Ms Vallala Sravani Yadav

MC/19/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE I – ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT SIDIPET

Present: Kum. VALLALA SRAVANI YADAV

I – Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

Dated this the 07 th day of October, 2024.

MC. No. 19 of 2021

Between :

1. Nazia Tabassum W/o Abdul Sajid, Age: 26 years, Occ: House wife,

2. Mohammed Furqan S/o Abdul Sajid, Age: 2 years,

Both are R/o H.No. 10-4-199/2/1, Nasarpura, Siddipet.

(Petitioner no.2 is the minor and is under the care of petitioner no.1 being mother and natural guardian).

... Petitioners

// AND //

Abdul Sajid @ Sazid S/o Mohammed Khadir, Age: 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 4-125, Raghavendra Nagar colony, Prashanth Nagar, Siddipet.

....Respondent

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Devunoori Ravinder, Advocate for petitioners and Sri. Syed Riyazuddin, Advocate for Respondent and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:- // O R D E R //

1.This petition is filed under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code to grant maitenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to petitioner no.1 and Rs. 10,000/- per month to petitioner no.2, total Rs. 25,000/- per month from the respondent.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows : The petitioner no.1 is the legally wedded wife and petitioner no.2 is the son of respondent, marriage of petitioner no.1 and respondent was performed on 29.07.2018 as per muslim rites and customs at Madina 1I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 function hall, near Iqbal Minar, Khadarpura, Siddipet, Telangana State in the presence of her parents and other family members and relatives. At the time of their marriage her parents has given Hero Glamour bike worth of Rs. 80,000/-, 08 tulas of gold jewellery, 20 tulas of silver articles and other house hold articles worth of Rs. 1,50,000/- and cash dowry of Rs.

1,70,000/- on the demand of respondent and his family members. During their wedlock they were blessed with baby boy/Mohammed Furqan/petitioner no.2, since the date of birth of petitioner no.2 all the medical expenses of delivery were incurred by her parents only.

3.Petitioner no.1 stated that, within two months of their marriage, respondent and his family members started harassing her by physically and mentally and stated that jahez articles given their marriage are sub-standard and in case if respondent would married another lady, he would get huge dowry in the marriage and she is not a suitable to him. On the instigation of his parents, he used to beat her and forced her to do all the household works alone from morning to till mid-night, she used to reside in the joint family of respondent and his family members under one roof and they demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold, due to less dowry given at the time of marriage and they did not give proper food to her, then she requested them for food and they used to pick up petty quarrel and used to pull her hairs and dragged her mercilessly for

additional dowry, due to which her health has been deteriorated, but the respondent and his

family members did not provided any medical treatment to her and inturn her parents used to provide medical treatment. During her pregnancy the respondent and his family members forced her parents to provide treatment to her in private hospital only for their reputation and her father was forced to take amount on interest to provide treatment for her delivery 2I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 and she gave birth to a baby boy in Teja hospital on 25.11.2019. The respondent and his family members forced her parents to perform the cradle function of their son in a function hall by inviting respondent and his family members and their relatives and even the respondent and his family members demanded gifts in the form of gold to be presented to respondent and his family members and her father having no other alternative was forced to perform the cradle ceremony of their son and also forced to present gold articles to respondent and his family members on their demand by incurring expenditure by taking hand loans from known persons.

4.During marital life the respondent and his family members demanded additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/-, when her father shown his inability then the respondent and his family members abused her father over phone by using vulgar language which she cannot write here for the sake of decency and later she was forcible necked her out of the matrimonial house along with their son with only clothes on their person, with great difficulty she took shelter in her parents house along with their son, thereafter the respondent and his family members continuously used to visit her parents house and used to forced her father to fulfill their demand of additional dowry and again the respondent along with his relatives and friends came to her parents house and attacked her family members brutally due to which her family members received grievous bleeding injuries over the body and in this regard they lodged a complaint before the police, PS Siddipet – I town in Cr.No.

312/2020, U/sec. 324 IPC against the respondent and his family members and their relatives and friends.

3I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021

5.She further stated that, during the marital life her sister in law/Gulnaaz used to visit her in laws house without any valid reason used to stay for days and weeks together and used to instigate the respondent and his family members against her and used to provoke the respondent to leave the petitioner no.1 by divorcing her and her sister in-law will selected another girl to him for performing second marriage to respondent for want of additional dowry and also used to threaten by saying that her marital life is in her hands and if her parents failed to comply the demand of additional dowry then she will spoil petitioner no.1 marital life.

6.The respondent and his family members performed the marriage with the respondent with her for want of dowry and spoiled her life and the respondent and in laws are dowry mongers and still they are in illegal custody of her jahez articles as per (Ferrist) (articles list) matrimonial contract deed, gold jewellery, silver articles, Hero Glamour, etc and not allowing her to take the same and whenever she requested to return the same. In this regard she approached the PS, Siddipet - I town and lodged a complaint in Cr.No. 05/2021, U/sec.

498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act which is pending before the Hon'ble Prl. Junior

Civil Judge.

7.That the respondent is having sufficient means to pay the maintenance to the petitioners and the petitioner no.1 is not having any source of income and she is a household lady without any skill facing very much hardship in eking her livelihood and to maintain herself and her minor son the petitioner no.2 is a minor. Respondent is doing fabrication business and earning more than Rs. 60,000/- per month, apart from that the respondent is having number of movable and immovable properties in Siddipet and own house worth 4I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 more than Rs.30,00,000/-. Hence, she prayed the court to grant maintenance amount of Rs.

15,000/- to petitioner no.1 and Rs. 10,000/- to petitioner no.2 from the respondent per month.

8.The respondents filed counter denying the averments of the petition except admitting relationship between the petitioners and respondent and contended that, he always and is still ready and willing to maintain the petitioners and respondent file a suit for Restitution of

Conjugal Rights before the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet in OS/174/2022 and same is pending and respondent has never refused or neglected to maintain petitioners, and there was no cause of action for the petition to file the present petition. Therefore prayed this Court to dismiss the petition.

9.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner herself is examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 got marked, Crl.M.P. No. 355 & 356 allowed and Ex.P7 got marked through PW2. The respondent himself examined as RW1 and also examined another witnesses on his behalf as RW2 & RW3 and

Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 got marked.

10.Heard the arguments on both sides. The counsel for the petitioner has filed written arguments reiterating the facts in the petition and discussing the evidence of the witnesses. He submitted that, petitioner is unable to maintain herself and their son and respondent has neglected the petitioner without any reason as such petitioner is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month.

11.On the other hand counsel for the respondent submitted that, he has placed evidence of RW1 to RW3 and requested this court to look into their evidence. The counsel submitted that, petitioner has herself left the respondent without any reason. He further submitted that, respondent is a daily 5I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 labour and he is working under RW3 and to support his contention he has filed Ex.R2 i.e. e-shrama card. He stated that, the petitioner/PW1 in her cross examination stated that, she do not remember the date and time when she was necked out of the house of respondent. He further stated that, except for orally stating that, respondent earns Rs. 60,000/- per month the petitioner did not file any proof to prove the same. Further he submitted that, PW1 is adamant and she is not ready to join the society of respondent. He further submitted that, respondent is ready to pay maintenance to his son.

The counsel has prayed this Court to dismiss the petition.

Point :

12.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled for maintenance as prayed for by her ?

For the sake of convenience, the Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 1973 is replicated below :

Section 125 – Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain :

a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct :

6I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.

Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this Sub-Section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct :

Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.”;

Explanation – For the purposes of this Chapter -

a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority;

b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

2) “Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.”;

3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such

Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the

manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any port of each 7I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 month’s allowance allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made :

Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:

Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

Explanation – If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.

4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

5) On proof that any wife in whose favor an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

13.As per section 125(1) of Cr.P.C the essential conditions for grant of maintenance is that the husband must have sufficient means to maintain the wife and children and parents and there must be negligence and refusal on the part of the respondent and respondent neglecting the petitioners and the persons claiming maintenance must be unable to maintain 8I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 himself/herself. The wife must not be living in adultery. The wife must not refuse without sufficient reason to live with her husband and the wife must not be living separately by mutual consent.

14.To prove the case, the petitioner has filed chief affidavit reiterating the averments of the petition and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 got marked. In her cross-examination she stated that, she got married respondent on 29.07.2018 and it was performed at Madina function hall, Siddipet and they got engaged to each other before marriage and it was her first engagement with the respondent/RW1. She stated that, she has filed proofs relating to things/articles given at the time of marriage to the respondent into the court and those articles were given before marriage and after marriage she was at her in-laws place and her in-laws house is situated at

Kotilingala temple, Raghavendra Nagar. She further stated that, her in-laws, co-sister, brother-in-law, she and respondent used to live in the said house. She stated that, she was beaten by them and they abused her in filthy language and dragged her with her hair and beat her, but she do not remember the exact dates on which they have beaten her. She stated that, her in-laws house consisted of two bed rooms, one hall and one kitchen and she alone use to do all household works and respondent and his family members has demanded

additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

15.She stated that, her son name is Mohammad Furqan and he was born on 25.11.2019 and she was in her in-laws house for two months and they have taken proper care for two months later they started harassing her and used to send her to her parents house. She further stated that, the delivery has taken place at her parents house and she along with respondent has named their son and she told to her husband/respondent that, their son is four months 9I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 and according their customs there must be a head shave (tonsure) ceremony, but the respondent did not come. Then cradle ceremony was performed by her parents at function hall and she do not remember the date.

16.She stated that, she has filed 498-A, MC, DVC against her husband and she do not remember the exact date on which her in laws dragged her hair and necked her out of their house then she went half way and called her father. The respondent and his family members abused her father and the respondent did not stop her from going away and she has tried many times to talk to her husband. She further stated that, panchayath was conducted at

Tanzum office and the elders of the panchayath did not advice her to go with the respondent and they told them to live separately from her in-laws.

17.She further stated that, no one has visited her till date from respondent side and she stated that, she agrees that, she and respondent are equal rights over their son and respondent never comes to see their son and she has never asked to respondent to provide maintenance before filing of the present petition. She further stated that, she has filed the present petition as respondent is not baring their expenses.

18.She stated that, respondent earns Rs. 60,000/- per months as he is having welding shop and do not know whether the respondent has movable or immovable properties as he did not show her anytime. She stated that, she has studied upto 10th standard. She stated that, she is ready to go along with respondent but she has few conditions for which she has prepared a MOU with conditions :

i) Respondent should live with her separately, ii) Respondent should take proper care of her and iii) Respondent should not beat her and not harass her on the instigation of his 10I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 family members. She has denied the suggestion that, she has filed present petition only for extorting money from respondent and only to blackmail the respondent.

19.Crl.M.P. No. 355 and 356 of 2023 allowed and summons were issued to post master and post master called present and examined as PW2. During chief examination of PW2 he stated that, he got summons through court and summons were sent for details regarding the account of respondent/Abdul Sajeed as such he has produced account statement of respondent/RW1. Ex.P7 is the account statement.

20.During cross examination PW2 submitted that, he is working as postal assistant since one year and he is present working at post office Nehru road, Siddipet and his duties are like clerk and he admitted that, the account number mentioned on Ex.P7 is in their branch and he is the Sub Post master. He further stated that, the account regarding which he furnished the document i.e. Ex.P7 is an active account. The opening balance was Rs. 500/- and it was opened on 19.09.2016 and he admitted that, the statement regarding the life of the account i.e. from the beginning.

21.Respondent during his evidence got examined as RW1/Mohammad Sajeed reiterated contents of his chief examination affidavit and Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 got marked through him.

During the cross examination he stated that, he cannot read and write english and cannot read what is written in his chief affidavit. He admitted that, there is a criminal case/498-A

IPC pending in the court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet and there is a DVC case also pending. He admitted that, petitioner's brother has filed a criminal case against me and he pleaded guilty and paid fine in that case in that case. RW1 added that having no knowledge 11I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 about the conviction, so he pleaded guilty. He further admitted that, he has filed restitution of conjugal rights petition in last year after filing of the present case by the petitioner/PW1.

He denied the suggestion that on advise of his counsel he filed restitution of conjugal rights petition. He further denied the suggestion that he do not have any love towards his wife and child only to escape from the cases he has filed restitution conjugal rights petition. He stated that, his phone number is 7675051787 and has only one contact number. He stated that, he does not have phone pay and google pay.

22.During his further Cross Examination he was confronted to two photographs with an (objection raised from counsel for respondents, the photographs shows that respondent is doing welding work. The name of the shop is Baba Noor and counsel for the petitioner says that respondent is owner of the shop and his name is mentioned on the name board as

Sajeed). He stated that, he is doing welding work since 16 years and he is working as an employee in the Baba Noor Shop. He stated that, not having Google pay and phone pay apps and do not have Bank account. He do not know whether he has filed assets and liabilites affidavit in the court. He further stated that, he is not constructing new house. He admitted that, he has filed restitution of conjugal right petition after institution of DVC and

MC by the petitioner. He admitted that, there will the expenses to bring up his boy child. He admitted that, he has responsibility to take care of his son. He denied the suggestion that, petitioner is a house wife. He stated that, he do not know whether occupation of petitioner is mentioned as house wife in the counter. He denied the suggestion that, due to the harassment by himself and his family members petitioner is staying at her maternal house 12I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 and further denied the suggestion that he is the sole proprietor of Baba Noor shop. RW1 added that, he is labour in the said shop. He denied the suggestion that, he earns an amount of Rs.60,000/- from that shop.

23.He further admitted that, the petitioner’s father is paralyzed. He denied the suggestion that, the petitioner parents gave one bike worth Rs.80,000 8 Thulas gold, 20

Thulas silver and Rs. 1,50,000/- worth house hold articles and cash Rs. 1,70,000/-on his demand. He stated that, did not file rent receipt and he has filed medical report of his father to show that his father is suffering from Asthama. He stated that, his father appears in the court regularly for the 498-A case. He admitted that, he has two elder brothers. He denied the suggestion that, his father stays with his brother He further denied the suggestion that, his father gets pension and his father is not dependent on him. He admitted that, he has responsibility towards maintaining petitioner number 1 and 2. He denied the suggestion that, he has neglected the petitioners and he did not give any amount since the petitioner left him.

He added that, he has given money now and then to the petitioners before institution of the cases. Further added that, the petitioner asked him not to come to her house and asked him to do whatever he want to do. He denied the suggestion that to avoid maintenance to petitioner he stated that he earn Rs.400/- per day and he has falsely stated about petitioner

No. 1 in his counter and he has stated falsely in counter that petitioner goes to her maternal house often. He added that, petitioner used to go to her maternal house very frequently. He denied the suggestion that for additional dowry himself and his family members necked out petitioner out her house and petitioner performed his son 40 days ceremony by incurring huge expenditure and denied the suggestion that, he do not have any other responsibility 13I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 than maintaining the petitioners. He added that, even now he is ready to take back the petitioners and maintain them. He denied the suggestion that, he is deposing false.

24.RW2 during his chief examination stated that, he has filed chief affidavit and he know the contents of it and they are read over the and explained to him by his counsel and he found them to be correct and true. The affidavit bears his signature. In his chief affidavit there is typographical mistake with respect to date of shariyat committee meeting the correct date is 24.09 2020.

25.During Cross examination of by learned counsel for petitioner he stated that, he knows the contents of his chief affidavit. He denied the suggestion that, petitioner did not attended the shariyat committee meeting on 03-10-2023. He admitted that, a letter/Ex.R4 was given at their request by shariyat committee as they stated to shariyas committee that, they required it for the purpose of the present case and admitted that, Ex.R4 does not contain the signatures of petitioner and respondent. He further admitted that, a case was registered against them basing on the complaint made by the petitioner's brother and he added that, he does not know the CC number and further admitted that, they have admitted the said case and paid fine into the court. He denied the suggestion that, he is deposing false to help the respondent and no panchayaths were held. He stated that, he know that the petitioner has filed cases against respondent but I do not know the case numbers. He further denied suggestion that he is deposing in the court at the instance of RW1/respondent.

26.RW3 during his chief Examination he stated that, he has filed chief affidavit and the contents of affidavit are read over and explained to him by his advocate and he found them 14I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 to be correct and true. The affidavit bears his signature. The following documents are filed to prove his case. Ex.R5 Certificate of new trade license dated: 28-07-2023 (Marked through RW3).

27.During his cross examination by learned counsel for respondent, he stated that, he is doing trade as welder since 12 years and he has a smart phone bearing phone number 8074072977 and he do not use online payment services. He has a bank account and his customers pay his through cash. He further stated that, he is ready to file his bank statement and the shutter/Malgi in which he is running his trade is own and he can file the register document of his own Malgi if required by the court. He further stated that, he did not get any summons from the court to give evidence. He denied the suggestion that he has made a new trade license certificate/Ex.R5 after completion of evidence of respondent No.1 to support his contention. He further denied the suggestion that, he is not the owner of the said malgi and respondent is not working under him for Rs. 400-00 as wages. He stated that, respondent No.1 is working near him since 7 years. He denied the suggestion that, he knows that respondent No.1 is the sole owner of Baba Noor Shutter Welding shop and he is deposing false to help him. He stated that, he did not file any labour license to show the number of labours working under him. He stated that, he cannot file labour certificate as only two labours are working under him and he will depute labour if required from out side.

He further adds he has given loan to respondent No.1 at the time of his marriage and as a respondent here in failed to repay the amount he is working under him/RW3. He do not have any documents to show that he has given loan to respondent No.1. He denied the suggestion 15I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 that he is deposing at the instance of respondent on his instructions and denied that, he is deposing false.

28.Based on the evidence presented by both parties, it is established that the petitioner and respondent are legally married and petitioner no.2 is their child and there is no dispute regarding their marital relationship. It is also undisputed that their marriage is valid, and they have been living separately for few years. Inspite of many efforts toward reconciliation the parties did not reunite.

29.PW1 claimed during her testimony that she had filed proof regarding the dowry articles given to RW1 at the time of their marriage. However, upon reviewing the entire record, there is no such evidence or documentation filed by PW1 to support this claim.

Additionally, while PW1 mentioned in her petition and chief examination affidavit that the

respondent had physically and mentally harassed her, she failed to provide specific details such as the dates, times, and instances of the alleged harassment by the respondent and his family members. She also stated that she could not recall the exact date when her in-laws allegedly dragged her by her hair and threw her out of the house.

30.PW1 admitted to having filed cases U/sec. 498A IPC, for maintenance and a domestic violence case against the respondent/RW1. PW1 also testified that RW1 owns a welding shop and earns Rs. 60,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate this claim. She further stated that she was unaware of the respondent's movable and immovable properties. During her evidence, she expressed her willingness to reunite with RW1, but only under certain conditions, outlined in a Memorandum of 16I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021

Understanding (MOU), which included: 1) RW1 must live separately with her, 2) RW1 must take proper care of her and their son, and 3) RW1 must not physically harm or harass her due to the influence of his family members. To support her case, PW1 filed an application requesting the court to issue summons to the postmaster. The Criminal M.P. Nos. 355 and 356 of 2023 were allowed, and the postmaster's testimony was recorded. He confirmed that

Ex.P7 is the account statement of RW1, revealing that RW1 has an active bank account, which was opened in 2016 with an initial balance of Rs. 500/-. Contradicting this evidence,

RW1, during his testimony, claimed he did not have any bank account. However, Ex.P7 proves otherwise. RW1 also stated that he was unsure whether he had filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities in court. RW1 admitted that he filed a petition for the restitution of conjugal rights only after PW1 had filed the maintenance and domestic violence cases against him.

31.Furthermore, he acknowledged that raising a child involves expenses and admitted that it is his responsibility to take care of both petitioners, who are his wife and child. To support his claims, RW1 presented the testimony of RW2, who admitted that Exhibit R4, a letter from the Shariyat Committee, lacked the signatures of both the respondent and the petitioner. This raises doubts about the authenticity of Ex.R4, as RW2 further admitted that it was issued at RW1's request solely for the present case. RW1 also called RW3 to testify, claiming that RW1 is an employee of RW3. RW3 denied the allegation that Exhibit R5, a new trade license certificate, was created after RW1's testimony and was only fabricated to support RW1's case. However, upon examining the record, it is clear that RW1’s cross- 17I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 examination took place on April 28, 2023, while Ex.R5 was issued on July 28, 2023, casting doubt on the credibility of Ex.R5.

32.The evidence on record establishes that the respondent admits that PW1 is his legally wedded wife and petitioner No. 2 is his son. RW1 has acknowledged that raising a child incurs expenses and that it is his responsibility to provide for both petitioners. Although there is no evidence on record indicating that PW1 has her own source of income or the ability to support herself and their son, the petitioner has also failed to provide documentary proof that RW1 earns Rs.60,000/- per month. Nevertheless, it is the duty of the respondent, as the husband of PW1 and father of petitioner No. 2, to provide maintenance to them. It is a well-settled principle of law that it is the bounden duty of a husband to maintain his wife and children. The evidence presented demonstrates that the respondent has neglected to provide for the petitioners despite having the financial capacity to do so. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to maintenance from the respondent.

33.In a Catena of Judgments, by Hon’ble Apex Court, it is reiterated that, it is the responsibility of the husband to discharge his obligations towards his family and to provide them with a good quality of life and he cannot escape from his responsibilities, citing that his wife is abled person and can earn money.

34.In our case, even though, the petitioner is a house wife and the respondent did not file any evidence to show that she is working and earning income. Hence the fact that petitioner is abled person does not absolve the respondent from taking care of his wife and child. The

Court is not inclined to accept the reasons stated by the respondent that the petitioner left 18I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 him without any valid reason and the petitioner is at fault for the disputes between them.

Therefore, upon considering the material on record this Court feels that the following quantum of maintenance would meet the ends of justice.

35.Thus, the evidence available on record shows that the respondent neglected the petitioner even though he is having sufficient financial capacity. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the maintenance. Taking the situations and status of the both the parties and circumstances of the case, the court inclined to grant Rs. 7,000/- per month and it is sufficient to the petitioner towards her maintenance. Under these facts and circumstances,the court is inclined to grant Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per month to the petitioners towards her maintenance.

36.In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent and the respondent is liable to pay maintenance to the petitioner.

37.In the result the petition is allowed by granting monthly maintenance of Rs 3,500/- to each petitioner, total Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only). The respondent shall pay the above maintenance on or before 09th Day of every succeeding month, till the lifetime of the petitioner As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the petitioners are entitled for maintenance from the date of filing of this petition. The respondent shall pay the arrears of maintenance amount from the date of the petition till the date of this Order in 30 equal monthly installments from the date of this order. In lieu of the above discussion and in the considered opinion, no costs imposed on the respondent. The petitioner is directed to open a savings Account in any Nationalized 19I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

MC/19/2021 bank and communicate the same to the respondent, so as to facilitate to deposit the same in her account.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 07 th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

I – Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS : FOR RESPONDENTS :

PW1 : Nazia ThabasumRW1 : Md. Sajeed PW2 : B. SathishRW2 : Mohd. Shafi RW3 : Aziz Ahmed

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS :

Ex.P1 : Original marriage booklet in Urdu. Ex.P2 : Marriage photo along with CD. Ex.P3 : Electricity bill. Ex.P4 : Original Aadhar card of petitioner no.1. Ex.P5 : Original birth certificate of petitioner no.2. Ex.P6 : CC of docket order in CC/242/2020. Ex.P7 : Account statement.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS : Ex.R1 : CC of OS8174/2022 (suit for restitution of conjugal rights). Ex.R2 : Original e-shram labour card bearing no. 780608901087. Ex.R3 : Original gold purchase receipt. Ex.R4 : Sharai committee letter. Ex.R5 : Certificate of new trade license, dated 28.07.2023.

Sd/-

I – Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

20I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

1

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SMT. SALMA FATIMA,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Siddipet.

Dated this the 13th day of April, 2022

I.A.NO. 951 OF 2021 and I.A.NO. 952 OF 2021 

IN

O.S.NO. 393 OF 2021 

BETWEEN:

Mohd. Kamran Hyder, S/o. Late Mohd. Rayees Hyder, aged about 23 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 18­8­242/A/42/8, Moin Bagh, Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad – 500005. …Petitioner/Plaintiff AND

1. Asmath Nazneen Kauser, W/o. Late Rayees Hyder, aged about 47 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 17­8­415/1/A, Bagh­e­Jahara, Yakutpura, Hyderabad – 500023.

2. Mohd. Haseeb Hyder, S/o. Late Rayees Hyder, aged about 24 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 17­8­415/1/A, Bagh­e­Jahara, Yakutpura, Hyderabad – 500023.

3. Ariba Rayees, D/o. Late Rayees Hyder, aged about 27 years, Occ: student, R/o. H.No. 17­8­415/1/A, Bagh­e­Jahara, Yakutpura, Hyderabad – 500023.

4. Nuzah Rayees, D/o. Late Rayees Hyder, aged about 21 years, Occ: student, R/o. H.No. 17­8­415/1/A, Bagh­e­Jahara, Yakutpura, Hyderabad – 500023.

5. Gourishetty Samyuktha, W/o. Raghuram, aged about 32 years, Occ: Real estate, R/o. H.No. 9­2­100, Gandhi Road, Siddipet Town and District – 502103.

6. Mandati Sampoorna, W/o. Ram Reddy, aged about 54 years, Occ: Real Estate, R/o. 1­23, Kammarlapally (v), Alipur, Chinnakodur (M), Siddipet District – 502103.

2

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

7. Vanga Surender Reddy, S/o. Late Parasa Reddy, aged about 61 years, occ: Real Estate, R/o. H.No. 11­2­57/9/2/2, Shivajinagar, Siddipet – 502103.

8. Vanga Swarupa Rani, W/o. Vanga Surender Reddy, aged about 53 years, Occ: Real estate, R/o. H.No. 11­2­57/9/2/2, Shivajinagar, Siddipet – 502103.

9. Kasha Sivarama Chary, S/o. Venkata Rajam, aged 60 years, occ: Real Estate and Doctor, R/o. H.No. 8­4­50, SBH Road, Siddipet (T) and (District)­502103.

10. Kasa Sudharani, W/o. Sivarama Chari, aged 51 years, Business, R/o. H.No. 8­4­50, SBH Road, Siddipet (T) and (District)­502103.

11. Veerabattini Rajaiah, S/o. Balaiah, aged 63 years, Occ: Real Estate, R/o. H.No. 12­5­275, Ganeshnagar, Siddipet ­502103.

12. Thummalapally Jalaja Gopalpuram Jalaja, W/o. Shankar, Occ: Real Estate, R/o. H.No. 12­5­193, Sai Vidyanagar Colony, Siddipet ­502103. 

13. Gogu Raji Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, aged about 66 years, Occ: Real Estate, R/o. 17­56, Srinagar colony, Siddipet – 502013.

14. Gogu Shruthi, D/o. Gogu Rajireddy, aged about 33 years, Occ: Real Estate, R/o. 17­56, Srinagar colony, Siddipet – 502013.

15. Gogu Krupakar Reddy, S/o. Rajireddy, aged about 31 years, Occ: Real Estate, R/o. 17­56, Srinagar colony, Siddipet – 502013.

16. M/s. Vivek Green Homes (P) Limited and M/s. Gogreen Indra Projects, Rep. By Managing Partner P. Venkata Rao, S/o. Late P. Lakshmi Narasimha, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, (Developer), R/o. 1­11­22, Alwal, Secunderabad – 500010.

 … Respondents/Defendants.

3

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

This petition is coming on 13­04­2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. N. Venkata Chary, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and the respondents/defendants No. 1 to 4 and 6 were remained exparte and of Sri. K. Shiva Charan, Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant No.5 and Sri. S. Dashamantha Reddy, Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants NO.7 to 16, and upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following: 

:: C O M M O N O R D E R ::

I.A.NO. 951 OF 2021 and O.S.NO. 393 OF 2021

This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff Under Order XXXIX R1 and 2 praying the court to pass an ad­interim injunction order restraining the respondents/defendants No. 5 to 16 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff into the suit schedule property.

I.A.NO. 952 OF 2021 and O.S.NO. 393 OF 2021

This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff Under Order XXXIX R1 and 2 praying the court to pass an ad­interim injunction order restraining the respondents/defendants No. 1 to 4 from alienating the petition schedule property till pendency of the suit.

1. The brief averments of the petitions are as follows:

The petitioner herein who is the plaintiff filed the suit for partition, separate possession and for perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants. The respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 are the family members and the respondents/defendants No. 5 to 16 are the third parties and they are trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property in Survey

No. 54 to an extent of Ac.1­33 guntas situated at Ponnala village, Siddipet

Mandal, Siddipet District.

4

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

2. The petitioner/plaintiff further submitted that, the schedule property is originally in the name of his father who has inherited from his elders and their father expired on 21­06­2020. Subsequently, he has requested number of times to his members No.1 to 4 and the respondents/defendants No.1 and 4 are being the elders avoiding for partition of the suit schedule property for the reasons best known to them and vexed with the attitude of the respondents/defendants No.1 and 2, he being one of the share holders filed the present suit for partition.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff further submitted that, presently he is residing at

Hyderabad for his employment purpose and recently came to know that the respondents No.1 to 4 are trying to alienate the suit schedule property to respondents/defendants No. 5 to 16 without partition and trying to encroach in the suit schedule property and the respondents/defendants No. 5 to 16 have no right to interfere in the suit schedule property and they are only third parties.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff further submitted that, his father inherited the suit schedule property and there was a partition suit filed in between their family members vide OS.No. 209 of 1978 pending on the file of District

Munsiff’s court at Siddipet and the final decree proceedings are passed on 24­7­ 1979. Subsequently, his father’s name was entered in the revenue records of pahanies for the year 1981­1982 and 1986­1987. His father was expired on 21­06­2020 with cardiac arrest at Soudi Arabia and the respondents are taking undue advantage of the death of his father are trying to encraoch the schedule property. The respondents No.5 to 16 are the third parties may restrained to interfere in the suit schedule property by passing an ad­interim injunction from 5

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

interfering in the suit schedule property. The respondents/defendants No.5 to 16 have tried to encroach the suit schedule property on 25­11­2021 and 02­12­ 2021 and the threat of the respondents/defendants is imminent and continuous one and at any moment they may occupy the suit schedule property.

5. The petitioner/plaintiff further submitted that, he is apprehending that the respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 may alienate the suit schedule property to the respondents/defendants No.5 to 16 which are third parties by washing their hands. Therefore, prayed this Honourable court to pass an ad­interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendant No.1 to 4 from alienating and respondents/defendants No.5 to 16 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff into the petition schedule property. Hence, these petitions.

6.On the other hand, the respondents/defendants 1 to 4 right to file

their counter is forfeited and the respondent/defendant No.6 is set exparte

and the respondent/defendant No. 5 and 7 to 16 filed counters denying the petitions averments by stating that, the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is not maintainable, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.The respondent/defendant No.5 filed counters by stating that, she purchased the property of land bearing Sy.No. 54 with plot Nos. 1 and 2 area measuring 237­00 sq. yards and 160­00 sq. yards respectively total area measuring 397­00 sq. yards situated at Ponnal village, R.M. Siddipet Paladugu

Balreddy, S/o. Gopal Reddy vide Registered Sale Deed Bearing Document No.

5929/2002, Dated 11­12­2002 before SRO, Siddipet and since then she is in 6

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

possession and enjoyment of the same. Hence, the present suit for partition is barred by limitation. His vendor purchased the above property vide Registered

Sale Deed Bearing Document No. 6129/2001 from Renigunta Yellaiah, S/o.

Chandraiah. Renigunta Yellaiah purchased the extent of 726­00 sq. yards in suit Sy.No. 54 from Vaditalla Vishveshwara Rao vide Registered Sale deed

Bearing Document No. 3295/2001, Dated 03­07­2001 and Vaditalla

Vishveshwara Rao purchased the same vide Registered Sale Deed Bearing

D.No. 3265/2001, Dated 30­06­2001 from Vanga Raji Reddy, S/o. Durga

Reddy. Similarly the respondent/defendant No.6 purchased the Plot Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit Sy.No. 54 vide Registered Sale Deed Bearing Document No.

42/2009, Dated 05­01­2009 before SRO, Siddipet Rural. Thereafter, herself and the respondent/defendant No.6 jointly constructed compound wall to both of their properties some 10 years back and the respondent/defendant No.6 has also constructed a room in her land which is situated on south­west corner of her property. To substantiate this aspect, the petitioner/plaintiff herewith submitting google maps with Geo Coordinates 18.079227, 78.856185 and it clearly establish that, the petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendants No. 1 to 4 are out of possession of the suit schedule property. In the above mentioned circumstances the question of interference by the respondent/defendant No.5 and other respondents/defendants in the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff does not arise. It is further submitted that, the total suit schedule property was already alienated a long back and it is a collusive suit to grab/extract money from the purchasers who are in possession of the suit schedule property. In reply to the contents of the para No.3 of the petition it is submitted that, the respondent/defendant No.5 not aware of the acquisition of the property to the petitioner/plaintiff and the petitioner/plaintiff 7

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

is put to the strict proof the same and the contention that, the respondents

No.1 and 2 are avoiding for partition is cooked up story created to file this suit.

8.In reply to the contents of para No.4 to 6 of the petitions it is submitted that, the total contents are false and denied and the respondents No.5 to 16 are already purchasers of the suit schedule property under various Registered Sale

Deeds a long back and are in possession and enjoyment of their respective extents since their purchase and hence, they are not third parties to the suit and they have perfected their titles in the suit schedule property. The respondents/defendants No.5 to 16 are not third parties and they all are in possession of their respective property, hence, the question of interference does not arise. On the other hand, the petitioner/plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property at any times and the dates mentioned in the para about trying for encroachment are false and denied.

9.The total contents are false and denied and when the respondent/defendant No.5 and other purchasers are in their respective enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the petitioners prayer praying the

Honourable court to pass orders restraining him and other

respondents/defendants from interfering in the suit schedule property is not maintainable and tenable and it is against to the principles of natural justice and hence, the petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled for the same. The petitioner/plaintiff has no prima facie case and also not having balance of convenience and on the other hand himself and other respondents/defendants have prima facie case and balance of convenience, if injunction is granted to the petitioner/plaintiff they will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

8

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

Therefore, prayed this court to dismiss the petitions.

10.The respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 filed counters by denying the petitions averments by stating that:

It is submitted by the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 that, though the land bearing Sy.No. 54 to an extent of Ac.9­07 guntas was in the names of sons of Hyder Mohiuddin earlier, the said land was in the occupation of Vanga

Pedda Ramaiah, Vanga Lingaiah, Vanga Narayana and Vanga Raji Reddy. That out of it 1. Shakeel Hyder, 2. Rafeeq Hyder (as minors) sons of Late Hyder

Mohiuddin, 3. Rayees Hyder, 4. Hanees Hyder, 5. Layeekh Hyder (3 to 5 minor) sons of Late Hyder Mohiuddin through their natural mother and guardian Smt. Nazeerunnisa Begum, W/o. Late Hyder Mohiuddin have sold

Ac.1­21 guntas of land in Sy.No. 54 of Ponnal village, bounded by East: Sy.No.

55 of Ponnal village, West: Land of Vanga Linga Reddy, North: Land of (Shivaru) Siddipet Rev. village, South: Land of Vanga Narayana Reddy to

Vanga Raji Reddy, S/o. Durga Reddy, R/o. Rangadhampally village through

Registered Sale Deed No. 1026/1982 of SRO Siddipet, Dated 01­06­1982 and delivered the possession.

11.It is further submitted by the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 that, the above said purchaser Vanga Raji Reddy getting the above Registered Sale

Deed implemented in his name in the Revenue record have enjoyed it as an absolute owner and possessor of it from the date of his purchase. Subsequently, he sold it to Santhosh Fans Pvt. Limited Siddipet through its directors V.

Vishweshwar Rao, P. Srinivas Goud, A. Bhoomaiah and T. Venkata Ramana

Chary through Registered Sale Deed No. 683/1994 of SRO Siddipet, with its 9

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

changed boundaries showing East: 20 feet road, West: Land of Bukka Ramulu and others, North: 33 feet road, South: 20 feet road and delivered the possession.

12.It is further submitted by the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 that, that the above directors of Santhosh Fans private Limited got the sale deed implemented in the revenue record and their names are entered in the village pahani and they have constructed the sheds and a builidng in the above land and run the fans manufacturing unit in it in the name of Santhosh Fans Private

Limited, Siddipet and they availed the bank loan from SBI Siddipet Branch.

Subsequently, they demolished the sheds, but still the building is there in the said land.

13.It is further submitted by the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 that, through the Registered Sale Deed No. 1981/2005 of SRO Siddipet the above said Santhosh Fans Private Limited through its directors have sold the said property to the defendants No. 7 to 10, Gopalapuram Shankar, the vendor of the defendant No.11 (through the Registered Sale Deed No. 5315/2017 of SRO

Siddipet), deceased Gogu Lalitha, who is the wife of the defendant No.13 and mother of the defendants No. 14 and 15 and delivered the possession and they got implemented the sale deed in their names and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owners and possessors.

14.It is further submitted by the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 that, later on the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 15 have given an extent of

Ac.1­15 guntas out of Ac.1­21 guntas of the above property purchased by them in Sy.No. 54 of Ponnal village to M/s. Vivek’s Green Homes Private Limited, 10

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

Rep. By Managing partner P. Venkata Rao and M/s. Go Green Infra­projects by managing partner P. Venkata Rao for development for construction of apartments through the Registered Development agreement­cum­Irrevocable

General Power of Attorney Document No. 3347/2021 of SRO Siddipet. The said developers have obtained all the necessary permissions for construction of the apartments and commenced the work six months back and the work is in progress. That the footing work is already completed and the pillar work is going on regularly will several construction units workers and technicians by spending crores of rupees. The photographs and the CD file by them will substantiate the same.

15.It is further submitted by the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 that, the petitioner/plaintiff wrongly added both the developers as one defendant with wrong description as defendant NO.16 which is not tenable under law. It is submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants No. 1 to 4 very well known all the above transactions, facts and circumstances.

16.It is further submitted by the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 that, that by keeping quiet for all these years, the petitioner/plaintiff, the respondents/defendants No.1 to 4, who is his family members in active collusion with each other and under abetment of Mohd. Nazeeruddin, S/o.

Asad Mohiuddin, who is the cousin of the father of the petitioner/plaintiff have filed this suit by suppressing all the above facts and circumstances which are in their definite knowledge, with an ulterior motive to extract the money by creating hurdles in the progress of the construction work, showing it as suit schedule property.

11

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

17.It is further submitted by the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 that, as stated above the petitioner/plaintiff or his family members or the father of the petitioner/plaintiff are never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In fact Vanga Raji Reddy and others were in possession and enjoyment of the entire Ac.9­07 guntas of land in Sy.No. 54 of Ponnal village including the suit schedule property as stated above. As such, Mohd. Hyder

Mohiuddin and other sons of Late Hyder Mohiuddin and other sons of Late

Hyder Mohiuddin including Rayees Hyder, the father of the petitioner/plaintiff have sold Ac.1­21 guntas of land out of it to Vanga Raji Reddy, S/o. Durga

Reddy, who in­turn sold it to Santhosh Fans Private Ltd., who in­turn sold it to the respondent/defendant No.9 and others, who in­turn give it to development to the defendant No.16. But the petitioner/plaintiff at the behest of his family members and said Nazeeruddin have filed this petition along with this suit against them claiming their property showing it as suit schedule property with false and fictitious boundaries to grab their land or to mint the money from them by adopting coercive methods.

18.It is further submitted by the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 that, to the best of their knowledge and belief the father of the petitioner/plaintiff, his brothers and other family members have sold the entire Ac.9­07 guntas of land in Sy.No. 54 of Ponnal village and they does not have any land in it. As such, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit along with this petition as a speculative litigation. As such, the petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled for partition and separate possession of any land in this Sy.No. 54 of Ponnal village.

19.It is further submitted by the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 that, the petitioner/plaintiff have absolutely suppressed the material fact as to say 12

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

whether the father of the petitioner/plaintiff and his brothers have partitioned the Ac.9­07 guntas of land in this Sy.No. 54 of Ponnal village along with the other lands or not. If partitioned what is the extent of the land fell to the share of their father and what are the boundaries of the said land. As such, he is not entitled to file this suit for partition and separate possession along with this petition and for injunction within the specific boundaries as given in the suit schedule of the plaint and in the petition, which is specifically purchased by them with specific boundaries.

20.It is further submitted by the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 that, this suit for partition and separate possession is not maintainable without impleading all the legal heirs of Late Hyder Mohiuddin, since there is no any evidence is placed showing that, there is a legal and admissible partition of property in respect of suit Sy.No. 54 and other lands which is the subject matter of suit is OS. No. 209 of 1978 on the file of this Honourable court and the final decree passed in IA.NO. 179/1979 in this suit also does not discloses the said fact of partition among the legal heirs of Late Hyder Mohiuddin, the grand father of the petitioner/plaintiff. Thus the petitioner/plaintiff did not come to this Honourable court with clean hands and he has come to this Honourable court by suppressing all the material facts. As such, he is not entitled for the equitable relief of temporary of permanent injunction against them or for any relief as prayed by him. The documents referred above are filed by them and they substantiate their case and disproves the case of the petitioner/plaintiff.

21.It is further submitted by the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 that, that the petitioner/plaintiff is playing all the cheep tactics and abusing the process of law. The petitioner/plaintiff did not deposit the process to serve the 13

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

two injunction petitions, injunction orders and the suit summons on them. Till now they did not receive any notices or summons from this Honourable court.

On the other hand, he is publishing the injunction orders issued by this

Honourable court in several news papers and in whatsapp of the mobile

numbers and giving much publicity to damage the crores of business of they are the owners of suit schedule and the builders. Only the three respondents/defendants among them are served with order 39 Rule 3 notices.

On receipt of them, they are filing this counter affidavit along with the vakalat.

As such, the legal action may be taken against the petitioner/plaintiff as provided by C.P.C. More particularly the injunction orders issued in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff may be vacated immediately. Therefore, prayed this

Honourable court may be pleased to dismiss the petitions with costs in the

interest of justice and equity.

22.On behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 got marked and on behalf of the respondents/defendants Ex.R1 to Ex.R25 got marked.

Ex.P1 is the certified copy of plaint in OS.No. 209 of 1978 on the file of

District Munsif at District. Ex.P2 is the Certified copy of Final Decree in I.A. No.

179/1979 in OS.No. 209 of 1978 on the file of District Munsif at District. Ex.P3 is the Certified copy of Death Certificate, Ex.P4 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 1981­82, Ex.P5 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 1986­ 87, Ex.P6 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 1993­94, Ex.P7 is the

Certified copy of pahani for the year 2005­06, Ex.P8 is the Endorsement Memo issued by Tahsildar, Siddipet Urban, Dated 05­01­2022, Ex.P9 is the Certified copy issued by Tahsildar, Siddipet Urban for the year 2005­06, Ex.P10 is the

Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed vide Document No. 3265/2001, Dated 14

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

06­01­2022, Ex.P11 is the Original Aadhar card of plaintiff/petitioner.

Ex.R1 is the C.C. of Registered Sale Deed No. 1024/1982 of SRO,

Siddipet, Dated 01­06­1982, Ex.R2 is the C.C. of Registered Sale Deed No.

1025/1982 of SRO, Siddipet, Dated 01­06­1982, Ex.R3 is the C.C. of

Registered Sale Deed No. 1027/1982 of SRO, Siddipet, Dated 01­06­1982,

Ex.R4 is the C.C. of Registered Sale Deed No. 1028/1982 of SRO, Siddipet,

Dated 01­06­1982, Ex.R5 is the C.C. of Registered Sale Deed No. 1026/1982 of

SRO, Siddipet, Dated 01­06­1982, Ex.R6 is the C.C. of Registered Sale Deed

No. 683/1994 of SRO, Siddipet, Dated 07­03­1994, Ex.R7 is the Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No. 1981/2005 of SRO, Siddipet, Dated 23­03­2005,

Ex.R8 is the Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No. 5315/2017 of SRO

Siddipet, Dated 04­09­2017, Ex.R9 is the Meeseva copy of Registered

Development agreement­cum­Irrevocable GPA Deed No. 3347/2021, Dated 04­ 03­2021, Ex.R10: C.C. of pahani for the year 1981­82, Ex.R11 is the C.C. of pahani for the year 1984­85, Ex.R12 is the C.C. of pahani for the year 1994­95,

Ex.R13: C.C. of pahani for the year 2005­06, Ex.R14: C.C. of pahani for the year 1997­98, Ex.R15: C.C. of pahani for the year 2011­12, Ex.R16 is the

Meeseva copy of pattedar pahani, Dated 28­11­2019, Ex.R17 is the Copy of

Dharani portal, Ex.R18 is the Photographs along with CD, Ex.R19 is the

Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No. 3265/2001 of Dated 30­06­2001,

Ex.R20 is the Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No. 3295/2001, Dated 03­ 07­2001, Ex.R21 is the Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No. 6129/2001,

Dated 12­12­2001, Ex.R22 is the Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No.

5929/2002 of Dated 11­12­2002. Ex.R23 is the Meeseva copy of Registered

Sale Deed No. 42/2009 of Dated 05­01­2009, Ex.R24 is the copy of Google 15

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

map, Ex.R25 is the copy of Google map.

23.Heard both the learned counsel appearing on the either side and counsel

for the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants No. 7 to 16 filed

written arguments.

24.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner/Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of temporary injunction as prayed for ?

POINT

25.The contention of the petitioner/plaintiff is that, the suit schedule property is ancestral property and he filed OS. No. 393/2021 suit against the respondents/defendants for partition and separate possession and injunction.

26.The contention of the petitioner/plaintiff is that, the suit schedule property is originally in the name of elders. Thereafter, his father became the owner of the property and inspite of request the respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 are avoiding for partition, Hence, filed the present petitions against the respondents No.1 to 4 not to alienate and respondents No. 5 to 16 for not to interfere into the suit schedule property.

27.On the other hand the respondents/defendants No. 1 to 4 failed to file counters and the respondent/defendant No.5 filed counters by opposing the contention of the petitions by stating that, she purchased the property through

Registered Sale Deed and she is possession of the part of the suit schedule property.

28.The contention of the respondent No.7 to 16 is that, the petitions are not maintainable as the petitioner/plaintiff suppressed the true facts before the 16

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

court and the contention of the respondents/defendants No.7 to 16 is that,

Sy.No. 54, Ac.1­21 guntas of land was sold by the grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff Smt. Nazeerunnisa Begum to Vanga Raji Reddy from him sold to V. Vishveshwar Rao and they sold the said property to the defendants

No.7 to 10, Gopalapuram Shankar, the vendor of the defendants No.11 ( through the Registered the Registered Sale Deed No. 5315/2017 of SRO

Siddipet (Ex.R8) and the deceased Gogu Lalitha, who is the wife of the defendant No.13 and mother of the defendants No.14 and 15 and delivered the possession and they got implemented the sale deed in their names and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owners and possessors.

Later on the respondents/defendants No.7 to 15 have given an extent of Ac.1­ 15 guntas out of Ac.1­21 guntas of the above property purchased by them in

Sy.No. 54 of Ponnal village to M/s. Vivek’s Green Hoomes Private Limited Rep.

by Managing partner P. venkata Rao and M/s. Go Green Infra­projects for development and for construction of apartments through the Registered

Development agreement­cum­Irrevocable General Power of Attorney Doc.No.

3347/2021 of SRO Siddipet.

29.That by keeping quiet for all these years, the petitioner/plaintiff, the respondents/defendants No.1 to 4, who are his family members in active collusion with each other and under abetment of Mohd. Nazeeruddin, S/o.

Asad Mohiuddin, who is the cousin of the father of the petitioner/plaintiff have filed this suit by suppressing all the above facts and circumstances which are in their definite knowledge, with an ulterior motive to extract the money by creating hurdles in the progress of the construction work, showing it as suit schedule property. As such, the respondents/defendants prays this court to 17

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

dismiss the petitions and it is not maintainable.

30.It is well said law that, the court while granting temporary injunction has to satisfy whether it is interference is necessary to protect the petitioner/plaintiff from the irreparable injury that may cause to his legal right in the property and temporary injunction is granted to protect the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff which may be ascertain at the time of trial of the suit. In other words the court will exercise the power of granting the temporary injunction only to preserve the subject matter of the suit in status quo for the time being.

31.Perused the petitions, counters and contentions of both the parties and written arguments filed by the both sides and also documents under Ex.P1 to

Ex.P11 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R25.

32.Though the petitioner/plaintiff contended that, the suit schedule property is ancestral property, his father died and himself and respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the property and filed suit for partition and separate possession and to prove the case of the petitioner/plaintiff, he relied on Ex.P1 to Ex.P11.

33.On the other hand the respondent No. 5 and 7 to 16 contended that, they purchased the property through Registered Sale Deed and to prove their case they relied on the Ex.R1 to Ex.R25.

34.During the course of written arguments the petitioner/plaintiff counsel argued that, the respondents No.5 to 17 are trying to interfere into the suit 18

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

schedule property and documents relied are fabricated documents. As such, it cannot be relied and further argued that, he is having prima facie case and balance of convenience, as such, prayed this court to allow the petitions.

35.On the other hand, in the written arguments No. 7 to 16 counsel argued that, under Ex.R1 to R15 the property went through one purchaser to another purchaser and Smt. Nazeerunnisa Begum, W/o. Late Hyder Mohiuddin had sold out entire Ac.9­07 guntas of land in Sy.No. 54 under Registered Sale

Deeds and neither the petitioner/plaintiff nor family members or father of the petitioner/plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property and Mohd.

Hyder Mohiuddin and other sons of Late Hyder Mohiuddin including Rayees

Hyder, the father of the petitioner/plaintiff have sold Ac.1­21 guntas of land out of it to Vanga Raji Reddy, but the petitioner/plaintiff at the behest of the family members filed the present petitions and further argued that, suit for partition and separate possession is not maintainable without impleading the legal heirs of Late Hyder Mohiuddin, as no evidence is placed showing that, his legal heirs and admissible partition of property in respect of Sy.No. 54 and other lands which is the subject matter of OS.No. 207/1978 under Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2.

36.After going through the record this court is of the opinion that, it is rightly contended by the respondents/defendants counsel that, the petitioner/plaintiff not made all necessary parties and the petitioner/plaintiff is silent with regard to that in Sy.No. 54 which part father of the petitioner/plaintiff got, as per documents produced by the respondents/defendants the grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff executed the properties in Sy.No. 54 to vendor of the respondents/defendants through 19

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

Registered Sale Deed. The issue whether the suit is maintainable and whether the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled for the relief for partition can be decided by leading evidence on both side after full­fledged trial and same cannot be decided at this stage and moreover, as the petitioner/plaintiff suppressed the true facts before the court and the documents filed under Ex.R1 to Ex.R25 are registered documents which shows that, grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff sold the properties to vendors of the respondents/defendants long back, as the petitioner/plaintiff failed to satisfy this court that, he is having prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour and if injunction is not granted he will be put to irreparable loss and this court is not satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the petitions. Accordingly, this point is answered against the petitioner/plaintiff.

37.IN THE RESULT, Petitions vide I.A. No. 951 of 2021 and I.A. No. 952 of 2021 are dismissed without costs. Consequently ad-interim injunction order dated 14- 12-2021 stands vacated.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade ­ III, corrected and pronounced by me in virtual Court, on this the 13th day of April, 2022.

SD/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

:: NIL ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Ex.P1: Certified copy of plaint in OS.No. 209 of 1978 on the file of District Munsif at District. 

Ex.P2: Certified copy of Final Decree in I.A. No. 179/1979 in

OS.No. 209 of 1978 on the file of District Munsif at District. 

20

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

Ex.P3: Certified copy of Death Certificate 

Ex.P4: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1981­82.

Ex.P5: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1986­87.

Ex.P6: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1993­94.

Ex.P7: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2005­06.

Ex.P8: Endorsement Memo issued by Tahsildar, Siddipet Urban, 

Dated 05­01­2022.

Ex.P9: Certified copy issued by Tahsildar, Siddipet Urban for the year 2005­06.

Ex.P10: Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed vide Document No. 3265/2001,

Dated 06­01­2022.

Ex.P11: Original Aadhar card of plaintiff/petitioner.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Ex.R1: C.C. of Registered Sale Deed No. 1024/1982 of SRO, Siddipet, 

Dated 01­06­1982.

Ex.R2: C.C. of Registered Sale Deed No. 1025/1982 of SRO, Siddipet,

Dated 01­06­1982.

Ex.R3: C.C. of Registered Sale Deed No. 1027/1982 of SRO, Siddipet,

Dated 01­06­1982.

Ex.R4: C.C. of Registered Sale Deed No. 1028/1982 of SRO, Siddipet,

Dated 01­06­1982.

Ex.R5: C.C. of Registered Sale Deed No. 1026/1982 of SRO, Siddipet, 

Dated 01­06­1982.

Ex.R6: C.C. of Registered Sale Deed No. 683/1994 of SRO, Siddipet, 

Dated 07­03­1994.

Ex.R7: Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No. 1981/2005 of SRO, Siddipet, Dated 23­03­2005.

Ex.R8: Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No. 5315/2017 of SRO Siddipet,

Dated 04­09­2017.

Ex.R9: Meeseva copy of Registered Development agreement­cum­ Irrevocable GPA Deed No. 3347/2021, Dated 04­03­2021.

21

Dt. 13­04­2022 I.A.NO. 951 and 952 of 2021 in OS. No. 393 of 2021

Ex.R10: C.C. of pahani for the year 1981­82.

Ex.R11: C.C. of pahani for the year 1984­85.

Ex.R12: C.C. of pahani for the year 1994­95.

Ex.R13: C.C. of pahani for the year 2005­06.

Ex.R14: C.C. of pahani for the year 1997­98.

Ex.R15: C.C. of pahani for the year 2011­12.

Ex.R16: Meeseva copy of pattedar pahani, Dated 28­11­2019.

Ex.R17: Copy of Dharani portal 

Ex.R18: Photographs along with CD.

Ex.R19: Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No. 3265/2001 of 

Dated 30­06­2001.

Ex.R20: Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No. 3295/2001 of 

Dated 03­07­2001.

Ex.R21: Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No. 6129/2001 of 

Dated 12­12­2001.

Ex.R22: Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No. 5929/2002 of 

Dated 11­12­2002. 

Ex.R23: Meeseva copy of Registered Sale Deed No. 42/2009 of 

Dated 05­01­2009.

Ex.R24: Copy of Google map.

Ex.R25: Copy of Google map.

SD/­

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

 SIDDIPET.

CC/503/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

SIDDIPET

Present: Kum. VALLALA SRAVANI YADAV Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet. FAC I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

Dated this the 18 th day of November, 2024.

C.C. No. 503 of 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through, the Sub-Inspector of police, PS, Kukunoorpally. …Complainant

// A N D //

A1. Ramancha @ Errolla Murali S/o Kanakaiah, Age: 22 years, Occ: JCB Driver, R/o Mandapally village of Chinnakodur Mandal.

A2. Manda Srinivas S/o Lingaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Owner of JCB, R/o Ravindranagar, H/o Velikatta village of Kondapak Mandal. (Died)

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri. Ch. Sharath Babu, Advocate for the accused and upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS, Kukunoorpally has filed the charge sheet in Cr. No.

34 of 2016 against accused for the offences punishable under sections 304-A, 338 IPC and

Section 180, 181 of MV Act.

2.The case of prosecution in a nutshell as follows : On 20.02.2016 at 07:30 hours,

Smt. Chitti Padma @ Padmavathi/complainant came to police station and lodged a petition stating that, on 19.02.2016 in the evening hours, her husband/Chitti Ramreddy/deceased

I AJMFC, Siddipet. 1 along with their villager one Gadeela Balreddy proceeded towards Kondapak from Duddeda village on the motor cycle of Balreddy bearing no. AP23 N 2370 and on the way they reached at Kondapak stage near rajiv rahadari road at 21:00 hours, meantime accused/A1 drove his vehicle in wrong route in a rash and negligence manner and dashed their motor cycle, due to which they fell on road and received severe blood injuries, meanwhile, the people shifted them to government hospital, Siddipet in a 108 ambulance and the same was infromed to through phone by their villagers, on receipt of the information, she rushed to the hospital and found that, her husband/deceased undergone for medical treatment, later, she shifted him to Max Care hospital, Hanmakonda, where while undergoing treatment he died on the same day at 04:00 hours. Hence, she requested for necessary action against the accused.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A, 338 of IPC and section 181, 181 of MV Act. On appearance of the accused/A1 copies of the documents were furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 of

Cr.P.C.

4.On 16.02.2018, prosecution has filed death certificate of accused A2 and the case is closed as abated against accused A2.

5.The accused A1 was examined under section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure and upon hearing, the substance of accusation against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A, 338 of IPC and section 181 of MV Actwas read over the explained to him in his vernacular language to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2 I AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/503/2018

6.The evidence of prosecution in order to prove its case, examined PW1 to PW10 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 got marked. APP filed the petition U/sec. 294 of Cr.P.C. for marking documents on behalf of prosecution and notice was given to counsel for the accused and he submitted that, no objection for allowing the petition upon hearing both sides this court permitted for marking of documents vide Crl.M.P. No. 1180/2024 Ex.P8 to Ex.P10 got marked. The evidence of LW6, LW7 & LW13 is closed by this Court. Hence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining him the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses they denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and further reported no defence evidence. Hence, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked on behalf of accused.

7. Heard the arguments on behalf of the prosecution, APP submitted that the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW10 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 got marked She stated that there are many admissions made by the counsel for the accused during cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. She further stated that PW3 who is injured and eye witness to the present case is a crucial witness as he has identified the accused. Further, there is Medical corroboration with evidence of PW3, PW8 and wound certificate issued by PW8. She further stated that investigating officer could not be examined as he is no more. She stated that non-examination of investigating officer is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Finally, she submitted that she has filed citations in support of the case of the prosecution. She prayed to convict the accused.

Following citations of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India filed by Learned APP in

support of the case of the prosecution and highlighted the relevant portitions :

I AJMFC, Siddipet. 3

i. Ambika Prasad and another Vs. State (Delhi Administration), dated

21.01.2000.

- Non examination of the investigating officer cannot be a ground for holding that, injured witness should not be believed.

ii. Bipin Shanthi Lal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another, dated

22.02.2001.

- Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentetivly as an exhibit in the case (or record the objective part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the judge or magistrate can keep such evidence exclueded some consideration.

In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course.

iii. Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan, dated 16.08.2012 - Minor varitions are bound to occur in the statements of the witnesses when there statements are recorded after a considerable lapse from the date of occurance. The court can also not ignore the fact that, these witnesses are not very educated persons.

- it is a settled principal that, the varitions in the statements of witnesses which are neither material nor serious enough to effect the case of the prosecution adversily are to be ignored by the courts (ref. State Vs. Saravanan and another, (2008) 17 SCC 587).

iv. Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration on 06.08.1975

- Para no.6 of the judgment.

On the other hand, the counsel for the accused argued that the accused was identified at the instance of police and the witness did not state anything regarding the identification of the accused in his earlier statement. He further stated that no requisition is filed into the court that PW3 was sent for medical examination and it is not mentioned in the MLC also.

4 I AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/503/2018

He further stated that there is no proof that A2 is the owner of the alleged crime vehicle. He stated that motor vehicle inspector admitted that heavy vehicles cannot move speedy and the investigating officer is not examined in the present case and concluded, his arguments by stating that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused and to acquit the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable U/sec. 304-A, 338 of IPC and section 181 of MV Act, beyond reasonable doubts ?

POINT:

9.Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 is the complainant/wife of deceased, PW2 is witness/daughter of deceased, PW3 is eye witness/injured, PW4 is wintess, PW5 is panch witness for inquest, PW6 is CAS/issued PME, PW7 is is panch witness for inquest panchanama, PW8 is Dr./who treated the LW3, PW9 is witness and

PW10 is MVI.

10.PW1/C. Padmavathi chief examination deposed that deceased/Ram Reddy is her husband and on 19th February, 2016 in the night hours, while her husband is travelling along with Bal Reddy/LW3 on bike when they reached Kondapak gate met with an accident as a

JCB gave them a dash and the JCB has come in the wrong direction as such LW3 and deceased both fell down then few persons of her village saw them in that condition and took them to the hospital, and she came to know that deceased and LW3 were shifted to government hospital, but when she reached there, she came to know that they were shifted

I AJMFC, Siddipet. 5 to Murali Krishna Hospital, then they were again shifted to Hanmakonda Hospital. She further stated that deceased passed away while undergoing treatment and she came to know the name of the JCB driver as Murali and police examined and recorded her statement.

11.During a cross examination, she stated that some person took phone of the deceased at the place of accident and informed her that diseased met with an accident and as she got information, she rushed to the hospital and she has given written complain to the police, but do not remember the date and time as they were in sad condition and she know the contents of the complaint, then only she signed on the complaint and denied the suggestion that she has filed false complaint to claim insurance and the accused is no way concerned with the present accident.

12.PW2/C. Laxmi, during her chief examination that, on 19th February 2016, while deceased and LW3 were coming from Duddeda on a bike when they reached Kondapak stage a JCB came in wrong direction and hit them and LW3 and diseased fell down. Then few persons of their village saw them in that condition and took them to the hospital and she came to know that, the deceased and LW3 were shifted to hospital, but by the time when they reached there, she came to know that they were shifted to Krishna Hospital, then again, they were shifted to Hanmakonda Hospital and deceased died while undergoing treatment and she came to know the name of the JCB driver as Ramancha Murali and do not know the name of the driver of the JCB/crime vehicle, but she know the number of the crime vehicle

as 7358 and the accident occurred, as a driver of the JCB came in wrong direction. She

stated that police examined her and recorded her statement and the diseased was travelling on the bike bearing number 2370. During cross examination, she stated that at the time of 6 I AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/503/2018 accident, she was at Hanmakonda and she saw her father/deceased at Hanmakonda Hospital and she came to know the details of the crime vehicle, owner name through the people at the place of accident and denied the suggestion that she do not know anything about the present case and they have lodged a false case for claiming insurance.

13.PW3/G. Bal Reddy during his chief examination deposed that on 19th February 2016, while he and the deceased were going towards Kondapaka on Honda shine bike bearing number 2370 when they reached near the house of one Kankachary a JCB bearing number 7358 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed them and they both fell down and someone made call to 108, then ambulance arrived and they were shifted to government Hospital. Later he was shifted to Murali Krishna Hospital and deceased was shifted to Max care Hospital and Hanumakonda and he came to know the name of the driver as that of the accused at the time of the accident and the accused standing in the accused stand is the driver of the crime vehicle/JCB and he further stated that he sustained injuries on left hand and ribs and his left hand got two fracture injuries and he stated that police examined him and recorded his statement.

14.During his cross examination, he admitted that he sustained injuries on his hand and ribs and he stated that he was first shifted to Murali Krishna Hospital and police examined him and recorded his statement on 20th February 2016 in the morning hours and he got discharged after six days. He denied the suggestion that he came to know the name of the accused after he got discharged from the hospital and he stated that he came to know the name of the accused through the people of Ravindra Nagar and he has witnessed the JCB number at the time of accident itself and the accident happened at 9:00 p.m. and he denied

I AJMFC, Siddipet. 7 the suggestion that he did not see the vehicle number due to night hours and he stated that as it was highway and there was lighting as such, he noticed the crime vehicle number and he further denied that he did not state to the police regarding the vehicle details and further denied the suggestion that he is deposing at the instance of police and he has identified the accused at the instance of police and he denied the suggestion that the accused is noway concern with the present case.

15.PW4/CH. Tirupathi Reddy during his chief examination deposed that, in the year 2016, he went to the house of the deceased as he was not at the house. He called him, but some other person has attended the call and informed him that deceased/Ram Reddy met with an accident and he was shifted to Govt. hospital in ambulance and he was told that a

JCB bearing number 7358 was coming in over speed in a wrong route and dashed the deceased and he visited the hospital. Siddipet, but he came to know that the deceased was shifted to Murali Krishna Hospital and later he was shifted to Max care Hospital at

Hanmakonda and while undergoing treatment, the deceased died. During his cross examination, he stated that he do not know the name of the person who has attended his call and he admitted that he directly went to the hospital and did not visit the scene of offence and came to know the vehicle number of the JCB through police and deceased is his neighbour and denied the suggestion that he is deposing false.

16.PW5/D. Mahipal Reddy in his chief examination stated that on 20th February 2016, police summoned him at government Hospital, Siddipet and conducted in panchanama on the dead body of the diseased/Ram Reddy and noted down the injuries and the details of his death and read over the contents of it and after going through it, he signed on it. During his 8 I AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/503/2018 cross examination he admitted that after conducting post-mortem, panchanama was conducted in his presence and denied the suggestion that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and he has signed on blank papers at the request of police and denied the suggestion that he came along with the son-in-law of the deceased to the court today.

17.PW6/Dr. CH. Vijay Krishna during his chief examination deposed that, on 20th

February February 2016, he received requisition from SHO kukurnoorpally to conduct autopsy and issue PME report on the dead body of the deceased/Ram Reddy and accordingly he has conducted autopsy and issued PME report and Ex.P3 is the PME report and the following observations were made as injuries mentioned in column number 11 of

Ex.P3 and according to his opinion, the cause of death is due to intracranial injury antemortem nature. During his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not conduct any autopsy and issued PME at the instance of police.

18.PW8/Dr. Murali Krishna in his chief examination, deposed that, on 19th February 2016, a patient named G. Bal Reddy came to their hospital in an EMRI 108 ambulance in an injured condition and accordingly he treated him as in-patient bearing number 1570 and he found following injuries, namely multiple rib fractures on the left side of the chest and fracture both bone on left forearm caused during the RTA. Both injuries are grievous in nature and after examination on the next day, he received requisition from SHO,

Kukunoorpally regarding the said patient and he issued MC of Bal Reddy/PW3 after his examination on the next day. Ex.P4 is the MC of PW3.

I AJMFC, Siddipet. 9

19.During his cross examination, he stated that he gave information regarding the route traffic accident to the police through phone call and he admitted that the date of issuance of

Ex.P4 is not mentioned and there is no MLC report. He denied the suggestion that he did not give any treatment to PW3 and he did not issue any medical certificate and PW3 did not sustain injury and he further denied the suggestion, that he is deposing at the instance of police.

20.PW9/S. Shivaiah during his chief examination stated that, he used to own a JCB bearing number AP 24 Q 7358 and he sold it to Srinivas of Siddipet and he came to know that the driver of the Srinivas namely Murali caused accident with the JCB and the same. He stated to the police and police examined him and recorded his statement and Ex.P5 and

Ex.P6 are the form number 29 and 30 regarding the transfer and intimation of ownership of

JCB. During his cross examination he stated that, he do not remember the date on which he sold JCB to Srinivas and Srinivas told him that JCB is being driven by a driver and later, he do not know anything about the JCB.

21.PW10/S. Vikram/AMVI in his chief examination deposed regarding the inspection conducted by him and he stated in his opinion that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. During his cross examination, he stated that he did not visit the scene of offence and did not see the road condition as the vehicle was shifted to police station and he admitted that heavy vehicles like JCB cannot be drove in high speed and he do not have idea regarding the limitation period for transfer of RC into the name of the purchaser and he denied the suggestion that he did not inspect the vehicle and he has issued Ex.P7 at the instance of police.

10 I AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/503/2018

22.From the evidence of PW3/injured and eye witness the identification of accused as the driver of the vehicle is clearly proved as the counsel for the accused, apart from posting denial have not brought on record any compelling evidence to show that the accused was not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, this court holds that identification of accused as the driver of the crime vehicle is clearly proved.

23.PW1, PW2 and PW4 are not eye witness to the incident and what they have stated about vehicle number of the crime vehicle as 7358 and the rash or negligent on the part of the accused are hearsay and have to be tested in corroboration with other evidence on record. PW3, who was examined as eye witness in his chief examination, identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle and as discussed above and on how the accident took place was stated that while he along with the deceased were going towards Kondapaka on Honda shine bike bearing number 2370 and when they reached near the house of one

Kanaka Chary JCB bearing number 7358 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed them and then they both fell down and someone has called ambulance and they were shifted to hospital. Witness further stated that he has sustained injuries on left hand and ribs and his left hand got two fracture injuries is corroborated with the evidence of PW8/Dr. Murali Krishna and Ex.P4 medical certificate of the PW3.

24.During cross examination, it was suggested that he did not see the vehicle number due to night hours, but the witness has denied the suggestion and stated that he has witness the JCB number at the time of accident itself and the accident happened at 09:00 p.m. and as it was highway and there was lighting as such he has noticed the crime vehicle number.

I AJMFC, Siddipet. 11

From the entire cross examination, it is clear that the counsel has not denied the presence of witness at the scene of offence, when the accident took place and they have only suggested that the witness is deposing at the instance of police and he has identified the accused at the instance of police. This court is of the opinion that PW3 presence is proved and the narration given of the incident is not denied with any, but simple denial were given which does not prove anything and this court believes the version of the witness as to how the accident took place.

25.From the evidence discussed about, it is clear from the version of PW3 and the rough stretch map/Ex.P10, the JCB/crime vehicle drove by A1 came from the opposite direction without any indication and in the opinion of this court, the act of the accused fits the definition of rash and negligent manner. The counsel for the accused apart from trying to post suggestions, that accused is no way connected with the present case has not bought on record any evidence to disprove the cogent evidence.

26.The prosecution in order to prove that, the driver of crime vehicle did not have driving license at the time of accident did not utter a single word regarding the driving license of the accused in the entire evidence available on record and further did not provide any evidence to prove that, the accused has drove a crime vehicle without having driving license and in circumstances this court holds that, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence U/sec. 181 of MV Act.

27.In view of the foregoing discussion the prosecution has established the identity of the accused and also proved rash and negligence act on the part of the accused beyond 12 I AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/503/2018 reasonable doubt and failed to prove that, the drive of the crime vehicle did not have driving license at the relevant point of time and the point is answered accordingly.

28.In the result, the accused A1 is found not guilty for the offence under section 181 of

MV Act and he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence and further the accused A1 is found guilty for the offence U/sec. 304-A and 338 of IPC and he is convicted

U/sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the s tenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18 th day of November, 2024.

Sd/-

FAC I – Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1 : C. Padmavathi- Nil - PW2 : C. Laxmi PW3 : G. Balreddy PW4 : Ch. Thirupathi Reddy PW5 : D. Mahipal Reddy PW6 : Dr. Ch. Vijay Krishna PW7 : A. Malla Reddy PW8 : Dr. Murali Krishna PW9 : S. Shivaiah PW10 : S. Vikram

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1 : Report- Nil - Ex.P2 : Inquest panchanama Ex.P3 : PME report Ex.P4 : Medical certificate of PW3

I AJMFC, Siddipet. 13

Ex.P5 & Ex.P6 : Form no. 29 & 30/transfer and intimation of ownership of JCB Ex.P7 : MVI report

EXHIBIS MARKED THROUGH PROSECUTION VIDE CRL. M.P. NO. 1180/2024

Ex.P8 : First Information Report Ex.P9 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10 : Rough sketch map of the scene

Sd/-

FAC I – Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

14 I AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/503/2018

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

29.Since Accused was called absent on the date of the judgement, NBW was issued against him. Subsequently, the presiding officer was transferred and the learned counsel for the accused appeared before the current presiding officer on 25-11-2024 and filed petition under section 70(2) Cr.P.C. The NBW was cancelled vide orders in Crl.M.P. No.1478/2024 on 25-11-2024.

30.Accused is present and he was heard on quantum of sentence. The plea of the accused is that his family consists of himself, his wife and their 3 year old child and old age parents and he is the only breadwinner of his family and there are no other sources of income to support his family and no one else to look after his family. He further submitted that he comes from a poor family and that there is no intention involved in the offence. He thus pleaded this Court to impose a linient sentence of only fine.

30.In view of the nature of the offence, this court feels that he is not entitled for the benefit of Provisions of sections 3 and 4 of The Probation Of Offenders Act, 1958. Taking into consideration of above facts and circumstances of this case, and also considering the nature of accusation and also considering the plea of the accused that he has a minor child and dependant family and also considering the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances involved, this Court is of the opinion that sentencing accused as under would meet ends of justice:

31.i)Offence under section 304(A) of IPC: Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of which he shall

I AJMFC, Siddipet. 15 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 20 days for the offence punishable under

Section 304(A) of IPC. ii) Offence under section 338 of IPC: Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

32.Accused was explained his right of Appeal against the above conviction and sentence

before Hon’ble Sessions Court at Siddipet. He is also apprised of his right to seek legal aid

in preferring appeal as per the provision of Legal Services Authority Act. Office is directed to give a copy of judgment free of costs forthwith and obtain acknowledgement.

Typed to my dictation by the s tenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25 th day of November, 2024.

Sd/-

I – Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

16 I AJMFC, Siddipet.

1

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SMT. SALMA FATIMA,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Siddipet.

Dated this the 05th day of May, 2022

I.A.NO. 593 OF 2020

IN

O.S.NO. 241 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

Mohd Ghouse Mohiuddin, S/o. Late Mohammed Nayemuddin, age: 46 years, occ: private employee, R/o. 10­4­NA0001, Nasarpura locality, Siddipet town and District.

…Petitioner/Plaintiff AND

1. Rasool Bee, W/o. Late Mohammed Nayeemuddin, age: 65 years, occ: Housewife, R/o. 10­4­188, Nasarpura locality, Siddipet Town and District.

2. Mohammed Rafiuddin, S/o. Late Mohammed Nayeemuddin, age: 32 years, occ: private employee, R/o. 10­4­188, Nasarpura locality, Siddipet Town and District.

3. Mohammed Fasiuddin, S/o. Late Mohammed Nayeemuddin, age: 32 years, occ: private employee, R/o. 10­4­188, Nasarpura locality, Siddipet Town and District. 

4. Smt. Reshma Farzana, w/o. Syed Waliuddin, age: 38 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 8­190/2, Near Airtel Tower, Gajwel Town, Siddipet District.

5. Smt. Herma Farzana, W/o. Shaik Sikender, age: 35 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 10­4­188, Nasarpura locality, Siddipet Town and District.

… Respondents/Defendants.

This petition is coming on 05­05­2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K. Ramesh Babu, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and of Sri. G. Kali Prasad, Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, and upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following: 

Prl. JCJ, Siddipet.

2

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

:: O R D E R ::

1. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner herein who is the plaintiff in the main suit, filed the present petition by stating that, the respondent/defendant No. 1 is the wife, himself and respondents No.2 and 3 are the sons and respondents/defendants No.4 and 5 are the daughters of the Late Mohammed Nayeemuddin. His father Late Mohammed

Nayeemuddin acquired the house property H.No. 12­3­49/8 admeasuring 260 sq.

yards situated at Nasarpura locality, Siddipet through a Registered Sale Deed vide

Document No. 69/1982 for consideration, registered in the office of Sub­Registrar at Siddipet and H.No. 10­4­188 admeasuring 84.5 sq. yards situated at Siddipet succeeded from his father Md. Nizamuddin. Thus his father was the absolute owner and possessor of the said property.

2.The petitioner/plaintiff further submitted that, his father Mohammed

Nayeemuddin died intestate on 14­02­1985 leaving him and respondents/defendants No.1 to 5 as his heirs, besides the house property H.No. 12­ 3­49/8 admeasuring 260 sq. yards and H.No. 10­4­188 admeasuring 85.5 sq. yards situated at Nasarpura locality, Siddipet. On the death of Mohammed Nayeemuddin, the above suit property devolved on him and respondents/defendants, as such the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents are the joint owners and possessor of the suit property. AS per the Muslim law the respondent No.1 will get 1/8th share, himself and respondents No.2 and 3 each will get 14/64th share and respondent no.4 and 5 each will get 7/64th share in the suit property. Thus, the petitioner/plaintiff and respondents/defendants No.1 to 5 are the joint owners and possessors of the suit property.

3

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

3.The petitioner/plaintiff further submitted that, in the month of March, 2020, he came to know that the respondent/defendant No.1 is trying to transfer the suit property infavour of the respondents/defendants No.2 to 5 without having any right or title in the suit property, as such he got issued a legal notice dated 12­03­2020 through advocate, to respondents/defendants No.1 to 5 demanding for partition of the suit property and allotment of his share, the respondent/defendant No. 4 received the notice and other respondents/defendants refused to receive the notice.

The defendants having notice of demand for partition, they kept quite.

Subsequently, he came to know that the respondent/defendant No.1 executed

Registered Gift Settlement Deeds Document No. 15734/19, Dated 21­10­2019 in favour of respondent/defendant No.2 and gift settlement deeds Dated 26­10­2019 in favour of respondents/defendants No. 4 and 5 and gift settlement deed, dated 04­11­2019 in favour of respondent/defendant No.3 in respect of the subject of suit property herein without having any valid, right or title and the said documents are not binding on him, as such, he ignores the same. The entries in the Municipal records are nominal and they cannot create any title nor destroy his vested right, it is only meant for collection of taxes.

4.The petitioner/plaintiff further submitted that, on perusal of the gift settlement deeds executed by the respondent/defendant No.1 in favour of the respondents/defndants, they can easily find out the respondent/defendant No.1 is not the owner of the property, since in the gift settlement deed itself, it is mention that, H.No. 12­3­49/8 admeasuring 260 sq. yards situated at Nasarpura locality,

Siddipet acquired by her husband through a Registered Sale Deed vide Document

No. 69/1982.

4

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

5.The petitioner/plaintiff further submitted that, he came to know on 28­05­ 2020 that the respondents/defendants fraudulently got entered their names in the municipal records and applying for municipal permission for construction of new houses in the place of old buildings, again he demanded the respondents/defendants for partition of the suit property and allot his share, but they refused for partition and allotment of his share. Fraud vitiates all proceedings and immediately on 29­05­2020, he made an objection petition before the

Municipal Commissioner for not to accord any permission in favour of the respondents/defendants for construction in the place of suit property. The respondents/defendants No.2 to 4 herein are seriously attempting to change the nature of the property with an intention to multiplicity of litigations. As such, the respondents are to be restrained from change of the nature of suit property during the pendency of the suit.

6.The petitioner/plaintiff further submitted that, the petitioner is having prima facie case and balance of convenience to succeed the case in his favour, if the respondents are not restrained from changing of the nature of the property, the petitioner/plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any manner and it may leads to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, prays this court to grant temporary injunction order restraining the respondents/defendants not to alter the nature of the suit property till disposal of the suit in the interest of justice and equity. Hence, this petition.

7.On other hand the respondents/defendants No.1 to 5 filed counter and denied the contention of the petition averments by stating that, the respondent/defendant No.1 filed counter affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the 5

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

respondents/defendants No.2 to 5 herein, on their instructions, who are his children’s. In reply to para No.3 of the affidavit, it is true that Mohd. Nayeemuddin acquired property House Bearing Door No. 12­3­49/8, admeasuring 260 sq. yards, situated at Nasarpur locality, Siddipet Town through Registered Sale Deed Bearing

Document NO. 69 of 1982 and another House bearing Do9or No. 10­4­188, admeasuring 84.5 sq. yards situated at Narsapuram locality, Siddipet succeeded from his father.

8.The respondents/defendants denied that, Mohd. Nayeemuddin died intestate leaving behind the petitioner/plaintiff and themselves as his legal heirs. Mohd,

Nayeemuddin gifted the item No. 1 and 2 of suit schedule properties to respondent

No.1 on 01­01­1983 in the presence of Mohd. Javeed, S/o. Nizamuddin, who is the younger brother of Nayeemuddin and one Khaja Mohinuddin. The said gift is oral and she accepted the gift and the possession of item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties delivered to her as per the oral gift, since the date of oral gift, respondent No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. Mohd.

Nayeemuddin died in the year 1985, the respondent/defendant No.1 used to look after the entire family and brought up his children by doing beedi rolling work.

9.The respondents/defendants further submitted that, the petitioner/plaintiff studied up to intermediate, the respondent/defendant No.1 with the assistance of his parents maintained the joint family and the petitioner/plaintiff insisted him to purchase open place, situated southern side to the Item No. 2 of the suit schedule property, she purchased 256.75 sq. yards open place from Mohd. Khaleeloddin,

Mohd. Javeed, Najuma Begum in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff through

Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 752/1999, Dated 09­03­1999 with her 6

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

own funds, the said open place is quite abetting to H.No. 10­4­188 towards southern side.

10.The respondents/defendants further submitted that, the petitioner/plaintiff dishonestly shown the name of his wife towards southern side to the item No. 1 of suit schedule property. The boundaries of suit schedule property was wrong and the petitioner/plaintiff is residing separately since the year 2004 and there is no joint family at all, as there is no joint family properties the question of partition does not arise. The petitioner/plaintiff constructed the house in the land purchased by respondent No.1 from Mohd. Khaleeloddin, Mohd. Javeed, Najuma Begum and the sale consideration paid by her and the vendors issued the receipts in her favour, the original receipts are filed here with to substantiate her contention. The petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled 14/64 share in item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties and the petitioner/plaintiff transferred the land purchased by her in the name of his wife Reshma Sulthana dishonestly and created this false partition suit.

11.Therespondents/defendantsfurthersubmittedthat,the respondent/defendant No.1 is having every right to execute the gift deeds in favour of respondents/defendants No.2 to 5 in respect of item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties. The respondent/defendant No.2 approached the Municipal authorities,

Siddipet and made an application to dismantle the existing structures in his land.

The municipal authorities issued the permission for dismantle of structures vide file

No. G1/937/2019, Dated 11­12­2019 and the respondent/defendant No.2 made an application for the construction of the house in his land, he paid Rs. 2,500/­ (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) amount to the Municipality, Siddipet 7

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

and started construction in his land, the petitioner/plaintiff unable to digest the developmental activity of respondent/defendant No.2 and created this false litigation.

12.Therespondents/defendantsfurthersubmittedthat,the respondent/defendant No.1 executed registered gift settlement deed in favour of respondent/defendant No.2 vide document No. 15734 of 2019, dated 21­10­2019 of SRO, Siddipet in respect of southern side part of house bearing No. 12­3­49/8 to the extent of 140 sq. yards, in which tiled construction is 275 sq. feets, situated at

Siddipet Town.

13.Therespondents/defendantsfurthersubmittedthat,the respondent/defendant No.1 executed registered gift settlement deed in favour of respondent/defendant No.3 vide document No. 16784 of 2019, dated 04­11­2019 of SRO, Siddipet in respect of northern side part of house bearing No. 12­3­49/8 to the extent of 120 sq. yards, in which tiled construction is 630 sq. feets, situated at

Siddipet Town.

14.Therespondents/defendantsfurthersubmittedthat,the respondent/defendant No.1 executed registered gift settlement deed in favour of respondent/defendant No.4 and 5 vide document No. 15725 of 2019, dated 26­10­ 2019 of SRO, Siddipet in respect of northern side part of house bearing No. 10­4­ 188 to the extent of 84.50 sq. yards, in which tiled construction is 106.20 sq. feets, situated at Siddipet Town.

8

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

15.Therespondents/defendantsfurthersubmittedthat,the respondent/defendant No.1 delivered the vacant possession of item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties in favour of respondents/defendants No.2 to 5 and the respondents/defendants No.2 to 5 having possession and enjoying their respective extents, since the date of execution of registered documents. The petitioner/plaintiff has mis­represented the facts before this Honourable court and filed a false petition against these respondents/defendants by suppressing the real facts. The petitioner/plaintiff is not having any prima facie case to succeed in the suit and the balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and it is in their favour. The petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled any injunction agaisnt them in respect of the petition schedule properties and the documents filed by them will substantiate their contention and the petitioner/plaintiff do not have any claim over the suit schedule properties. Therefore, prays this court to dismiss the petition with exemplary and compensatory costs in the interest of justice and equity.

16.During course of enquiry on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 got marked and on behalf of the respondents/defendants Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 got marked.

Ex.P1 certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Document No. 69/1982, Dated 12­01­1982, Ex.P2 is the copy of ownership certificate, Dated 15­12­2017, Ex.P3 is the Original Demand notice, Dated 17­03­2017, Ex.P4 is the House tax receipt,

Dated 28­11­2017, Ex.P5 is the Copy of Meeseva Death Certificate, Dated 30­12­

2019, Ex.P6 is the Copy of Meeseva Family members certificate, Dated 25­10­2010,

Ex.P7 is the C.C. of Meeseva Gift Settlement Deed vide Document No. 15734/2019,

Dated 29­10­2019, Ex.P8 is the C.C. of Meeseva Gift Settlement Deed vide

Document No. 16784/2019, Dated 16­11­2019, Ex.P9 is the copy of petition 9

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

submitted to the Municipal Commissioner, Siddipet, Dated 29­05­2020, Ex.P10 is the copy of legal notice, Dated 12­03­2020.

Ex.R1 is the C.C. of Registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No.

15734/2019, Dated 29­10­2019, Ex.R2 is the C.C. of Registered Gift Settlement

Deed bearing Document No. 16784/2019, Dated 16­11­2019, Ex.R3 is the C.C. of

Registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No. 15725/2019, Dated 29­10­ 2019, Ex.R4 is the C.C. of Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 752/1999, 

Dated 09­03­1999, Ex.R5 is the C.C. of Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.

69/1982, Dated 12­01­1982, Ex.R6 is the Original receipt, dated 15­08­1998, Ex.R7 is the Original receipt, dated 18­02­1999, Ex.R8 is the Original receipt, dated 22­04­ 1999, Ex.R9 is the Original certificate issued by Siddipet Municipality bearing No.

A2/953/2019, Dated 16­12­2019, Ex.R10 is the Original Demolition certificate issued by Siddipet Municipality bearing No. G1/937/2019, Dated 11­12­2019,

Ex.R11 is the Original Special Notice of property tax new assessment of amendment issued by Siddipet Municipality, Dated 26­11­2019, Ex.R12 is the copy of online permission payment receipt to Siddipet Municipality, Dated 05­06­2020.

17. Heard both the learned counsel appearing on the either side.

18.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner/Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of temporary injunction as prayed for against the respondents/defendants ?

POINT

19.The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that, the petitioner/plaintiff, respondents/defendants No.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of petition schedule properties 10

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

and suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and father of petitioner/plaintiff was the owner and possessor of the said properties, who succeeded from his father and his father died intestate leaving petitioner/plaintiff and respondents No.1 to 5 are the legal heirs and further submitted that, respondent/defendant No.1 is trying to transfer the suit schedule properties in favour respondents No.2 to 5 without any right or title and the respondents/defendants fraudulently got entered their names in Municipal records and applying for Municipal permission for construction of new house in the place of old buildings. Therefore, filed the present petition to grant temporary injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants not to alter the suit schedule properties, till disposal of the suit.

20.On the other hand, the respondents/defendants opposed the same by stating that, husband of respondent/defendant No.1 gifted the suit schedule properties earlier to her during his life time and further contended that, she purchased the properties to an extent of 256.75 sq. yards open place from Mohd. Khaleeloddin,

Mohd. Javeed, Najuma Begum in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff through

Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 752/1999, Dated 09­03­1999 with her own funds, which is quite abetting to H.No. 10­4­188 towards southern side and the petitioner/plaintiff herein dishonestly transferred the said property in the name of his wife and created false claim of partition. Therefore, prays this court to dismiss the petition.

21.To prove the case of the petitioner/plaintiff, the petitioner/plaintiff relied on

Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and on the other hand, the respondents/defendants relied on Ex.R1 to Ex.R12.

11

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

22.Perused the petition, counter and contention of both the learned counsel and perused the documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R12. After perusal of documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R12, this court is of the opinion that, though the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for partition against the respondents/defendants and documents shows that, father of petitioner/plaintiff purchased one of the suit schedule property in the year 1982 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 shows that, the suit schedule property stands in the name of grand father of petitioner/plaintiff but the documents under Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 shows that, the respondent/defendant No.1 executed gift deed in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 and the claim of respondents/defendants is that, there is one more property which is petitioner/plaintiff dishonestly transferred in the name of his wife and further contention is that, Late Mohammed Nayeemuddin father of petitioner/plaintiff and husband of respondent/defendant No.1 gifted the suit schedule properties earlier to her and documents relied by the respondents/defendants under Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 supports the contention of the respondents/defendants, specifically under Ex.R6 to

Ex.R8 shows that, in the year 1999 the respondent No.1 paid Rs. 15,000/­ (Rupees fifteen thousand only) amount to Kaleemuddin, but the petitioner/plaintiff herein is silent with regard to the said property and he did not mention about the said property that, how he purchased the property which creates the doubt with regard to facts of the case represented by the petitioner/plaintiff herein.

23.It is well said law that, the court while granting temporary injunction has to satisfy whether it is interference is necessary to protect the petitioner/plaintiff from the irreparable injury that may cause to his legal right in the property and temporary injunction is granted to protect the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff which may be ascertain at the time of trial of the suit. In other words the court will 12

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

exercise the power of granting the temporary injunction only to preserve the subject matter of the suit in status quo for the time being.

24.As the petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove three (3) ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convince and irreparable loss and if injunction is refused there will be irreparable loss. As such, this court is of the opinion that, the petitioner/plaintiff failed to satisfy the court. As such, this court is of the opinion that, petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of temporary injunction.

25.IN THE RESULT, this Petition is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade – III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 05th day of May, 2022.

SD/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

:: NIL ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER S

Ex.P1: Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Document No. 69/1982,

Dated 12­01­1982.

Ex.P2: Copy of ownership certificate, Dated 15­12­2017.

Ex.P3: Original Demand notice, Dated 17­03­2017

Ex.P4: House tax receipt, Dated 28­11­2017.

Ex.P5: Copy of Meeseva Death Certificate, Dated 30­12­2019.

Ex.P6: Copy of Meeseva Family members certificate, Dated 25­10­2010

Ex.P7: C.C. of Meeseva Gift Settlement Deed vide Document No. 15734/2019

Dated 29­10­2019.

13

Dt. 05-05-2022 I.A.No. 593 of 2020

IN

OS.No. 241 of 2020

Ex.P8: C.C. of Meeseva Gift Settlement Deed vide Document No. 16784/2019

Dated 16­11­2019.

Ex.P9: Copy of petition submitted to the Municipal Commissioner, Siddipet.

Dated 29­05­2020.

Ex.P10. Copy of legal notice, Dated 12­03­2020.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Ex.R1: C.C. of Registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No. 15734/2019

Dated 29­10­2019.

Ex.R2: C.C. of Registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No. 16784/2019

Dated 16­11­2019.

Ex.R3: C.C. of Registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No. 15725/2019

Dated 29­10­2019.

Ex.R4: C.C. of Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 752/1999, 

Dated 09­03­1999.

Ex.R5: C.C. of Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 69/1982, 

Dated 12­01­1982.

Ex.R6: Original receipt, dated 15­08­1998.

Ex.R7: Original receipt, dated 18­02­1999.

Ex.R8: Original receipt, dated 22­04­1999.

Ex.R9: Original certificate issued by Siddipet Municipality bearing No. A2/953/2019, Dated 16­12­2019.

Ex.R10: Original Demolition certificate issued by Siddipet Municipality bearing No. G1/937/2019, Dated 11­12­2019.

Ex.R11: Original Special Notice of property tax new assessment of amendment issued by Siddipet Municipality, Dated 26­11­2019.

Ex.R12: copy of online permission payment receipt to Siddipet Municipality

Dated 05­06­2020.

SD/­

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SIDDIPET.

CC/157/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE I - ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SIDDIPET

Present: Kum. VALLALA SRAVANI YADAV I – Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

Dated this the 05 th day of November, 2024.

C.C. No. 157 of 2017

Between: The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police, PS. Rajagopalpet.

…Complainant

AND

A1. Mohd. Anwer S/o Afzal, Age: 28 years, Occ: Coolie,

A2. Mohd. Shabuddin S/o Babumiyan, Age: 38 years, Occ: Chicken center,

A3. Boora Chitharanjan S/o Veeraswamy, Age: 30 years, Occ: Business,

All are R/o Malkapur village of Ghanpaur (w) Mandal, Warangal District.

…Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP and Sri. Ch. Ashok, learned counsel for the accused and upon hearing both the sides and perusing the material on record and the same is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Rajagopalpet has filed the charge sheet in Crime Number 31/2014 against accused A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 r/w 411 of Indian Penal Code (‘hereinafter referred to as

IPC’).

2.The brief facts of the case as mentioned is charge sheet are that : On 03.03.2014 at 20:00 hours, complainant/Sri. Anumula Mallareddy/LW1 came to PS and lodged a telugu written complaint in which he stated that, he is the proprietor of 1I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/157/2017

Mallanna wines at Nangunoor village and Mandal, today on 03.03.2014 morning he received information by wine shop workers i.e. D. Srinivas/LW2 and K. Sammi

Reddy/LW3 through phone by stating that, on 02.03.2014 in the night at 10:00 hours as usually they closed the wine shop and next day i.e. on 03.03.2014 in the morning at 10:00 hours, they went to wine shop and opened the shutter and found that some unknown offenders gain entry into the wine shop by breaking the rear window and committed theft of 20 cotton boxes of whiskey liquor bottles i.e. i) 07 cotton boxes of

IB whiskey quarter bottles containing 180 ml., ii) 13 cotton boxes of OC whiskey quarter bottles containing 180 ml., total worth of Rs. 10,000/- and fled away. On that information he came to his wine shop and found it to be correct. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against accused.

3.This Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 r/w 411 of IPC against the accused and on appearance of the accused copies of the documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

4.Accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges were framed under section 240 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under section U/sec. 457, 380 r/w 411 of IPC. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused in their vernacular language, they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The evidence of prosecution in order to prove its case, examined PW1 to PW8 and Ex.P1 & Ex.P94 are got marked and the evidence of LW8 was closed by this 2I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/157/2017 court, the accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining him the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses they denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and further reported no defence evidence. Hence, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked on behalf of accused.

6.Heard the arguments on behalf of both sides.

7.Learned APP on behalf of prosecution submitted that PW1 to PW8 got examined and presence of stock in the shop is not denied and PW2/panch witness for confession recovery panchanama got examined and Ex.P2 to Ex.P41 got marked and the counsel for the accused did not deny the panchanama and the accused are repeated offenders and there is seizure panchanama conducted and property was seized from the accused and all the prosecution witnesses has supported the prosecution evidence as such, she prayed this court to convict the accused.

8.On the other hand counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to provide ownership details of the wine shop i.e. scene of offence and there is no explanation regarding the delay and they failed to furnish stock details and PW4 also couldn’t state the details and the confession-cum-recovery, panch witnesses did not identify the accused. He further stated that the investigating agency has failed to prove the guilt of the accused as such they are innocent and no way connected with the present case and prayed to acquit the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

3I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/157/2017

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused under section 457,

380 r/w 411 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

Point :

10.Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 is complainant, PW2 is confession and recovery panchanama, PW3 is witness, PW4 is panch for scene, PW5 is witness, PW6 is panch for scene, PW7 is confession and recovery panchanama and

PW8 is 2nd investigating officer.

11.PW1/A. Malla Reddy during his chief examination deposed that on 3rd

March, 2014 he received a phone call from LW2 and LW3 in the morning hours and they informed him that his shop by name Mallanna wines at Nangunoor village was broke open by making a hole on the window from the backside of the shop and theft was committed. Then he visited the said shop and saw the same and he has checked stock in the said shop and found that 07 boxes of imperial blue of 180 m.l. and 13 boxes of OC 180 m.l. bottles were committed theft and the worth of the bottles at the time was around Rs. 10,000/- as such he has lodged report with the police and Ex.P1 is the report and police examined him and recorded his statement. He came to know through police that, they have recovered Rs. 3,000/- in the present case and asked him to take the same from the court, but he has not yet taken the said amount.

12.During his cross examination, he stated that he came to know about the incident at 10:00 a.m. and he admitted that there is 10:00 hours delay in lodging the complaint/Ex.P1 and he admitted that he did not mention regarding the cause for such delay and he added that the reason for delay in lodging the complaint is because he 4I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/157/2017 was checking the stock in the shop and he stays at Siddipet, so he reached the shop after sometime from knowing about the incident and he did not give information regarding the stock at his shop to the police as the police did not ask him and he denied the suggestion that no theft was committed in his shop.

13.PW2/P. Ravi/panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama, he stated that on 13th August, 2015, he was informed by Tahsildar on phone to meet

Vardhannapet CI and he along with LW6/K. Santosh went to meet CI and in a village by name Panthini, there was theft in the brandy shop, so for the same to conduct panchanama as the accused were apprehended. He further stated that they showed him four persons and the bottle seized from them and one or two bikes and some cash were shown to them and he has signed on 10 panchanama, but do not remember the content of panchnama because of lapse of eight years and he cannot remember the content of panchanama and the names of the accused and he cannot identify the accused Ex.P2 to

Ex.P41 were marked through him, that is his signatures on confession-cum-seizure panchanama. He was declared hostile by the learn APP and sort permission to put questions in the nature of cross examination as the witness recited from his previous statement and permission was granted during the cross examination by the learned

APP.

14.PW2 admitted that police conducted confession and seizure panchanama of A1 to A3 in his presence and seize the property and he admitted that police has read over the contents of the panchanama to him and after going through the same, he signed on 5I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/157/2017 it. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false to help the accused and he can identify the accused, but he is disposing false to help the accused.

15.PW7/K. Santosh Kumar/witness for confession-cum-recovery panchanama deposed in same way as that of PW2 and he was declared hostile by learned APP.

16.PW3/D. Srinivas/witness during his chief examination deposed that he used to work in PW1 wine shop i.e. Mallanna wines at Nangunoor and he knows LW3 and around 08 years back on 2nd March, 2014, he and LW3, after completion of their work, they locked the shop and went back home and on next day at around 10:00 a.m., when they went to open the shop, they saw that the shop windows were broke open and they have immediately informed the same to PW1 and then when they check the stock they found that 13 carton OC, 180 m.l., 07 IB cotton and other stock was also missing from the shop. PW1 informed the same to the police and police examined and recorded the statement of PW3.

17.During his cross examination, he deposed that he was working in the shop for two years and he did not check the stock in the night before closing the shop. As there will be rush in the shop. He admitted that PW1 take care of the inventory of the stock and accounts and he do not know about the batch numbers on the carton boxes and other manufacturing details and he denied the suggestion that he is deposing false.

18.PW5/K. Sammi Reddy/witness, during his chief examination. He stated that he is working in PW1’s wine shop named Mallanna wines at Nangunoor and on 2nd

March 2014, after closing the wine shop, they went to their houses and on 3rd March 6I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/157/2017 2014, when they open the shop in the morning, they saw that the window was broken open and then he and PW3 informed the same to PW1 and they found that seven carton of IB 180 m.l. and 13 carton of OC 180 m.l. were missing and informed the same to PW1.

19.During his cross examination, he stated that he was working in the counter at the said shop and PW1 checks the work done by them regarding the inventory of the stock and the admitted that in the night as there will be crowd at the shop and denied the suggestion that the stock may have been missed due to the crowd and he stated that he do not remember the batch number of the carton boxes which were stolen and he further stated that he did not give any invoices to the police regarding the stock which was missing. He denied the suggestion that they have filed false case against the accused and he stated that there was no cash lost as they do not put the cash in the counter and deny the suggestion that he is deposing false at the instance of PW1.

20.PW4/T. Mahendra Reddy/panch witness for scene of offence panchanama during his chief examination deposed that he knows LW4 and police summoned him to Mallanna wines on 4th March 2014 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and noted down the boundaries and police stated him that the offence was committed at the scene and Ex.P42 is the scene of offence panchanama and the panchanama was read over to him and after going through the same, he signed on it.

21.During his cross examination, he stated that he do not remember the door number of the scene and he cannot state the exact boundaries of the scene and he do 7I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/157/2017 not know the size of the window and he denied the suggestion that no panchanama was conducted in his presence, and he is deposing false. PW6/P. Yadagiri/panch witness for scene of offence panchanama in his chief examination deposed that he knows PW4 and he was summoned by the police and police conducted panchanama around 09 years back at Mallanna wines and police noted down the boundaries in his presence and he was informed by the police that there was a theft at Mallanna wines, so they are conducting panchanama and panchanama was read over to him, and after going through the same he signed on it.

22.During his cross examination, he stated that he do not know the door number of the shop and he stated that shop consist of one shutter and one door and there was no window to the shop. He denied the suggestion that he do not know the contents of the panchanama. He stated that panchanama was read over to him and denied the suggestion that he is deposing false at the instance of police.

23.PW8/J. Gopal Rao/investigating officer during his chief examination deposed about the investigation conducted by him in the present case from the inception of complaint till filing of the charge sheet. During his, cross examination, he admitted that he did not collect any license/permission from the wine shop owner and he did not collect any document relating to ownership from PW1. He admitted that he did not collect any inventory register from the PW1 and the further admitted that he did not mention regarding the batch numbers and manufacturing details of the case property and he did not collect invoice and purchase details of the case property and he admitted that there is one day delay in conducting panchanama. He denied the 8I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/157/2017 suggestion that he made table investigation and the accused is no way concerned with the present case and he has filed false charge sheet against the accused.

24.Upon reviewing the depositions of the witnesses, exhibits and the entire record, this court finds that there is delay in lodging of the complaint and conducting panchanama and explanations for the same is not submitted. Further, the ownership certificate of PW1 and stock details at the scene of offence before the commission of the alleged, were not collected by the investigating officer and it is seen that there is lacunae in the investigation conducted.

25.However, there are no direct eye-witnesses to establish that the accused committed the theft at Mallanna wine shop. The primary evidence against the accused is their alleged confession made upon arrest by the police. The prosecution contends that the accused confessed to the crime in the presence of mediators. However, the panch witnesses for the confession and recovery panchanama testified that they cannot identify the accused and they were declared hostile by learned APP.

26.It is a well-settled principle of law that confessions made in police custody are in-admissible under sections 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such confessions made in the presence of police officers cannot be considered as valid evidence and therefore, cannot be used to prove the guilt of the accused. Consequently, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt for the offences under sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. In the absence of material evidence directly linking the accused to the alleged offence, they 9I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/157/2017 cannot be held guilty of the accusations. The prosecution has not produced sufficient evidence to connect the accused to the crime and the available evidence does not meet the legal threshold required for a conviction. Therefore, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted of the charges under sections 457 and 380 IPC.

27.The prosecution has failed to establish the alleged incident and further they failed to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Above, all the investigation agency failed to prove the case. Thus, it creates cloud on the entire episode of the prosecution and on the whole testimony of PW1 to PW8 does not inspires the confidence of the Court. As such, the accused shall have the benefit of doubt in his favour. Point is answered accordingly.

28.In the result, accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec. 457, 380 r/w 411 of IPC and they are acquitted U/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 05 th day of November, 2024.

Sd/-

I - Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Siddipet.

10I – AJMFC, Siddipet.

CC/157/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR ACCUSED :

PW1 : A. Malla Reddy- Nil - PW2 : P. Ravi PW3 : D. Srinivas PW4 : T. Mahender Reddy PW5 : K. Sammi Reddy PW6 : P. Yadagiri PW7 : K. Santhosh Kumar PW8 : J. Gopal Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR ACCUSED :

Ex.P1: Report - Nil - Ex.P2 to Ex.P41 : PW2 Signatures on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P42 : Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P43 to Ex.P82 : PW7 Signatures on confession-cum-seizure panchanama

Ex.P84 to Ex.P92 : Confession-cum-seizure panchanama (09)

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil

Sd/-

I - Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

11I – AJMFC, Siddipet.