Ms Yegi Janaki

1

O.S.No. 150 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ATMAKUR-A

Dated this the 28 th day of April, 2025.

Present: Smt.Y.Janaki, II-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.A.

O.S. NO. 150 of 2023

Between:-

1. Sri.Eddula Kurmanna @ Gudise Kurmanna S/o Late Eddula Erranna, Age: 50 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

2. Smt.Eddula Laxmamma @ Gudese Laxmamma W/o Late Gudise Govind @ Eddula Govind, Age: 48 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

3. Sri.Eddula Naganna @ Gudise Naganna S/o Late Eddula Errenna @ Gudise Errenna, Age: 45 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

4. Sri.Eddula Buchanna @ Gudise Buchanna S/o Eddula Karrenna @ Gudise Karrrenna, Age: 53 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

5. Sri.Gudise Naganna @ Eddula Naganna S/o Late Gudise Karenna @ Eddula Karenna, Age: 53 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

6. Sri.Eddula Pentanna S/o Late Eddula Makalanna @ Eddula Gattanna, Age: 46 years, Occupation: Business,

7. Sri.Eddula Ramulu @ Gudise Ramulu S/o Late Eddula makalanna, Age: 46 years, Occupation: Business, All are R/o 3-61, Motlampalli village of Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District. … Plaintiffs.

And

1. Sri. Boya Bojjamma W/o Ramulu, Age: 55 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

2. Sri.Eddula Ramulu S/o Thimmanna, Age: 38 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

3. Sri.Eddula Anjanna S/o Thimmanna, Age: 32 years, Occupation: Agriculture, All are R/o D.No.5-8, Motlampalli village, Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy district.

4. Sri.Devarapalli Chinnayya s/o Chinna Erranna, Age: 60 years, Occupation: Agriculture, 2

O.S.No. 150 of 2023

5. Sri.Saddali Shirisha W/o Saddali Pedda Krishnaya, Age: 25 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

6. Sri.S.Anjaneyulu S/o S.Manyam, Age: not known to caveator, Above all are R/o D.No.3-58, Devarapally village, Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

7. Sri.Hamsa W/o Ramulu, Age: 50 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

8. Sri.Pushpavathi W/o Mogilanna, Age: 30 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

9. Sri.Eddula Saroja W/o Moogilanna, Age: 35 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

10.Sri.Eddula Saroja W/o Eddula Anjineyulu, Age: 30 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

11.Master Eddula Shekar S/o Shekar Ramulu, Age: 17 years, Occupation: Student, Represented by its natural Guardian his father Sri.Yeddula Ramulu

12.Sri.Boya Yeddula Thimanna S/o Yeddula Pentanna, Age: 65 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

13.Sri.Boya Eddula Anjaneyulu S/o Boya Eddulu Ramulu, Age: 32 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

14.Sri.Boya Eddula Mallesh S/o Boya Eddula Ramulu, Age: 32 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

15.Sri.Eddula Katalamma W/o Pedda Narsanna, Age: 75 years, Occupation: Agriculture, All are R/o D.No.5-8, Motlampalli village, Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District. … Defendants. *** This suit is coming before me for final hearing on this day on 04-04-2025 in the presence of Sri.S.Bhaskar, Advocate for plaintiffs and defendants were set exparte and stood over for the consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: -

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

1)The present suit is filed seeking a relief of perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants, agents, servants, nominees, assigns, or any other person of persons interfering into 3

O.S.No. 150 of 2023

peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2)Case of plaintiffs: - The plaintiffs are legal heirs of Sri.late

Eddula gattanna S/o Late Buchanna and the plaintiffs is grandfather of Sri.Late Eddula Buchanna S/o Eddula Gattanna and all the parties together jointly constitute a joint Hindu Family and the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 15 are relatives. the Plaintiff No. 1 to 7 herein is absolute owner and possessor of all that agricultural land an extent of

Ac. 2.19 Gts in Sy.No.71/3/1, extent of Ac. 1.00 Gts in 71/3/2, extent of Ac. 1.00 Gts in 71/4, extent of Ac. 0.10 Gts in Sy. No. 71/aa/1, extent of Ac. 1.00 Gts in Sy. No. 71/aa/2, an extent of Ac. 1.00 Gts in

Sy. No. 71/aa/3, an extent of Ac. 6.10 Gts in 71/e, and an extent of

Ac. 1.34 Gts in Sy. No. 71/2 a total extent of Ac. 14.33 Gts, an extent of Ac. 2.17 Gts in Sy No. 73/2, an extent of Ac. 4.32 Gts in Sy. No.

73/1/1/1/1, an extent of Ac. 2. 16 Gts in Sy. No. 73/1/1/1/2, an extent of Ac.2.16 Gts in Sy. No. 73/1/1/2, and extent of Aс. 2.16 Gts in Sy. No. 73/1/2, an extent of Ac. 2.00 Gts in Sy. No. 73/a/3 an total extent of Ac. 14-17 Gts, an extent of Ac. 3.14 Gts Sy. No. 74/1/1/1/1, an extent of Ac. 1.27 Gts in 74/1/1/1/2, an extent ofAc. 1. 27 gts in

Sy. 74/1/1/2, an extent ofAc. 1. 27 gts in Sy. 74/1/2, an extent of Ac.

1.27 Gts in Sy. No. 74/2 total extent of Ac.10.02 Gts and an extent of

Ac. 0.17 Gts in Sy. No. 75/1/1/1/1, an extent of Ac. 1.21 Gts in Sy.

No. 75/1/1/1/2, an extent of Ac. 1.22 Gts in Sy. No. 75/1/1/2, an extent of Ac. 2.10 Gts in Sy. No. 75/1/2, an extent of Ac. 0.17 Gts in

Sy. No. 75/2/1, an extent of Ac. 1.21 Gts in Sy. No. 75/2/2, an extent of Ac. 1.22 Gts in Sy. No. 75/3 and an total extent of Ac.9-10 Gts and the schedule ofproperty total an extent of Ac. 48-12 gts, situated at

Motlampalli Village, Atmakur Mandal, then Mahaboob Nagar Dist, now Wanaparthy District., T.S.. The Plaintiffs is the family members 4

O.S.No. 150 of 2023

and jointly cultivating and enjoying the possession of the petition schedule property. Originally, the above said total land belongs to a person by name Sri. Late. Eddula Gattanna S/o. Late. Eddula

Bbuchanna which is ancestral property and Inam land as per Revenue

Records, the said person who died since long time, leaving behind his one and only one son Sri. Late Eddula Bhuchanna and he are also died since long back, leaving behind his 3 son's i.e, i). Le. Eddula

Erranna ii). Late. Eddula Karrenna, iii). Late. Eddula Makalanna @

Gattnna and 1 daughter i.e., late. Adivamma. The property was succeeded by the father of Plaintiffs from Late. Eddula Gattanna and then authorities issued Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in favour

Plaintiff’s fathers on basis of mutation in the year of 1994. The aforementioned property was succeeded by the plaintiffs from his father's i.e., i). Late. Eddula Erranna ii). Late. Eddula Karrenna, iii).

Late. Eddula Makalanna @ Gattnna, the then Tahsildar issued proceedings vide No. A1/ROR/107/2007 dated 10-05-2007 &

B/345/2015 dated 05-04-2015 in favour of Plaintiffs declaring them as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. The Revenue

Authority also issued Patta Pass Book Deed (Nos.7) vide Patta No. 881, 888,989,889,883&888 in favor of Plaintiffs and on 23-02-2010

Plaintiffs has obtained the loan from the State Bank of India, branch

Atmakur. The Plaintiffs are in physical possession of suit schedule property ever since the Plaintiff developed the suit land in the suit schedule property.

During the Covid-19 time, in order to gain unlawfully and also to cause physical disturbance to Plaintiffs, The Defendants without the knowledge of Plaintiffs and by not following the due process, managed with the sub-ordinate officers of revenue, entered into the records of revenue by mutating defendant names in the pahanis in the year of 5

O.S.No. 150 of 2023

2021. Immediately the knowing the Plaintiffs herein, approached to defendants, why mutated the property without information. On 12-01- 2023 in spite repeated demands made by the Plaintiffs. Thereupon, to the Plaintiffs calling upon defendants to transfer on plaintiff names, but defendant was day by day prolong the matter. 8. The defendants deny the title of the plaintiff over the suit property, but admitted that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property from very longtime, even otherwise, the plaintiffs are in adverse possession within the knowledge of the defendants. Defendants in order to extract money from the Plaintiffs created sham documents and demanded the money for their false claim but the same was brought before the elders of the villagers and the. Since last 2 years, the Defendants made all efforts to disturb the physical possession and the title over the suit schedule property enjoyed by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants also approached to the local political leaders and with their involvement, forced the

Plaintiffs to pay amount but the therefore, Plaintiffs are true owners and possessors of the suit property, to are not obliged to any terms of the defendants put more pressure on the Plaintiffs, both physically and mentally, the Defendants filed false police complaint enquiry, the

Police but in the Thus in spite not registered any case against the

Plaintiffs. of being owners and possessors of suit schedule property, the plaintiffs are facing all difficulties to secure the possession of the suit property from the defendants. On 15-05-2023, the defendants along with unsocial elements came to suit property and tried to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property. However, the plaintiffs successfully resisted the said attempts of the defendants. On 13-09-2023 the 5th plaintiff’s wife came to P.S and lodged a petition, but the police went away. However, the police advised the plaintiffs to approach civil court. The defendants 6

O.S.No. 150 of 2023

bent upon violating the law. As there is no other go, the plaintiff approaching this hon’ble court for remedy. Hence the cause of action.

3)Case of defendants: - Though the defendants were served with the summons but Defendant No.5 didn’t appear before the Court and defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 to 15 were appeared but did not file written statement, as such they were set exparte.

4)Plaintiff to substantiate his case, got examined himself as PW1 and exhibits A1 and A14 got marked and Pw2 and Pw3 were examined and did not mark any exhibits. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of pattadar passbook issued by Tahsildar to father of plaintiffs, 1994. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of pattadar pass book (No.s6), Dated10-05-2007. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of ROR proceeding vide No.B/345/2015, dated - 05-04-2015. Ex.A4 is The certified copy of Khasra Pahanies issued by the Tahsildar Atmakur, dated 1954-55. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of

Old ROR issued by the Tahsildar, Atmakur. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of New ROR issued by the Tahsildar, Atmakur. Ex.A7 is the certified copy of pahani issued by the Tahsildar, Atmakur Dated 2000-2001.

Ex.A8 is the certified copy of pahani issued by the Tahsildar, Atmakur

Dated 2006-2007. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of pahani issued by the

Tahsildar, Atmakur dated 2008-2009. Ex.A10 is the certified copy of pahani issued by the Tahsildar, Atmakur dated 2018-2019. Ex.A11 is the certified copy of loan Account (3No.s), Dated 23-02-2010. Ex.A12 is the certified copies of Voter ID Cards of plaintiff’s fathers. Ex.A13 is the certified copy of latest Dharani pahanies. Ex.A14 is Original photographs of the suit schedule properties laong with pen-drive.

5)Heard learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

6)Now the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual 7

O.S.No. 150 of 2023

Injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

POINT No.1:

Evidence on record:-

7)The plaintiffs contended that they are absolute owners and pattedars and peaceful possessors of the suit schedule properties. In order to establish their contention, the plaintiff No.1 has examined himself as PW1 and marked exhibit A1 to A14 on his behalf and

Pw2 and Pw3 were examined and did not mark any exhibits. As the defendant has remained ex parte, it can be said that the evidence of

PW1 has remained unchallenged. It would be relevant to refer the documents relied upon by the plaintiff under exhibit A1 to A14. The plaintiffs contends that originally one Late Eddula Gattanna S/o Late

Eddula buchanna which is ancestral property and he died issueless long back leaving behind his son Sri.Late Eddula Buchanna and he also died issueless long back leaving behind his three sons i.e., 1.

Late.Eddula Erranna 2. Late Eddula Karrenna 3.Late Eddula

Makalanna @ Gattanna and one daughter i.e., Late Adivamma. Based on Ex.A4 the Late. Eddula Gattanna is the possessor for the year 1950’s over the suit property. The property was succeeded by the father of plaintiffs from Late. Eddula Gattanna and then authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of plaintiffs fathers on basis of mutation in the year of 1994 i.e., Ex.A1 and the above said property was succeeded by the plaintiffs from his fathers, the then

Tahsildar issued proceedings vide No.A1/ROR/107/2007, dated 10- 05-2017 i.e., Ex.A2 & B/345/2015 dated 05-04-2015 i.e., Ex.A3 in favour of the plaintiffs declaring them as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. Ex.A5 and A6 are the ROR’s which was issued 8

O.S.No. 150 of 2023

by Tahsildar, Atmakur, which shows that the plaintiffs are mutated their names from their fathers. Ex.A7 to A10 are the pahanies which shows that the plaintiffs are possessors over the suit property. Ex.A11 to Ex.A12 are the shows that the plaintiffs have taken the loans from their accounts and their addresses respectively. Ex.A13 and A14 shows that they are the owners and pattedars of the suit schedule property. As such all the documents show the ownership and possession of the suit schedule property in favour the plaintiffs and this court is satisfied with the proof those brought on record and the fact of possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property is not denied by the defendants, since they were set ex party, this court feels that the plaintiff has proved the lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and also proved the interference by the defendants into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property as the same is not denied and in these circumstances this court feels at the case of Plaintiffs can be allowed.

point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No.2: To what relief?

8)In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, agents, servants, nominees, assigns, or any other person of persons from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. All Pending IA’s shall stand closed.

Dictated to Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court this the 28th day of April, 2025.

9

O.S.No. 150 of 2023

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY,

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ATMAKUR-A.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined:

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW1. E.Naganna @ Gudise Naganna Set experte Pw2. B.Rangapuram Ramulu Pw3. Kavali Pullanna.

Exhibits marked for::

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of pattadar passbook issued by Tahsildar to father of plaintiffs, 1994. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of pattadar pass book (No.s6), Dated10-05- 2007. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of ROR proceeding vide No.B/345/2015, dated -05-04-2015. Ex.A4 is The certified copy of Khasra Pahanies issued by the Tahsildar Atmakur, dated 1954-55. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of Old ROR issued by the Tahsildar, Atmakur. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of New ROR issued by the Tahsildar, Atmakur. Ex.A7 is the certified copy of pahani issued by the Tahsildar, Atmakur

Dated 2000-2001.

Ex.A8 is the certified copy of pahani issued by the Tahsildar, Atmakur

Dated 2006-2007.

Ex.A9 is the certified copy of pahani issued by the Tahsildar, Atmakur

dated 2008-2009.

Ex.A10 is the certified copy of pahani issued by the Tahsildar, Atmakur dated 2018-2019. Ex.A11 is the certified copy of loan Account (3No.s), Dated 23-02- 2010. Ex.A12 is the certified copies of Voter ID Cards of plaintiff’s fathers. Ex.A13 is the certified copy of latest Dharani pahanies. Ex.A14 is Original photographs of the suit schedule properties laong with pen-drive.

10

O.S.No. 150 of 2023

For Defendants:

--Nil—

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY,

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ATMAKUR-A.

1

O.S. No.67 of 2024 (old O.S.No.56 of 2010)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ATMAKUR-A

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2025. Present: Smt. Y.Janaki, II-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.A.

O.S. No.67 of 2024 (old O.S.No.56 of 2010)

Between:-

1) P.Baleeshwar Reddy S/o Late Papaiahgari Narayan Reddy, Age: 33 years,

2) P.Ram Mohan Reddy S/o Bheem Reddy, Age: 37 years, Both are Agriculturists, R/o Kothakota village and Mandal. …Plaintiffs.

And

1. The Mandal Development Officer, Kothakota

2. Sri.Ravindar Programme Officer, D.W.M.Society, Mahabubnagar

3. The Thasildar (M.R.O) Kothakota.

4. R.Ramchandraiah Goud S/o Janardhan Goud, M.P.T.C, R/o Kothakota.

5. Programme Officer, M.P.D.O, Kothakota. …Defendants. ***

SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION

PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 R/W SEC.26 C.P.C

DATE OF PRESENTATION: 22-03-2010

DATE OF REGISTRATION: 22-03-2010

This suit came on this day the 24-04-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sreeram Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri.K.Shashibhushan, Assistant Government Pleader for defendant No.1 to 3 and defendant No.5 and having stood over for the consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1) This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men, servants, agents etc., from interfering over 2

O.S. No.67 of 2024 (old O.S.No.56 of 2010)

the suit land in Sy.No.442 to an extent of Ac.1-04gts., of dryland situated at Kothakota village and Mandal.

2) Case of the plaintiff:- The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in Sy.No.442 to an extent of Ac.1- 04gts., situated in the limits of Kothakota village and Mandal. In the year 2003, some miscreants namely Megha Reddy, Sivakumar Reddy,

P.Purushotham Reddy and 7 others, forcibly removed the stone walls around the suit land for which the plaintiffs filed suit i.e., O.S.No.130 of 2023 for Mandatory Injunction, the suit was dismissed. As such, an appeal filed vide A.S.No.29 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s

Court, Wanaparthy. The said appeal was allowed on 04-04-2007, then the plaintiffs filed an E.P.No.28 of 2008 before this Hon’ble Court and the same E.P executed on 23-08-2009, the earthen road was removed by the Hon’ble Court and possession given to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are in possession. Further on instigation of the defendants in

O.S.No.130 of 2003 with the assistance of others the defendant No.3

issued a notice for removal of compound wall for which the plaintiffs issued reply. Then on 27-02-2010 the defendant No.4 tried to start laying road by engaging labour, earlier also there was a proposal in the month of December in O.S.No.130 of 2003. As such the plaintiff got issued statutory notice to the defendants. The defendantNo.1 to 3 and 5 are Government employees and notices served to all. The plaintiff No.1 questioned the defendant No.4 and on information, the plaintiff asked about the formation of road. He informed that he is nothing to do with the work and the other defendants tried to escape but the defendant No.4 is trying to lay the road. As he got contract and asked the plaintiff to get any orders from the authorities. The land is not acquired for any public purpose and the defendants have no 3

O.S. No.67 of 2024 (old O.S.No.56 of 2010)

right to interfere into the plaintiffs suit land, there is no other go except to approach the Hon’ble Court, for protection of property.

Hence this suit.

3)Case of defendants: - The defendants No.1 and 3 was denied the contents of plaintiffs. The defendants said that, there was age old existing road leading from Kothakota to Thirmalaipalli, abutting the land in Sy.No.442 since time immemorial and public in general used to go through the said road to go from Thirmalaipalli to Kothakota and vice versa. But the plaintiffs after obtaining the decree from the

Hon’ble court, under the guise of said decree had encroached the said

road to an extent of Ac.0-09gts., and raised a stony wall around his land blocking the old existing road, thereupon the public of

Thirumalaipalli and Kothakota made complaints to the Revenue

Divisional Officer and other Officials., then the RDO rectify the problem with the help of surveyor and found the encroached land by plaintiffs, for which the RDO has removed the stony wall raised by the plaintiffs. As a matter of fact, the formation of road work has been ordered to Project Director, DWMA, Mahabubnagar vide Proceeding

No.D5/258/2007 Kothakota, dated 07-10-2018 under National Road

Employment Guarantee Scheme, but the plaintiff with an intention to retain his encroached land of Ac.0-09gts., filed the present suit with an ulterior motive to retain the same. All the allegations are created one by the plaintiffs as such the allegations are denied in toto.

4)In order to prove the claim of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No. 2 himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9 and also the plaintiffs examined 4 independent witness as PW2 to PW5. Ex. A1 is the C.C.of warrant in E.P.No.28/2008, dated 09-07-2007. Ex.A2 is the

C.C of panchanama and report of the bailiff, dated 23-08-2009. Ex.A3 4

O.S. No.67 of 2024 (old O.S.No.56 of 2010)

is the C.C of receipt of D.Hr., i.e., Baleeshwar Reddy. Ex.A4 is the notice of Tahsildar, Kothakota, dated 31-08-2009. Ex.A5 is the copy of the reply notice of the plaintiff to Tahsildar, Kothakota, dated 01- 09-2009 which bears the seal of the office of the Tahsildar. Ex.A6 is the notice of Tahsildar, Kothakota dated 19-11-2009 in file

No.A/7265/2009. Ex.A7 is the Certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 04-04-2007 in A.S.No.29 of 2006 on the file of the Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Wanaparthy. Ex.A8 is the certified copy of the

panchanama attested by MRO, Kothakota. Ex.A9 is tounch map. On the other hand, that the defendant No. 3 has examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 and B2. Ex.B1 is C.C of village location sketch map

Ex.B2 is C.C of location sketch map.

5) Heard the counsel for plaintiffs and defendants and perused the material on record.

6)Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule premises (property) as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

3. If so, to what relief?

Issue No. 1.

Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule

premises (property) as on the date of filing of the suit?

7)PW1 chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint. The independent witness PW2 to PW5 also supported the case of the plaintiffs. In the present case it is undisputed fact that the plaintiffs 5

O.S. No.67 of 2024 (old O.S.No.56 of 2010)

herein already filed O.S. No.130 of 2003 against private parties regarding the same subject matter (road) for Mandatory injunction by stating that in the year 2003 some of unconcerned persons of suit land namely Megha Reddy, Shivakumar Reddy, P.Purushotham Reddy and 7 others, forcibly removed the stone wall around the suit land, illegally lay unauthorized road in the suit land for which they filed a suit a O.S. No.130 of 2003 for Mandatory injunction. It is also undisputed fact initially that the said suit was dismissed, as such the plaintiffs herein and therein filed an appeal A.S.No.29 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court Wanaparthy. The said appeal was allowed on 04-04-2007 (Ex.A7), after then the plaintiffs have filed an

E.P.No.28 of 2008 before this Court and the said E.P. was executed on

23-08-2009 (Ex.A1 to A3), the road raised by the private persons removed by the Court and possession given to the plaintiffs. In the present case that the defendants also admitted about the court decree and its execution. It is undisputed fact that the alleged road raised by the defendants in O.S.No.130 of 2003 was removed by the Court and delivered possession. Basing on Government surveyor evidence and documents that the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Wanaparthy decided that there is no road is existing in suit Sy.No.442 of Kothakota village and Mandal sivar and also found the defendants in the said suit forcibly removed the stone walls of plaintiffs around the suit land and formed road illegally. As per the said judgement and decree (Ex.A7) the said road was removed and restored the same to the plaintiffs and also raised compound wall around their land and also the defendants in the said suit permanently restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering either by themselves or though their agents. The said judgement and decree of A.S.No.29 of 2006

dated 04-04-2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court Wanaparthy

6

O.S. No.67 of 2024 (old O.S.No.56 of 2010)

(Ex. A7) and its execution vide Ex. A1 to A3 are not challenged by any body and those reached finality. Now the matter is second round litigation regarding the same subject matter. In the present case that the defendants stated in their Written statement as “that after

obtaining the decree from the Hon’ble Court, under the guise of

said decree had encroached the said road to an extent of Acs. 0-

09gnts and raised a stony wall around his land blocking the old

existing road”. Further the defendants stated in their written statement that the plaintiffs filed the present suit with an intention to retain his encroached land 0-09gnts. In the present case that the defendants stated in their written statement that as per the complaint of villagers the officials removed the compound wall of the plaintiffs to clear the road. Even if taken consideration village Naksha if cart track is existing, in the suit survey number it is for their agriculture operations but it can’t be said that it is public road. In fact, already discussed above as per the said judgement and decree (Ex. A7) it was concluded that there is no road in the suit Sy.No.442, and as per the court decree the said road was removed and restored the same to the plaintiffs and also raised compound wall around the suit land as per the court decree. In the present case that in the cross examination that the DW1 (Tahsildar, Kothakota) clearly admitted that no road is existing in the suit survey No. 442 and further he stated the said way is existing in Sy.No.443. Further that the DW1 clearly admitted that the suit land is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. In view of the evidence by either side and documents, it is clear that the that plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

7

O.S. No.67 of 2024 (old O.S.No.56 of 2010)

Issue No. 2.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

 8)In view of the findings on issue No. 1 that no road is existing in the suit survey No. 442 and the said way is existing in Sy.No. 443.

Further it is clearly established that plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled permanent injunction order and the defendants are permanently restrained from interfering in the suit schedule land either by themselves or though their agents.

Accordingly, that the plaintiffs are entitled the relief as prayed for.

 Issue No.3.

If so, to what relief?

9)In the result that the suit is decreed with costs.

Typed to my direct dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 28th day of April, 2025.

II-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur-A.

:: Appendix of Evidence::

Witnessess examined:

For the Plaintiff: For the Defendant:

Pw1. DevannaDw1.M.Venkateshwarlu

Pw2.Addula Narayan Reddy-

Pw3.Maddamoni Kurmanna- 8

O.S. No.67 of 2024 (old O.S.No.56 of 2010)

Pw4.P.Madava Reddy-

Pw5.B.Naganna-

:: Exhibits Marked for::

Plaintiff :

Ex. A1 is the C.C.of warrant in E.P.No.28/2008, dated 09-07-2007.

Ex.A2 is the C.C of panchanama and report of the bailiff, dated 23-08- 2009.

Ex.A3 is the C.C of receipt of D.Hr., i.e., Baleeshwar Reddy.

Ex.A4 is the notice of Tahsildar, Kothakota, dated 31-08-2009.

Ex.A5 is the copy of the reply notice of the plaintiff to Tahsildar,

Kothakota, dated 01-09-2009 which bears the seal of the office of the

Tahsildar.

Ex.A6 is the notice of Tahsildar, Kothakota dated 19-11-2009 in file

No.A/7265/2009.

Ex.A7 is the Certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 04-04- 2007 in A.S.No.29 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Wanaparthy.

Ex.A8 is the certified copy of the panchanama attested by MRO,

Kothakota.

Ex.A9 is tounch map.

Defendants :

Ex.B1 is C.C of village location sketch map

Ex.B2 is C.C of location sketch map.

II-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, 9

O.S. No.67 of 2024 (old O.S.No.56 of 2010)

FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur-A.

1

O.S.No. 120 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ATMAKUR-A

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2025. Present: Smt.Y.Janaki, II-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.A.

O.S. NO. 120 of 2023

Between:-

1. Kammari Balaswamy S/o Kistanna, Age: 65 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Devarapally village of Atmakur Mandal.

2. Kammari Raghavendra S/o Kammari Narayana, Age: 30 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Devarapally village of Atmakur Mandal.

3. Kammari Satyanna S/o Kistanna, Age: 55 years, Occupation: Government Employee, R/o Wanaparthy town and District.

4. Kammari Srinivasulu S/o Kistanna, Age: 57 years, Occupation: Government Employee, R/o Wanaparthy town and District. … Plaintiffs.

And

1. Harijan Kurmanna S/o Vallaiah, Age: 60 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Devarapally village of Atmakur Mandal.

2. Harijan Suryamma W/o Hirijan Ramulu, Age: 40 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Devarapally village of Atmakur Mandal.

3. Harijan Lakshmaiah S/o Vallaiah, Age: 35 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Devarapally village of Atmakur Mandal.

4. Harijan Govindu S/o Vallaiah, Age: 30 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Devarapally village of Atmakur Mandal. … Defendants.

*** This suit is coming before me for final hearing on this day on 11-04-2025 in the presence of Sri.K.Shashibhushan Advocate for plaintiffs and defendants were set exparte and stood over for the consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: -

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

1) The present suit is filed seeking a relief of perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants, their men, agents 2

O.S.No. 120 of 2023

etc., from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the A to D suit schedule properties, which are situated in the limits of Medipally village of Atmakur Mandal of Wanaparthy

District.

2)Case of plaintiffs: - The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff No.1 is the owner and possessor of the land in

Sy.No.37/AA/1/1/1 to an extent of Ac.0-39gts., situated in the limits of Medipally village of Atmakur Mandal, herein after referred it as suit A schedule property. Originallyplaintiff No.1 has purchased the land in Sy.No.37 to an extent of Ac.06-20gts., through registered sale deed vide document No.746/1985 dated 25- 04-1985. Out of said extent, the Government has acquired land to an extent of Ac.0-13gts., and further he has gifted Ac.01-12gts., each to his brothers i.e., plaintiffs No.3, 4, Late Kummari Narayana and his brother’s wife Smt.Prameela W/o Venkatswamy who in turn gifted to her son i.e., plaintiff No.2 through registered gift deeds and the remaining land is suit A schedule property. Due to computerization, it was wrongly incorporated as Ac.0-4gts., instead of Ac.0-39gts., plaintiff No.1 made application for correction of mistake by the revenue authorities. Plaintiff No.2 is the owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.37/AA1 to an extent of Ac.1-12gts., situated in the limits of Medipally village of Atmakur Mandal, herein after referred it as suit B schedule property. Plaintiff No.2 succeeded the suit B schedule property through registered gift deed vide document No.4491/2015 on 25-08-2015. Plaintiff No.3 is the owner and possessor of land in Sy.no.37/AA/1/1/2 to an extent of

Ac.01-12gts., situated in the limits of Medipally village of Atmakur

Mandal, herein after referred it as suit C schedule property. Plaintiff 3

O.S.No. 120 of 2023

No.3 succeeded the C schedule property through registered gift deed vide document No.2307/2015 on 09-04-2015. Plaintiff No.4 is the owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.37/AA2 to an extent of

Ac.01-12gts., situated in the limits of Medipally village of Atmakur

Mandal, herein after referred it as suit D schedule property. Plaintiff

No.4 succeeded the suit D schedule property through registered gift deed vide document No.2289/2015 on 09-04-2015. The plaintiff

Nos.1 to 4 names were implemented in the revenue records as pattedars for the suit A to D schedule properties

The defendants are adjacent land holders, they have land in

Sy.No.38 but they are not concern either with the plaintiffs or with the suit A to D schedule properties. Due to hike of land values, several times defendants demanded the plaitniffs to sell the suit A to D schedule properties to them in cheap rate as they denied on 16-07-2023, while the plaintiffs No.1,2 and 4 were preparing the suit A to D schedule properties for cultivation, the defendant along with their henchman, agents rushed into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and tried to dispossess plaintiff

No.1, 2 and 4 restrained them with great difficulty with respect of their men but while leaving, the defendants threatened that they will occupy the suit A to D schedule properties with more men and power. Having no other option to protect the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit A to D schedule properties, plaintiffs have approached the Hon’ble court and filed the suit for perpetual injunction for restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering into the A to D schedule properties. Hence the cause of action.

4

O.S.No. 120 of 2023

3)Case of defendants: - Though the defendants were served with the summons and they appear before the Court and they were failed to file written statement, as such they were set exparte.

4)Plaintiff No.1 to substantiate his case, got examined himself as

PW1 and exhibits A1 and A9 got marked. Ex.A1 is registered sale deed 746/1985, dated 25-04-1985, Ex.A2 is registered sale deed 4491/2015, dated 25-08-2015, Ex.A3 is registered sale deed

No.2307/2015, dated 09-04-2015, Ex.A4 is registered sale deed 2289/2015, dated 09-04-2015, Ex.A5 is registered sale deed 2291/2015, dated 09-04-2015, Ex.A6 is Application for pass book correction dated 14-02-2023, Ex.A7 is C.C of new ROR, dated 10- 07-2023, Ex.A8 is C.C of old ROR, dated 10-07-2023, Ex.A9 is C.C of pahani for the year 2008-09, dated 10-07-2023.

5)Heard learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

6)Now the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual

Injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

POINT No.1:

Evidence on record:-

7)The plaintiff No.1 contended that he is absolute owner,

Pattedar and peaceful possessors of A to D suit schedule properties.

Then the plaintiff No.1 to 4 is the original pattedars and owners of the A to D suit schedule properties. To show this, the plaintiff No.1 got marked exhibit A1 to A9. Originally the plaintiff No.1 has purchased the land in Sy.No.37 to an extent of Ac.06-20gts., through Ex.A1. Plaintiff No.1 to 4 are registered gift deeds through 5

O.S.No. 120 of 2023

Ex.A2 to A5 after registered the suit lands, in revenue records some correction takes place, for which the plaintiff has filed an application which is shown in Ex.A6. Ex.A7 is C.C of new ROR and

Ex.A8 is C.C of old ROR which shows that after purchase of lands, which were registered on them. Ex.A9 which shows that the plaintiffs are possession from the year 2008 to till date. As such all the documents show the ownership and possession of the suit lands in favour the plaintiff No.1 to 4 and this court is satisfied with the proof those brought on record and the facts of possession of plaintiffs over the suit land is not denied by the defendants, since they were set ex party, this court feels that the plaintiffs has proved the lawful possession over the suit land as on the date of filing of the suit and also proved the interference by the defendants into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land as the same is not denied and in these circumstances this court feels at the case of

Plaintiffs can be allowed.

point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No.2: To what relief?

8)In the result, the plaint is decreed, by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiffs restraining the defendants, their men and agents etc., from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over A to D suit schedule properties.

Dictated to Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court this the 28th day of April, 2025.

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY,

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 6

O.S.No. 120 of 2023

ATMAKUR-A.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined:

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW1. Kammari Balaswamy Set exparte

Exhibits marked for::

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 is registered sale deed 746/1985, dated 25-04-1985,

Ex.A2 is registered sale deed 4491/2015, dated 25-08-2015,

Ex.A3 is registered sale deed No.2307/2015, dated 09-04-2015,

Ex.A4 is registered sale deed 2289/2015, dated 09-04-2015,

Ex.A5 is registered sale deed 2291/2015, dated 09-04-2015,

Ex.A6 is Application for pass book correction dated 14-02-2023,

Ex.A7 is C.C of new ROR, dated 10-07-2023,

Ex.A8 is C.C of old ROR, dated 10-07-2023,

Ex.A9 is C.C of pahani for the year 2008-09, dated 10-07-2023.

For Defendants:

--Nil—

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY,

FAC:JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ATMAKUR-A.

1

O.S.No. 89 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ATMAKUR-A

Dated this the 28 th day of April, 2025.

Present: Smt.Y.Janaki, II-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.A.

O.S. NO. 89 of 2023

Between:- S.Saralamma W/o Late S.Bhagavanth Reddy, Age: 63 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Kanimetta village of Kothakota Mandal.

… Plaintiff.

And

1. The Mandal Parishath Development Officer (MPDO) Kothakota Mandal.

2. The Deputy Executive Engineer of Panchayath Raj SD, Kothakota Mandal.

3. The Assistant Engineer of Panchayat Raj RWS of MPP Kothakota

4. The Panchayath Secretary of Kanimetta Gram Panchayat, Kanimetta village of Kothakota Mandal.

5. The District Collector, Wanaparthy District. … Defendants. *** This suit is coming before me for final hearing on this day on 04-04-2025 in the presence of Sri.G.Bal Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and defendants were set exparte and stood over for the consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: -

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

1)The present suit is filed seeking a relief of perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants and their agents and associates interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2

O.S.No. 89 of 2023

2)Case of plaintiffs: - The plaintiff herein is the exclusive owner and possessor of the land of Ac.1-00gts., in sy.No.197 situated at

Kanimetta village of Kothakota Mandal. Being the pattedar on 10-09- 2009 the said S.Bhagavanth Reddy, who is husband of plaintiff has gifted the land of Ac.06-39gts in Sy.No.197 at Kanimetta village of the plaintiff under registered gift deed vide Document No.9610/2009.

Thereafter the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the said gift land.

She has alienated some lands on request of villagers from the gifted land to construct the houses because her land is abutting to the said village. All the defendants are the Govt.Employees. the defendants have constructed a building for B.C.community building in Sy.No.197 situated at Kanimetta village. In fact the Government has no right over the land of the plaintiff in Sy.No.197 and the Sy.No.197 is not at all the Government land and also the Government never acquired any piece of land from the plaintiff in Sy.No.197. but the defendnats No.1 to 3 illegally occupied an area of 32.6” x41” feets out of Ac.1-00gts., in

Sy.No.197 and constructed the B.C community building on back of the plaintiff. Then plaintiff herein has filed one suit before this Hon’ble

Court for declaration of title and mandatory injunction and recovery of possession of the 32.6” x 41” feets in Sy.No.197 vide O.S.No.272/2022 and the defendnats herein did not filed their pleadings and the said suit pending this Hon’ble Court. After deduction of the schedule property in O.S.No.272/2022 and remaining land the plaintiff is in possession which is suit schedule property herein. The plaintiff is exclusive owner and possessor of the suit property and the suit property is open land and the suit property is very abutting to the village. On 28-04-2023 the plaintiff is cleaning the suit land for fencing around the suit property, and then the defendants No.1 to 4 herein and their staff came to over the suit property on the instructions of the defendant No.5 and they tried to dispossess the 3

O.S.No. 89 of 2023

plaintiff by using the police force. Then the plaintiff, her family members have resisted the illegal acts of the defendants. The defendants openly said that they will construct other Government buildings in the suit property. In fact, the defendants have no rights over the suit property and it belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a separate petition u/sec.80(2) CPC to dispense the prior notice u/sec.80 CPC. Hence the cause of action.

3)Case of defendants: - summons were served on defendants and they were appeared before the hon’ble court but did not file written statement, as such they were set experte.

4)Plaintiff to substantiate her case, got examined herself as PW1 and exhibits A1 and A7 got marked and Pw2 was examined and did not mark any exhibits. Ex.A1 is C.C of ROR, Ex.A2 is C.C of

Registered gift settlement deed vide Document No.9670/2009, dated 10-09-2009 Ex.A3 is C.C of old revenue pass book Ex.A4 is C.C of location map, dated 04-08-2022 Ex.A5 is Office copy of plaint in

O.S.No.272/2022 Ex.A6 is C.C of information letter given by the

Grampanchayat secretary of Kanimetta to the son of the plaintiff,

dated 02-08-2022 and Ex.A7 is plaint annexed sketch map.

5)Heard learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

6)Now the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual

Injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

POINT No.1:

Evidence on record:- 4

O.S.No. 89 of 2023

7)The plaintiff contended that she is absolute owner and pattedar and peaceful possessor of the suit schedule property. In order to establish her contention, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 and marked exhibit A1 to A7 on his behalf and Pw2 was examined and did not mark any exhibits. As the defendant has remained ex parte, it can be said that the evidence of PW1 has remained unchallenged. It would be relevant to refer the documents relied upon by the plaintiff under exhibit A1 to A7. The plaintiff contends that originally the said property was gifted vide document No.9610/2009 to her by her husband to an extent of Ac.06-39gts., in Sy.No.197 at Kanimetta village of Kothakota mandal. Thereafter she has been issued pattadar books and title deeds in favour of plaintiff. To show the plaintiff is owner and possessor, she has issued Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 shows that the property has been gifted by her husband vide document

No.9670/2009. Ex.A3 shows that old passbook which is in the name of plaintiff’s husband. Ex.A4 is shown that the property is abutting to the village. Ex.A5 which shows that the plaintiff has filed the suit in

O.S No.272/2022. Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 information letter given by

panchayat secretary to the son of plaintiff, but not plaintiff and plaint annexed sketch map. As such all the documents show the ownership and possession of the suit schedule property in favour the plaintiff and this court is satisfied with the proof those brought on record and the fact of possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property is not denied by the defendants, since they were set ex party, this court feels that the plaintiff has proved the lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and also proved the interference by the defendants into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property as the same is not denied and in these circumstances this court feels at the case of Plaintiff can be allowed.

point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

5

O.S.No. 89 of 2023

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No.2: To what relief?

8)In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents and associates from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court this the 28th day of April, 2025.

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY,

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ATMAKUR-A.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined:

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW1. S.SaralammaSet experte Pw2. V.Harikrishna

Exhibits marked for::

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 is C.C of ROR, Ex.A2 is C.C of Registered gift settlement deed vide Document No.9670/2009, dated 10-09-2009 Ex.A3 is C.C of old revenue pass book Ex.A4 is C.C of location map, dated 04-08-2022 Ex.A5 is Office copy of plaint in O.S.No.272/2022 Ex.A6 is C.C of information letter given by the Gram panchayat secretary of Kanimetta to the son of the plaintiff, dated 02-08-2022 Ex.A7 is plaint annexed sketch map.

For Defendants:

6

O.S.No. 89 of 2023

--Nil—

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY,

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ATMAKUR-A.

C.C.No.18 of 2025 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ATMAKUR-A

This the 28 th day of April, 2025

Present: Smt.Y.Janaki, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. FAC, Judl.Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur - A.

C.C.No. 18 of 2025

Between:

State through Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise P.S. Atmakur.

...Complainant.

And

Boya Naganna, S/o Narayana, Age: 43 Years, Occ: Tailoring, R/o Pinnamcherla of Atmakur Mandal.

...Accused No.1

Mudavath Krishna Naik, S/o Jagya Naik, Age: 43 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Thukyanayak Thanda of Amarchintha Mandal.

...Accused No.2

Offence:7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995.

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused no.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

***

This case is coming-up before me for final hearing on 28.04.2025 in the presence of Sri Arunodaya Kumar, A.P.P. for the State and of Sri K. Muktheshwar, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:-

C.C.No.18 of 2025 Page 2 :: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Atmakur filed Charge sheet against the accused in PCOR.No.70/2022 for the offence punishable

Under Section. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.07.2022 at about 07:00

P.M on receipt of reliable information about the illegal Transportation and sales of I.D Liquor, LW3 A. Venkatesh, the Prohibition and Excise Sub

Inspector, Atmakur along with his staff proceeded at outskirts of

Pinnamcherla road leads to Tukyanaik Thanda and secured the presence of two mediators. On seeing the officials Accused No.1 trying to ran away from the house and the Officer and staff caught hold him with vehicle

Black Colour TVS Radeon bearing no. TS 32 C 6430. On search the vehicle they found 2 plastic bottles in which one bottle containing 2 liters of I.D. Liquor and other plastic bottle containing 1 liter of I.D. Liquor, total 3 liters of I.D. Liquor. On enquiry accused no.1 revealed the particulars.

Accused no.1 confessed that he purchased I.D. Liquor from accused no.2.

Later LW3 seized the contraband in the presence of mediators and drawn two samples of about 350 ml each of I.D. Liquor under cover of panchanama and arrested the accused no.1 and accused no.2 and brought them to the Excise Police Station along with the samples, seized property. Basing on the panchanama, LW3 issued P.C.O.R No. 70/2022 for the offence punishable U/sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995.

LW3 served a notice under sec. 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused no.1 and accused no.2. The sample so drawn was deposited before the court with a requisition to send it to the chemical examiner for examination and remaining sized property deposited before Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Mahabubnagar for confiscation. The chemical examiner vide his C.E.

report bearing No. 5393/2022/13, dated 05.08.2022 opined that the “The sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completing the investigation Lw4 filed the charge sheet against accused no.1 and accused no.2 for the offence punishable under section-7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under section 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused no.1 and accused no.2.

C.C.No.18 of 2025 Page 3

4.On appearance of the accused no.1 and accused no.2, copies of case documents were furnished to them in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C and they were examined u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C and the charge there upon was framed against them for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 and accused no.2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused no.1 and accused no.2.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the

prosecution could prove the offence against the accused

no.1 and accused no.2 under section 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S.

Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.The prosecution examined PW1 to PW4, PW1 and PW2 who were the panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The PW3 and PW4 are the Investigating

Officers and interested witnesses. On perusal of entire material on record, except the evidence of PW3 and PW4, who are the Investigating Officers, there is no other oral or documentary evidence supporting the case of prosecution. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the accused no.1 and accused no.2 were selling or transporting the I.D Liquor illegally. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused no.1 and accused no.2 were in illegal possession of I.D Liquor for the purpose of its sale or its otherwise illegal use. Further, it is also noticed that PW3 and PW4 are the Investigating Officers cum complainants in the present case and in such a case, their testimony cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the crime

C.C.No.18 of 2025 Page 4 to the accused persons. Hence, there is no cogent evidence against the accused persons to connect them with the alleged commission of the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995.

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and hence they are entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused no.1 and accused no.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act, 1995 and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused no.1 and accused no.2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court on this the 28 th day of April, 2025.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. FAC, Judl.Magistrate of First Class,Atmakur-A.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: None PW1. Sri. Ramadarshan / Panch witness. PW2. K. Yella Goud / Panch witness. PW3. A. Venkatesh / Investigating Officer. PW4. C. Krishnakanth / Filed Charge Sheet.

::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence: Nil

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw1 on panchanama. Ex.P2: Signature of Pw2 on panchanama. Ex.P3: Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P4: PCOR No.70 /2022. Ex.P5: Forensic Report. ::Material objects marked for:: -Nil-

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. FAC, Judl.Magistrate of First Class,Atmakur-A.