D.V.C.No.

1 of 2012

DW-1 (Bhukya Nehru) is recalled for further cross examination.

Oath administered in accordance with the provisions of Oath Act 44 of

1969 by Smt.M.K.Padmavathi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge/J.F.C.M., Jangaon,
Warangal District, on this the day of 02/04/2018.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY SRI YCR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR

COMPLAINANT:

I am not aware whether from May, 1996 to July, 2002 Rs.500/- per

month deducted from my salary towards the maintenance as per Orders in

M.C.No. 4/1995. So also I am not aware from August, 2002 to May, 2005

an amount of Rs.500/- per month deducted from my salary towards

maintenance amounting to Rs.17,000/-. I am not aware whether the

petitioner herein further filed suit vide O.S.No. 150/2001 for enhancement of

Maintenance amount i.e. in the year, 2001 and the same was allowed by

enhancing the maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/-. Witness is confronted

with Judgment Copy in O.S.No. 150/2001 dated 24-10-2004 after going

through the same witness failed to identify the same stating that without his

spectacles he is unable to read the document.

At this stage, this case is adjourned. The witness is directed to bring

his spectacles.

Witness is called at 1-30 PM. DW-1 is present, sworn in for further

cross-examination.

Witness is confronted with the signatures of witness on his chief-

examination affidavit and deposition in chief and cross, after going through

the same, the witness stated that the signatures shown to me are not of

mine.

Witness is confronted with six photographs, after going through the

same he failed to identify the same and also denied that he is seen in those
photographs. Witness is further confronted with passport size photograph

showing joint photo of PW-1 and himself. He admitted that he is seen in the

said photograph.

It is not true to suggest that the Wedding Card which shown to me is

not the Wedding Card of my daughter Jyothi. I do not know reading English.

I am not aware in M.C.No. 4/1995 I filed counter by admitting that the

petitioner herein as my wife and also agreed to pay Rs.500/- towards

maintenance.

I have filed counter in this D.V.C. I have not filed any documents

before the Court to show that PW-1 contacted marriage with Vankdoth

Thukaram and their marriage is subsisting as on today.

It is not true to suggest that Bhukya Beebi is not my wife and I never

contacted marriage with her and I have not blessed with any children

through her. It is not true to suggest that PW-1 is my legally wedded wife

and that I bound to pay maintenance and half of the retirement benefits to

her.

It is not true to suggest that on 10-04-2012 I necked out PW-1 from

the house. It is not true to suggest that even during the pendency of this

D.V.C. I am visiting to the house of PW-1. It is not true to suggest that I am

also attending to the functions of children of PW-1. I do not know whether

the grand daughter of PW-1 is studying M.B.B.S.

It is not true to suggest that I filed created documents before this

Court by showing the debt of Rs.10,00,000/- and that I have not obtained

Rs.10,00,000/- from Ch.Laxma Reddy, K.Narsaiah and G.Damodar Reddy

and others. Yes, it is true, in Para No.7 of my chief-examination affidavit I

mentioned the name G.Damodar but not Damodar Reddy.

It is not true to suggest that on 03-06-1990 I performed the marriage

of my daughter Jyothi at Madapuram Thanda, Devaruppula Mandal.

 It is not true to suggest that in order to avoid to give retirement

benefits to the petitioner I am deposing false evidence. It is not true to

suggest that Petitioner filed E.P. No. 36/2005 against me.

RE-EXAMINATION : - NIL -
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE/JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE ::: JANGAON

DW-1 O.S.No. 4 of 2008

Name: Koduru Sudhakar Reddy S/o. Anantha Reddy
Age: 75 Years Occu: Agriculture
R/o: Gudur Village, Palakurthy Dist: Jangaon
Mandal

Oath administered in accordance with the provisions of Oath Act 44 of 1969

by Smt.M.K.Padmavathi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge/J.F.C.M., Jangaon,
Warangal District, on this the day of 02/04/2018.

CHIEF-EXAMINATION BY SRI VPR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR

DEFENDANT:

I filed my chief-examination affidavit and its contents are true and

correct. It bears my signature. I filed the following documents in support of

my contention, which may be marked as Exhibits.

Ex.B-1 : Attested copy of Panchanama dated 13-08-2010

Further chief-examination is deferred at request for marking of

documents.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE/JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE ::: JANGAON

DW-1 O.S.No. 4 of 2008

Name: Koduru Sudhakar Reddy S/o. Anantha Reddy
Age: 75 Years Occu: Agriculture
R/o: Gudur Village, Palakurthy Dist: Jangaon
Mandal

Oath administered in accordance with the provisions of Oath Act 44 of 1969

by Smt.M.K.Padmavathi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge/J.F.C.M., Jangaon,
Warangal District, on this the day of 02/04/2018.

CHIEF-EXAMINATION BY SRI VPR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR

DEFENDANT:

I filed my chief-examination affidavit and its contents are true and

correct. It bears my signature. I filed the following documents in support of

my contention, which may be marked as Exhibits.

Ex.B-1 : Attested copy of Panchanama dated 13-08-2010

Further chief-examination is deferred at request for marking of

documents.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY SRI TVS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR

PLAINTIFF:

I cannot say the week day on which Ex.A-1 was executed but it was

executed on 12-10-1989 at about 11-00 AM. It is not true to suggest that I

came to know the date of execution of Ex.A-1 through PW-1. The lands of

Gandhala Ramulu and Chinthapandu Anjaiah are situated towards eastern

side of Sy.No. 50. The lands of Mekala Narsi Reddy are situated towards

western side of Sy.No. 50.

I do not know the boundaries of Sy.Nos. 48 and 49. I do not know the

date, year and other particulars of purchase of Sy.Nos. 48 and 49 by Narsi

Reddy. The land covered by Sy.Nos. 48 and 49 was purchased prior to the

purchase of the land in Sy.No. 50 i.e. suit land. The suit land is purchased

after five or six years of purchase of lands in Sy.Nos. 48 and 49. I do not
know the details of sale transaction. I am elder than the plaintiff. I am aged

about 58 years.

On the date of execution of Ex.A-1 we visited the suit land. It is not

true to suggest that Ex.A-1 is executed at home but we have not visited the

suit land. It is not true to suggest that I do not know the location of the suit

land. As on the date of execution of Ex.A-1, Jabbar owned Ac.2-16 gts., in

Sy.No. 50. I cannot give the boundaries of the land to an extent of Ac.2-16

gts, so also I do not know the total extent of lands in Sy.No. 50 and also its

share holders.

I am a toddy tapper by profession and usually I collect toddy at

morning hours between 6-00 AM to 12-00 PM. One chain is equal to 33 feet.

I know reading Telugu but I cannot write. When witness is confronted with

Ex.A-1 to read out the contents, he stated that he do not know reading

Telugu. It is not true to suggest that as I do not know reading I do not

know the contents of Ex.A-1. Yes, it is true, in Ex.A-1 the boundaries to the

suit land not mentioned. I signed on Ex.A-1 at about 33 years ago. At that

time I was aged about 28 years.

It is not true to suggest that the signature on Ex.A-1 is not of mine

and that I am not the attesting witness to Ex.A-1. It is not true to suggest

that as I am a toddy tapper by profession I was not present in the village at

the time of execution of Ex.A-1. Witness adds that there is a season for

collecting Toddy. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false evidence

only on the request of PW-1.

RE-EXAMINATION : -Nil-
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::: JANGAON

PW-3 C.C.No. 56 of 2010

Name: B.Srinivas Reddy S/o. Hanumantha Reddy
Age: 56 Years Occu: Assistant Food Controller,
Kurnool District,
HQ.Kurnool
R/o: Kurnool Dist: Kurnool District

Oath administered in accordance with the provisions of Oath Act 44 of 1969

by Smt.M.K.Padmavathi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge/J.F.C.M., Jangaon,
Warangal District, on this the day of 02/04/2018.

CHIEF-EXAMINATION BY LEARNED APP:

I know PW-1. I notified as Food Inspector for the entire State of

Andhra Pradesh as per Ex.P-1. I worked as Food Inspector in Warangal

District from July, 2009 to July, 2011.

This adulterated refined Palmolin Oil Sample 5 has been handed over

to me by PW-1 in the month of July, 2009. After considering the case file,

which submitted by PW-1 to the Director, State Food Authority, the Director

issued written consent order for filing prosecution in the Hon’ble Court.

Ex.P-16 is Written Consent Order vide Rc.No. 8136/F5/2009 dated

02-07-2009, which received by me on 16-07-2009. The charge-sheet has

been filed in this Hon’ble Court on 31-12-2009, the same has been taken on

filed by the Hon’ble Court on 05-03-2010.

 On intimation about the institution of prosecution, the Gazetted Food

Inspector and Local Enquiry Authority, Warangal District, issued a notice

under Section 13(2) to the accused person. The notice along with Public

Analyst Report sent to the accused by registered post. Ex.P-17 is the

office copy of the Notice dated 12-03-2010. Ex.P-18 is Original

Postal Receipt for the register post bearing No. RLADC 2854 dated

13-03-2010. Ex.P-19 is Original Postal Acknowledgment signed by

accused towards receipt of registered cover, which contains Notice

and copy of Public Analyst Report.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY SRI SS, LEARNED DEFENCE COUNSEL:

The expiry date of the oil is depend upon the process of manufacturing

i.e. six months to one year. PW-1 collected the samples, so I cannot say

whether he collected samples from the sealed tin or the opened tin. I have

gone through the contents of Seizure Panchanama. Witness after going

through the Panchanama stated that PW-1 collected samples from the

opened tin and it is also mentioned in the Panchanama that one Penta

Ramesh selling the loose oil.

It is not true to suggest that the accused never sold loose Palmolin Oil.

PW-1 received Food Analysis Report under Ex.P-14 i.e. on 27-04-2009. I do

not know when PW-1 submitted report to the Director of Food and Health

Department. As per Ex.P-16 PW-1 submitted detailed report on 05-05-

2009. I received Ex.P-16 on 16-07-2009. Yes, it is true, in my charge-

sheet, I have mentioned that on 20-07-2009 I received Ex.P-16. Yes, it is

true, after receipt of Ex.P-16 after six months I filed the complaint. Yes, it is

true, the delay is not explained in my charge-sheet.

Yes, it is true, I have not obtained any documents from concerned

Local Authorities i.e. temple or Grampanchayath towards the proof of

Proprietoryship of the accused. It is not true to suggest that the accused is

not having any sweet shop near by the Komuravelly Temple Premises. It is

not true to suggest that the accused has not committed any offence and that

basing on the false information we filed false case against the accused only

for statistical purpose.

It is not true to suggest that I served Section 13(2) Notice to the

accused with abnormal delay. It is not true to suggest that as per Ex.P-14,

the sample of refined Palmolin Oil is not adulterated. It is not true to

suggest that we intentionally filed false case against the accused by creating

documents. It is not true to suggest that I have not investigated the matter

properly by following the procedure under Prohibition of Food and

Adulteration Act and Rules and that I am deposing false.

RE-EXAMINATION : -Nil-
I know the contents of my chief-examination affidavit. This case is filed by

the complainant against the accused for recovery of money. I have not

received any summons from this Court to depose evidence. The complainant

stated that this complaint is filed for recovery of money. At about four or

five years ago, one Sunday, complainant called me to Star Cable Office,

there they executed promissory note in my presence. I cannot give the

house number of the Star Cable Office. I do not know how many documents

filed by the complainant along with the complaint at the time of filing

complaint.

Yes, it is true, in Ex.A-7 there is no mention of place of execution.

Yes, it is true, I do not know what are all transaction took place between
PW-1 and accused after execution of Ex.A-7. Yes, it is true, complainant is
doing real estate business and that now and then I used to prepare
documents for the complainant. Yes, it is true, in Ex.A-7 I have not
mentioned my designation. It is not true to suggest that as PW-1 is my
friend in order to
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE/JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE ::: JANGAON

PW-4 O.S.No. 40 of 2011

Name: Are Pandu S/o. Late Mallaiah
Age: 61 Years Occu: Agriculture & Toddy
Tapper
R/o: Pochannapet Village, Dist: Jangaon
Bachannapet Mandal

Oath administered in accordance with the provisions of Oath Act 44 of 1969

by Smt.M.K.Padmavathi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge/J.F.C.M., Jangaon,
Warangal District, on this the day of 02/04/2018.

CHIEF-EXAMINATION:

I filed my chief-examination affidavit and its contents are true and

correct. It bears my signature. Witness is confronted with Ex.A-1. After

going through the same he identified his signature and signatures of other

attestors namely Raji Reddy, Ravinder Reddy and also the signature of

scribe by name Saddi Narsi Reddy and the executant of Ex.A-1 by name

Abdul Jabbar.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY SRI TVS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR

DEFENDANTS:

I cannot say the week day on which Ex.A-1 was executed but it was

executed on 12-10-1989 at about 11-00 AM. It is not true to suggest that I

came to know the date of execution of Ex.A-1 through PW-1. The lands of

Gandhala Ramulu and Chinthapandu Anjaiah are situated towards eastern

side of Sy.No. 50. The lands of Mekala Narsi Reddy are situated towards

western side of Sy.No. 50.

 I do not know the boundaries of Sy.Nos. 48 and 49. I do not know the

date, year and other particulars of purchase of Sy.Nos. 48 and 49 by Narsi

Reddy. The land covered by Sy.Nos. 48 and 49 was purchased prior to the

purchase of the land in Sy.No. 50 i.e. suit land. The suit land is purchased

after five or six years of purchase of lands in Sy.Nos. 48 and 49. I do not

know the details of sale transaction. I am elder than the plaintiff. I am aged

about 58 years.

On the date of execution of Ex.A-1 we visited the suit land. It is not

true to suggest that Ex.A-1 is executed at home but we have not visited the

suit land. It is not true to suggest that I do not know the location of the suit

land. As on the date of execution of Ex.A-1, Jabbar owned Ac.2-16 gts., in

Sy.No. 50. I cannot give the boundaries of the land to an extent of Ac.2-16

gts, so also I do not know the total extent of lands in Sy.No. 50 and also its

share holders.

I am a toddy tapper by profession and usually I collect toddy at

morning hours between 6-00 AM to 12-00 PM. One chain is equal to 33 feet.

I know reading Telugu but I cannot write. When witness is confronted with

Ex.A-1 to read out the contents, he stated that he do not know reading

Telugu. It is not true to suggest that as I do not know reading I do not

know the contents of Ex.A-1. Yes, it is true, in Ex.A-1 the boundaries to the

suit land not mentioned. I signed on Ex.A-1 at about 33 years ago. At that

time I was aged about 28 years.

It is not true to suggest that the signature on Ex.A-1 is not of mine

and that I am not the attesting witness to Ex.A-1. It is not true to suggest

that as I am a toddy tapper by profession I was not present in the village at

the time of execution of Ex.A-1. Witness adds that there is a season for
collecting Toddy. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false evidence

only on the request of PW-1.

RE-EXAMINATION : -Nil-

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

PW- C.C.No. of 2012

Name: S/o.
Age: Years Occu:
R/o: Dist: Jangaon

Oath administered in accordance with the provisions of Oath Act 44 of 1969

by Smt.M.K.Padmavathi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge/J.F.C.M., Jangaon,
Warangal District, on this the day of 02/04/2018.

CHIEF-EXAMINATION:

I filed my chief-examination affidavit and its contents are true and

correct. It bears my signature.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY SRI ALS, LEARNED DEFENCE COUNSEL:

I know the contents of my chief-examination affidavit. This case is

filed by the complainant against the accused for recovery of money. I have

not received any summons from this Court to depose evidence. The

complainant stated that this complaint is filed for recovery of money. At

about four or five years ago, one Sunday, complainant called me to Star

Cable Office, there they executed promissory note in my presence. I cannot

give the house number of the Star Cable Office. I do not know how many

documents filed by the complainant along with the complaint at the time of

filing complaint.
 Yes, it is true, in Ex.A-7 there is no mention of place of execution.

Yes, it is true, I do not know what are all transaction took place between

PW-1 and accused after execution of Ex.A-7. Yes, it is true, complainant is

doing real estate business and that now and then I used to prepare

documents for the complainant. Yes, it is true, in Ex.A-7 I have not

mentioned my designation. It is not true to suggest that as PW-1 is my

friend in order to

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE/JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE ::: JANGAON

PW-4 O.S.No. 40 of 2011

Name: Are Pandu S/o. Late Mallaiah
Age: 61 Years Occu: Agriculture & Toddy
Tapper
R/o: Pochannapet Village, Dist: Jangaon
Bachannapet Mandal

Oath administered in accordance with the provisions of Oath Act 44 of 1969

by Smt.M.K.Padmavathi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge/J.F.C.M., Jangaon,
Warangal District, on this the day of 02/04/2018.

CHIEF-EXAMINATION:

I filed my chief-examination affidavit and its contents are true and

correct. It bears my signature. Witness is confronted with Ex.A-1. After

going through the same he identified his signature and signatures of other

attestors namely Raji Reddy, Ravinder Reddy and also the signature of

scribe by name Saddi Narsi Reddy and the executant of Ex.A-1 by name

Abdul Jabbar.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY SRI TVS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR

DEFENDANTS:

I cannot say the week day on which Ex.A-1 was executed but it was

executed on 12-10-1989 at about 11-00 AM. It is not true to suggest that I

came to know the date of execution of Ex.A-1 through PW-1. The lands of
Gandhala Ramulu and Chinthapandu Anjaiah are situated towards eastern

side of Sy.No. 50. The lands of Mekala Narsi Reddy are situated towards

western side of Sy.No. 50.

I do not know the boundaries of Sy.Nos. 48 and 49. I do not know the

date, year and other particulars of purchase of Sy.Nos. 48 and 49 by Narsi

Reddy. The land covered by Sy.Nos. 48 and 49 was purchased prior to the

purchase of the land in Sy.No. 50 i.e. suit land. The suit land is purchased

after five or six years of purchase of lands in Sy.Nos. 48 and 49. I do not

know the details of sale transaction. I am elder than the plaintiff. I am aged

about 58 years.

On the date of execution of Ex.A-1 we visited the suit land. It is not

true to suggest that Ex.A-1 is executed at home but we have not visited the

suit land. It is not true to suggest that I do not know the location of the suit

land. As on the date of execution of Ex.A-1, Jabbar owned Ac.2-16 gts., in

Sy.No. 50. I cannot give the boundaries of the land to an extent of Ac.2-16

gts, so also I do not know the total extent of lands in Sy.No. 50 and also its

share holders.

I am a toddy tapper by profession and usually I collect toddy at

morning hours between 6-00 AM to 12-00 PM. One chain is equal to 33 feet.

I know reading Telugu but I cannot write. When witness is confronted with

Ex.A-1 to read out the contents, he stated that he do not know reading

Telugu. It is not true to suggest that as I do not know reading I do not

know the contents of Ex.A-1. Yes, it is true, in Ex.A-1 the boundaries to the

suit land not mentioned. I signed on Ex.A-1 at about 33 years ago. At that

time I was aged about 28 years.

It is not true to suggest that the signature on Ex.A-1 is not of mine

and that I am not the attesting witness to Ex.A-1. It is not true to suggest
that as I am a toddy tapper by profession I was not present in the village at

the time of execution of Ex.A-1. Witness adds that there is a season for

collecting Toddy. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false evidence

only on the request of PW-1.

RE-EXAMINATION : -Nil-

I am an illiterate. I learnt only to put my signature. My father died at about

10 years ago. My father had one sister by name Mallavva. She was given

on marriage at Dharmaram Village and she had three sons namely Jakkula

Narsaiah, Jakkula Lingaiah and Jakkula Yellaiah. Today I came to Court

along with D-1. She belongs to my caste. It is not true to suggest that D-2

is my maternal brother-in-law. Witness adds that he belongs to my caste

but he is not my relative. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false

evidence and that D-2 is my maternal brother-in-law.

Gudise Rajaiah died at about 20 years ago. The marriage of D-1 was

performed at about 20 years ago and at that time I was aged about 20 to 25

years. The marriage of D-1 was performed at Gurjakunta Village of Cherial

Mandal.

Witness is confronted with the signature on the third party affidavit

filed in O.S.No. 193/2011 after going through the same he identified the

signature is that of him. Ex.A-13 is the signature of DW-2 on third

party affidavit. It is not true to suggest that I have filed third party

affidavit in favour of the plaintiff No.1.

 I have not seen any documents to show that Gudise Rajaiah was the

pattadar of lands situated in Sy.No. 80/B, 80/A, 83/A2 and 83/A. I do not

know the extents of lands in suit survey numbers. It is not true to suggest

that Gudise Rajaiah never gifted the suit lands to defendant No.1 under

‘Pasupu Kumkuma’. It is not true to suggest that my land is not situated

towards northern side of the suit schedule land. It is not true to suggest

that I have obtained loan amount from the son of plaintiff and I am due for

the same. It is not true to suggest that Gudise Rajaiah was not the pattadar

of the suit land. It is not true to suggest that Gudise Beeraiah was the

original pattadar and after his death his L.Rs. Are cultivating the suit

schedule land. It is not true to suggest that by obtained bribe from the

defendants I am deposing false evidence. It is not true to suggest that

defendant No.1 never in the possession of the suit schedule property and

that I am deposing false.

RE-EXAMINATION : - Nil -
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE/JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE ::: JANGAON

DW-2 O.S.No. 193 of 2011

Name: Biyya Rajaiah S/o. Chinna Mallaiah
Age: 55 Years Occu: Agriculture
R/o: Dharmaram Dist: Jangaon

Oath administered in accordance with the provisions of Oath Act 44 of 1969

by Smt.M.K.Padmavathi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge/J.F.C.M., Jangaon,
Warangal District, on this the day of 02/04/2018.

CHIEF-EXAMINATION:

I filed my chief-examination affidavit and its contents are true and

correct. It bears my signature.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY SRI A.MAHENDER, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR

PLAINTIFF:

I am an illiterate. I learnt only to put my signature. My father died at

about 10 years ago. My father had one sister by name Mallavva. She was

given on marriage at Dharmaram Village and she had three sons namely

Jakkula Narsaiah, Jakkula Lingaiah and Jakkula Yellaiah. Today I came to

Court along with D-1. She belongs to my caste. It is not true to suggest

that D-2 is my maternal brother-in-law. Witness adds that he belongs to my

caste but he is not my relative. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing

false evidence and that D-2 is my maternal brother-in-law.

Gudise Rajaiah died at about 20 years ago. The marriage of D-1 was

performed at about 20 years ago and at that time I was aged about 20 to 25

years. The marriage of D-1 was performed at Gurjakunta Village of Cherial

Mandal.

Witness is confronted with the signature on the third party affidavit

filed in O.S.No. 193/2011 after going through the same he identified the

signature is that of him. Ex.A-13 is the signature of DW-2 on third

party affidavit. It is not true to suggest that I have filed third party

affidavit in favour of the plaintiff No.1.

I have not seen any documents to show that Gudise Rajaiah was the

pattadar of lands situated in Sy.No. 80/B, 80/A, 83/A2 and 83/A. I do not

know the extents of lands in suit survey numbers. It is not true to suggest

that Gudise Rajaiah never gifted the suit lands to defendant No.1 under

‘Pasupu Kumkuma’. It is not true to suggest that my land is not situated

towards northern side of the suit schedule land. It is not true to suggest

that I have obtained loan amount from the son of plaintiff and I am due for

the same. It is not true to suggest that Gudise Rajaiah was not the pattadar

of the suit land. It is not true to suggest that Gudise Beeraiah was the

original pattadar and after his death his L.Rs. Are cultivating the suit

schedule land. It is not true to suggest that by obtained bribe from the

defendants I am deposing false evidence. It is not true to suggest that

defendant No.1 never in the possession of the suit schedule property and

that I am deposing false.

RE-EXAMINATION : - Nil -
 I know the contents of my chief-examination affidavit. This case is

filed by the complainant against the accused for recovery of money. I have

not received any summons from this Court to depose evidence. The

complainant stated that this complaint is filed for recovery of money. At

about four or five years ago, one Sunday, complainant called me to Star

Cable Office, there they executed promissory note in my presence. I cannot

give the house number of the Star Cable Office. I do not know how many

documents filed by the complainant along with the complaint at the time of

filing complaint.

Yes, it is true, in Ex.A-7 there is no mention of place of execution.

Yes, it is true, I do not know what are all transaction took place between

PW-1 and accused after execution of Ex.A-7. Yes, it is true, complainant is

doing real estate business and that now and then I used to prepare
documents for the complainant. Yes, it is true, in Ex.A-7 I have not

mentioned my designation. It is not true to suggest that as PW-1 is my

friend in order to

support him, I am deposing false evidence. It is not true to suggest that I

have not scribed Ex.A-7. It is not true to suggest that myself in collusion

with PW-1 created Ex.A-7 with an intention to extract money from the

accused. Yes, it is true, this case is not in respect of promissory note.

RE-EXAMINATION : -NIL-
RE-EXAMINATION: - Nil -

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

PW- C.C.No. of 2012

Name: S/o.
Age: Years Occu:
R/o: Dist: Jangaon

Oath administered in accordance with the provisions of Oath Act 44 of 1969

by Smt.M.K.Padmavathi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge/J.F.C.M., Jangaon,
Warangal District, on this the day of 02/04/2018.

CHIEF-EXAMINATION:

I filed my chief-examination affidavit and its contents are true and

correct. It bears my signature.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY SRI ALS, LEARNED DEFENCE COUNSEL:

 I know the contents of my chief-examination affidavit. This case is

filed by the complainant against the accused for recovery of money. I have

not received any summons from this Court to depose evidence. The

complainant stated that this complaint is filed for recovery of money. At

about four or five years ago, one Sunday, complainant called me to Star

Cable Office, there they executed promissory note in my presence. I cannot

give the house number of the Star Cable Office. I do not know how many

documents filed by the complainant along with the complaint at the time of

filing complaint.

Yes, it is true, in Ex.A-7 there is no mention of place of execution.

Yes, it is true, I do not know what are all transaction took place between

PW-1 and accused after execution of Ex.A-7. Yes, it is true, complainant is

doing real estate business and that now and then I used to prepare

documents for the complainant. Yes, it is true, in Ex.A-7 I have not

mentioned my designation. It is not true to suggest that as PW-1 is my

friend in order to

support him, I am deposing false evidence. It is not true to suggest that I

have not scribed Ex.A-7. It is not true to suggest that myself in collusion

with PW-1 created Ex.A-7 with an intention to extract money from the

accused. Yes, it is true, this case is not in respect of promissory note.

RE-EXAMINATION : -NIL-