent No.1.

At the time of marriage her parents provided Rs.1,50,000/- net cash, 05 tulas of Gold and other house hold articles ornaments towards dowry as per the demand of the respondents. After the marriage she joined with the company of respondents. During the marriage they lived happily and blessed with one male child namely

Boya Mokshith on 04.10.2022.

Thereafter, the respondent picked up quarrel with the petitioner on petty issues and used to beat her several times and was subjected to torture, cruelty, harassment both mentally and physically in the hands of the respondent. The respondent herein started to look the petitioner as slave, several times the respondent beat the petitioner indiscriminately and driven out her from the house, however the petitioner was tolerated the harassment of the respondent with patience as she has a male child. In the month of

November, 2023 the respondent on the instigation of his parents picked up quarrel with petitioner by demanding additional dowry and driven out her from the house, except no other option the petitioner went to her parents house and intimated about the harassment of respondent to the elders.

The elders of the family of petitioner conducted panchayath and advised the respondent to look after the petitioner and her son

Page 3 DVC.No. 01 of 2024.

with love and affection, in the said panchayath the respondent abused the petitioner and her parents and demanded additional dowry. As such the petitioner approached the Women P.S

Mahabubnagar and lodged complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.110/2023 for the offence under Sec.498-A, 109 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act. The respondent intentionally neglected the petitioner. It was also contended that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioner and her minor son and the petitioner is not in possession to maintain themselves. It was also contended that the respondent is not looking after the welfare of petitioners.

The respondent No.1 is having agriculture land and valuable properties and used to earn Rs. 50,000/- per month. The petitioner herein unable to do any kind of work for maintenance of herself and her son. Hence, the petitioner is in need of Rs. 20,000/- per month to her and her son for survival. Hence, this petition.

3.After registering the case notices were issued to the respondents and having received notices to the respondents failed to appear and there was no representation on behalf of the respondents. Hence, the respondents set exparte on 21.02.2024.

4. During the course of enquiry, petitioner/aggrieved person herself examined as PW-1 and filed her chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of the petition and got marked Exs.P1 and

P2 documents.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

6.On the basis of the above pleadings and the evidence of the aggrieved person the following points would arise for consideration.

1. Whether there is domestic relationship in between the

Aggrieved person and Respondents 1 to 3 or not and whether

there was domestic violence towards the Aggrieved person by

the respondents 1 to 3 or not? If so whether she is entitled for

any reliefs?

Page 4 DVC.No. 01 of 2024.

2. Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled for

maintenance @ of Rs.20,000/- per month from respondent No.1

as claimed under section 20 of the Act or not ?

3. Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled for a

direction to the respondents to return the cash dowry of

Rs.1,50,000 and 05 tulas of gold and other household articles

as prayed for ?

4. Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled to claim

compensation of Rs.10 lakhs under section 22 of the Act or

not?

5. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for residence order under section 19 of D.V Act or not ?

6. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for

protection order under section 18 of the Act or not ?

7. To what relief?

7. POINT No.1:-

It is a fact as contended by the petitioner that she married respondent No.1 and resided with the respondents in a shared household and due to unbearable harassment by respondents for

additional dowry, she left the matrimonial home and living with her

parents as such there is a domestic relationship among the respondents and aggrieved persons in the light of definition of domestic relationship as enumerated under sec.2(a) of the

Domestic Violence Act.

The evidence of PW-1 is that on the demand of the respondents, her parents have presented dowry of Rs.1,50,000, 05 tulas of gold and other household articles towards dowry. She gave birth to one male child namely Mokshith. After the marriage she lead happy marital life. On the instigation of respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.1 started to harass her and used to beat her without any reason with a claim that he is in need of additional dowry. At the instigation of respondents No.2 and 3 only, respondent No.1 always forced her to tease, humiliate her to get

additional dowry from her parents. All the respondents used to beat

her and used to force her to attend heinous works like to clean the

Page 5 DVC.No. 01 of 2024.

lavatories, to wash the cloths all the family members, to bring water etc., without giving rest to her.According to PW-1, all the respondents driven her form out of the marital home and warned her to kill and having no other option she came to her parent’s home. The evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged. The evidence of PW-1 shows that only due to the acts of respondent No.1 she is staying separately from him.

Except stating that respondent Nos.2 and 3 used to instigate respondent No.1 to demand her to bring additional dowry and instigate respondent No.1 to harass her, nothing is stated against the other respondents and no specific incident of domestic violence is stated against them. Accordingly this point is answered holding that respondent No.1 caused domestic violence and the aggrieved person is entitled to claim reliefs only from respondent No.1.

8. Point Nos.2 and 5:-

According to PW-1 respondent No.1 is agriculturist and he is having lands and valuable properties and earning Rs.50,000/- per month, but no proof is filed in this regard. The aggrieved person requires amount for her and her son food, cloths, medical expenses, shelter and other immediate basic needs. Keeping in mind the requirement of the aggrieved person and the status of the respondent No.1, this court is of the view that granting an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards her maintenance and shelter would meet the ends of justice. These two points are answered accordingly.

9. Point No.3:

The evidence of aggrieved person is not sufficient to award compensation and this point is answered accordingly holding that the aggrieved person is not entitled for compensation.

Page 6 DVC.No. 01 of 2024.

10. Point No.4:

Except stating that at the time of marriage her parents provided Rs.1,50,000/-, 05 tual gold and other household articles to the respondent No.1. Ex.P1 i.e., FIR No.110/2023,

dt:18.12.2023 reveals that the parents of petitioner No.1 gave an

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and 05 tulas of Gold and other household articles to the respondents as dowry. Therefore she is entitled for the same.

11. Point No.6:

Aggrieved person and respondent No.1 are staying separately from each other. It is also not the case of the aggrieved person that he is coming to her and threatening for anything or for any reason.

Hence this court is of the view that there is no need to grant protection order. This point is answered accordingly.

12. Point No.7:- In the result,this DVC is allowed in part as follows.

(i)Directing respondent No.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the aggrieved person and her minor son towards their maintenance and shelter from the date of this order.

Respondent No.1 shall directed to pay the same on or before 10th of every succeeding month;

(ii) Directing the respondent No.1 to return the 05 tulas of Gold and Rs.1,50,000/- net cash and other household articles to the petitioner which was given by the parents of petitioner as dowry at the time of marriage.

(iii) Directing the respondents prohibiting to further commit any act of Domestic Violence against the petitioner under Sec.18 of the Act.

Page 7 DVC.No. 01 of 2024.

(iv)In case of breach of the orders passed above by the respondents, they will be liable for the punishment under

Sec.31 of the DVC Act, and as per Rule.15(vii) of the said act and the violator will be held for penal liability to pay

Rs.20,000/- fine or imprisonment for one year.

Office is directed to serve a copy of this order to the aggrieved person at free of cost.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this day of 30 th day of March, 2024.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise Cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

::Appendix of Evidence::

For Petitioner

PW-1: Boya Navya

For Respondents

-None-

Documents marked on behalf of

For Petitioner:-

Ex.P1: Copy of FIR No.110/2023, dated:18.12.2023.

Ex.P2: Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner (Verified with Original)

For Respondents:-

--Nil--

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise Cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

Page 8 DVC.No. 01 of 2024.

Page 1 of 6 OS.No. 393 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Saturday, this the 30 th day of March, 2024

Present: Sri Vaddi Hari Kumar, II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, cum Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise, Mahabubnagar.

O.S.No. 393 of 20 23

Between:

Smt.Keshamoni Mamatha W/o M.Chandra Shekar, Age: 27 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.6-23, Hanwada Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

... Plaintiff.

A N D

Smt.G.Geetha W/o Sri.G.Anand Goud, Age: 37 Years, Occ: House-Wife, R/o. H.No.2-180, Ibrahimbad Village of Hanwada Mandal, Presently residing at H.No.1-63/4, Palkonda Revenue Ward of Mahabubnagar Town Municipality.

… Defendant. @@@ This Suit is coming up before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.Sivanna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendant is set ex-parte, upon hearing the arguments and perusal of material on record and having stood over for determination till this day the court delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff Under Order 7 Rule 1 & 2 of

C.P.C. r/w Sec.26 of IPC for recovery of Rs. 15,90,000/- (Rupees

Fifteen Lakhs and Ninety Thousand only) against the defendant with future interest @ 2% Per month.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

That the plaintiff and defendant are relatives and they have good acquaintance with each other from the long back and in view of the said acquaintance, defendant approached the plaintiff for security loan

Page 2 of 6 OS.No. 393 of 2023 of Rs.22,00,000/- by executing a Register Sale Deed Document bearing

No.10516/2022, dt:25.08.2022 for the Registration value of

Rs..2,55,000/- pertaining to the defendant’s Plot No.21 in Sy.No.245/A to an extent of 150 Sq.Yards, situated within the limits of Plakonda

Village Revenue ward of Mahabubnagar Town Municipality in favour of the plaintiff as security for the loan amount, with a condition that within three months from the date of the said security loan amount, failing which the plaintiff will become the owner of the said plot.

Subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the said loan amount, however with malafide intention and in order to escape her liability, she issued a legal notice dated 20.01.2023 stating that she is ready to pay the amount of Rs.22,00,000/- to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff herself avoiding the same. By believing the defendant, the plaintiff executed the cancellation of sale deed along with defendant on 30.01.2023, which was prepared on 13.01.2023 vide

Doc.No.1042/2023. After executing the said cancellation deed, the defendant paid Rs.7,00,000/- only and there is a balance of

Rs.15,00,000/-. Subsequently, the defendant failed to pay the balance amount, hence finally the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 15.02.2023. The defendant in spite of paying the balance sale consideration, trying to alienate the property, hence the suit is filed for recovery of the balance amount of the Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest.

3. On the other hand, Sri.K.Brahmaiah, Advocate filed vakalath on behalf of the defendant, but subsequently failed to file written statement within statutory period, hence, was set ex-parte on 19.10.2023, thereafter matter posted for recording of plaintiff evidence.

4. During the course of trial, plaintiff, herself examined as PW-1 and reiterated the contents of plaint in her chief examination and got marked Exhibits A1 to A6 documents. One Madaram Yadhamma, who is distant relative of plaintiff and defendant was examined as PW-2.

Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed.

Page 3 of 6 OS.No. 393 of 2023

5. Heard plaintiff counsel and perused the material available on record.

6. Now the point for the consideration is that:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of suit claim as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

7. Point No s .1 and 2:-

To substantiate the contents of the plaint, the plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 and filed chief examination affidavit and reiterated the contents of plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A6 documents as mentioned below, and the plaintiff examined one of the attested witness of Ex.A1 and who is distant relative of plaintiff and defendant (M.Yadamma) as PW-2.

Ex.A1:C.C of Registered Sale Deed Document bearing No.10516/2022,

dt. 25.08.2022.

Ex.A2: Legal Notice, dt. 20.01.2023.

Ex.A3: Cancellation of the Registered Sale Deed Document bearing No.1042/2023, dt:30.01.2023.

Ex.A4: Office copy of Reply Notice, Dt.15.02.2023.

Ex.A5: Postal Receipts, dt. 15.02.2023.

Ex.A6: ECs pertaining to the said Plot No.21 in number (2).

8.Evidence of plaintiff was closed on 22.02.2024.

9.On the other hand, defendant did not filed any documentary or oral evidence and she has not chosen to cross examine the plaintiff to discredit the case of the plaintiff.

10.The case of the plaintiff that, the defendant obtained security loan of amount of Rs.22,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.10516/2022,

dt:25.08.2022 for Registration value of Rs.2,55,000/- with a condition

to repay the same within three months. Subsequently, the defendant defaulted the same. Further the defendant with malafide intention to escape her liability issued legal notice dt:20.01.2023, stating that the

Page 4 of 6 OS.No. 393 of 2023 defendant is ready to repay the entire amount but the plaintiff herself postponed the same. Upon receiving the said legal notice, the plaintiff by believing the words of defendant agreed for cancellation of the sale deed and accordingly, the sale deed bearing No.10516/2022 was cancelled by both of them on 30.01.2023 which was prepared on 13.01.2023 vide Document No.1042/2023. After execution of said cancellation deed, the defendant paid only Rs.7,00,000/- and there is balance of Rs.15,00,000/- and without paying the said Rs.15,00,000/- now the defendant trying to alienate the property.

11.In support of her contention, the plaintiff filed Exs.A1 to A6 documentary evidence and also one Madharam Yadhamma examined as PW-2. Exs.A1 is the C.C of Registered Sale Deed Document bearing

No.10516/2022, dt. 25.08.2022, which reveals that the defendant sold the property to the plaintiff, but there is no condition was imposed as contented by the plaintiff with regard to lending of Rs.22,00,000/- to the plaintiff in the said sale deed. The plaintiff contented that the defendant herself issued legal notice, dt:20.01.2023 which was marked as Ex.A2, which clearly reveals that defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.22,00,000/- from the plaintiff with a condition to repay the same within three months, falling which property may be sold by the plaintiff.

12.As seen from oral as well as documentary evidence, there is no dispute that the defendant borrowed money from plaintiff and

Ex.A1 document also executed by the defendant. However, as seen from Ex.A3, the Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.10516/2022, dt:25.08.2022 was cancelled by the defendant and it was also signed by both plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff contented that by believing the defendant, she executed Exhibit A3 cancellation of sale deed and after execution of the same, the defendant paid only Rs.7,00,000/- and there is a balance of Rs.15,00,000/- has to be paid by the defendant, however, the defendant avoiding the same. However, except the said oral contention, the plaintiff have not filed any documentary proof for

Page 5 of 6 OS.No. 393 of 2023 proving the same. If at all, the defendant paid Rs.7,00,000/- and there is a balance of Rs.15,00,000/-, certainly the plaintiff would have taken steps to execute the written agreement with regard to the balance amount. The plaintiff did not even state when the said Rs.7,00,000/- received by her. The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant paid

Rs.7,00,000/- and there is balance of Rs.15,00,000/-. Especially when the defendant issued legal notice demanding the plaintiff to receive the amount which she borrowed, certainly the plaintiff would be cautious and at least made an attempt to execute some document or keeping some proof with regard to her claim.

13.However, in the present case, the plaintiff has not filed any documentary proof to show the same. When Ex.A3 cancellation deed executed by the both the parties, the transaction with regard to sale comes to an end. There is even no stipulation or condition in Ex.A3 document to show that the defendant paid Rs.7,00,000/- and there is a balance of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Ex.A3 cancellation of Registered Sale

Deed document silent on this aspect.

The party which makes a pleading should adduce evidence in support of the pleading. During the course of arguments, the learned plaintiff counsel stated that the defendant did not come forward to rebut the case of the plaintiff, therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against her as she was set ex-parte, hence prayed to pass a decree in favour of plaintiff. However, no suit can be decreed as a matter of cause, and every judgment has to be decided on its own merits as held in Lakshi Ram Bhuyan Vs Hari Prasad Bhuyan (2003) 1 SCC 197. The plaintiff miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof so cast upon her, hence she is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. Therefore in view of the above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ex-parte of defendant ipso facto is not a ground to decree the suit. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed for, hence the suit liable to be dismissed.

Page 6 of 6 OS.No. 393 of 2023

14. In the result,the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this day of 30 th day of March, 2024.

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:-

PW-1: Keshamoni Mamatha PW-2: M.Yadamma

For Defendant:- -NIL-

Exhibits marked for

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1:C.C of Registered Sale Deed Document bearing No.10516/2022,

dt. 25.08.2022.

Ex.A2: Legal Notice, dt. 20.01.2023.

Ex.A3: Cancellation of the Registered Sale Deed Document bearing No.1042/2023, dt:30.01.2023.

Ex.A4: Office copy of Reply Notice, Dt.15.02.2023.

Ex.A5: Postal Receipts, dt. 15.02.2023.

Ex.A6: ECs pertaining to the said Plot No.21 in number (2).

For Defendant:- -NIL-

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM II ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Saturday, this the 30 th day of March, 2024

Present: Sri Vaddi Hari Kumar,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum II Addl. JCJ, Mahabubnagar.

M.C No. 01 of 2024

Between :

1. Boya Navya W/o Shiva, Age: 22 Years, Occ: Housewife,

2. Boya Mokshith S/o Shiva, Age about 01 Years, Minor, The petitioner No.2 is minor under the guardianship of his natural mother Smt.Boya Navya i.e., Petitioner No.1. Both are R/o H.No.2-73, Chinnadarpally Village of Hanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

.....Petitioners.

A N D

Shiva S/o Jangaiah, Age: 23 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Yedirepally Village of Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagar Kurnool District.

.. Respondent.

Sub:- Petition filed U/Sec. 125 Cr.P.C.

@ @ @

This Maintenance Case came before me for final hearing on 28.03.2024 in the presence of Sri.M.Ramesh, Advocate for Petitioners and the Respondent remained set ex-parte. Upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following:-

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner No.1 U/Sec. 125 of

Cr.P.C against the respondent seeking monthly maintenance of

Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner

No.2 from the respondent from the date of filing of petition and to award costs.

Page 2 M.C.No. 01 of 2024.

2. The facts of the petition are briefly stated as follows:-

It was contended that the marriage of petitioner No.1 was performed with the respondent on 12.08.2021 at Yedirepally Village of Thimmajipet Mandal of Nagar Kurnool District as per customs prevailing in the Hindu community and at the time of marriage the parents of the petitioner No.1 gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- net cash, 05 tulas of Gold and other house hold articles as dowry on the demand of family members of the respondent. During their wedlock they lived happily and blessed with a male child namely

Boya Mokshith i.e., petitioner No.2 herein on 04.10.2022.

Thereafter, the respondent picked up quarrel with the petitioner

No.1 on petty issues and used to beat her several times and was subjected to torture, cruelty, harassment both mentally and physically in the hands of the respondent. The respondent herein started to look the petitioner No.1 as slave, several times the respondent beat the petitioner No.1 indiscriminately and driven out her from the house, however the petitioner No.1 was tolerated the harassment of the respondent with patience as she has a male child. In the month of November, 2023 the respondent on the instigation of his parents picked up quarrel with petitioner No.1 by demanding additional dowry and driven out her from the house, except no other option the petitioner No.1 went to her parents house and intimated about the harassment of respondent to the elders.

The elders of the family of petitioner conducted panchayath and advised the respondent to look after the petitioner No.1 and her son with love and affection, in the said panchayath the respondent abused the petitioner No.1 and her parents and demanded additional dowry. As such the petitioner No.1 approached the Women P.S Mahabubnagar and lodged complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.110/2023 for the offence under Sec.498-A, 109 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act. The respondent intentionally neglected the petitioner. It was also contended that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioner

Page 3 M.C.No. 01 of 2024.

Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner No.1 is not in possession to maintain themselves. It was also contended that the respondent is not looking after the welfare of petitioners. The respondent is having agriculture land and valuable properties and used to earn

Rs.50,000/- per month. The petitioner herein unable to do any kind of work for maintenance of herself and her son. Hence, the petitioner No.1 is in need of Rs.15,000/- per month to her and

Rs.5,000/- to her son i.e., petitioner No.2 towards maintenance from the respondent. Hence, this petition.

4.The petitioner No.1 herself examined as PW-1 documents are marked on behalf of petitioner as Exs.P1 to Ex.P3. On the other hand no one examined and no document is marked on behalf of respondent.

5.Heard Learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

6. Now the points for consideration is:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the maintenance from the respondent as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

7. Point Nos. 1 and 2:-

The first petitioner being PW-1 filed her chief examination affidavit mostly reiterating the contents of petition and to substantiate the contents of the petition, PW-1 got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P3 documents. Ex.P1 is marriage photos (02), Ex.P2 is the FIR

No.110/2023, dt:18.12.2023 and Ex.P3 is the Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner No.1 (verified with original). Ex.P1 marriage photographs would suggest that the marriage took place between petitioner No.1 and respondent. Ex.P2 FIR would suggest that a case was registered against respondent for dowry harassment. To deny the contents of the petition the respondent did not come forward at least to file counter.

The non appearance of the respondent leads to draw adverse inference against him. When the petitioner is unable to maintain herself and petitioner No.2, it is the moral as well as the legal obligation on the

Page 4 M.C.No. 01 of 2024.

part of the husband to maintain the petitioner. However, the respondent did not come forward, hence this court has no option except to assume that the case of the petitioner No.1 is true and correct. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, the respondent has to be maintain the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 by paying maintenance allowance. Accordingly, the point No.1 and 2 answered in favour of petitioners and against the respondent.

8.Coming to the quantum of maintenance, it is the case of petitioners that the respondent is having agricultural land and valuable properties and getting Rs.50,000/- per month and is having sufficient income. However, petitioners failed to file any document to substantiate this contention, that the respondent is earing

Rs.50,000/- per month. However it is the duty of respondent to maintain the petitioners and there is an obligation cast upon the respondent to maintain his wife and his minor children. Now the petitioners are residing at her parents house and they are old aged and they are in helpless condition and she must need to fulfill her daily necessities and also the necessities of petitioner No.2. Taking into the consideration of this fact and the plight of petitioners it would be need ends of justice if the maintenance is ordered.

9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month (Rupees Six Thousand only) to the petitioner No.1 and

Rs.3,000/- per month (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the petitioner

No.2. The respondent is directed to pay the monthly maintenance directly into the account of the petitioner No.1 on or before 10th of every month. The petitioner No.1 is directed to furnish her bank account particulars to the respondent so as to enable him to credit the monthly maintenance amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this day of 30 th day of March, 2024.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise Cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

Page 5 M.C.No. 01 of 2024.

::Appendix of Evidence::

For Petitioners

PW-1: Boya Navya

For Respondent

-None-

Documents marked on behalf of

For Petitioners:-

Ex.P1: Marriage Photographs (02).

Ex.P2: Copy of FIR No.110/2023, dated:18.12.2023.

Ex.P3: Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No.1 (Verified with Original).

For Respondent:-

--Nil--

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise Cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

Page 6 M.C.No. 01 of 2024.

Page 1 of 4 OS.No. 105 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Wednesday, this the 30 th day of January, 2024

Present: Sri Vaddi Hari Kumar, II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, cum Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise, Mahabubnagar. FAC. I V Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mahabubnagar.

O.S.No. 105 of 2023

Between:

Nawabpet Branch, Mahabubnagar District, represented by it’s Branch Manager/Chief Manager Sri.V.K.Pradaya Reddy S/o V.K.Chandra Reddy, Age: 38 Years, Occ: Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Nawabpet Branch (20381), Mahabubnagar District. A N D

Dornala Narsimha Reddy S/o D.Kashi Reddy, Age: 53 Years, Occ: BSNL Employee, R/o H.No.11-18-119/1, Society Colony, Kashibugga, Warangal-506001. Address 2:- O/o BSNL Warangal – 506002. … Defendant. @@@ This Suit is coming up before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri D.Sudershan Goud, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant is remained Set-Exparte, upon hearing the arguments and perusal of material on record and having stood over for determination till this day the court delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff U/Sec 26 and Order 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C.

for recovery of Rs. 8,20,355/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Thousand Three

Hundred and Fifty Five only) against the defendant.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The defendant was in need of financial assistance for his family and legal necessities under Xpress Credit loan and he approached the plaintiff bank for loan. His application was considered by the plaintiff bank and sanctioned an amount of Rs. 8,85,000/- on 10.12.2021 @ 12.60% per annum for the said purpose vide loan A/c No.40638971822. The defendant has executed Xpress Credit loan Application arrangement letter and personal

Page 2 of 4 OS.No. 105 of 2023 loan agreement and other relevant documents (agreement of Loan cum

Hypothecation) on 09.12.2021 in favour of the plaintiff bank and defendant agreed to repay the said loan amount in 72 equated monthly installments of

Rs.17,580/- per month with aggrieved interest,and the said loan amount was released to the defendant through said account and the said loan amount was utilized by the defendant through said account.

After availing the said loan the defendant initially paid few installments of the said loan amount as mentioned in the statement of account of the plaintiff bank and later violated the terms and conditions agreed upon and he has not paid the due loan amount to the plaintiff bank despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank made several demands for the payment of due amount, but the defendant failed to repay the due loan amount, plaintiff bank issued the legal notice to the defendant on 14.11.2022 directing him to pay the entire loan amount and the same was acknowledged by the defendant, and he failed to repay the due loan amount. Even after issuing the legal notices, the defendant failed and neglected to close the loan account. The said act of the defendant amounts to refusal for the payment of loan amount. Hence, this suit.

3. On the other hand, defendant in-spite of service of summons failed to appear before court, hence he was set exparte on 22.11.2023, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case. Heard plaintiff counsel and perused the record.

4. Now the point for the consideration is that:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of suit claim?

2. To what relief?

5. Point Nos.1 and 2:-

To substantiate the contents of the plaint, one Jatoth Dines, Branch

Manager, SBI, Nawabpet Branh examined as PW-1 on behalf of plaintiff Bank and filed chief examination affidavit and reiterated the contents of plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A8 documents as under:

Ex.A1:Xpress Credit Loan application form, dt. 09.12.2021.

Ex.A2:Letter of Arrangement (Annexure XP-2), dt. 09.12.2021.

Ex.A3:Personal Loan Agreement (Annexure XP-3), dt. 09.12.2021.

Ex.A4:Office copy of Legal Notice, Dt. 14.11.2022.

Ex.A5:Postal Receipt (02), dt. 15.11.2022.

Page 3 of 4 OS.No. 105 of 2023

Ex.A6:Postal Acknowledgment Due, dt. 17.11.2022.

Ex.A7:Postal Acknowledgment Due.

Ex.A8:Statement of account, dt:10.01.2023.

6.Evidence of plaintiff was closed on 04.12.2023.

7.In the present case, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 8,20,355/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Five only) against the defendant along with interest @ 12.60% per annum. The suit is within the limitation and this Court has jurisdiction to decide the present case. The plaintiff has filed several original documents which would suggest that defendant had availed the services of plaintiff under financial assistance.

8.Keeping in view, the unrebutted testimony of PW-1 and documents relied by PW-1, the plaintiff has been able to establish that defendant has availed the services of plaintiff and defendant failed to pay dues outstanding amount. Hence, there is no option left to the court except to accept the unchallenged testimony of PW-1 as true and correct.

9. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The plaintiff is entitled to decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

10. In the result,the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.8,20,355/- (Rupees

Eight Lakhs Twenty Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Five only) @ 12% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realization on the principle amount of Rs.8,20,355/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Thousand

Three Hundred and Fifty Five only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this day of 30 th day of January, 2024.

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC IV-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Page 4 of 4 OS.No. 105 of 2023

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:-

PW-1: Jaloth Dinesh

For Defendant:-

Set-Exparte

Exhibits marked for

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1:Xpress Credit Loan application form, dt. 09.12.2021.

Ex.A2:Letter of Arrangement (Annexure XP-2), dt. 09.12.2021.

Ex.A3:Personal Loan Agreement (Annexure XP-3), dt. 09.12.2021.

Ex.A4:Office copy of Legal Notice, Dt. 14.11.2022.

Ex.A5:Postal Receipt (02), dt. 15.11.2022.

Ex.A6:Postal Acknowledgment Due, dt. 17.11.2022.

Ex.A7:Postal Acknowledgment Due.

Ex.A8:Statement of account, dt:10.01.2023.

For Defendant:- -NIL-

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC IV-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.