Mr. Vineel Kumar Jada

Fair Page No.1 of 12 OS No.83 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BICHKUNDA.

Present:Sri. J.Vineel Kumar, Junior Civil Judge, Bichkunda.

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026.

OS. No.83 of 2022.

Between:-

Smt.Pokalwar Shakunthala, W/o. Vishwanath, D/o, Late Ramchander, Age:66 Years, Occ:Rtd. Employee, R/o.H.No.4-78, Madnoor Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District. …Plaintiff AND

1.Smt.Hanmuwar @ Erukala Sharada, W/o.Erukala Gangaram, D/o.Late Ramchander, Age:60 Years, Occ:Household, R/o.Back side of Police Station, Pitlam Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District.

2.Pokalwar Arun, S/o.Late Ramchander, Age:51 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.4-77, Kostigalli, Madnoor Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District.

3.Smt.Pokalwar Jayasree, W/o. Late Pokalwar Gopal, Age:45 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.4-76, Kostigalli, Madnoor Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District.

4.Smt.Pokalwar Supriya, W/o. Mahesh, D/o. Late Ramchander, Age:22 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.4-76, Kostigalli, Madnoor Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District.

5.Pokalwar Venkatesh, S/o. Late Pokalwar Gopal, Age:45 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.4-76, Kostigalli, Madnoor Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District.

...Defendant

This suit came before this court on 04.05.2026 for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.G.Malleshwar, Advocate, Advocate, Counsel for the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 remained ex-parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T:

1.The suit is filed by the plaintiff under section 26 order VII, rule 1 read with section 151 Code of Civil Procedure for declaration of title and

Fair Page No.2 of 12 OS No.83 of 2022 consequential relief of perpetual injunction with respect of the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 gts in Sy.No.210/ఈ situated at the outskirts of Pedda

Shakkarga Village of Madnoor Mandal (hereinafter referred as “Suit schedule property”).

2.The brief averments of the plaintiff are : That the plaintiff is a permanent resident of Madnoor village and Mandal Kamareddy district and she is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.03.00 gts in Sy No.210/ఈ situated at the outskirts of Pedda Shakkarga village

Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy district. That originally mother of the plaintiff by name Late Smt.Gangu Bai, during her lifetime, was allotted land to an extent of Ac.03.00 gts in Sy.No.210/ఈ by the then Government and she was issued with pattedar passbook and her name got reflected in the concerned pahanies. Smt.Gangu Bai was blessed with 3 daughters namely 1).Smt.Shakuntala (plaintiff herein), 2).Smt.Sharada (Defendant no.1), 3).

Saroja (died-issueless) and 2 sons namely 1). Sri P.Arun and 2). Late Sri

P.Gopal. That defendant No.1 is the sister of the plaintiff and their other sister namely Saroja died issue less and also their younger brother namely

Gopal died leaving behind defendants No.3 to 5 as his legal heirs. That defendant No.2 is the brother of the plaintiff and defendant No1. That her mother Smt.Gangu Bai, during her lifetime performed the marriages of all her children and the plaintiff being the elder daughter in the family, took care of the welfare of her mother till her death and during the lifetime of

Smt.Gangu Bai, she executed an unregistered will deed dated 05.03.1991 in

Fair Page No.3 of 12 OS No.83 of 2022 favour of the plaintiff, bequeathing the suit schedule property i.e., land extending Ac.03.00Gts in Sy No.210/ఈ, situated at the outskirts of Pedda

Shakkarga village of Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy district in her favour.

That the mother of the plaintiff Smt.Gangu Bai died in the year 2007 and after her demise, the suit schedule property was mutated to the plaintiff’s name in the concerned pahani patrikas from the year 2012-13 onwards by virtue of the above said unregistered will deed dated 05.03.1991 executed in favour of the plaintiff herein vide mutation proceedings No.41/2013 and she was initially issued with pattedar passbook bearing book No.442828 with patta No.1095 and title deed book bearing book No.498549 with patta No.

1095. That since the date of the demise of Smt.Gangu Bai, the plaintiff has been continuing her sole possession over the suit schedule property as per the will deed dated 05.03.1991 without any hindrance from anyone. That defendant No.2 herein, who is the brother of the plaintiff, has falsely filed an

ROR appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Banswada vide case

No.E/2086/2017 dated:08.06.2018, requesting the said authority to cancel the mutation proceedings effected in favour of the plaintiff and on 08.06.2018, the RDO, Banswada has passed its orders setting aside the above said mutation orders passed in favour of the plaintiff by observing the fact of "execution of unregistered will deed in favour of the plaintiff by her mother and original pattedar of the land Smt.Gangu Bai", but the appeal of the defendant No.2 was allowed and the Tahsildar, Madnoor has passed proceedings No.B/623/2019 dated 28.08.2019 issuing succession proceedings by allotting half share to defendant No.2 herein without

Fair Page No.4 of 12 OS No.83 of 2022 considering the will deed executed by original assignee in favour of the plaintiff herein. That thereafter on the above said orders passed by the RDO,

Banswada, the plaintiff has re-appealed the same before the RDO,

Banswada vide her case No.E/2399/2019, requesting to set aside the orders passed in file No.E/2086/2017 dated 08-06-2018 and the said case was taken on file on 09.09.2019 notice was issued to both the parties therein fixing date of hearing on 21.09.2019 and while the said proceedings were going on before RDO, Banswada, the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar

Passbooks Act, 1971 was repealed and all the pending appeals and revision petitions under the provision of the repealed Act are transferred to the

Special Tribunals U/s 16 (1) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar passbooks Act, 2020 (Act No.9 of 2020). That the Special Tribunal has passed its orders dated 03.02.2021 contending that "on this transferred appeal/file and perused the material available on record and during the enquiry, this tribunal has ascertained that the land under appeal is

Government Assigned Land and the original assignee died leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No.2 herein as legal heirs and the original assignee executed a will deed in favour of plaintiff herein having stood for consideration of services rendered by her and the special tribunal further stated that “land under appeal is an assigned land and there is legal dispute between the claims of the legal heirs, hence the parties were advised to approach appropriate court of law for the remedy of the civil dispute". That defendants No.1 to 5 are no way concerned with the suit schedule property, and the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property since

Fair Page No.5 of 12 OS No.83 of 2022 the date of her acquiring the same through will deed, but defendants No.1 to 5 have been hectically trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by using their power and influence.

That on 24.09.2022, when the plaintiff was working in the suit schedule property along with farm labourers, defendants No.1 to 5 along with their henchmen and followers, illegally tried to trespass into the suit schedule property and when the plaintiff tried to prevent the said illegal acts of the defendants, they threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences, but with the help of neighbouring land owners, the plaintiff could prevent the said illegal acts of the defendants. While leaving the suit schedule property, defendants No.1 to 5 threatened the plaintiff that they will come with more force and will dispossess the plaintiff by any means. That if the defendants succeed in their illegal acts, the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated at a later stage. Hence the suit.

3.Summons were served on the defendants. Service held sufficient and defendants were set ex-parte as they did not file their written statement though ample time was granted to them and remained ex- parte throughout the suit proceedings.

4.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction with regard to the suit schedule property or not?

5.In support of the case of plaintiff, she got examined herself examined

Fair Page No.6 of 12 OS No.83 of 2022 as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is the Original unregistered will deed executed by the deceased mother of the plaintiff in her favour.

Ex.A2 is the Original old pattedar passbook bearing No.498549 with patta

No.1095 issued in the name of the plaintiff, Ex.A3 is the Original old title deed bearing No.442828 with patta No.1095 issued in the name of the plaintiff, Ex.A4 is the Original ROR mutation proceedings No.41/2013, dt:

23.08.2013, Ex.A5 is the Original pattedar pahani for the year 2017, fasli 1426 issued by Mee Seva Authority, Ex.A6 is the Original orders passed by

RDO, Banswada in file No.E/2399/2019(D2/252/2021) and Ex.A7 is the

Online copy of land records obtained from Dharani web portal.

6.PW.2/Patne Hanmanth was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. PW.2 in his chief-examination affidavit submitted that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Late Smt.Gangu Bai who is the mother of the plaintiff.

The said land was allotted to her by the Government, and her name was duly recorded in the revenue records and pahanies. PW.2 further submitted that Late Smt.Gangu Bai executed a Will Deed dated 05-03-1991 in favour of the plaintiff, bequeathing the entire suit schedule property to her in recognition of the services rendered by the plaintiff during her lifetime. That after the death of Smt.Gangu Bai in the year 2007, PW.2 came to know that the name of the plaintiff was mutated with regard to the suit schedule property vide Proceedings No.41/2013, and she was issued a Pattedar

Passbook and Title Deed in her favour. Since then, the plaintiff has been in continuous, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

Fair Page No.7 of 12 OS No.83 of 2022 property. That the plaintiff's name has been duly reflected in the Revenue

Records and Dharani Portal as the pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule property. PW.2 further submitted that he is aware that Defendant

No.2 filed ROR Appeal Case No.E/2086/2017 before RDO, Banswada, which was allowed without properly considering the Will. The plaintiff thereafter challenged the same before the Special Tribunal under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 2020, and the Tribunal, by order dated 03-02-2021, advised the parties to approach the Civil Court, leading to the present suit. PW.2 further submitted that on 24.09.2022, he personally witnessed the defendants, along with their men, attempting to trespass into the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff unlawfully.

The plaintiff, with the help of neighbours, resisted their attempt and prevented illegal interference. PW.2 further submitted that the plaintiff has been in lawful, continuous possession of the suit property and that the defendants have no right, title, or interest.

7.Defendants No.1 to 5 were set ex-parte at the stage of filing written statements and remained ex-parte throughout the suit proceedings. Hence, this court things that the defendants did not choose to contest the suit.

8.Heard the arguments submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff.

9.On close perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, it is observed that the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 to A7 that were marked as exhibits on her behalf. It is further observed that the plaintiff through her pleading and in her affidavit submitted that her

Fair Page No.8 of 12 OS No.83 of 2022 mother/Smt.Gangu Bai executed an unregisted will deed in her favour bequething the suit schedule property. Here, it is pertinent to see the validity of an unregistered will deed.

10.Section.18 of the Registration Act, 1908 : Documents of which registration is optional.—Any of the following documents may be registered under this Act, namely:—

(a) Instruments (other than instruments of gift and wills) which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of a value less then one hundred rupees, to or in immovable property;

(b) instruments acknowledging the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest;

(c) leases of immovable property for any term not exceeding one year, and leases exempted under section 17; (cc) instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of a value less than one hundred rupees, to or in immovable property;

(d) instruments (other than wills) which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest to or in movable property;

(e) wills; and

(f) all other documents not required by section 17 to be registered.

11.Though Section.18 of the Registration Act, 1908 makes the registration of a testamentary document or will optional, the validity of a registered will deed has considerably more evidentiary value than the unregistered will deed. An unregistered will deed has limited evidentiary value in a suit for declaration if the attesting witnesses were not examined.

Such unregisterd will may be admissible as a document but it is unlikely to prove the title of a party to the suit on its own.

Fair Page No.9 of 12 OS No.83 of 2022

12.In the present case, the plaintiff relied purely upon an unregistered will deed executed(Ex.A1) by Smt.Gangu Bai in favour of her daughter/plaintiff. However, the attesting witnesses of the said document (unregisted will deed/Ex.A1) were not examined on behalf of the plaintiff to establish the proof of execution of the said unregistered will deed (Ex.A1). An unregistered will deed must meet the requirements of Section 63 of Indian

Succession Act.

Section.63 of the Indian Succession Act: Execution of unprivileged wills. - Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:--

(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.

(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will.

(c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.

13.As per the above provision an unregistered will must be signed by the testator in the presence of two attesting witnesses, who also sign in the testator’s presence. The propounder i.e., the person relying on the will (unregistered), plaintiff in the present case must prove it’s due execution as privided under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Fair Page No.10 of 12 OS No.83 of 2022

14.Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that :

“If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called upon for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence : Provided that it shall be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian

Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.”

15.The requirement of the above mentioned provision even applies to registered wills and even if there is no dispute among legal heirs. The plaintiff herein did not examine the attesting witness of Ex.A1(unregisted will) on her behalf to establish the proof of it’s execution according to section.68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, an unregistered will (Ex.A1) carries no probate value for estalishing the title of the plaintiff in the present suit.

16.In the present case, the plaintiff relied upon an unregistered will deed (Ex,A1) and based on the said document, she mutated her name in the concerned revenue records. However, the attesting witnesses for the said document (Unregistered will deed) were not examined by the plaintiff to estalish the proof of execution of the said document.

17.Though the defendants remained ex-parte throughout the suit proceedings, the plaintiff could not succeed in establishing her title and

Fair Page No.11 of 12 OS No.83 of 2022 possession over the suit schedule property through the evidence adduced on her behalf.

18.In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that plaintiff did not succeed in proving the contentions of her pleading, as such, she is not entitled for relief in the present suit.

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

Typed to my dictation by my typist, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge, Bichkunda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendant:

PW.1:Smt.Pokalwar Shakunthala -NIL- PW.2:Patne Hanmanth

EXHIBITS MARKED

For PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 is the Original unregistered will deed executed by the deceased mother of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2 is the Original old pattedar passbook bearing No.498549 with patta No.1095 issued in the name of the plaintiff.

Ex.A3 is the Original old title deed bearing No.442828 with patta No.1095 issued in the name of the plaintiff.

Ex.A4 is the Original ROR mutation proceedings No.41/2013, dt: 23.08.2013.

Ex.A5 is the Original pattedar pahani for the year 2017, fasli 1426 issued by Mee Seva Authority.

Fair Page No.12 of 12 OS No.83 of 2022

Ex.A6 is the Original orders passed by RDO, Banswada in file No. E/2399/2019(D2/252/2021).

Ex.A7 is the Online copy of land records obtained from Dharani web portal..

For Defendants :

-NIL-

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge, Bichkunda.

Fair Page No.1 of 11 OS No.08 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT :: BICHKUNDA.

Present:Sri. J.Vineel Kumar, Junior Civil Judge, Bichkunda.

Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2026.

OS.No.08 of 2021

Between:-

Smt.Durkikar Balamani, W/o. Durkikar Balram, Age: 34 Years, Occ:Housewife, R/o. H.No.12-22/1, Kummargally of Kotagiri Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

… Plaintiff.

AND

1.Gandharikar Balu, S/o.Late. G.Gangaram, Age: 48 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Mochigally of Madnoor Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District.

2.Gandharikar Linguram, S/o.Balu, Age: 30 Years, Occ: Secretary, Hipperga, R/o.Mochigally of Madnoor Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District.

3.Gandharikar Laxman, S/o.Balu, Age: 25 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Mochigally of Madnoor Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District.

4.Hanmanthkar Tulsiram, S/o.Jalba, Age: 50 Years, Occ: Mochi, R/o.Mochigally, Sangvi Village of Degloor Tahsil, Nanded District.

...Defendants No.1 ton 4.

This suit came before this court on 23.04.2026 for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.G.Malleshwar, Advocate Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri. R.Srinivas, Advocate counsel for the Defendants No.1 to 4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T:

1.The suit is filed by the plaintiff under Section 26, Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, servants, agents etc., from causing any sort of interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property i.e., old dilapidated house bearing G.P.No.13-50,

Fair Page No.2 of 11 OS No.08 of 2021 admeasuring 72.33 Sq.Yards, situated at Madnoor Village and Mandal,

Kamareddy District (hereinafter referred as “Suit schedule property”).

2. The brief averments of the plaint are : That the plaintiff is a permanent resident of Kummargally of Kotagiri Village and Mandal,

Nizamabad District and she is the absolute owner and possessor of old dilapidated house bearing G.P.No.13-50, admeasuring 72.335q. Yards, situated at Madnoor village and Mandal, Kamareddy district i.e., suit schedule property. That the suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff from its original owner by name Smt.Gandhari Anjan Bai

W/o Basling, R/o.Madnoor Village and Mandal, Kamareddy district through a Registered sale deed vide Doc.No.30 of 2020 dated 03.01.2020 and since the date of the said purchase, the plaintiff has been continuing her peaceful possession over the same without any hindrance from any one. That the plaintiff has got mutated the suit schedule property to her name in the concerned Grampanchayath records of G.P,

Madnoor on 19.02.2020 vide mutation proceedings No.32/2020 and on the same day the plaintiff has paid the required tax amount to the

Grampanchayath, Madnoor for mutation of the suit schedule property to her name. That the suit schedule property is an old house, which is at present in a dilapidated condition and the plaintiff has been using the suit schedule property to store wood and other things. That the defendants who are no way concerned with the suit schedule property, started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the

Fair Page No.3 of 11 OS No.08 of 2021 same by taking undue advantage of their influence over the revenue and other Government authorities. That on 19.01.2021, defendants along with their henchmen and followers illegally tried to trespass into the suit schedule property of the plaintiff and they have been continuously trying to illegally dispossess the plaintiff from the said property by encroaching into the same using their power and influence with a dishonest intention to extract huge amounts from her.

3. That when the plaintiff tried to prevent the said illegal acts of the defendants, they threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences to kill, but the neighbors of the plaintiff rescued her from the hands of the defendants, otherwise the defendants and their henchmen would have killed the plaintiff on that day.

4.That the plaintiff is apprehending that the defendants may come once again with more force and will try to dispossess her from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff tried to lodge a police complaint before

PS. Madnoor regarding the above said incident, which took place on 19.01.2021, but the police concerned failed to register the crime by stating that the said matter is of civil in nature and advised the plaintiff to approach the civil Court. Hence, the suit.

5.Defendants appeared upon receipt of the summons and filed written statement by denying all the allegations and submitted : that the defendant No.4 is the absolute owner and possessor of the open place of old dwelling house bearing H.No.12-17 Admeasuring 7 X 12 Sq.Yds

Fair Page No.4 of 11 OS No.08 of 2021 which is situated at Madnoor Village and Mandal of Kamareddy District.

The said property was purchased by defendant No.4 from one Balu

S/o.Balaji Gandhahare (who is grand father of plaintiff) under sada binama (Urdhu document) on 04.07.1969 for a valid sale consideration of Rs.700/-. Since the date of purchase, defendant No.4 is in possession and enjoyment over the said property without any disturbance and having his peaceful possession. That the property of defendant No.4 is situated towards the southern side of the suit schedule property, thereby the plaintiff is taking the undue advantage and is trying to occupy the property of defendant No.4 with malafide intention. That the plaintiff in collusion with G.P authorities and political leaders, created false and forged documents and approached before the Panchayat Secretary, G.P.

Madnoor for mutation purpose. On that, the said Panchayat Secretary,

G.P, Madnoor mutated the suit schedule property along with open place of the defendant No.4 in the name of the plaintiff without the knowledge and consent of defendants No.1 to 4. Basing on the said mutation order, the plaintiff filed false suit against the defendants but the plaintiff is not having actual physical possession over the suit schedule property as the defendants No.1 to 4 are having the physical possession over the same.

In this regard, defendant No.4 got issued legal notice on 16.04.2021 to

Panchayat Secretary, G.P, Madnoor Village and Mandal for cancellation of the mutation order i.e., proceedings No.32/2020, dated: 19.02.2020.

But the Panchayat Secretary, G.P, Madnoor did not take any action.

That the plaintiff is intentionally harassing the defendants as she has

Fair Page No.5 of 11 OS No.08 of 2021 the money and muscle power and with the support of political influence, she filed false suit against the defendants.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive lawful possession of suit property within the boundaries of plaint schedule as on date of filing of suit or not?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction as sought for or not ?

3. To what relief?

7.In support of the case of the plaintiff, she was examined as PW.1 and got marked EXs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the original registered sale deed vide

Doc.No.30 of 2020, dt:03.01.2020, Ex.A2 is the original mutation orders vide proceedings No.32/2020 passed by the G.P.,Madnor in favour of plaintiff, dt:19.02.2020, Ex.A3 is the original tax paid towards the mutation of house property by the plaintiff, dt:19.02.2020, Ex.A4 is the photograph,

Ex.A5 is the original Market Assistance certificate, dt:23.01.2021 and Ex.A6 is the Encumbrance Certificate. During the cross-examination of PW.1, she stated that she purchased suit schedule property from her mother.

She stated that her husband's native place is Kotagiri village and mandal. She stated that she do not have any relation with the defendants. She stated that she do not know about any notice sent by the defendants to Gram Panchayath, Madnoor. She denied the suggestion that there was an old number (G.P. No.12-17) to the suit schedule property which was on the name of defendant No.4. She stated that she do not know whether the house in GP H.No.12-17 was sold to

Fair Page No.6 of 11 OS No.08 of 2021 defendant No.4 by defendant No.1 in the year 04.07.1969 for a consideration of Rs.700/-. PW.1 denied the suggestion that her mother created false documents and registered the suit property on her name.

8.PW.2/Daraswar Sailoo deposed in his chief-affidavit that he knew the plaintiff and defendants and also knew the suit schedule property in the above suit. PW.2 further stated that the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which is an old dilapidated house bearing G.P.No.13-50, admeasuring 72.33

Sq. Yards, situated at Madnoor village and Mandal, Kamareddy District.

PW.2 stated that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed from its previous owner Smt.Gandhari

Anjan Bai in the year 2020. PW.2 further mentioned in his affidavit that he was aware that the mutation was also done in her name and the property tax is being paid accordingly. PW.2 further mentioned in his affidavit that the plaintiff has been using the said property for storage and is peacefully enjoying the same without any hindrance. He further mentioned that on 19.01.2021, the defendants along with some unknown persons tried to trespass into the plaintiff's property without any right. He further stated that when the plaintiff tried to stop them, the defendants threatened her with dire consequences. PW.2 further mentioned that himsel along with other neighbours, immediately intervened and resisted the illegal acts of the defendants. PW.2 in his affidavit affirms that the plaintiff is the rightful owner and peaceful

Fair Page No.7 of 11 OS No.08 of 2021 possessor of the suit schedule property, and the defendants have no right, title, or interest in the said property. PW.2 was not cross-examined by the defence counsel though ample time was granted. Hence, cross- examination of PW.2 was treated NIL.

9.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the case record.

10.On Scrutiny of the entire evidence adduced in the present suit, it is observed that the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A6 were marked. Ex.A1 goes to show that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property i.e., old dilapidated house bearing GP No.13-50, admeasuring 72.33 Sq.Yds situated at Madnoor village and Mandal, Kamareddy District bounded by North : House of Anjan Bai, South : CC Road, East : 5 feet Lane and West : C.C.Road from her vendor by name Smt.Gandhari Anjan Bai for a valid consideration of Rs.59,000/-. It is further observed that the plaintiff paid the house tax for the suit schedule property in the year 2020 prior to the filing of the present suit as per Ex.A3 which shows that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further observed from Ex.A6 which is the encumbrance certificate belonging to the suit schedule property from 01.01.1992 to 24.01.2021 that the suit schedule property initially belonged to Smt.Anjan Bai and the same was transferred to the plaintiff.

11.According to the evidence (oral and documentary) adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, it is established that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed (Ex.A1) and there is no cloud over the title of the plaintiff over the same. It is also established from Ex.A3

Fair Page No.8 of 11 OS No.08 of 2021 that being in possession, plaintiff paid the house tax receipt for the suit schedule property. It is also established that the flow of title of the suit schedule property was clear as per Ex.A6 which was issued for the period from 01.01.1992 to 24.01.2021.

12.Per contra, though the defendants filed their written statement, they did not adduce any evidence (oral or documentary) to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff or the validity of the documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff. It was submitted by the defendants in the written statement that the suit schedule property was purchased by defendant no.4 by way of simple sale deed dt. 04.07.1969 for a consideration of Rs.700/-p from on Balu, S/o.Balaji who is the grand father of the plaintiff. However, no document was filed on behalf of the defendants to prove the same. It is further observed that the defendants in their pleading mentioned that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property as they are in possession. However, the defendants did not adduce any evidence to prove their possession over the suit schedule property or disprove the possession of the plaintiff over the same as on the date of the institution of the present suit. Therefore, the evidence of the plaintiff remained unchallenged.

13.In the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Bucchi Reddy (dead) by

LRs. & Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 594 the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly stated that:

“Where the plaintiff is lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant,

Fair Page No.9 of 11 OS No.08 of 2021 a suit for an Injunction Simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against in presence who does not prove a better title by seeking prohibitory injunction. But, a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to a injunction against the wrongful owner. Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in additions, if necessary an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.”

14.In the instant case, the plaintiff succeeded in establishing her title and possession over the suit schedule property mentioned in the schedule.

However, the defendants did not adduce any piece of documentary evidence which can disprove the contentions of the plaintiff and the evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged.

15.In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view

Fair Page No.10 of 11 OS No.08 of 2021 that the plaintiff succeeded in proving the contentions of her pleading, as such, as she is entitled for relief in the present suit.

16.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 to 4 granting perpetual injunction restraining all the defendants, their men, servants, workmen and family members from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property i.e., old dilapidated house bearing

G.P.No.13-50, admeasuring 72.33 Sq.Yards, situated at Madnoor Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District.

Typed to my dictation by my typist, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 06 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge, Bichkunda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendant:

PW.1:Smt.Durkikar Balamani. NIL PW.2:Daraswar Sailoo.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is the original registered sale deedvide Doc.No.30 of 2020,

dt:03.01.2020.

Ex.A2 is the original mutation orders vide proceedings No.32/2020 passed by the G.P.,Madnor in favour of plaintiff, dt:19.02.2020.

Ex.A3 is the original tax paid towards the mutation of house property by the plaintiff, dt:19.02.2020. Ex.A4 is the photograph.

Ex.A5 is the original Market Value Assistance certificate, dt:23.01.2021.

Fair Page No.11 of 11 OS No.08 of 2021

Ex.A6 is the Encumbrance Certificate.

For Defendants : NIL

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge, Bichkunda.

Fair Page No.1 of 9 CC.No.212 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT ::

BICHKUNDA

PRESENT:- SRI. J.VINEEL KUMAR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE NO.212 OF 2022

(Crime No.166 of 2021 of P.S. Bichkunda ) Between:-

The State of Telangana, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Bichkunda.

.... Complainant

// AND //

A1:Gosapally Tukaram S/o Veersham, Age: 24 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o Ladegaon Village of Jukkal Mandal.

A2:Burugadi Mohan S/o Sailu, Age: 35 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.1-26, Akbarnagar Village of Rudrur Mandal.

A3:Dalmalka Shivakumar S/o Chinna Babaiah, Age: 28 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Rudrur Village and Mandal.

… Accused No.1 to 3

This case came before this court for final hearing on 07.05.2026 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri.A.Vittal Rao, advocate, legal-aid counsel for accused No.1 & 3 and Sri.Deshmukh Rajeshwar, advocate, legal-aid counsel for accused No.2, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G E M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Bichkunda filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.166 of 2021 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as ‘I.P.C’) alleging as follows:

2.The case of prosecution is that on 26.10.2021, at 12:00 p.m., complainant/LW.1/Jangam Gangayappa went to PS Jukkal and lodged a report

Fair Page No.2 of 9 CC.No.212 of 2022 stating that, he has been working as priest at Hanuman Temple, Fathlapur since last 15 years. On 25.10.2021, at about 07:00 p.m., he locked the temple from outside after completion of pooja pogram and went to his house and slept.

On 26.10.2021, at about 05:00 a.m., he went to the temple and found that the hundi was missing from the temple, some unknown persons entered into

Hanuman Temple and committed theft of hundi. The worth of valuables in the hundi was of Rs.4,000/-. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

3.Based on the said report, LW.9/T.Durga Prasad registered a case in

Cr.No.165 of 2021 against unknown persons punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of IPC, issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.9 examined the complainant/LW.1/Jangam Gangayappa recorded his statement.

Later, LW.9 visited scene of offence situated at Hanuman Temple, Fathlapoor

Village, secured the presence of LW.5/P.Ganapathi and LW.6/K.Sheshugonda, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drew rough sketch and prepared crime details form in their presence. Later, LW.9 examined and recorded the statements of LW.2/M.Maruthi and LW.3/K.Shivaram. On 28.10.2021, LW.9 handed over the case record to LW.10/G.Satyanarayana for further investigation and LW.10 verified the investigation done by LW.9 so far and found it on proper lines.

4.While the investigation was in progress, on 13.11.2021, at about 04:30 a.m., LW.10 apprehended A1 to A3 at Kandarpalli X roads as they were going moving in a suspicious manner on a motor cycle. As A1 to A3 were in a mood to confess, LW.10 secured the presence fo LW.7/H.Balaji and LW.8/T.Maruthi and recorded confession-cum-recovery panchanamas of A1 to A3 and recovered some property stolen in the present case. Property recovered in the present case

Fair Page No.3 of 9 CC.No.212 of 2022 was deposited before this Hon’ble Court. After completion of entire investigation,

LW.10 filed charge sheet in the present case against A1 to A3 punishable

U/Sec.457, 380 of IPC.

5.This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC against accused no.1 to 3.

6.OOn appearance of A1 to A3, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished on them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 to 3 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained the accusation levelled against them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, charge was framed for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 to 3.

7.In order to establish the guilt of accused no.1 to 3, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.6 and exhibits P1 to P8 were marked.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused no.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating evidence found against them from prosecution witnesses during the course of trial for which they denied their involvement and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsels for accused no.1 to 3.

10.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused

punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC ?

11.In order to appreciate contentions of both sides, It will be appropriate at

Fair Page No.4 of 9 CC.No.212 of 2022 this stage to mention bare reading of the relevant sections.

Section 457 of Indian Penal Code: Lurking house-trespass or house- breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. —Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

Section 380 of Indian Penal Code: Theft in dwelling house, etc.— Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code: Dishonestly receiving stolen property. —Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both..

POINT:

12.To attract the punishment under the offences mentioned above, the following ingredients must be must be proved: i.The accused must commit either lurking house-trespass or house- breaking during night. ii.Intention is to commit theft of movable property. iii.The property must be taken without the consent of the owner. iv.Property that was stolen shall be received by the accused with a dishonest intent.

13.PW.1/J.Gangayappa who is the complainant in the present case while deposing evidence stated that, on 25.10.2021, after the pooja, he locked the gates of Hanuman Temple, Khandarpally and went home. On the next day, at 05:00 a.m., when he came to the temple and noticed that the lock of the gate was broken. PW.1 went inside and saw that the hundi was also broken and someone stole money from the hundi which is around Rs.4,000/-. Immediately,

PW.1 went to PS Bichkunda and lodged a report regarding the incident. Police examined him and recorded his statement. During the cross-examination of

Fair Page No.5 of 9 CC.No.212 of 2022

PW.1, he admitted that there are houses in the vicinity of the temple. PW.1 also admitted that prior to this case, people used to spend the night inside the temple premises. Only the lock of the hundi was broken but not the temple gate.

He admitted that denominations of all kinds of notes and coins are offered by the piligrims. He admitted that he do not know the exact amount that was in the hundi before the incident.

13.PW.2/H.Balaji and PW.3/T.Maruthi who are cited as the panch witnesses for confession-cum-recovery panchanamas of A1 to A3 did not support the case of the prosecution who deposed that police Bichkunda called them to the police station and obtained their signatures on some papers of which they do not know the contents. PW.2 and PW.3 also stated that no panchanama was conducted in their presence.

14.PW.4/K.Shivaram deposed in his chief-examination that, about four years ago, on one day, PW.1 locked the gates of Hanuman Temple situated in their village at 08:00 p.m. That on the next day, when PW.1 came to perform pooja at the temple, he noticed that the lock of the gate was broke open. PW.4 further stated that PW.1 called him and LW.2 to check what happened. After going through the premises, they noticed that the Hundi was also broke open. Later,

PW.1 told him that an amount of Rs.4,000/- was stolen from the Hundi. During the cross-examination of PW.4, he admitted that police did not ask him anything about the case.

15.PW.5/P.Ganapathi deposed in his chief-examination that, on 27.10.2021, at about 01:00 p.m, Police Bichkunda came to Hanuman temple situated at

Khandarpally village and conducted panchanama in his presence and after the said panchanama, police obtained his signature on the crime details

Fair Page No.6 of 9 CC.No.212 of 2022 form(Ex.P4). During the cross-examination of PW.4, he admitted that he do not know each and every column of Ex.P4 or its contents. PW.5 also admitted that he furnished his signature on Ex.P4 at the instance of the police.

16.`PW.6/T.Durga Prasad who is the first investigating officer in the present case while giving his testimony in his chief-examination reiterated the contents of the prosecution case till the point where he handed over further investigation of the case to LW.10, as such, the same are not reproduced here to avoid repetition. During the cross-examination of PW.6, he denied all the suggestions put forth to him by the defence counsels.

17.On 13.11.2021, at about 04:30 a.m., he apprehended A1 to A3 at

Kandarpalli X roads as they were going in a suspicious manner on a motor cycle. As A1 to A3 were in a mood to confess, PW.6 secured the presence of

LW.7/H.Balaji and LW.8/T.Maruthi and recorded confession-cum-recovery panchanamas of A1 to A3 and recovered some property stolen in the present case. During the cross-examination of PW.6, he deposed that, panchanama was conducted at Hanuman Temple in Fathlapur village of Bichkunda Mandal. PW.6 stated that A1 to A3 were present at the time of seizure panchanama. PW.6 stated that he did not mention the denomination of the case that was seized from A1 to A3 in Ex.P6 to P8. PW.6 admitted that there are residential houses in the vicinity of the place of seizure panchanama. PW.6 stated that he examined witnesses in the vicinity of the temple and also stated that he did not take any photographs or videos of the scene.

18.On close perusal of the above evidence, it is observed that there are no direct eye witnesses to the incident examined by the prosecution who can testify

Fair Page No.7 of 9 CC.No.212 of 2022 that A1 to A3 committed the offences charged in the present case. As there are no direct eye witnesses who can testify on behalf of the prosecution, it is crucial to consider the circumstantial evidence in the present case. Complainant/PW.1 in the present case in his testimony deposed that the Hundi in the temple was broke open and valubles from the said Hundi were missing. The evidence of

PW.4 corroborates with the evidence of PW.1 but none of them saw the incident at the time of commission. Coming to the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 who are cited as the panch witnesses to confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 to

A3, both PW.2 and PW.3 deposed in their evidence that no panchanama was conducted in their presence and their signatures were obtained at the police station. This raises a serious question as to whether confession-cum-seizure panchanama was actually conducted or not. Furthermore, the prosecution did not examine all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet though ample time was granted. From the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, it is evident that house breaking by night took place and property (i.e., valuables in the Hundi) was stolen from the temple. However, throughout the evidence of the prosecution, no such instance was found to point the liability towards A1 to A3. If there are no direct eye witnesses to the incident, the prosecution should establish that the property that was stolen should have been recovered from the accused persons.

As per the testimonies of PW.2 and PW.3, no panchanama was conducted in their presence. Hence, the prosecution could not establish whether the property that was mentioned to be seized in the present case was actually recovered from

A1 to A3. It is further observed that PW.5 who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama while deposing evidence stated that the police conducted panchanama in his presence. However, sole testimony of the panch witness

Fair Page No.8 of 9 CC.No.212 of 2022 should not be considered as a substantive piece of evidence as it is hard to accept the uncorroborated sole testimonry of a panch/recovery witness.

19.In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 to 3 in the present case punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. For the aforementioned reasons discussed supra, accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for benefit. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused No.1 to 3 and against the prosecution.

20.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused no.1 to 3 are set at liberty and their bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Money seized in the present case, which was deposited before this court vide PSL No.67 of 2022 shall be returned to the complainant after the expiry of period of appeal on proper identification and acknowledgment.

Typed and corrected by me in my laptop and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Bichkunda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW.1: J.Gangayappa- NIL - PW.2: H.Balaji PW.3: T.Maruthi PW.4: K.Shivaram PW.5: P.Ganapathi PW.6: T.Durga Prasad

Fair Page No.9 of 9 CC.No.212 of 2022

PW.7: G.Satyanarayan

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE -NIL- Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on report. Ex.P2: Signature of PW.2 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanamas of A1 to A3. Ex.P3: Signature of PW.3 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanamas of A1 to A3. Ex.P4: Signature of PW.5 on Crime Details Form. Ex.P5: FIR issued by PW.6. Ex.P6: Copy of Confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A1. Ex.P7: Copy of Confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A2. Ex.P8: Copy of Confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Bichkunda.

Fair Page No.1 of 9 CC.No.191 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT ::

BICHKUNDA

PRESENT:- SRI. J.VINEEL KUMAR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE NO.191 OF 2022

(Crime No.165 of 2021 of P.S. Bichkunda ) Between:-

The State of Telangana, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Bichkunda.

.... Complainant

// AND //

A1:Gosapally Tukaram S/o Veersham, Age: 24 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o Ladegaon Village of Jukkal Mandal.

A2:Burugadi Mohan S/o Sailu, Age: 35 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.1-26, Akbarnagar Village of Rudrur Mandal.

A3:Dalmalka Shivakumar S/o Chinna Babaiah, Age: 28 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Rudrur Village and Mandal.

… Accused No.1 to 3

This case came before this court for final hearing on 07.05.2026 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri.A.Vittal Rao, advocate, legal-aid counsel for accused No.1 & 3 and Sri.Deshmukh Rajeshwar, advocate, counsel for accused No.2, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G E M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Bichkunda filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.165 of 2021 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as ‘I.P.C’) alleging as follows:

2.The case of prosecution is that on 26.10.2021, at 10:00 a.m., complainant/LW.1/Jangam Shivakanth went to PS Jukkal and lodged a report

Fair Page No.2 of 9 CC.No.191 of 2022 stating that, he has been working as priest at Hanuman Temple, Fathlapur since last one year. On 25.10.2021, at about 08:00 p.m., he locked the temple from the outside after completion of pooja and went to his house and went to bed. On 26.10.2021, at about 05:00 a.m., he went to the temple and found that the hundi was missing from the temple. He suspected that some unknown person entered into Hanuman Temple and committed theft of hundi. The worth of the valuables in the said hundi was Rs.80,000/-. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

3.Based on the said report, LW.9/T.Durga Prasad registered a case in

Cr.No.165 of 2021 against unknown accused punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of IPC, issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.9 examined the complainant/LW.1/Jangam Shivakanth and recorded his statement. Later, LW.9 visited scene of offence situated at Hanuman Temple,

Fathlapoor Village, secured the presence of LW.5/S.Raju and LW.6/D.Shivaraj, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drew rough sketch and prepared crime details form in their presence. Later, LW.9 examined and recorded the statements of LW.2/M.Laxman and LW.3/K.Nagnath. While the investigation was in progress, on 13.11.2021, at about 04:30 a.m., LW.10/G.Satyanarayana apprehended A1 to A3 at Kandarpalli X roads as they were going in a suspicious manner on a motor cycle. As A1 to A3 were in a mood to confess, LW.10 secured the presence of LW.7/H.Balaji and LW.8/T.Maruthi and recorded confession- cum-recovery panchanamas of A1 to A3 and recovered some property stolen in the present case. Property recovered in the present case was deposited before this Court vide PSL No.66 of 2022. After completion of entire investigation,

Fair Page No.3 of 9 CC.No.191 of 2022

LW.10 filed charge sheet in the present case against A1 to A3 punishable

U/Sec.457, 380 of IPC.

4.This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC against accused no.1 to 3.

5.On appearance of A1 to A3, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished on them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 to 3 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained the accusation levelled against them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, charge was framed for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 to 3.

6.In order to establish the guilt of accused no.1 to 3, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.6 and exhibits P1 to P8 were marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused no.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating evidence found against them from prosecution witnesses during the course of trial for which they denied their involvement and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsels for accused no.1 to 3.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused no.1 to 3

punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC ?

10.In order to appreciate contentions of both sides, It will be appropriate at this stage to mention bare reading of the relevant sections.

Fair Page No.4 of 9 CC.No.191 of 2022

Section 457 of Indian Penal Code: Lurking house-trespass or house- breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. —Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

Section 380 of Indian Penal Code: Theft in dwelling house, etc.— Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code: Dishonestly receiving stolen property. —Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both..

POINT:

11.To attract the punishment under the offences mentioned above, the following ingredients must be must be proved: i.The accused must commit either lurking house-trespass or house- breaking during night. ii.Intention is to commit theft of movable property. iii.The property must be taken without the consent of the owner. iv.Property that was stolen shall be received by the accused with a dishonest intent.

12.PW.1/J.Shivakanth who is the complainant in the present case while deposing evidence stated that on 25.10.2021, after the pooja, he locked the gates of Hanuman Temple, Fathlapoor and went home. On the next day, at 05:00 a.m., when he came to the temple and he noticed that the lock of the gate was broken. He went inside and saw that the hundi was also broken and someone stole money from the hundi which is around Rs.80,000/-. Immediately, he went to PS Bichkunda and lodged a report regarding the incident. During the cross-examination of PW.1, he admitted that there are houses in the vicinity of the temple. PW.1 also admitted that prior to this case, people used to spend the

Fair Page No.5 of 9 CC.No.191 of 2022 night inside the temple premises. He stated that only the lock of the hundi was broken but not the temple gate. He admitted that denominations of all kinds of notes and coins are offered by the piligrims. He admitted that he do not know the exact amount that was in the hundi before the incident. He denied the suggestion that A1 to A3 are no way concerned with the present case and now he deposing false.

13.PW.2/H.Balaji and PW.3/T.Maruthi who are cited as the panch witnesses for confession-cum-recovery panchanamas of A1 to A3 did not support the case of the prosecution who deposed that police Bichkunda called them to the police station and obtained their signatures on some papers of which they do not know the contents. PW.2 and PW.3 also stated that no panchanama was conducted in their presence.

14.PW.4/K.Nagnath who is cited as the witness in the present case deposed in his chief-examination that about four years ago, on one day, PW.1 locked the gates of Hanuman Temple situated at their village at 08:00 p.m. On the next day, when PW.1 came to perform pooja at the temple and noticed that the lock of the gate was broke open. PW.1 called him and LW.2 to check what happened.

After going through the premises, they noticed that the Hundi was also broke open. Later, PW.1 told him that an amount of Rs.10,000/- were stolen from the

Hundi. During the cross-examination of PW.4, he admitted that the police did not ask him anything about the case.

15.PW.5/T.Durga Prasad who is the first investigating officer in the present case deposed in his chief-examination that, on 26.10.2021, at 10:00 a.m.,

LW.1/PW.1/Jangam Shivakanth went to the police station and lodged a

Fair Page No.6 of 9 CC.No.191 of 2022 report/Ex.P1. Based on the said report, PW.5 registered a case in Cr.No.165 of 2021, issued FIR for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, PW.5 examined and recorded the statement of LW.1/PW.1 at police station. Later, PW.5 proceeded to scene of offence situated at Fathlapur Village at Hanuman Temple, examined and recorded the statements of LW.2/Maddelwar Laxman and LW.3/Kalapuwar

Nagnath. Later, he secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW.5/S.Raju and

LW.6/D.Shivaraj, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drew rough sketch of the scene of offence and prepared Crime Details Form in their presence. Later, he handed over the CD file to LW.10/G.Satyanarayana for further investigation.

During the cross-examination of PW.5, he deposed that, he denied all the suggestions put forth to him by the defence counsels.

16.PW.6/G.Satyanarayana deposed in his chief-examination that, on 13.11.2021, at about 04:30 a.m., he apprehended A1 to A3 at Kandarpalli X roads as they were going in a suspicious manner on a motor cycle. As A1 to A3 were in a mood to confess, PW.6 secured the presence fo LW.7/H.Balaji and

LW.8/T.Maruthi and recorded confession-cum-recovery panchanamas of A1 to

A3 and recovered some property stolen in the present case. During the cross- examination of PW.6, he deposed that, panchanama was conducted at

Hanuman Temple in Fathlapur village of Bichkunda Mandal. PW.6 stated that

A1 to A3 were present at the time of seizure panchanama. PW.6 stated that he did not mention the denomination of the case that was seized from A1 to A3 in

Ex.P6 to P8. PW.6 admitted that there are residential houses in the vicinity of the place of seizure panchanama. PW.6 stated that he examined witnesses in the vicinity of the temple and also stated that he did not take any photographs

Fair Page No.7 of 9 CC.No.191 of 2022 or videos of the scene.

17.On close perusal of the above evidence, it is observed that there are no direct eye witnesses to the incident examined by the prosecution who can testify that A1 to A3 committed the offences charged in the present case. As there are no direct eye witnesses who can testify on behalf of the prosecution, it is crucial to consider the circumstantial evidence in the present case. Complainant/PW.1 in the present case in his testimony deposed that the Hundi in the temple was broke open and valuebles from the said Hundi were missing. The evidence of

PW.4 corroborates with the evidence of PW.1 but none of them saw the incident at the time of commission. Coming to the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 who are cited as the panch witnesses to confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 to

A3, both PW.2 and PW.3 deposed in their evidence that no panchanama was conducted in their presence and their signatures were obtained at the police station. This raises a serious question as to whether confession-cum-seizure panchanama was actually conducted or not. Furthermore, the prosecution did not examine all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet though ample time was granted. From the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, it is evident that house breaking by night took place and property (i.e., valuables in the Hundi) was stolen from the temple. However, throughout the evidence of the prosecution, no such instance was found to point the liability towards A1 to A3. If there are no direct eye witnesses to the incident, the prosecution should establish that the property that was stolen should have been recovered from the accused persons.

As per the testimonies of PW.2 and PW.3, no panchanama was conducted in their presence. Hence, the prosecution could not establish whether the property that was mentioned to be seized in the present case was actually recovered from

Fair Page No.8 of 9 CC.No.191 of 2022

A1 to A3.

18.In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 to 3 in the present case punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. For the aforementioned reasons discussed supra, accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for benefit. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused No.1 to 3 and against the prosecution.

19.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused no.1 to 3 are set at liberty and their bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Money seized in the present case, which was deposited before this court vide PSL No.66 of 2022 shall be returned to the complainant after the expiry of period of appeal on proper identification and acknowledgment.

Typed and corrected by me in my laptop and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Bichkunda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW.1: J.Shivakanth - NIL - PW.2: H.Balaji PW.3: T.Maruthi PW.4: K.Nagnath PW.5: T.Durga Prasad PW.6: G.Satyanarayan

Fair Page No.9 of 9 CC.No.191 of 2022

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE -NIL- Ex.P1: Report lodged by the complainant/PW.1. Ex.P2: Signature of PW.2 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanamas of A1 to A3. Ex.P3: Signature of PW.3 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanamas of A1 to A3. Ex.P4: FIR issued by PW.5. Ex.P5: Crime Details Form Prepared by PW.5. Ex.P6: Copy of Confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A1. Ex.P7: Copy of Confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A2. Ex.P8: Copy of Confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Bichkunda.

Fair Page No.1 of 8 CC.No.172 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT ::

BICHKUNDA

PRESENT:- SRI. J.VINEEL KUMAR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE NO.172 OF 2022

(Crime No.177 of 2021 of P.S. Bichkunda ) Between:-

The State of Telangana, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Bichkunda.

.... Complainant

// AND //

A1:Gosapally Tukaram S/o Veersham, Age: 24 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o Ladegaon Village of Jukkal Mandal.

A2:Burugadi Mohan S/o Sailu, Age: 35 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.1-26, Akbarnagar Village of Rudrur Mandal.

A3:Dalmalka Shivakumar S/o Chinna Babaiah, Age: 28 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Rudrur Village and Mandal.

… Accused No.1 to 3

This case came before this court for final hearing on 07.05.2026 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri.A.Vittal Rao, advocate, legal-aid counsel for accused No.1 & 3 and Sri.Deshmukh Rajeshwar,advocate, counsel for accused No.2, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G E M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Bichkunda filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.177 of 2021 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as ‘I.P.C’).

2.The case of prosecution is that on 11.11.2021, at 08:00 a.m., complainant/LW.1/Jangam Shivakanth went to PS Bichkunda and lodged a report stating that, on 10.11.2021, at about 08:00 p.m., he locked the temple

Fair Page No.2 of 8 CC.No.172 of 2022 from outside after completion of pooja and went to his house. On 11.11.2021, at about 05:00 a.m., he went to the temple and found that the hundi was missing from the temple. He suspected that some unknown persons entered into

Hanuman Temple and committed theft of hundi. The worth of the said hundi containing valuables is worth of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

3.Based on the said report, LW.9/G.Satyanarayana registered a case in

Cr.No.177 of 2021 against unknown accused punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of IPC, issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.9 examined the complainant/LW.1/Jangam Shivakanth and recorded his statement. Later, LW.9 visited scene of offence situated at Hanuman Temple,

Fathlapoor Village, secured the presence of LW.5/G.Mallikarjun and

LW.6/M.Hanmagounda, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drew rough sketch and prepared crime details form in their presence and seized one iron rod. Later, LW.9 examined and recorded the statements of LW.2/M.Laxman and

LW.3/K.Nagnath.

4.While the investigation was in progress, on 13.11.2021, at about 04:30 a.m., he went to Khandarpally X roads and on suspicion stopped three persons going on a TVS XL moped. On interrogation, they identified their names as

Gosapally Tukaram/A1, Burugadi Mohan/A2 and Dalmalka Shivakumar/A3.

As A1 to A3 were in a mood to confess LW.9 secured the presence of

LW.7/H.Balaji and LW.8/T.Maruthi and conducted confession-cum-recovery panchanama in their presence. During the said panchanama, A1 to A3 voluntarily confessed that they committed the offence in the present case. A1 to

A3 along with the recovered property were brought to the police station and

Fair Page No.3 of 8 CC.No.172 of 2022 after completing the formalities of arrest, A1 to A3 were produced before this

Court for Judicial custody. Property recovered from A1 to A3 was deposited

before this Court vide PSL No.70 of 2022. After completion of entire

investigation, LW.9 filed the charge sheet in the present case against A1 to A3 punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of IPC..

5.This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380, r/w 411 of IPC against accused no.1 to 3.

6.On appearance of A1 to A3, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished on them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 to 3 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained the accusation levelled against them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, charge was framed for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 to 3.

7.In order to establish the guilt of A1 to A3, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.5 and exhibits P1 to P8 were marked.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused no.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating evidence found against them from prosecution witnesses during the course of trial for which they denied their involvement and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsels for accused no.1 to 3.

10.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused no.1 to 3

Fair Page No.4 of 8 CC.No.172 of 2022 punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC ?

11.In order to appreciate contentions of both sides, It will be appropriate at this stage to mention bare reading of the relevant sections.

Section 457 of Indian Penal Code: Lurking house-trespass or house- breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. —Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

Section 380 of Indian Penal Code: Theft in dwelling house, etc.— Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code: Dishonestly receiving stolen property. —Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both..

POINT:

12.To attract the punishment under the offences mentioned above, the following ingredients must be must be proved: i.The accused must commit either lurking house-trespass or house- breaking during night. ii.Intention is to commit theft of movable property. iii.The property must be taken without the consent of the owner. iv.Property that was stolen shall be received by the accused with a dishonest intent.

13.PW.1/J.Shivakanth who is the complainant in the present case while deposing evidence stated that on 10.11.2021, after the pooja, he locked the gates of Hanuman Temple, Fathlapoor and went home. On the next day, at 05:00 a.m., when he came to the temple and noticed that the lock of the gate was broken. PW.1 further deposed that he went inside and saw that the hundi was also broken and someone stole money from the hundi which is around

Rs.10,000/-. During the cross-examination of PW.1, he admitted that there are

Fair Page No.5 of 8 CC.No.172 of 2022 houses in the vicinity of the temple. PW.1 also admitted that prior to this case, people used to spend nights inside the temple premises. PW.1 also admitted that denominations of all kinds of notes and coins are offered by the piligrims. PW.1 also admitted that he do not know the exact amount that was in the hundi

before the incident.

14.PW.2/H.Balaji and PW.3/T.Maruthi who are cited as the panch witnesses for confession-cum-recovery panchanamas of A1 to A3 did not support the case of the prosecution who deposed that police Bichkunda called them to the police station and obtained their signatures on some papers of which they do not know the contents. PW.2 and PW.3 also stated that no panchanama was conducted in their presence.

15.PW.4/K.Nagnath who is cited as the witness in the present case deposed in his chief-examination that about four years ago, on one day, PW.1 locked the gates of Hanuman Temple situated at their village at 08:00 p.m. On the next day, when PW.1 came to perform pooja at the temple and noticed that the lock of the gate was broke open. PW.1 called him and LW.2 to check what happened.

After going through the premises, they noticed that the Hundi was also broke open. Later, PW.1 told him that an amount of Rs.10,000/- were stolen from the

Hundi. During the cross-examination of PW.4, he admitted that the police did not ask him anything about the case.

16.PW.5/G.Satyanarayana who is the investigating officer in the present case deposed in his chief-examination reiterated the contents of the prosecution case mentioned above. Hence, the same are not reproduced to avoid repetititon.

During the cross-examination of PW.5, he stated that he visited the scene of

Fair Page No.6 of 8 CC.No.172 of 2022 offence immediately after examining LW.1 and was there for an hour. He stated that PW.5 could not say the specifics of the valuables that were recovered from

A1 to A3. He stated that he did not mention the denomination of the case property that was seized from A1 to A3 through Ex.P6 to P8. PW.5 admitted that there are residential houses in the vicinity of the place of seizure panchanama.

He stated that he examined witnesses in the vicinity of the temple. He further stated that he did not take any photographs or videos of the hundi.

17.On close perusal of the above evidence, it is observed that there are no direct eye witnesses to the incident examined by the prosecution who can testify that A1 to A3 committed the offences for which they are charged in the present case. As there are no direct eye witnesses who can testify on behalf of the prosecution, it is crucial to consider the circumstantial evidence in the present case. Complainant/PW.1 in the present case in his testimony deposed that the

Hundi in the temple was broke open and valuebles from the said Hundi were missing. The evidence of PW.4 corroborates with the evidence of PW.1 but none of them saw the incident at the time of commission. Coming to the evidence of

PW.2 and PW.3 who are cited as the panch witnesses to confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 to A3, both PW.2 and PW.3 deposed in their evidence that no panchanama was conducted in their presence and their signatures were obtained at the police station. This raises a serious question as to whether confession-cum-seizure panchanama was actually conducted or not.

Furthermore, the prosecution did not examine all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet though ample time was granted. From the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2, it is evident that house breaking by night and property (i.e., valuables in the Hundi) was stolen from the temple. However, throughout the evidence of the

Fair Page No.7 of 8 CC.No.172 of 2022 prosecution, no such instance was found to point the liability towards A1 to A3.

If there are no direct eye witnesses to the incident, the prosecution should establish that the property that was stolen should have been recovered from the accused persons. As per the testimonies of PW.2 and PW.3, no panchanama was conducted in their presence. Hence, the prosecution could not establish whether the property that was mentioned to be seized in the present case was actually recovered from A1 to A3.

18.In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 to 3 in the present case punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. For the aforementioned reasons discussed supra, accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for benefit. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused No.1 to 3 and against the prosecution.

19.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 411 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused no.1 to 3 are set at liberty and their bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Money seized in the present case, which was deposited before this court vide PSL No.70 of 2022 shall be returned to the complainant after the expiry of period of appeal on proper identification and acknowledgment.

Typed and corrected by me in my laptop and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Bichkunda.

Fair Page No.8 of 8 CC.No.172 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW.1: J.Shivakanth - NIL - PW.2: H.Balaji PW.3: T.Maruthi PW.4: K.Nagnath PW.5: G.Satyanarayan

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE -NIL- Ex.P1: Report lodged by the complainant/PW.1. Ex.P2: Signature of PW.2 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P3: Signature of PW.3 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P4: FIR issued by PW.5. Ex.P5: Crime Details Form Prepared by PW.4. Ex.P6: Confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A1. Ex.P7: Confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A2. Ex.P8: Confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Bichkunda.