Sri. Y.V.S.B.G. Pardhasaradhi

BEFORE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT :: GUNTUR

Present :: Y.V.S.B.G. Pardha Saradhi, APGU000061622018 Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Guntur – cum –

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 2nd day of April, 2025.

M.V.O.P.No. 1139 OF 2018

Between:

1. Veera valli Narasimha Rao, S/o.Seetha Ravamma, aged about 33 years. (Son of the deceased).

2. Veera Valli Nara Hari, S/o.Ramanaih, aged about 31 years, (son of the deceased) Both are residents of 5/10, Brodiepet, Guntur City, Guntur District. --- Petitioners.

And

1. S.D.Mohammad, S/o.Mahabusha, Door No.11-17-11/2, Rami Reddy Peta, Narsaraopet, Guntur District ( Owner of the car No. AP 09 BW 5499).

2. National Insurance Company Ltd., rep.by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Methra Building, Opp.All India Radio Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. (Owner of the car No. AP 09 BW 5499).

3. Sk.Jani, S/o.Subhani, R/o,.door No.11-19-79, Ramireddypet, Narasraopet, Guntur District. --- Respondents.

This petition coming on 19.02.2025 before this tribunal for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Prasada Reddy, Advocate, Counsel for petitioners; and of Sri G.Erukala Reddy, Advocate, Counsel for respondent No.2, and the respondents 1 and 3 remained exparte, and upon perusing the relevant material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this tribunal delivered the following:-

A W A R D

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 and 476 of ‘Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules’ for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Veera valli Seetharavamma, in a motor vehicle accident.

2. Contentions of the petitioners are that the deceased is their mother; she used to attend daily wage woks and on that used to earn Rs.300/- per day; on 29.06.2018 at about 8.30 p.m., when the deceased along with another person proceeding on the road by walk on the way reached near Veeravalli towers, one car bearing No. AP 09 BW 5499 driven by 3rd respondent came at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and hit the deceased and thereby, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and shifted her to Government

General Hospital, Narasaraopet, and while treating, the doctor declared that the deceased died and thereby, police registered the case in Cr.No.269/2018 and started investigation and their investigation revealed that accident occurred by 2 reason of rash and negligent driving of third respondent and by reason of untimely death of their mother, they sustained financial loss as well as moral support in life and therefore, filed the present petition.

3. First respondent is the owner and third respondent is the driver of offending car, they both remained exparte. Second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. In its written statement third respondent denied all the averments in the petition generally and specifically stated that in occurrence of accident there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased and another person without observing the traffic on the road tried to cross the road and thereby she involved in the accident and deceased was the negligent; at the time of accident, third respondent was not having valid and effective driving licence and therefore, it is not liable to indemnify the first respondent and ultimately, requested the tribunal to dismiss the petition as against it. In addition to that second respondent had taken various pleas basing on provisions of MV Act.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 29.06.2018 has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Crime vehicle viz., Car bearing No.AP 09BW 5499 by its driver/ 3rd respondent, and whether the deceased died due to the said accident?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what quantum, and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

5. To prove the case of petitioners, they examined the second petitioner as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. In support of the case of petitioners, petitioners examined one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence of accident as

PW.2. On behalf of second respondent, its Deputy Manager was examined as RW1 and through him got marked Exs.B1 to B3. To prove the fact that 3rd respondent was not having valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, second respondent examined employee from RTO’s office as RW.2 and through him got marked Exs.X1 and X2.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

7. Issue No.1:

i. Contentions of the petitioners are that on 29.06.2018 at about 8.30 p.m., when the deceased along with another person proceeding on the road by 3 walk on the way reached near Veeravalli towers, one car bearing No. AP 09 BW 5499 driven by 3rd respondent came at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and hit the deceased and thereby, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and shifted her to Government General Hospital,

Narasaraopet, and while treating, the doctor declared that the deceased died. To prove the case of petitioners, petitioners examined second petitioner as PW.1. As per evidence of PW.1, he is not the eye witness to the occurrence of accident.

Therefore, his evidence is not having much relevance. To prove the manner of accident, petitioners examined one independent witness as PW.2. In his chief- examination PW.2 deposed that on 29.06.2018, he along with the deceased Veera valli Seetharavamma were walking on the road and when they reached Veeravalli towers, at about 8.30 p.m., one car bearing No.AP 09 BW 5499, owned by first respondent and driven by second respondent came in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, and thereby the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to them. He further deposed that he is the eye witness to the occurrence of incident. Second respondent cross-examined PW.2 and in such cross-examination,

PW.2 deposed that deceased is the daughter of the sister of his paternal grandfather; he had given evidence in court at Narasaraopet in relation to present case; he did not know about the result of that case; the road at where the accident occurred is wide road; he denied the suggestion that at the time of accident the deceased was having opportunity to avoid the accident but not taken care and thereby, accident occurred.

ii. Ex.A.1 is the FIR issued by police basing on the report given by PW.2.

In that report, PW.2 stated that on the date of incident, at about 8.30 p.m., when he along with deceased Veera valli Seetharavamma proceeding on the road by walk and at that time one white car came from their behind and without the head lights came and hit the deceased and thereby, she fell down and sustained injuries and shifted to hospital for treatment and while taking treatment, the deceased died.

There is no effective cross-examination from the side of second respondent to impeach the manner of accident. As per evidence of PW.2 and Ex.A6/ charge sheet, the accident occurred in the manner as mentioned in Ex.A1 FIR. As per material on record, during night time third respondent driven the car without head lights in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased who was proceeding on the left side margin of the road. To impeach the evidence given by PW.2, third respondent is the competent person, but he remained exparte. Second respondent not taken steps to examine the third respondent as court witness at least.

Therefore, to impeach the oral evidence given by PW.2, there is no effective evidence from respondents. After considering the documentary evidence and the 4 oral evidence of PW.2, this tribunal is of considered opinion that accident occurred by reason of rash and negligent driving of the car by third respondent. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

8. Issue No.2:

i. According to petitioners, the deceased during her lifetime, used to do coolie works and on that used to earn Rs.300/- per day. To prove the income of the deceased as well as her occupation, petitioners not produced cogent evidence.

According to petitioners, age of the deceased was 50 years as on the date of her death. Therefore, as a woman of aged 50 years, generally there is possibility to earn some money by doing some works by deceased. After considering the age of the deceased and nature of the occupation of the deceased, and the cost of living in the year 2018, earning of Rs.200/- per day by deceased had she been alive is reasonable. Further, after considering the nature of the occupation of the deceased, it is not possible to get income throughout the month, therefore, considering the notional monthly income of deceased at Rs.4000/- per month. In this case, petitioners are not the dependants on the deceased and the deceased is the dependant on petitioners. This tribunal not considering the notional increase of income of deceased and as there is possibility to reduce the income by reason of advancing the age of the deceased. Annual notional income of deceased had she been alive is Rs.48,000/-. In the normal circumstances, petitioners are not the dependants on deceased and deceased is the dependent on petitioners. But, as per provisions of M.V.Act, legal heirs are entitled for compensation irrespective of their dependency. As there are only two legal heirs 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is liable for her personal expenditure had she been alive. Therefore, the income that would be spent by deceased to petitioners had she been alive is

Rs.32,000/-. Deceased died at the age of 50 years. There is no dispute about the age of the deceased from second respondent. Therefore, the multiplier applicable to the present case as per the decision of Sarala Varmas’ case is ‘13’. Therefore, the income that would be spent for the petitioners by deceased had she been alive is Rs.32,000/- X 13 = Rs.4,16,000/-.

ii. As it is a beneficial legislation, this tribunal applying the guidelines given in ‘Pranay Sethi’s case to this case, therefore, petitioners are entitled for the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, consortium for petitioners and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. Therefore, those conventional amounts are awarding.

iii. After considering all the heads, petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,86,000/-.

5 iv. Accident occurred by reason of rash and negligent driving of third respondent. For his own acts, he is liable to pay compensation to petitioners. First respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle. As owner of the offending vehicle, first respondent is vicariously liable to pay compensation to petitioners. According to second respondent, at the time of accident, third respondent was not having valid and effective driving licence and therefore, it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of policy and therefore, it is not liable to indemnify the first respondent.

To prove their case, second respondent examined its Deputy Manager as RW.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3. To prove the fact that 3rd respondent was not having driving licence, second respondent examined employee from RTO’s office, Guntur, as RW.2 and through him got marked Exs.X1 and X2. Second respondent marked

Exs.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is the true copy of policy issued by R2 in favour of one

Mallikarjunarao. Ex.B2 is the office copy of notice sent by R2 to R1 to furnish the relevant records mentioned in the said notice. Ex.B3 is the postal acknowledgment showing that R1 received the notice under Ex.B2. During the course of cross- examination, RW.1 deposed that R2 appointed investigator for verification of documents; they have not filed the report given by investigator; as seen from Ex.B3 acknowledgment copy, first respondent not received the notice under Ex.B2. RW.1 specifically deposed that one Guljar subscribed his signature on the acknowledgment card and he had no knowledge about the relationship in between

R1 and said Guljar. They have not sent notice to the driver of the offending vehicle.

RW.1 specifically admitted that he did not send notice to driver of the offending vehicle. Second respondent examined the employee of RTO’s Office, Guntur, as

RW.2 and through him got marked Exs.X.1 and X2. Ex.X1 is the authorisation letter. Ex.X2 is the extract of the driving licence particulars of Shaik Jony, son of

Subhani i.e., present third respondent. As per evidence of RW.2 as on the date of accident, third respondent was not having valid and effective driving licence. The counsel for petitioners cross-examined this witness and in such cross-examination tried to assert that one can obtain the driving licence from anywhere in India, and witness deposed that to obtain the policy anywhere in India, the applicant must produce his identity proof and residential proof. It is hypothetical question. The initial burden on insurer is to establish the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the relevant time. Once the insurer placed some positive evidence, the burden is on petitioners to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence. Mere suggestion is not sufficient.

Therefore, as per evidence available on record, it is apparent that third respondent was not having valid driving licence at the relevant time. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioners relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme 6

Court rendered in National Insurance company Ltd., Vs. Swarn Singh and others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531. In this judgment in guideline No.7, Hon'ble

Supreme Court, held that, the question as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver does not fulfill the requirement of law or not, will have to be determined in each case. After considering this decision, to avoid the liability of insurer, i.e., second respondent, it must prove that first respondent knowing fully well that third respondent was not having valid and effective driving licence, allowed him to drive his motor vehicle. In this case, first respondent remained exparte. Second respondent sent notice to first respondent to furnish the driving particulars of third respondent. Ex.B1 is the police copy. Ex.B2 is the letter sent by R2 to R1. As seen from Ex.B3 postal acknowledgment card one Guljar signed on the postal acknowledgment card. There is no cogent evidence from second respondent to prove that the signatory on Ex.B3 acknowledgment is the family member of second respondent. In the absence of such evidence the tribunal cannot accept that first respondent received the said notice. At least, second respondent not taken steps to examine the first respondent in this regard. Therefore, the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove that first respondent knowing fully well that third respondent was not having driving licence and thereby, second respondent is not entitled to avoid its liability. But, as the first respondent proved the violation, it is entitled to recover the amount paid to petitioners, from first respondent by way of execution petition. Therefore, all the three respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioners.

9.ISSUE No.3:

In the result, petition is allowed with costs by granting following releifs:

1. Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of

Rs.4,86,000/-.

2. Petitioners are entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of proper presentation of petition i.e., from 15.11.2018 to till the date of realization.

3. All the three respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

4. On such deposit, first petitioner is entitled to take a sum of

Rs.2,43,000/- with accrued interest thereon and half of the costs.

7

5. On such deposit, second petitioner is entitled to take

Rs.2,43,000/- with accrued interest thereon and half of the costs.

6. On such deposit, petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw their respective amounts.

7. Second respondent is entitled to recover the amount paid to petitioners from first respondent by way of filing E.P.

with interest @ 6% p.a.,

8. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

9. Second respondent is directed to deposit the amount awarded directly to the respective bank accounts of the petitioners in view of the decision given by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in “Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal and others”.

10. Petitioners are directed to furnish the photocopies of their respective Bank Passbooks to second respondent or its counsel for crediting the said amount awarded in their respective accounts.

11. Second respondent is directed to deposit the respective amounts in the respective bank accounts of the petitioners within 30 days from the date of furnishing the photocopies of their respective bank passbooks to second respondent or its counsel.

12. Petitioners are directed to pay the balance court fee on the excess amount awarded as per rules within 10 days.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 2nd day of April, 2025.

(Sd/-) Y.V.S.B.G.Pardha Saradhi, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For petitiones: PW1 : Veera valli Narahari. PW2 : Pathuri Pundarikakshaiah.

For respondents:.

RW1: M.Veeraiah. RW2: Shaik Samdhani.

8

Exhibits marked

For petitioners:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.269/2018 of Narasaraopet Rural Police Station. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of Inquest Report. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of Rough sketh. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of P.M.E Report. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of M.V.I Report. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of Charge Sheet filed in Crime covered under Ex.A1.

For respondents:

Ex.B1 is the true copy of policy issued by R.2 in favour of one M. Mallikarjuna Rao. Ex.B2 is the office copy of notice sent by R.2 to R.1 to furnish the relevant records mentioned therein. Ex.B3 is the postal acknowledgment showing that R.1 received the notice under Ex.B2

X-series: Ex.X1 is the said authorization letter. Ex.X2 is the extract of driving licence particulars of Shaik Johny S/o.Subhani.

(Sd/-) Y.V.S.B.G.Pardha Saradhi, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF XII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : GUNTUR

Present: Y.V.S.B.G.Pardha Saradhi XII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur

Wednesday on this the 28th day of July 2021

Crl.M.P.No.1282 of 2021

in Cr.No. 106 of 2021 (Pedakurapadu Police Station)

Between: Bontha Daniel Priya Ranjith @ Daneyeau Priya Ranjith S/o. Prasad, aged 20 years, R/o. Podapadu Village, Pedakurapadu Mandal, Guntur District. --- Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State rep. by SHO, Pedakurapadu Police Station, Pedakurapadu, rep.by Addl Public Prosecutor,Guntur,Guntur Dt.

--- Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on for hearing on this day i.e., 28-07-2021

before this court in the presence of Sri. C. Narendra Babu, advocate

counsel for petitioner/A1 and Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent and this court pronounces the following

ORDER

1.This is an application filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 in

Crime No.106 of 2021 of Pedakurapadu Police Station under

Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail.

2.Notice given to learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He furnished the objections through Whats App messenger. As per the material on record, respondent registered a case in Crime No.106 of 2021 against the petitioner and another under Sections 354(D), 376(ii)(n), 417, 352 of IPC and affected the arrest of the petitioner on 03-7-2021 and from then he has been in judicial custody.

3.As seen from the material available on record, the case of the respondent is that defacto-complainant is a student of 3rd year

B.Sc., Nursing course and as the college is not working due to

COVID-19 pandemic, defacto-complainant working in a hospital at

Chilakaluripet; she got acquaintance with the petitioner/A1 at about one year back and that acquaintance converted into love; on 14-06-2021, the petitioner/A1 had gone to the hospital at where the defacto-complainant was working and enquired her whether any person known to her, was residing in Vijayawada and on that she told him that her friend Lilly was residing in Vijayawada and thereby they both had gone to the house of said Lilly and they both told her that they were married and by saying so, they stayed in the house of said Lilly for about 9 days and in those days, the petitioner/A1 against her will, by making a promise that he would marry her, enjoyed her physically; she also pledged her ear-studs for about Rs.7,000/- and stayed in Vijayawada by spending that amount and thereafter they returned to

Chilakaluripet on 24-6-2021 and again on 27-06-2021, petitioner/A1 had gone to the hospital, in which the defacto- complainant was working and taken her to his house in the night hours and on seeing the same, her parents came to the house of petitioner/A1 and admonished both of them; again petitioner/A1 had taken the defacto-complainant on 28-6-2021 to a temple of

Godess Chandirani at about 11 p.m., and tied Thali in her neck and taken her to his house and introduced her to the mother of the petitioner i.e. A2 and on that mother of the petitioner attacked on her and removed the Thali from her neck by using force and tore her clothes and taken her to the house of her parents by dragging her and abused her and her parents and thereby she asked the petitioner/A1 to marry her before elders, for that petitioner/A1 and his parents not agreed and the petitioner refused by saying that his parents are threatening him that if he would agree to marry her, they would commit suicide and thereby she gave report to them. Upon the said report, respondent registered a case in Crime No.106/2021 under sections 354(D), 376(ii)(n), 417, 352 of IPC and affected arrest of petitioner/A1 on 03-7-2021 and from then he has been in judicial custody.

3.During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner/A1 submitted that petitioner/A1 did not commit any offence and he is aged about 19 years and the age of the defacto- complainant is 21 years and in such a case, there is no possibility to fell in love with the defacto-complainant by petitioner and he was implicated in a false case. He further argued that in this case material part of investigation is completed and there is no need to keep the petitioner in judicial custody for a further period and ultimately, requested the court to consider the request of the petitioner in a positive manner. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor seriously opposed the relief claimed by the petitioner and specifically contending that there is clear material against the petitioner and the 2nd accused and in this case examination of some more witnesses is necessary and if this court released the petitioner on bail, definitely he would influence the witnesses and ultimately, requested the court to dismiss the petition.

4.Perused the material on record. As per the material on record, defacto-complainant is not a minor and she is aged about 21 years. As seen from the material on record, it appears that both the petitioner and defacto-complainant cohabited voluntarily.

To decide the fact whether the petitioner/A1 is having malafide intention to cheat the defacto-complainant from the inception is a fact to be decided after full trial. Respondent apprehended the petitioner on 03-7-2021 and from then he has been in judicial custody. Respondent examined as many as 11 witnesses, who are material in nature. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the number of witnesses examined by the respondent, this court is of considered opinion that this is a fit case to consider the request of the petitioner/A1 in a positive manner. Therefore, considering the request of the petitioner/A1 in a positive manner.

5.In the result, petition is allowed. Release the petitioner/A1 on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees

Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of like sum each to the satisfaction of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapallil.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me on this 28th day of July 2021

Y V S B GDigitally signed by Y V S B G

PARDHASARADHI

PARDHASARADHI

Date: 2021.07.28 16:34:28 +0530

XII Additional Sessions Judge Guntur District at Guntur. Copy to

1. The Additional Junior Civil Judge,Sattenapalli.

2. Sri. C. Narendra Babu, advocate, Guntur

3. The S.H.O. Pedakurapadu Police Station,Pedakurapadu through APP

Note Soft Copy of this order with digital signature is forwarded to Addl Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, counsel for petitioner and learned APP through e mail

APGU000044832024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: GUNTUR.

Present: Y.V.S.B.G.Pardha Saradhi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, this the 3rd day of April, 2025.

T.O.P. No.1255/2024

Between:

Prathipati Malemma. .. Petitioner.

(Plaintiff in O.S.No.156/2019 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chilakaluripet and sole defendant in O.S.No.123/2021 on the file of Prl. Civil

Judge (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet)

And

1. Prathipati Dibbaiah (Respondents 1 and 2 are defendants in O.S,.No.156/2019 on the file of Addl.

Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chilakaluripet, and 3rd respondent is plaintiff in

O.S.No.123/2021 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Chilakaluripet)

2. Pundla Rupa Jyothi @ Prathipati Rupa Jyothi

3. Prathipati Pushpalatha.. Respondents.

IN THE MATTER OF TRANSFER OF O.S.NO.156/2019 ON THE FILE OF

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), CHILAKALURIPET TO THE FILE

OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), CHILAKALURIPET TO BE

TRIED TOGETHER WITH O.S.NO.123/2021 ON ITS FILE

CAUSE TITLE OF O.S.NO.156/2019

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

CHILAKALURIPET

Between:

Prathipati Malemma. .. Plaintiff.

And

1. Prathipati Dibbaiah

2. Pundla Rupa Jyothi @ Prathipati Rupa Jyothi .. Defendants.

CAUSE TITLE OF O.S.NO.123/2021

IN THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

CHILAKALURIPET

Between:

Prathipati Pushpalatha .. Plaintiff.

And

Prathipati Malemma. .. Defendant.

2

This petition coming on this day i.e., on 28.03.2025 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri M. Subba Rao, Advocate, Counsel for

petitioner, and of Sri D. Naga Babu, Advocate, counsel for respondents 1 to 3, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.Petitioner filed the present petition to withdraw the suit O.S.156/2019 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet and to transfer the same to Prl. Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Chilakaluripet to try along with the suit O.S.123/2021.

2.Contentions of the petitioner are that she is the plaintiff in the suit

O.S.156/2019 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Chilakaluripet and defendant in the suit O.S.123/2021 pending on the file of Prl.

Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet and the respondents No.1

and 2 are defendants in the suit O.S.156/2019 and third respondent is plaintiff in

O.S.123/2021 pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Chilakaluripet; petitioner filed the suit O.S.156/2019 for permanent injunction and ad-interim injunction was granted in that suit and the suit was transferred to Addl.

Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet on administrative grounds;

daughter of first respondent i.e., third respondent filed the suit O.S.123/2021 for declaration of her title over schedule property basing on gift deed said to have executed by present first respondent; in both the suits, the property involved is one and the same; parties are almost all same and the title claiming by both parties over schedule property is also on the same facts and therefore, it is necessary to decide both the suits by one court, otherwise, there is every possibility to give conflicting findings and therefore, filed the present petition.

3.After registering the petition, ordered notice to respondents and respondents engaged counsel, but they have not filed counter even after granting sufficient time and therefore, forfeited the right to file counter by respondents

No.1 to 3.

4.Heard the counsel for petitioner. Perused the material on record.

5.Now the point pending consideration before this court is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of withdrawal of

O.S.156/2019 from Addl. Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Chilakaluripet and to transfer the same to Prl. Civil Judge’s

Court (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet to try along with

O.S.123/2021 as prayed for ?

3

6. Point:

Along with the petition, petitioner filed the respective plaints in

O.S.156/2019 and O.S.123/2021. As seen from both the plaints, defendant in the

suit O.S.123/2021 filed the suit O.S.156/2019. The defendants in O.S.156/2019 are not the parties to the suit O.S.123/2021. As seen from the schedule attached to the plaint in O.S.123/2021, the property involved in that case is R.C.C Daba house with Dr No.1-268 in D.No.350 with following boundaries :-

East: Property belonged to Prathipati Ramulu

South: Property belonged to Prathipati Venkaiah

West: Panchayath road

North: Panchayath road

As seen from plaint schedule in O.S.156/2019, the schedule property is

R.C.C Daba and tiled house with Dr No.2-61/A in D.No.350 with following boundaries :-

East: Prathipati Ramulu’s house

South: Prathipati Naga Raju’s house

West: Gram Panchayath road

North: Gram Panchayath road

After considering the respective schedules attached to both the plaints, though the door number and southern boundary are not tallied, the other boundaries are tallying. It shows that the property involved in both the suits is same. When the property involved in both the suits is same and when the basic pleadings of both the parties touching the source of title are similar, it is better to decide both the suits by one court, so that, conflicting findings can be avoided. In this case, respondents No.1 to 3 though put up their appearance, not contesting the matter. It shows that they have no objection to transfer the matter to Prl. Civil

Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet. Hence, allowing the petition.

7.In the result, petition is allowed. The suit O.S.156/2019 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet is hereby withdrawn and transferred to Prl. Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Chilakaluripet to try along with the suit O.S.123/2021 and to dispose off the same under a common judgment.

Directly typed to my dictation to Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of April, 2025.

(Sd/-) Y.V.S.B.G.Pardha Saradhi,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.

4

Copy to:

1.The Prl. Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet and also through e-mail pjcjchilakaluripet@gmail.com.

2. The Addl. Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet and also through e-mail ajcjchilakaluripet@gmail.com.

IN THE COURT OF XII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : GUNTUR

Present: Y.V.S.B.G.Pardha Saradhi XII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur

Wednesday on this the 28th day of July 2021

Crl.M.P.No.1283 of 2021

in Cr.No. 106 of 2021 (Pedakurapadu Police Station)

Between: Bontha Anna Mary W/o.Prasad, aged 45 years, R/o. D.No.1-63, Podapadu Village, Pedakurapadu Mandal, Guntur District. --- Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State rep. by SHO, Pedakurapadu Police Station, Pedakurapadu, rep.by Addl Public Prosecutor,Guntur,Guntur Dt.

--- Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on for hearing on this day i.e., 28-07-2021

before this court in the presence of Sri. C. Narendra Babu, advocate

counsel for petitioner/A2 and Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent and this court pronounces the following

ORDER

1.This is an application filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 in

Crime No.106 of 2021 of Pedakurapadu Police Station under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail to her.

2.Notice given to learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He furnished the objections through Whats App messenger. As per the material on record, respondent registered a case in Crime No.106 of 2021 against the petitioner and another under Sections 354(D), 376(ii)(n), 417, 352 of IPC and affected the arrest of the accused

No.1 on 03-7-2021 and making attempts for the arrest of petitioner.

3.As seen from the material available on record, the case of the respondent is the defacto-complainant is a student of 3rd year

B.Sc., Nursing course and as the college is not working due to

Covid-19 pandemic, defacto-complainant working in a hospital at

Chilakaluripet; she got acquaintance with the son of petitioner i.e.

A1 at about one year back and that acquaintance turned into love; on 14-06-2021, the accused No.1 had gone to the hospital at where the defacto-complainant was working and enquired her whether any person known to her, was residing in Vijayawada and on that she told him that her friend Lilly was residing in

Vijayawada and thereby they both had gone to the house of said

Lilly and they both told her that they were married and by saying so they stayed in the house of said Lilly for about 9 days and in those days the accused No.1 against her will by making a promise that he would marry her, enjoyed her physically; she also pledged her ear-studs for about Rs.7,000/- and stayed in Vijayawada by spending that amount and thereafter they returned to

Chilakaluripet; again on 27-06-2021, accused No.1 had gone to the hospital, in which the defacto-complainant was working and taken her to house in the night hours and on seeing the same, her parents came to the house of petitioner/A2 and admonished both of them; again accused No.1 had taken the defacto-complainant on 28-6-2021 to a temple of Godess Chandirani at about 11 p.m., and tied thali in her neck and taken her to petitioner/A2 house and introduced her to the petitioner/A2 and on that petitioner/A2 attacked on her and removed the thali from her neck by using force and tore her clothes and taken her to the house of her parents by dragging her and abused her and her parents and thereby she asked the accused No.1 to marry her before elders, for that accused No.1 and petitioner not agreed and the accused

No.1 refused by saying that his parents are threatening him that if he would agree to marry her, they would commit suicide and thereby she gave report to them. Upon the said report, respondent registered a case in Crime No.106/2021 under sections 354(D), 376(ii)(n), 417, 352 of IPC and affected arrest of accused No.1 on 03-7-2021 and making attempts to arrest petitioner/A2.

3.During the course of hearing learned counsel for petitioner/A2 submitted that petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. He further argued that in this case material part of investigation is completed and there is no need to apprehend the petitioner and ultimately, requested the court to consider the request of the petitioner in a positive manner. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor seriously opposed the relief claimed by the petitioner and specifically contending that there is clear material against the petitioner and the 1st accused and in this case examination of some more witnesses is necessary and if this court considered the request of petitioner, definitely she would influence the witnesses and ultimately, requested the court to dismiss the petition.

4.As seen from the material on record, petitioner is aged about 45 years. She is a lady. This court today granted regular bail to 1st accused, who is son of the petitioner. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as the petitioner is a lady, this court is of considered opinion that there is no need to send the petitioner/A2 to judicial custody for the purpose of investigation process. Petitioner is ready to furnish security for her availability to court and police, as and when required. Therefore, this court considering the request of the petitioner in a positive manner.

5.In the result, petition is allowed. Respondent is directed to release the petitioner/A2 on the event of her arrest in the above numbered crime and above offence on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- with two sureties of like sum each.

Nature of sureties is the discretion of petitioner.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me on this 28th day of July 2021

Y V S B GDigitally signed by Y V S B G

PARDHASARADHI

PARDHASARADHI

Date: 2021.07.28 16:39:30 +0530

XII Additional Sessions Judge Guntur District at Guntur. Copy to

1. The Additional Junior Civil Judge,Sattenapalli.

2. Sri. C. Narendra Babu, advocate, Guntur

3. The S.H.O. Pedakurapadu Police Station,Pedakurapadu through APP

Note Soft Copy of this order with digital signature is forwarded to the court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattnapalli, counsel for petitioner and learned APP through e mail.

APGU000042222024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: GUNTUR.

Present: Y.V.S.B.G.Pardha Saradhi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, this the 3rd day of April, 2025.

T.O.P. No.1177/2024

Between:

Sanagapalli Sudha Rani @ Alapati Sudha Rani (Petitioner in HMOP 57/2024 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet and the respondent in HMOP 116/2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla)

.. Petitioner.

And

Alapati Uday Kumar (Petitioner in HMOP 116/2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla and the respondent in HMOP 57/2024 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet)

.. Respondent.

IN THE MATTER OF TRANSFER OF HMOP 116/2021

FROM THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Between:

Alapati Uday Kumar .. Petitioner.

And

Sanagapalli Sudha Rani @ Alapati Sudha Rani .. Respondent.

IN THE MATTER IN HMOP 57/2024

BEFORE THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NARASARAOPET

Between:

Sanagapalli Sudha Rani @ Alapati Sudha Rani .. Petitioner.

And

Alapati Uday Kumar .. Respondent.

This petition coming on this day i.e., on 12.03.2025 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri G. Seetha Rami Reddy, Advocate, Counsel for

petitioner, and respondent remained exparte, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court made the following:

2

O R D E R

1.Petitioner filed the present petition to transfer HMOP 116/2021 pending on the file of Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division), Bapatla to Prl. Civil

Judge’s Court (Senior Division), Narasaraopet to try along with HMOP 57/2024.

2.Contentions of the petitioner are that she is the petitioner in HMOP 57/2024 pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet and respondent in HMOP 116/2021 pending on the file of Civil

Judge’s Court (Senior Division), Bapatla; in the petition, petitioner stated various

facts touching the matrimonial disputes in between her and the respondent and as this petition is only a petition under Sec.24 CPC, not considering all those facts in this petition; in view of harassment in the hands of respondent, he initiated criminal proceedings under Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and police filed the charge sheet and registered as C.C.638/2023 and the same is pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge’s Court (Junior

Division), Narasaraopet; thereafter, respondent filed HMOP 116/2021 for

Restitution of Conjugal Rights on the file of Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Bapatla; petitioner filed DVC 18/2021 under Domestic Violence Act and the same is pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Narasaraopet; she filed HMOP 57/2024 for dissolution of her marriage on the ground of cruelty; earlier, she filed TOP 178/2022 for transfer of HMOP 116/2021 to Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division), Narasaraopet and the same was dismissed on 15.11.2022; subject matter involved in both the cases is same; material witnesses going to be examined by both the parties are same; if both the petitions are decided by two different courts, there is every possibility to give conflicting findings and therefore, filed the present petition.

3.After registering the petition, ordered notice to respondent and respondent received the notice and not put up appearance to contest the matter and therefore, set him exparte on 23.12.2024.

4.Heard the counsel for petitioner. Perused the material on record.

5.Now the point pending consideration before this court is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of withdrawal of

HMOP.116/2021 from Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Bapatla and to transfer the same to Prl. Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division), Narasaraopet to try along with HMOP 57/2024 as prayed for?

3

6. Point:

As seen from the material on record, present petitioner i.e., wife filed

HMOP 57/2024 for dissolution of her marriage with respondent on the ground of

cruelty. Respondent filed HMOP 116/2021 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

Petitioner initiated criminal proceedings against respondent in C.C.638/2023 under Sec.498-A IPC and Secs 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Petitioner initiated DVC 18/2021 and same is also pending on the file of I Addl.

Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

After considering this material on record, petitioner initiated three cases and they are all pending in Narasaraopet. Only one case which was filed by respondent is pending in Bapatla Court. Respondent attending the courts at

Narasaraopet in all the three proceedings. The petitioner has to attend in only one case. If this court allowed the petition and transferred the HMOP filed by respondent from Bapatla to Narasaraopet, there will not be any further inconvenience to respondent as he is attending in three cases at Narasaraopet. If this court not considered the request of petitioner, she has to attend before the court at Bapatla in addition to the courts at Narasaraopet. The inconvenience that would be caused if not considered the request of petitioner is more to petitioner than the respondent. Therefore, in the interest of justice and as the respondent not contesting the petition by disclosing his inconvenience if any, this court allowing the petition filed by petitioner.

7.In the result, petition is allowed. The HMOP 116/2021 pending on the file of Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division), Bapatla is hereby withdrawn and transferred to Principal Civil Judge's Court (Senior Division), Narasaraopet to try along with HMOP 57/2024.

Directly typed to my dictation to Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of April, 2025.

(Sd/-) Y.V.S.B.G.Pardha Saradhi,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Copy to:

1.The Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division), Bapatla and also through e-mail pscjbapatla@gmail.com.

2. The Principal Civil Judge's Court (Senior Division),Narasaraopet and also through e- mail pscjcourtnarasaraopet@gmail.com.