Nelluri Seethaiah vs Smt. Mundla Vijaya Laxmi
2022 Latest Caselaw 6048 Tel

         HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

     APPEAL SUIT Nos.868 of 2002 and 1230 of 2000

              COMMON          JUDGMENT

1.   A.S.No.868 of 2002 is filed by Defendant Nos.26 and 29

against the judgment dated 20.12.1999 passed in O.S.No.186

of 1996 (Old O.S.No.219 of 1991) on the file of the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad.


2.   The plaintiff filed suit for damages and loss of prestige

in the society to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/- and a direction to

the defendants to pay the said amount with interest @ 12%

per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The plaintiff

is a Ward Member of Balapala Village and Gram Panchayat

and her husband Babu Rao was the Upa-sarpanch of the

said Gram Panchayat. The plaintiff would submit that they

are agriculturalist by profession and belong to respectable

family and that they belong to CPI (M) party. The plaintiff

would also submit that the defendants are the supporters of

the rival parties viz., Telugu Desam, Congress and CPI. One

Mr.Ravula Srinivas Rao is the leader of the party of the

defendants and they are also residents of the same village. He
                                   2




had a rivalry with the family of the plaintiff. On 29.08.1989 at

about 8.00 A.M. in the absence of the husband of the

plaintiff,   all   the   defendants   formed   into   an   unlawful

assembly, forcibly trespassed into the house of the plaintiff

with a malicious intention to damage and destroy household

articles and looted away the valuables by threatening the

inmates including the plaintiff with dire consequences and

also abused them in filthy language. The list of the damaged

items were given in detail in the plaint and total loss caused

to the tune of Rs.75,000/- as per the plaintiff. After arrival of

her husband the plaintiff gave complaint in Dornakal Police

Station and a case in Crime No.56 of 1989 under Sections

147, 452, 382, 427 r/w Section 149 IPC were registered and

charge-sheet was also filed against the defendants. The

plaintiff would submit that due to the acts of the defendants

the family of the plaintiff sustained loss and reputation in

public and as such the plaintiff estimated the loss of

reputation at Rs.75,000/- and the loss of property at the rate

of Rs.75,000/- and finally prayed this Court to grant decree

towards damages against the defendants.
                                3




3.    Defendant Nos.1 to 10 filed their written statement and

it was adopted by Defendant Nos.11 to 44 by filing a memo.

The defendants admitted that the plaintiff is a Ward Member

and her husband is a Upa-sarpanch but stated that they do

not know whether they are strong supporters of CPI (M) party

in the village. The defendants would further state that they

are not the supporters of any political parties and they denied

the other allegations of trespassing, looting, destroying of

properties and submitted that the suit is filed only to gain

sympathy at the instance of her husband. The defendants

would also submit that R.Srinivasa Rao is not the leader of

Defendant Nos.2 to 46 and did not know about the rivalry

between R.Srinivasa Rao and Babu Rao. The defendants

would admit with regard to filing of the complaint in Cr.No.56

of 1989 by the plaintiff but stated that it is a false complaint

and submitted that the plaintiff and her husband are having

rowdy elements and they were harassing the villagers those

who are opposing them. As Defendant Nos.1 to 44 did not

come into the fold of the plaintiff, they filed a false case and

also filed the present suit only to harass them. The

defendants would also submit that they never indulged in
                                4




any illegal activities and not caused damage to the household

articles and they never humiliated or damaged the prestige or

lowered the dignity of the plaintiff's family in the society and

they never used any un-parliamentary language against the

family members of the plaintiff and thus requested the Court

to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.    Initially the suit was filed before the I Additional Sub-

Ordinate Court, Warangal, and wherein Defendant Nos.1 to

10 filed their written statement and the same was adapted by

the Defendant Nos.11 to 44 by way of a memo. The suit was

decreed ex parte on 03.05.1997 against D.1 to D.41 and

dismissed against D.42 to D.44. Later D.1, D.4 to 6, 8, 21, 26

and 29 filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree and the

rest of the defendants did not file any petition. Therefore, the

ex parte decree passed on 03.05.1997 is subsisting against

defendant Nos.2, 3, 7, 9 to 20, 23 to 25, 27, 28 and 30 to 41.

The trial Court considering the evidence on record and the

arguments advanced by both sides granted decree in favour

of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest

at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the
                                 5




date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date

of decree till realisation.


5.      As the ex parte decree was already subsisting against

some of the defendants, it was held that they are equally

liable to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff along with

D.1, 4 to 6, 21, 26 and 29. Aggrieved by the said judgment

defendant Nos.1, 4 to 6, 8, 21 and 22 filed A.S.No.1230 of

2000.


6.      Heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants-

defendants and the learned counsel for the respondent-

plaintiff on 01.11.2022 and both the appeals are reserved for

judgment.

7. In fact, the suit is filed by the plaintiff against the

defendants for damages to an extent of Rs.75,000/- and for

loss of property to an extent of Rs.75,000/-. The plaintiff

herself was examined as P.W.1 and she also examined P.Ws.2

to 6 on her behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A5. The defendants

examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.B1 and B2 on their

behalf. The plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants

under Ex.A3 dated 30.08.1990. Though the defendants

received the same on 12.09.1990, they gave reply on

untenable allegations and as such the plaintiff filed suit for

damages. Defendants stated that plaintiff filed a false

criminal case and ultimately it was in ended in acquittal and

as such civil suit is not maintainable for damages.

8. The trial Court after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1

to 6 held that defendants trespassed into the house of

plaintiff on 21.08.1989 with a common intention and caused

damages to the properties and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 to 6

is consistent, cogent and corroborative in all material

aspects. P.W.6 deposed that she is an eye witness to the

occurrence and submitted that defendants committed looty in

the house of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and also in her house along

with other houses. Apart from oral evidence the trial Court

also considered Ex.A2 to A5 ie., the complaint given by the

plaintiff stating that the defendants trespassed into her

house, damaged certain household articles and committed

theft of certain articles including two tulas of gold and papers

pertaining to the lands and paddy bags. The defendants also

trespassed into the houses of E.Somaiah, J.Madhava Rao,

N.Saidulu and Ch.Ramakota. In the charge sheet it was

observed that the accused in Cr.No.55 of 1989 convened

meeting in the house of E.Somaiah on 26.08.1989 and took a

decision to attack and beat N.Venkateswarulu. Having heard

the plan of M.Babu and others from L.W.5, the accused grew

wild and enraged and went to the house of M.Babu on

29.08.1989 at 8.00 hours and damaged the household

articles. On 01.10.1990 at the instance of A.40 one paddy

bag was seized from A.1 and another seized from A.42 and

A.40 under a cover of panchanama. Ex.A5 is the scene of

offence panchanama in which it was held that damage

caused to the house may be worth Rs.2,000/-. The trial

Court observed that D.W.1 stated that P.W.3 husband of

plaintiff was a goonda in the village and thus caused damage

and reputation to him. It was also observed that as per the

entire evidence on record except D.42 to D.44 the other

caused damage to the property and to the reputation of

family of the plaintiff. The trial Court also observed that if at

all P.W.3 was a goonda he might not have elected as a Upa-

sarpanch of the village and there is no proof that he was

goonda and as such it amounts to causing damage to the

reputation of the plaintiff's family and accordingly granted

damages to an extent of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.75,000/-

towards loss of property ie., in total Rs.1,50,000/- with

interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

9. Though the defendants preferred an appeal, they simply

stated that the learned Senior Civil Judge, erred in believing

the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 6 as genuine and acceptable

and erred in coming to the conclusion that the evidence of

D.Ws.1 and 2 has no sanctity and also erred in observing

that there is no whisper in the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 and

they have not participated in looting. The defendants further

submitted that the trial Court ought to have apportioned the

liability of each of the defendants separately and erred in

accepting the plea of the plaintiff in the absence of any

evidence. The findings of the trial Court is without any basis

and prayed to set aside the judgment under appeal.

10. The trial Court considering the evidence on record,

appreciated it properly and arrived to the conclusion that the

defendants criminally trespassed into the house of the

plaintiff, caused damage to property and also committed theft

of certain household articles apart from abusing. The

allegation of the defendants that they were acquitted in the

criminal Court and as such the plaintiff is estopped from

arguing that they are goondas. It is to be noted here that the

judgment rendered in criminal matters is not binding on the

civil Court. Therefore, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit

in favour of the plaintiff and this Court finds no infirmity in

the judgment under appeal and it needs no interference.

11. In the result, both the appeal are devoid of merit and

are accordingly dismissed with costs.

12. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision

shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order.

____________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.

22nd NOVEMBER, 2022.

PGS