Smt.A.Geethavani

(FAIR) 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

Present:- Smt A.Geetha Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Badvel

Thursday this the 19th day of April, 2021

Original Suit No. 111 / 2020

Old.O.S.No.43 / 2018

Old.O.S.No.181 / 2010

In between:

1. Naramala Pitchi Reddy, Son of Late Rosi Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 70 yeas, (Died leaving behind his L.Rs P5 to P7)

2. Naramala Narayana Reddy, Son of Late Rosi Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 65 years,

3. Naramala Bayapu Reddy, Sonof Thirupal Reddy, Aged about 50 years,

4. Naramala Chinna Subba Reddy, Son of Bayapu Reddy, Aged about 41 years,

5. Naramala Subbamma, Wife of Late Pitchi Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 60 years,

6. Naramala Venkata Subba Reddy, Son of late Pitchi Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 35 years,

7. Thota Lakshmi Devi, Wife of Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 30 years, All are agriculturists resident of Vaddmanu Village and Post, S.A.Kasinayana Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. (Amended as per orders in I.A.No.464/2012, dt.31.07.2012) . . . Plaintiffs 1 to 7 –Vs -

1. Murukuti Venu Gopal Reddy, Son of Chenna Krishna Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 51 years, residing at Savisettypalli Village and Post, S.A.Kasinayana Mandal, Kadapa Distrct.

2. Polu Papulamma, wife of Thirupal Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 66 years, house wife, residing at Vaddamanu Village and Post, S.A.Kasinayana Mandal, Kadapa District. . . . Defendants 1 and 2.

This suit coming on this 24-03-2021 day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.N.Prasad, counsel for plaintiffs and of Sri

K.G.Prabhakar, Advocate for Defendants No.1 and 2, and this court delivered the following:- (FAIR) 2 :: J U D G M E N T ::

The plaintiffs are filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands by the plaintiffs and for costs.

2. The averments of the plaintiff are as follows:-

The plantiff submits that the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and grand father of the plaintiff No.3 and 4 by name Rosi Reddy was the absolute owner of the land bearing in S.No.704/1, Ac.5.02 cents of Savisettypalli. The land is clearly described in schedule. The said Rosi Reddy had some other properties along with the suit land. Ater death of Rosi Reddy his sons got divided their joint family properties orally except the suit land. In that division each son of

Rosi Reddy has got Ac.1.25 cents in the suit land. On the application of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and their brothers i.e., the father of plaintiffs No.3 and 4, the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the lands possessed by them including Ac.1.25 cents in suit survey number after due enquiry. Recently the revenue authorities affixed Rajamudra in Pattadar pass book and title deeds of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs alone enjoying the suit land jointly by raising the crops from time to time, as such except the plaintiffs none else including the defendants are nothing to do with the suit land. As plaintiff No.1 died his L.Rs plaintiffs No.5 and 6 were added in I.A.No.464 / 2012, dt.31.07.2012.

3. The plaintiffs further submits that the 1st defendant approached the plaintiffs about 10 days back and asked them to sell suit land to him but the plaintiff refused to do so, hence the 1st defendant canvassing in the village that he would not allow the plaintiff to raise crops in this season with support of 2nd defendant since one week by fabricating the records. Hence, the suit.

4. Written statement filed by the defendant No.2 and adoption memo filed for defendant No.1. The defendants denying the contents of plaint and contended that survey number 704 of Savisettypalli fields comprises an extent of Ac.24 – 28 cents and belong to government. Later it was sub divided, after getting the land sub-divided and extent of Ac.5.02 cents in S.No.704/1, i.e., (FAIR) 3 subject matter of the suit was assigend to one Naramimhulu Pitchaiah of

Vaddamanu village about 60 years back, original assignee brought the land under cultivation by spending huge amounts and had been raising rain fed crops from time to time depending upon the season. The said Pitchaiah original assignee got only daughter by name Papulamma defendant No.2 herein. She was given in marriage to one Polu Thirupal Reddy of Vaddamanu village. Pitchaiah the original assignee had been enjoying the plaint schedule land during his life time and after his life time defendant No.2 being the only daughter of the assignee succeded the same and raising rain fed crops. The revenue authorities recognized the succession and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the defendant No.2. Due to passage of time original D-form is out of reach. Due to failure of rains defendant No.2 could not raise any crop as such babul trees grown-up in the suit land. The government proposed to provide water for irrigation purpose and excavated a channel at the west of the suit land. Recently the defendant No.2 cleared the babul trees and bushes in the suit land through JCB by spending huge amounts and made it fit for cultivation.

While the matter stood thus the plaintiffs being agnates of the father of the defendant No.2 agitating for a share in the suit land and convened mediations through elders in the village and having failed in their attempts filed this false suit.

5. The defendants further submit that the revenue authorities never resumed the said land to the government at any point of time. Further Andhra

Pradesh Assigned lands (P.O.T) Act, 1977 prohibits transfer by meas of any other transactions with assigned lands. Since the government is the original owner to assigned lands government ought to be added as party to the suit as such suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party. Further the defendant filed counter claim in his statement to grant temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff and their men interfering wtih the written statement schedule property.

6. Rejoider filed by the plaintiffs.

That One Naramala Pitchi Reddy who was the great grand father of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and the defendant No.2. The said Pitchi Reddy had two (FAIR) 4 sons. After filing the suit 1st plaintiff Pitchi Reddy died leaving behind his wife

Subbamma (P5) and two children (P6 and P7) as legal heirs.

7. It is further submitted by the plaintiffs that the suit land assigned to late Naramala Pitchi Reddy who is no other than the great grand father of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.2. After death of original assignee Pitchi

Reddy his sons Bayapu Reddy and Duggi Reddy got divided that joint family properties orally. In that division the suit land fallen to the share of Bayapu

Reddy, again after death of Bayapu Reddy his sons namely Yanadhi Reddy, Rosi

Reddy @ Pittaiah and Pitchi Reddy father of the 2nd defendant got divided their joint family property orally. In that division the suit land had fallen to the share of Rosi Reddy @Pottaiah. After death of Rosi Reddy @ Pottaiah his four sons got divided their joint family property orally. In that division each son has got

Ac.1.25 cents in the suit survey number land. On enquiry the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the landed property possessed by them including the land possessed in the suit survey number.

8. The plaintiffs further submits that the sons of defendant No.2 got divided their joint family properties orally about 10 years back and they are enjoying shares of properties with absolute rights by raising crops from time to time. On their application the revenue authorities are also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of their landed property after due enquiry.

Further the sons of the defendant No.2 have not divided the suit land at the time of their division as it belong to the plaintiffs. Further the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiffs and asked them to sell the suit land but they refused to do so. Hence, misunderstandings arose between the plaintiffs and defendants. By taking adtantage of the similarity in the names of the father of

Pitchi Reddy , the 1st defendant instigate the 2nd defendant to made counter claim by fabricating the records of Revenue with false and untenable allegations, hence prayed to dismiss the counter-claim and pass decree in favour of the plaintiffs.

(FAIR) 5

9. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial :- 1Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on filing of the suit ?

2Whether plainitffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

3Whether S.No.704/1 an extent of Ac.5.02 cents is assigned to N.Pitchaiah, whether he is enjoying during his life time ?

4Whether D.2 is in possession and enjoyment of S.No.704/1 ?

5Whether D.2 is entitled for permament injunction against the plaintiffs ?

6To what relief ?

10. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to A3 are marked. In support of plaintiff P.W.2 was examined and no documents were marked. After clousing the evidence of plaintiff, Defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 to B4 are marked. In support of defendant D.W.2 and D.W.3 were examined and no documents were marked.

11. The learned counsels for the plaintiffs and defendants present physically and submitted their arguments.

12. ISSUE Nos.(1) to (3) :-

Both the issues are interrelated and interdependent, as such, they are taken up together to avoid repetition in my discussion.

13. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the defendant No.2 in her cross examination (who was examined as D.W.1) admittedly that the suit property originally belongs to Pitchi Reddy who is her great grand father. When such being the case how the defendant No.2 got the suit property is doubtful without any partition or succession.

(FAIR) 6

14. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the suit property is a government assigned land in this regard Ex.B1 R.S.R also filed by the defendants. The learned counsel for the defendants further argued that the suit property was assigned to the father of defendant No.2 and after death of the father of defendant No.2 the suit property succeeded by defendant No.2 and since then she has been in possession of the suit property as her father had no sons and defendant No.2 is only daughter of her father. The same was also admitted by the plaintiffs in their re-joinder page No.2. The learned counsel for the defendants further argued that as per the plaint in para No.4 in page No.2 the plaintiffs pleaded that “after the death of Rosi Reddy his sons got divided the joint family properties orally except suit land. In that division each son of

Rosi Reddy has got Ac.1.25 cents in the suit land”, plaintiffs on one hand pleaded the except the suit land there was partition and on the other hand they pleaded that they got each Ac.1.25 cents share in the suit land, hence there are discripancies in the pleadings of the plaintiffs.

15. The contention of the plainitffs that Ac.5.02 cents i.e., suit land was assigned in favour of late Naramala Pitchi Reddy who is none other than the great grand father of Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendant No.2. But in this regard no document filed. P.W.1 in his cross examination denied that “It is not true to suggest that for 1st time I have mentioned in my chief affidavit the disputed property of assigned land though it is not mentioned in my plaint”. But on perusal of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs no where it was mentioned that the suit property is government land. When the defendant in his written statement it was mentioned that the suit land is government land for the first time plaintiffs mentioned the same in rejoinder in para No.5. So it shows that plainitffs have no full knowledge about the suit land. On behalf of plaintiffs

P.W.2 was also examined by filing his affidavit stating that his land situated south west corner of the suit land. He further deposed that the plainitffs succeded the suit land from their ancestors. Plaintiffs are raising dry and wet crops in the suit site. In the cross examination P.W.2 deposed that the western boundary of the suit land is his lands he could not wishper the suit property (FAIR) 7 western boundary. P.W.2 further deposed that he does not know in whose name

DKT patta was issued in respect of suit land”. So it shows P.W.2 does not have full knowledge about the suit land hence this court is of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.2 no way helpted the case of plaintiffs.

16. On perusal of the documents marked on behalf of the plaintiffs

Ex.A1 is plaint plan, Ex.A2 is 4 pattadar pass books (1) Pattadar pass book issued in favour of Bayappa Reddy, S/o.Vaddamanu Tirupal Reddy, in patta number 214 in serial No.5 in column No.1 in second page in S.No.702/1, Ac.1.25 cents in the nature of 'owner'. (2) Pattadar pass book in favour of Naramala Narayana Reddy,

S/o.Pottaiah in patta No.215 in page No.2 in serial No.4. 704/1 to an extent of

Ac.1.25 cents in the nature of 'owner'. (3) Pattadar pass book in favour

Naramala Subba Reddy, S/o.Bayapu Reddy in Katha No.242 in S.No.704/1 to an extent of Ac.1.25 cents in the nature of 'owner'. (4) Pattadar pass book in favour of Naramala Pitchaiah, in patta number 787 in S.No.704/1, Ac.1.25 cents in the nature of 'owner' [the extent is Ac.1.25 cents is striked off]. On perusal of Ex.A3 No.3 adangal for fasali No.1420 in S.No.704/1 to an extent of Ac.1.25 cents in katha No.242 shows in the name of Naramala Chinna Subba Reddy as pattadar and enjoydar in the same survey number the same extents i.e., Ac.1.25 cents are in the name of Naramala Bayapu Reddy, Naramala Pirchaiah, Naramala

Narayana Reddy in katha Nos. 214, 787 and 215. but Ex.A3 appears to have been issued by V.R.O. Savisettypalli without counter signature by the Tahsildar of

Savisettypalli. Further at the first instance the plainitffs pleaded in their plaint that the Rosi Reddy, who is the father of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and grand father of plaintiffs No.3 and 4 is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

But subsequently the plaintiffs in their rejoined pleaded in para No.5 that the suit land was assigned in favour of the great grand father of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendant No.2. After the death of the original assignee Pitchi Reddy his sons Bayapu Reddy and Duggi Reddy got divided their joint family properties orally. In the said division the suit land fallen to the share of Bayapu Reddy.

Again after the death of Bayapu Reddy his sons viz., Yanadhi Reddy, Rosi Reddy @ Pottaiah, Pitchi Reddy father of the defendant No.2 got divided that joint (FAIR) 8 family properties orally. In that division suit land had fallen to the share of Rosi

Reddy @ Pottaiah. After the death of Rosi Reddy @ Pottaiah his four sons got divided their joint family properties orally. In that division each son got Ac.1.25 cents in the suit survey number land. But no document filed by the plainitffs to show that the suit land was assigned in favour of the great grand father of the plainitffs No.1 and 2 and defendant No.2. Further the contention of the plainitffs that the revenue authorities on due enquiry issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the plaintiffs. But pattadar pass books and title deeds do not confer any title as per the decision reported in :-

Municipal Corporation, Gwalior Vs Puran Singh @ Puran Chand and Ors on 2nd July, 2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in para No.29 referred “mutation entries do not confer title, in Smt.Sawarhi Vs Smt.Inder Kaur and others 1996 (6) SCC 223 this court held :- “....... mutation of a property in the revenue records does not create or extingush title nor has it any presemptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment ….....”

17. So, in the above judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that mutation of property in the revenue records do not confer any title in the present case also pattadar pass book and title deeds do not confer any title in favour of the plaintiff.

18. Further on perusal of Ex.A3 filed by the plaintiff to prove their possession over the suit land, it appears to have issued by the V.R.O of

Savisettypalli, it cannot be taken into consideration as it was not counter signed by the Tahsildar of Savisettypalli. Further the nature of the land shows in Ex.A3 is “anuvamsikamu”. But admittedly by the plaintiffs in the rejoinder, the suit land is DKT as contended by the 2nd defendant in her written statement.

19. The contention of the defendant No.2 that the suit property was assigned in favour of her father, later after her father's death being she is (FAIR) 9 only daughter she succeded the suit property. D.W.2 who is the 2nd son of the defendant No.2 in his chief affidavit deposed that the suit property originally belongs to his meternal grand father by name Naramala Pitchi Reddy. Further

D.W.3 who was examined for the support of the case of the defendant No.2 deposed in his chief affidavit that the suit land was assigned in favour of the father of the defendant No.2 as she is being only daughter to her father she succeeded the suit property. In this regard no document filed by the defendants. The defendant No.2 took a plea that originally D.K.T Patta was issued in favour of her father but due to passage of time the original patta is out of reach. When such being the case D.2 who was examined as D.W.1 in her cross examination deposed that originally the suit schedule property belongs to her great grand father. This evidence of D.W.1 creats a doubt in the mind of the count as no D.K.T patta in favour of the father of D.W.1 (D2) not filed before this court however Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 shows that D.2 has been in possession of the suit property. But the learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the plaintiff filed correct fasali regarding the suit schedule property but the defendant not filed adangal for fasali as on the date of filing of the suit. But this court is not taken into consideration Ex.A3 filed by the plaintiff as it was issued by V.R.O without counter signature of the Tahsildar of the office concerned. But the defendant filed Ex.B3, Ex.B4 shows that the defendant No.2 has been in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff failed to prove that he has been in possession of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. Further neither party taken steps to add the government as a party. This court is of the opinion that the defendant No.2 proved her possession. But this court is of the opinion that the defendant No.2 has not proved her legal possession over the property, at the same time she shall not be evicted from possession of the suit property without due process of law under these observations this court decided the above issues in favour of the defendant No.2.

20. Issue Nos. (4) and (5) :

The contention of the defendant No.2 that the government assigned land in favour of her father Pitchaiah to an extent of Ac.5.02 cents, in this regard no document filed. But the plea taken by the 2nd defendant that (FAIR) 10

D.K.T as it was issued long back and it is out of reach. But the defendant No.2 failed to state what steps she has been taken to trace it. On perusal of the documents filed by the defendants Ex.B1 is R.S.R shows the land in S.No.704 is a government land. Ex.A2 is pattadar pass book in favour of D2, W/o.Tirupal

Reddy to an extent of Ac.5.02 cents in patta No.1624 there is also another patta number above the patta No 1624 as 939 and another patta number 167 struck down. Further Ex.A2 pattadar pass book 1st page and 2nd page were combindly pasted. On perusal of Ex.B3 is 1-B namuna shows the name of the 2nd defendant as pattadar in patta No.1624 in S.No.704/1 to an extent of Ac.5.04 cents in the nature of DKT succession issued by Avadhutha Kasinayana Mandal

Narasapuramu. The contention of the learned counsel for the plainitff is that there are corrections in Ex.B2 in the place of patta number. But on perusal of

Ex.B3 1B namuna shows, the defendant No.2 is the pattadar. Ex.B4 No.3 adangal for fasali No.1419 shows that in S.No.704/1 an extent of Ac.5.02 cents in Katha

No.1624 in the nature of DKT, the defendant No.2 is the pattadar and enjoydar.

On perusal of Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 issued by the Tahsildar of Sri Avadhutha

Kasinayana Mandal Narasapuramu there documents show the possession and enjoyment of the defendant No.2.

21. In view of my discussion and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession and enjoyment over the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit, and defendant No.2 proved her possession and enjoyment of the counter-claim property by marking Ex.B3 and B4. But this court is of the opinion that as defendant No.2 was admitted in her cross examination (DW1) that the disputed property originally belongs to her great grand father, but pleaded in her counter claim that the disputed property is a government land and assigned to her father but filed to file original DKT patta stating that since DKT patta was issued long back and it is out of reach and as such there is inconsisteny between the evidence of D2 (D.W.1) in her cross examination and to the plea taken by her in the counter-claim hence this court is of the opinion that her possession over the disputed property is not legal and at the same time she shall not be evicted without due process of law and (FAIR) 11 accordingly the above issues are decided in favour of the defendant No.2 and against the plaintiffs.

22. Issue No.(6) :-

In view of my finding of issues 1 to 5 the suit is to be dismissed without costs.

In the result, (1) Suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed without costs.

(2) Counter claim of the defendant No.2 is allowed with costs granting permanent injunction in favour of the defendant No.2 restraining the plaintiffs and their men from interfering with counter claim property by the defendant No.2.

( Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of April, 2021 )

Sd/- Smt. A.Geetha Vani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS:-DEFENDANTS :

P.W.1 : N.Chinna Subba Reddy D.W.1 : Polu Papulamma P.W.2 : M.NagabhushanamD.W.2 : Polu Rama Lakshi Reddy D.W.3 : M.Venu Gopal Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS : - Ex.A1 : Plaint plan Ex.A2 : Pattadar pass book 4 in number Ex.A3 : True copy of the No.3 account extract for fasli No.1420.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1 : True copy of R.S.R. Ex.B2 : Pattadar pass book stands in the name of Polu Papulamma Ex.B3 : True copy of 1-B extract. Ex.B4 : True copy of No.3 adangal.

Id/- A.G.V., P.J.C.J, Badvel (FAIR) 12

Plaint presented on: 28.09.2010 Plaint filed on: 28.09.2010

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

Present:- Smt A. Geetha Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Thursday, the Nineteenth (19 th ) day of April, Two thousand and Twenty First

Original Suit No. 111 / 2020

Old.O.S.No.43 / 2018

Old.O.S.No.181 / 2010

1. Naramala Pitchi Reddy, Son of Late Rosi Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 70 yeas, (Died leaving behind his L.Rs P5 to P7)

2. Naramala Narayana Reddy, Son of Late Rosi Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 65 years,

3. Naramala Bayapu Reddy, Sonof Thirupal Reddy, Aged about 50 years,

4. Naramala Chinna Subba Reddy, Son of Bayapu Reddy, Aged about 41 years,

5. Naramala Subbamma, Wife of Late Pitchi Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 60 years,

6. Naramala Venkata Subba Reddy, Son of late Pitchi Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 35 years,

7. Thota Lakshmi Devi, Wife of Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 30 years, All are agriculturists resident of Vaddmanu Village and Post, S.A.Kasinayana Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. (Amended as per orders in I.A.No.464/2012, dt.31.07.2012) . . . Plaintiffs 1 to 7 –Vs -

1. Murukuti Venu Gopal Reddy, Son of Chenna Krishna Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 51 years, residing at Savisettypalli Village and Post, S.A.Kasinayana Mandal, Kadapa Distrct.

2. Polu Papulamma, wife of Thirupal Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 66 years, house wife, residing at Vaddamanu Village and Post, S.A.Kasinayana Mandal, Kadapa District. . . . Defendants 1 and 2.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands by the plaintiffs and for costs.

(FAIR) 13

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is as follows:- The relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs.5,000/- each part on which a court fee of Rs.411/- is paid for each part under section 26(c) of A.P.C.F &

S.V.Act. Total court fee of Rs.1,644/- is paid.

The relief of the counter-claim for permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs.5,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.411/- is paid by the defendant No.2 under section 26 (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on this 24.03.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.N.Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri K.G.Prabhakar,

Advocate for defendants and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows :-

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed without costs.

2. That the counter claim of the defendant No.2 is allowed.

3. That the permanent injunction is granted in favour of the defendant

No.2 restraining the plaintiffs and their men from interfering with the counter claim property by the defendant No.2.

4. That the plaintiffs do pay to the defendant No.2 a sum of Rs.3,613/- being the costs of the suit and the plaintiffs do bear their own costs of

Rs.5,116/-.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 19th day of April, 2021.

Sd/- Smt. A.Geetha Vani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS No.1 & 2 (counter claim)

Stamp on plaint1,644-00411-00

Stamp on vakalath22

Stamp on petition----

Stamp on batta memos270-00--

Typing charges200-00200-00

Advocate fee3,000-003,000-00

Total5,116-003,613-00 (FAIR) 14

S C H E D U L E

Land situated in Kadapa District, Proddatur registration District, Badvel Sub-district, Sree Avadutha Kasinayana Mandal, Savisettypalli Village fields bearing Sy.No.704/1, Extent Ac.5.02 cents, Dry full.

Bounded by : East :Land of Poli Reddy West:Telugu Ganga Channel North:Vanka South:Land of S.Gurramma and Nagabhushanam.

( Amendment as per orders in I.A.No.1251 / 2010, dated 21.08.2012 )

Id/- A.G.V., P.J.C.J. BDL.

C O U N T E R – C L A I M S C H E D U L E

Y.S.R.District, Proddatur Registration District, Badvel Sub-District, S.A.K.N.Mandal, Savisettypalli fields S.No.704/1, extent Ac.5-02 cents.

Bounded by :

East:Land of Poli Reddy West:Telugu Ganga Channel North :Vanka South:Land of Guramma and others

Id/- A.G.V., P.J.C.J., BDL.

Note:- The parties shall apply as soon as possible for return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve, as the records will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date;

(FAIR)1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

Present:- Smt A.Geetha Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Badvel

Tuesday this the 9th day of March, 2021

Original Suit No. 68 / 2013

In between:

Bandi Lakshumma, W/o. Chenna Reddy, Aged 50 years, Cultivation, residing at Krishnampalli Village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District. . . . Plaintiff –Vs -

1. Kadapa Raghava, S/o.Pedda Ramaiah, Aged 35 years, Cultivation, Residing at Krishnampalli Village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District.

2. Sagili Thirupathi Reddy, S/o.Chenchaiah, Aged about 75 years, Cultivation, Residing at Krishnampalli Village of Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District. . . . Defendants 1 and 2

This suit coming on this 19.12.2019 day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pradeep Kumar Pawar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri

D.A.Kumar, Advocate for Defendants No.1 and 2, and this court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

The plaintiff is filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit site by the plaintiff and for costs.

2. The brief facts of the plaint contents are as follows:-

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the house site clearly discribed in the plaint schedule. Paint plan also filed showing the suit schedule site as

ABCDA. The suit survey number is village pharamboku. The plaintiff occupied the suit site since more than 35 years, since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule site. As the plaintiff is a houseless poor lady and her husband is also no more, the plaintiff wants to construct a (FAIR)2 house in the suit site under A.P.Housing Development Corporation. Then the plaintiff approached the Tahsildar of Porumamilla and applied for a certificate of house site possession declaration certificate No.112/2013 dt. 23.5.2013. The original certificate filed along with the plaint. The plaintiff had applied to the

A.P.Housing Development Board Corporation, Kadapa office to provide financial assistance to construct a house in the suit site. The plaintiff has carted bricks and stones in the suit site to construct foundation.

3. The plaintiff further submit that the defendants also residence of the same village of the plaintiff and they have approached the plaintiff to purchase suit site. But the plaintiff refused to sell the same since then the defendant causing troubles to the paintiff hence the suit.

4. Defendant No.2 was set-exparte. Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying all the allegations in the paint and stated that the plan filed by the plaintiff is not correct. The defendant filed a correct plan along with his written statement. One Sagili Subbarayudu had originally constructed a house shown as the in the written statemnt plan. Infront of the said house of Sagili

Subbarayudu there is a vacant site whose measuremets are also mentioned in written statement plan. The southern wall of the house is costructed from the street up to the point B and from there with covers CDEF upto Badvel –

Porumamilla road. This house is an existence for more than 20 years. This defendants have purchase the said house for a valid consideration under an agreement of sale from Sagili Subbarayudu. It has got door number also. It has got the house of Bandi Ramulu on the eastern side it is also shown as P in the written statement plan. This Badndi Ramulu is no other than the son of Bandi

Lakshumamma who is the plaintiff herein. On the south the house of Putta Golla

Narasaiah and on the west there is a street. On the north the vacant site of

Mudiyala Ramaiah's site is in existence. In front of the house of the defendant there is a rastha to proceed towards east and this vavant site is available up to

Badvel – Porumamilla road running from east to west. The entire site available in front of the house of this defendant is covered by walls both on south as well as north. The plaintiff wanted a rastha through the site belonging into this (FAIR)3 defendant and the same was refussed. As such the plaintif plan created the house site patta surprising all the facts. The plaintiff also have no right title or possession over the suit site. The Tahsildar of Porumamilla is a necessary party.

Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial :- 1Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property ?

2Whether the plainitff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

3Whether the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties ?

4To what relief ?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff he was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to A5 were marked, in support of the plaintiff P.W.2 and P.W.3 were examined and no documents marked. Whereas the defendant No.1 filed chief affidavits of D.Ws.1 and D.W.2 on their behalf later at request of the counsel of the defendant those were eschewed.

7. Arguments heard both sides.

8. ISSUE No.(3) :-

The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff occupied the suit site and she has beeen in possession and enjoyment of suit site since more than 35 years. She has also appraoched the Tahsildar of Porumamilla and applied house site possession declaration cerifiate regarding suit site in her favour. The revenue authorities have issued house site possession declaration cerificate No.112/2013 dated 23.5.2013. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and on her behalf Ex.A. 1 to A.5 were marked. In support of the plaintiff P.W.2 and 3 were examined. On behalf of the defendant none were examined no documents marked. The commissioner was also appointed in the present case with the assistant of Mandal Surveyor. But the commissioner filed his report (FAIR)4 along with surveyor report stating that the surveyor verified the boundaries and found that there is no site in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.314 ofT.Challagirigala vlllage fields which is clasified as gramakantam (village site pharomboku) and accordingly filed the report. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the surveyor has not followed the boundaries of the suit site as such the boundaris of the suit site is correct. As per the orders of the commissioner application the commissioner has to take assistance of mandal surveyor but in the present case the commissioner took the assistance of deputy surveyor Porumamilla Mandal and as such the counsel for the plaintiff filed an objection in this regard. On perusal of the objections filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the deputy surveyor has not correctly followed the boundaries of suit site. The deputy surveyor has mentioned about the stone well.

But it is not a well it is the plaintiff carted stone to built the well. The deputy surveyor also mentioned about 18 feet sandhu, but it is not a sandhu and requested in the objections to re-direct the advocate commissioner to re-visit the suit site along with District/Mandal Surveyor to locate the suit site and to note down correct features existing therein. On perusal of the surveyor report he filed his report stating that on the western side of the suit schedue site in between the boundary of Mudiyala Ramireddy there is a well and adjacent to it east to west there is only four feet and north to south 18 feets sandhu are only existing and there is no site as mentioned in the commissioner warrant schedule.

On perusal of the commissioner application in I.A.No.812/2018 in the present suit this court directed as per the orders dated 14.12.2018 to measure the suit schedule with the help of Mandal surveyor. Whereas the commissioner took assistance of deputy surveyor Porumamilla mandal in this regard in the opinion of this court taking the assistance of deputy surveyor instead of mandal surveyor is makes no difference. Even though this court again re-directed the learned advocate commissioner to take the assitance of the deputy inspector survey and law records at rajampet as requested by the plaintiff but even after repeated adjournments the plaintiff could not take steps to re-inspect the court commisioner the suit schedule property and finally reported before this court that no further steps. hence, I.A.No.812/18 was closed.

(FAIR)5

9. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 argued that in the present case since the suit site belongs to the government, the revenue department sould also be added as a party to the suit but the plaintiff failed to add revenue authority as a party to the suit. On perusal of the record on behalf of he defendant DW1 and DW2 affidavits filed and later those were eschewed.

At the 1st instance the defendant filed a application in I.A.No31/17 and pleaded that since the 1st defendant went to Kuwait at the 1st instance she may be permitted to examine herself by name K.Polamma who is the wife of the 1st defendant Kadapa Raghava. In this regard this court was allowed

I.A.No.31/2017, dt.21.7.2018 and subsequently chief affidavit of the wife of 1st defedant by name Kadapa Polamma, W/o.Kadapa Raghava was filed as D.W.1 was eschewed at request of learned counsel for the defendant No.1. Subsequently chief affidavit of Kadapa Raghava who is the 1st defendant herein was filed as

D.W.2 and Ex.B.1 written statement plan was marked through him but subsequently the chief affidavit of D.W.2 was also achewed at request of the learned counsel for the defendant. It is settled to the legal permission that the case of the plaintiff shall not depend upon the weekness of the defendants case.

In the present case though the evidence was not adduced by the defendants the plaintiff shall stand on her own legs. But in the present case admittedly the suit schedue site is government, site but she did not add the revenue authority as a party in the suit. Further, the commissioner was appointed by the court visited the suit schedule site and found no site as mentioned in the suit schedule. The contention of the plaintiff that the Deputy surveyor can not identify the physical features of the suit site correctly and accordingly filed her objections, but the plaintiff failed to take necessary steps even though this court re- directed the commissioner to re-inspect the suit property with the assistence of the Inspector survey and law records at Rajampet as requested by the plaintiff, the reasons best known to her, hence the above issue decided against the plaintiff.

10. ISSUE Nos.(1) and (2) :-

The above issues are interrelated and interdependent, as such, they are taken up together to avoid repetition in my discussion.

(FAIR)6

11. On perusal of Ex.A.1 is the original house site possession declaration certificate. Ex.A.2 is the plaint plan. Ex.A.3 is the representation given by plaintiff to Porumamilla Tahsildar. Ex.A.4 is the declaration certificate issued by V.R.O. T.Challagirigala village, Porumamilla Mandal. Ex.A.5 is the house site possession declaration certificate infavour of the plaintiff issued by Tahsildar

Porumamilla Mandal No.112/2013 dt. 23.5.2013.

12. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 she filed her chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of her plaint in her cross examination she deposed I do not know Ex.A.1 Sy.No.314 sub-divisions letters i.e., 314/1, 314/2 mentioned or not. I do not know Sy.No.314/1 is an extent of Ac.0.15 cents and Sy.No.314/2 an extent of Ac.5.22 cents. It is true in Ex.A.1 boundaries are shown. I do not know the total extent of Sy. No.314. I have house in village without having any door number. It is true my house covered with Ac.0.10 cents worth

Rs.10,00,000/-. It is not true to say that I am not houseless poor person. It is true D.1 has house on southern side of my house. It is true Bandi Ramudu is my son his house situated on south side of defendant No.1's house. In support of

P.W.1 , P.W.2 and P.W.3 were examined.

13. P.W.2 filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint of plaintiff. In the cross examination he deposed that the plaintiff's husband and my father are brothers. A criminal case filed by the defendant No.1 is pending in

C.C.No.257/2013 and he is accused No.2 in the said criminal case. The disputed property is 6 feet width, 30 meters of height. The disputed property is situated strightly. P.W.2 further deposed that it is true on northern side of the disputed property there is a rastha of Badvel – Porumamilla. It is true on southern side of Mudiyala Ramaiah place there is a house of defendant No.1. I have not seen the patta of plaintiff. I have no knowledge that the plaintiff obtained patta. I heard that the plaintiff has land and obtained patta and I have no personal knowledge.

14. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 he filed a chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint of plaintiff. In the cross examination he deposed that Porumamilla – Badvel road situated on north side of my village. It (FAIR)7 is true on the south side of said road there is a street running from north to south. It is true on south side there is a cement road. It is true beside the said road on south side the defendant has his house. I do not know the door number of the defendant house. It is true on east side of the defendant house there is a vacant place belongs to the defendant. The said vacant place connecting to main road Porumamilla to Badvel. It is true on south side of defendant house there is a vacant place. I do not know whether Tahsildar made any enquiry about the disputed property. I do not know on which survey number the disputed property is situated. The plaintiff also raised a hut in the disputed property. I have not seen Anubandham certificate. I do not know the details how much site was allotted to plaintiff. I do not know how much land got by the plaintiff.

15. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 they categorically deposed that they have no personal knowledge about the patta granted in favour of the plaintiff and they do not know survey numbers of the disputed property.

Further P.Ws.2 and 3 categorically deposed that on the eastern side of the defendant side there is a vacant site belongs to defendant. Further in P.W.2 cross examination he admitted that the disputed property is 6 feet width and 30 meters of height. So there is no connection between the suit schedule site and the measurements deposed by P.W.2 under the circumstances this court is of the opinion that the evidences of P.Ws.2 and 3 are no way help full to the case of the plaintiff.

16. On perusal of the evidence of the P.W.1 she deposed in her cross examination that it is true my house covered with Ac.0.10 cents worth

Rs.10,00,000/- but she denied that it is not true to say that I am not houseless poor person. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and the document marked on behalf of P.W.1 Ex.A.1 and A.5 shows that P.W.1 was granted original house site possession declaration certificate and genuion possession certificate by

Tahsildar T.Chellagirigala village to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.314 whereas the commissioner was appointed by the court filed his report along with surveyor report stating that there is no such site as per the warrant schedule in the locality visited by the advocate commissioner with the help of deputy (FAIR)8 surveyor T.Challagirigala village and it is not the case of the plaintiff that her property was in illegal possession by anybody. Further, this is the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff when such is the case plaintiff has to establish her possession in the suit property but the plaintiff failed to prove the same, hence the above issues are decided against the plaintiff under these circumstances the plaintiff is not entitled the relief claimed by her.

. Issue No.(4) :- 17

In view of my finding of issues 1 to 3 the suit is dismissed without costs.

In the result,

The suit is dismissed without costs.

( Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me from judge bunglow, this the 9th day of March, 2021 )

Sd/- Smt. A.Geetha Vani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:-DEFENDANTS :

P.W.1 : Bandi Lakshumma D.W.1 : Kadapa Polamma (eschewed) P.W.2 : B. Srinivasula ReddyD.W.2 : Kadapa Raghava (eschewed) P.W.3 : N. Jayanna

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF : -

Ex.A1 : Original house site possession declaration certificate Ex.A2 : Plaint plan Ex.A3 : Representation given by plaintiff to Porumamilla Tahsildar. Ex.A4 : Declaration certificate issued by V.R.O. Ex.A5 : Genuine possession certificate issued by Tahsildar, Porumamilla Mandal.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS : -

Ex.B1 : Written statement plan. (eschewed) Id/- A.G.V., P.J.C.J, Badvel (FAIR)9

Plaint presented on: 06.06.2013 Plaint filed on: 10.06.2013

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

Present:- Smt A. Geetha Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Tuesday, the Ninth (9 th ) day of March, Two thousand and Twenty First

Original Suit No. 68 / 2013

In between:

Bandi Lakshumma, W/o. Chenna Reddy, Aged 50 years, Cultivation, residing at Krishnampalli Village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District. . . . Plaintiff –Vs -

1. Kadapa Raghava, S/o.Pedda Ramaiah, Aged 35 years, Cultivation, Residing at Krishnampalli Village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District.

2. Sagili Thirupathi Reddy, S/o.Chenchaiah, Aged about 75 years, Cultivation, Residing at Krishnampalli Village of Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District. . . . Defendants 1 and 2

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule site by the plainitff and for costs.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is as follows:- The relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs.5,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.411/- is paid under section 26(c) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on this 19.12.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pradeep Kumar Pawar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri

D.A.Kumar, Advocate for defendants No.1 and 2 and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows :- (FAIR)10 1.That the suit be and same is hereby dismissed without costs.

2. That the plaintiff do bear his own costs of Rs.6,813/- and the defendants No.1 & 2 do bear their own costs of Rs.3,002/-.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 9th day of March, 2021.

Sd/- Smt. A.Geetha Vani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFSFOR DEFENDANTS No.1 & 2

Stamp on plaint411-00-

Stamp on vakalath2-002

Stamp on batta memos200-00-

Advocate commissioner3,000-00-

Typing charges200-00-

Advocate fee3,000-003,000-00

Total6,813-003,002-00

S C H E D U L E

Kadapa District, Badvel Sub-District, Porumamilla Mandal, Krishnampalli Village, Tchallagiregela Village fields, S.No.314, extent 0-03 cents.

Bounded by:

East:House of Kadapa Krishnaiah. West:Site of Mudiyala Rami Reddy. North :Porumamilla Badvel Main Road. South:Cement Road.

Id/- A.G.V., P.J.C.J. BDL.

Note:- The parties shall apply as soon as possible for return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve, as the records will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date;

(FAIR)1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

Present:- Smt. A. Geetha Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Badvel.

Tuesday this the 6th day of April, 2021

Original Suit No. 215 / 2018

In between:

Nagaiahgari Gurraiah @ Chenchani Nagaiahgari Chinna Gurraiah, S/o. Pitchaiah, Aged 54 years, Residing at Lakshmipalem Village, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. . . . Plaintiff - Vs -

Nagendla Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o.Venkata Ramana Reddy, Aged about 32 years, residing at D.No.ACN 2/562, Rajugari Street, Badvel Town, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. . . . Defendant

This suit coming on 31.03.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Damodhar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri R.R.Varma, Advocate for defendant, having stood over for consideration, after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.85,650/- basing on suit promissory note dt.19.11.2015 and for costs of the suit.

2. Plaint Contents Briefly:-

The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 19.11.2015 and executed a suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a. on the same day and then thereafter in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not repay the same and was post poning the same saying some reason or other from time to time. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 22.09.2018 to the defendant by demanding to pay the amount due under the suit promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff is filed present suit.

3. The defendant filed his written statement denying all the allegations in the plaint and stated that the defendant is an electrician and he used to do electrical work in Badvel town as well as in the surrounding villages. The plaintiff constructed (FAIR)2 a house and engaged the defendant to do elcetrical work in his house. Accordingly, the plaintiff gave an advance of Rs.50,000/- towards electrical equipments and insisted the defendant to execute a pronote as security. Accordingly, the defendant executed the suit pronote. There after the defendant brought the electrical equipments and completed the work as per the wish of the plaintiff.

4. The defendant further submits that after completion of work the defendant asked the due amount after deducting the advance amount i.e., suit pronote amount. The plaintiff refused to pay the same and an altercation took place between the plaintiff and defendant and bore grudge against the same the plaintiff filed this suit with the aid of his friends. After receiving notices from Hon'ble court the defendant approached elders and conveyed panchayath, the plaintiff assured the elders that he will withdraw the case but in vain. The plaintiff is due to the defendant to a tune of Rs.35,000/-. Thus the suit is devoid of merits and this suit filed only to get wrongful gain. Hence, the suit is dimiss with costs.

5. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed:

(1) Whether the suit promissory note dt.19.11.2015, of Rs.50,000/- true, valid and binding on defendant ?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for ?

(3) To what relief?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note dated:19.11.2015, for

Rs.50,000/-, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.22.09.2018 and Ex.A3 is the postal receipt, dt.22.09.2018 and after closing the evidence of the P.W.1, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf and in support of defendant D.W.2 to D.W.4 were examined and no documents were marked.

7. Heard both sides physically and I have perused the entire material available on record.

8. ISSUES No.1 and 2:

Both the issues are interrelated and interdependent, as such,they are taken up together to avoid repetition in my discussion.

9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 19.11.2015 from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note for Rs.50,000/- under Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a., subequently, the defendant failed to repay the amount covered under Ex.A1 even on several (FAIR)3 demands made by the defendant, hence prayed to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant is an electrician. The plaintiff constructed a house and engaged the defendant to do elcetrical work in his house accordingly plaintiff gave an advance of Rs.50,000/- towards electrical equipments and insisted the defendant to execute a pronote as security. The defendant asked the due amount after deducting the advance amount i.e., suit pronote amount. The plaintiff refused to pay the same and an altercation took place between the plaintiff and defendant and bore grudge against the same the plaintiff filed this suit. The plaintiff in his cross examination one way denied that the defendant is an electrician and on the other side he deposed that the defendant is doing motor machanic works in his house also defendant did motor mechanic work, it shows that the version of the defendant is correct, hence, prayed to dimiss the suit with costs.

10. On perusal of evidence of P.W.1 he filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint and in his cross-examination he deposed that he does not know the defendant is an electrician. Witness adds that the defendant is doing motor mechanic works. P.W.1 further deposed that “It is true in my village and surrounding villages the defendant is doing motor mechanic work”.

Witness adds in their house also the defendant did motor mechanic work. P.W.1 further deposed that “It is true I have also filed some other civil suits for recovery of money and cases U/sec.N.I Act. It is true I have constructed a house in

Lakshmipalem i.e., in my village”. P.W.1 further deposed that “It is not true to say that the defendant arranged electrical instruments to the said house in my village. It is not true say that the defendant arranged electrical instruments to my house and in that connection he has executed suit promissory note as security and no consideration was passed as alleged by me. It is not true say that I myself have to pay an amount o Rs.35,000/- to defedant for arranged electrical instruments to my house construed in my village and also towards labour charges. It is not true to say that the defendant requested me to give Rs.35,000/- due to him and in that connection and altercation taken place between myself and defendant and as such by bore grude against the defendant I filed the present suit by using the suit promissory note for wrongful gain”.

11. The defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 by filing his chief affidavit by reiterating the defendant written statement contents and in the cross examination D.W.1 deposed that “It is true I scribed Ex.A1 by my own hand writing”. The signature appears on Ex.A1 belong to me”. D.W.1 further deposed (FAIR)4 that “It is true it is mentioned in Ex.A1 that I borrowed the amount covered under

Ex.A1 from the plaintiff for my necessities. It is true I have received legal notice in the present suit”. D.W.1 further deposed that “I have not given any reply for the legal notice received by me”.

12. On perusal of the evidence of D.W.2 Thudimella Narasimhullu and

D.W.3 A.Eswar Reddy, they filed their chief affidavits and its contents, they accompanied with the defendant to do electrical work in the newly constructed house of the plaintiff. They worked for about ten days in the house of the plaintiff, the plaintiff not paid any amount to them towards the work done by them in his house. The defendant paid their daily labour for the work done in the house of the plaintiff. After completion of work in the house of the plaintiff, the defendant asked the plaintiff to pay the balance of amount towards the material and work done by them but the plaintiff used to postpone the same and deceived the defendant. An altercation took place between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff threatened the defendant with dire consequences and the plaintiff did not choose to pay the amount to the defendant. The plaintiff has to pay the amount to the defendant but not the defendant, even elders of the village tried to convince the plaintiff but he did not care their words. The defendant was not at all due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave an advance of Rs.50,000/- towards electrical equipments and insisted the defendant to execute a pronote as security. Accordingly, the defendant executed the suit pronote and he brought electrical equipments and completed the work as per the wish of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff refused to pay the balance of the amount to the defendant after completion of work, thus the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff but it was executed only towards advance amount for purchasing electrical equipments to do electrical work in the house of the plaintiff. D.W.2 and D.W.3 in their cross-examination deposed that they do not have any evidence to show that Ex.A1 is created one. They have not filed any document showing that they were working along with the defendant for electrical work at the house of plaintiff. They have not signed as witnesses on

Ex.A1. They have not filed any document to show that plaintiff gave amount of

Rs.50,000/- in connection with electrical instrument. D.W.2 witness adds that but he was present at that time.

13. On perusal of the evidence of D.W.4 Kambhala Chinna

Subbarayudu, filed his chief affidavit and its contents, he had convened the panchayath between the plaintiff and defendant with regard to the alleged execution of suit pronote. On that day he was sitting opposite to the vegetable (FAIR)5 market and noticed the galata between the plaintiff and defendant, he asked them about what happened and on his enquiry it was revealed that the plaintiff had given Rs.50,000/- to the defendant as an advance to perform the electrical work and after completion of work the defendant asked the plaintiff to pay the balance amount and also asked to return the pronote executed by the defendant, but the plaintiff neither paid the balance amount and nor returned the pronote. After that he made a panchayath with regard to the dispute and asked the plaintiff to return the pronote to the defendant, he also asked the defendant to produce the bills with regard to the work done. No consideration was passed at the time of executing pronote but it was given for purchase of electrical equipment and the plaintiff insisted to execute pronote as security measure, the same was admitted by the plaintiff before him. D.W.4 in his cross-examination deposed that he knows the defendant since 4 or 5 years. He knows the plaintiff since 10 years. D.W.4 further deposed that “It is true myself and plaintiff are good friends”. There are no money transactions between himself and the plaintiff. He knows about the money transactions between the plaintiff and defendant. At the time of scribing Ex.A1 he was not present. He cannot say the exact date of Ex.A1. D.W.4 further deposed that “It is true the defendant was running fair price shop as a dealer”. He does not knows that the defendant used to obtain money from plaintiff for fair price shop stock. D.W.4 further deposed that “It is not true to say that the defendant is an electrician”. He did not filed any document before this court to show that the defendant is an electrician. D.W.4 further deposed that “ It is true in Ex.A1 the recitals not shown about the alleged electrical materials”. He does not knows Ex.A1 scribed by the defendant.

14. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 it is consistent that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note. On receiving consideration the defendant executed

Ex.A1. The contention of the defendant that the plaintiff constructed a house and engaged the defendant to do elcetrical work in his house accordingly plaintiff gave an advance of Rs.50,000/- towards electrical equipments and insisted the defendant to execute a pronote as security and no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 to this defendant.

15. Admittedly, D.W.2 and D.W.3 are not the attestors of Ex.A1 promissory note. But D.W.2 deposed that at the time of scribing Ex.A1 he was present but to believe his version his signature is not appearing in Ex.A1.

Coming to the evidence of D.W.4 he deposed that no consideration was passed at the time of Ex.A1. At the same time D.W.4 deposed that he was not present at (FAIR)6 the time of scribing Ex.A1. D.W.4 further deposed that he does not know that the scribe of Ex.A1 is the defendant when such being the case how can D.W.4 deposed that no consideration was passed when he was not present at the time of scribe of Ex.A1. D.W.4 further denied that the defendant is an electrician.

Whereas the defendant in his chief affidavit stating that he used to do electrical work in Badvel Town as well in the surrounding villages. The same was admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination that the defendant did motor machanic in his house. So that is no consistency in the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.4. But the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff one way deposed that he does not know that the defendant is an electrician and on the other way he deposed that in his house the defendant did motor machanic work, which such being a case how the recitals of Ex.A1 got mentioned that the defendant borrowed

Rs.50,000/- for his family necessities is not explained by the defendant, hence the version of the defendant in not supported by the recitals of Ex.A1. The defence of the defendant is that no consideration was passed under Ex.A1.

16. In this regard on perusal of section 118 (A) of Negotiable Instrument

Act it laid down that “until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-

(a) that every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration . . . . ”

The language could not be similar or more emphatic or more absolute.

The presumption is a compulsory presumption of law: The court is bound to presume that every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration.

There are absolute No conditions attached to the drawing of the presumption:

the drawing of the presumption is containted neither to proceedings in a particular court nor to proceedings of a particular nature nor to proceedings between particular person. So whenever such presumption arises, the court must start with presumption that the Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration. In the present case the plaintiff by examining herself as P.W.1 by marking Ex.A1 suit promissory note in his favour and the admissions and denials in the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.4 this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff discharged his intial burden and proved his version but the defendant failed to rebut the same, hence issues 1 and 2 decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

17. On a careful perusal of entire evidence on record it is clear that the suit promissory note under Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant, and the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

(FAIR)7

18. ISSUE No : 3

In view of my findings on Issues No.1 to 2, the suit is to be decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

In the result,

The suit is decreed with costs directing defendant to pay a sum of Rs.85,650/- to plaintiff together with subsequent interest @ 12 % p.a., from the date of filing of suit to till the date of decree and there after @ 6 % p.a., till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/-.

( Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 6th day of April, 2021 )

Sd/- Smt. A.Geetha Vani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANTS:-

P.W.1: Nagaiahgari Gurraiah @ D.W.1 : N. Venkata Subba Reddy Chinna Gurraiah D.W.2 : T.Narasimhulu D.W.3 : A.Eswar Reddy D.W.4 : K.Chinna Subbarayudu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1 : Original prmissory note dt:19.11.2015, for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.22.09.2018 Ex.A3 : Postal receipt, dt.22.09.2018.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:- NIL

Id/- A.G.V., P.J.C.J, Badvel.

(FAIR)8

Plaint presented on: 15.11.2018 Plaint filed on: 28.11.2018

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

Present:- Smt. A. Geetha Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Badvel.

Tuesday, the Sixth (6 th ) day of April, Two thousand and Twenty First

O.S.No. 215 / 2018

Nagaiahgari Gurraiah @ Chenchani Nagaiahgari Chinna Gurraiah, S/o. Pitchaiah, Aged 54 years, Residing at Lakshmipalem Village, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. . . . Plaintiff - Vs -

Nagendla Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o.Venkata Ramana Reddy, Aged about 32 years, residing at D.No.ACN 2/562, Rajugari Street, Badvel Town, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. . . . Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.85,650/- basing on promissory note dt:19.11.2015, for Rs.50,000/- repayable with interest @ 24 % p.a., for future interest and costs of the suit.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is as follows:- The relief of recovery of money is notionally valued at Rs.85,650/- and court fee of Rs.3,106/- is paid under section 20 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on today for disposal hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Damodhar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri R.R.Varma,

Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:- (FAIR)9

1. That the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.85,650/- to plaintiff together with subsequent interest @ 12 % p.a., from the date of filing of suit to till the date of decree and there after @ 6 % p.a., till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/-.

2. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,628/- being the cost of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.3,413/-.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 6th day of April, 2021.

Sd/- Smt. A.Geetha Vani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANT

Stamp on plaint3,106-00--

Stamp on vakalath22

Typing charges200-00200

Stamp on batta memos50-00--

Advocate fee4,270-00 3,211-00 (as claimed)

Total7,628-003,413-00

Id/- A.G.V., P.J.C.J., BDL.

Note:- The parties shall apply as soon as possible for return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve, as the records will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date;

(FAIR)1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

Present:- Smt A.Geetha Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Badvel

Monday this the 22nd day of March, 2021

Original Suit No. 104 / 2020

Old.O.S.No.34 / 2018

Old.O.S.No.240 / 2009

In between:

Thanneru Yallaiah, S/o.Gopaiah, Hindu, Aged about 52 years, Agriculturist, Resident of Raghavareddipeta Village, Malinenipatnam Post, Atlur Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh, Now residing at Poolabavi Street, Badvel Town & Municipality, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. . . . Plaintiff –Vs -

Bijivemula Jayasubba Reddy, S/o.Penchal Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, Agriculturist, Residing at Sri Krishnadevaraya Nagar, Badvel Town & Municipality, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. . . . Defendant

This suit coming on this 17-03-2021 day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.N.Prasad, counsel for plaintiff and of Sri E.C.Obula

Reddy, Advocate for Defendant, and this court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

The plaintiff is filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit site by the plaintiff and for costs.

2. The averments of the plaintiff are as follows:-

The plantiff submits that he purchased Ac.0.07 cents out of Ac.2.70 cents in Sy.No.1157/1 of Badvel village fields from Nagarapu Subbarayudu under a registered sale deed dt.02.07.2007. The site is discribed in the plaint schedule and shown as ABCDA in the plaint plan. Ever since the date of purchase the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(FAIR)2

3. The plaintiff further submits that in order to construct a house he approached the municipal authorities of Badvel and submitted a plan for approval on 05.10.2009. Thereafter the plaintiff raised foundation in the said site on 05.12.5009 and performed Bhoomipuja on that day. While the plaintiff raising the foundation the defendant approached and asked the plaintiff to sell the suit site to him about 15 days back but the plaintiff refused the same.

Having grudge against the plaintiff the defendant objected the plaintiff to complete the foundation work, hence the suit.

4. The defendant filed his written statement denying all the allegations in the plaint and contended that one Nagarapu Subba Rao is the original owner of the land of Ac.1.35 cents out of Ac.2.70 cents in S.No.1157/1 of Badvel Village fields which is the suit survey number, the defendant had purchased an extent of Ac.0.30 cents site in the suit survey number on 22.09.2004 from its original owner N.Subbarayudu under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.1437/2004 and took the delivery and has been in possession and enjoyment of the property by running Saw-mill therein. The defendant filed correct plan along with written statement and shown his site as “ABCDEFA” and Saw-mill rooms marked as R1 to

R6. And this defendant denies the very existence and location of the suit site of the plaintiff alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff presented his written arguments and present physically and argued that the father of the plaintiff purchased the suit site under an agreement of sale prior to purchase the site by the defendant on 22.09.2004. The registered sale deed of the defendant filed by the plaintiff marked as Ex.A5. As per Ex.A5 the eastern boundary site left for rastha in the same survey number and site of Thanneeru Gopal who is the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also examined the vendor of the plaintiff as well defendant as P.W.2. P.W.2 categorically deposed this court that he sold his site

Ac.0.07 cents to the plaintiff and he also sold his site situated on the western side to the plaint schedule property. Further, the suit site is not part and parcel for the site purchased by the defendant. The suit site and the site of the (FAIR)3 defendant got measured by the advocate commissioner with the help of Mandal

Surveyor on 06.02.2015 and filed his report. The learned advocate commissioner and Mandal Surveyor measured the suit site and found the site of the defendant situated on the western side of the plaint schedule and also noted the physical features existing as on the date of visit by the learned advocate commissioner.

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further argued that on the objections made by the plaintiff and defendant, this court again re-directed to advocate commissioner to comply the objections of the both parties.

Accordingly, the learned advocate commissioner visited the suit schedule property along with the Mandal Surveyor and got measured the site of the defendant and marked the site of the defendant as ABCDEFGHIJA in his rough sketch. A to B is north of the defendant site from East to West measuring

East to West is 35.20 meters i.e., 35.20 X 3.3 = 116.16. According to Ex.A5

East to West is 100 feet. Now the defendant occupied more than 16 feet from

East to West which belong to P.W.2 on Eastern side. North to South is 41.80 meters i.e.,41.80 X 3.3 = 138 feet. In fact the site of the defendant from

North to South is 133 ½ feet or 40.48 meters. Now the defendant is enjoying 4 ½ feet excess. FG 22.80 + HI 11.20 + JA 7.80 in total 41.80 meters.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further argued that after obtaining interium order in I.A.No.1119/09 the plaintiff constructed 6 (six) rooms on western side of his site as well as cattle shed on Northen side and also planted coconut trees on Eastern side in the suit site and paying house tax as well as electrical charges to the Government authorities the same was admitted by the defendant in his cross-examination. As such the plaintiff alone has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, hence prayed to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff.

8. On the other hand the counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff has no right, title and possession over the suit property by taking advantage of the eastern boundary of the defendant site i.e., site left to street road and site of Thaneeru Gopal the plaintiff filed his additional affidavit (FAIR)4 stating that his father's name is Gopaiah @ Gopal. The failed to locate the suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed the suit for vacant site but as per the commissioner sketch there are 6 (six) rooms in suit schedule property as such the suit schedule sketch is not one and the same. Further the plaintiff failed to add the vendor of the plaintiff as a party to the suit. Suit also bad for non- joinder of the vendor of the plaintiff. Further the suit is for mere injunction without seeking the declaration of the title, hence the suit is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the suit.

9. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial :- 1Whether the plaintiff is entitled forgrantofpermanent injunction as prayed for ?

2Whether one N.Subbarayudu is necessary party to this suit ?

3Whether the registered sale deed dt.22.09.2004 is binding on the plaintiff ?

4To what relief ?

10. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. In support of plaintiff P.W.2 was examined and no documents wee marked. After clousing the evidence of plaintiff Defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 is marked. In support of defendant D.W.2 was examined and no documents were marked.

11. ISSUE Nos.(1) and (2) :-

Both the issues are interrelated and interdependent, as such, they are taken up together to avoid repetition in my discussion.

12. On behalf of the plaintiff P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and

Ex.A1 to A5. On perusal of Ex.A1 plaint plan. Ex.A2 registered sale deed, dt.02.07.2007 examined by Nagarapu Subbarayudu, S/o. Penchalaiah in favour of the plaintiff with specific boundaries mentioned in plaint schedule property in

S.No.1157/1 to an extent of Ac.0.07 cents, Ex.A3 is the plan approval, Ex.A4 is (FAIR)5 the photos with C.D. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dt.22.09.2004 stands in the name of the defendant. In the cross-examination

P.W.1 deposed that “I have obtained Ex.A3 for construction of six rooms. It is true on constructing Ex.A3 there is only one proposal for construction of one building. Witness adds that he has raised six rooms”. On perusal of Ex.A2 registered sale deed it shows that the plaintiff purchased the suit property.

Further P.W.2 the vendor of the plaintiff was examined by name Nagarapu

Subbarayudu by filing his chief affidavit stating that he sold Ac.0.30 cents to the defendant under a registered sale deed at the first instance about 10 years back which is on the western side of the suit site. Thereafter he sold Ac.0.07 cents to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed about 7 years and handed over the possession and enjoyment of the suit site with absolute rights. The plaintiff constructed 6 rooms on western side facing towards to east in the open place on northern side of the plaintiff is trying anamals. Whereas the defendant running saw mill in his site purchased from the defendant. In the cross- exmination nothing was elicited against the plaintiff from P.W.2.

13. So, on perusal of the evidence of the P.W.2 he is the vendor of the plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased Ac.0.07 cents from him. Ex.A2 also confirming the same. Further, P.W.2 deposed that the defendant also purchased Ac.0.30 cents from him but in this regard no sale deed is marked in favour of the defendant by him. Further, P.W.2 categorically deposed that the site of the defendant which he sold is existing on the western side of the suit schedule property. So, by the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A2 this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff established his right and possession over the suit property. Further, on P.W.2 who is the vendor of the plaintiff was examined

before this court. This court is of the opinion that non-joinder of the vendor of

the plaintiff by name Narapu Subbarayudu is not bad in the present suit as he was examined as P.W.2 is sufficient, hence the above issues are settled in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

14. Issue No. (3) : The contention of the defendant that he purchased an extent of Ac.0.30 cents on 22.09.2004 under a registered sale deed but in this regard no document is marked on behalf of the defendant the same was also (FAIR)6 admitted by the defendant D.W.1 in his cross examination that “It is true I have not filed any piece of document to show my possession over the suit property”.

In this regard on perusal of the commissioner report filed by the learned advocate commissioner, dt.19.06.2017 he shown the plaint schedule property as

M N O P Q R M he shown B.Bath room. The commissioner also noted six rooms constructed on the western side in the plaint schedule as R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6.

Advocate commissioner also noted 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 coconut nut trees existing in the plaint site. The contention of the defendant that as per the plaintiff the suit is vacant site and how the rooms now came into existing ? for which the counsel for the plaintiff argued that after obtaining the interium orders in

I.A.No.1119/09 the plaintiff constructed the six rooms the same was also admitted by the defendant in his cross examination. In this regard on perusal of the cross examination of D.W.1. D.W.1 admitted that “It is true there is a separate electrical meter for six rooms”. “It is true the said electrical connection is stands in the name of the plaintiff and he has been paying tax for said six rooms” so by this evidence of the D.W.1 it is categorically proved that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit schedule property. Further the certified copy of registered sale deed of the defendant dt.22.09.2004 was marked by the plaintiff as Ex.A5 it shows that the eastern boundary of the site of the defendant there is a site left for street road and site of Thanneru Gopal.

The contention of the plaintiff is that the said Thanneru Gopal is his father but at the same time the defendant contended that by taking the advantage that the eastern boundary of the defendant site left for street road and site of

Thanneru Gopal the plaintiff filed his Additional Chief Affidavit that his father's name is Gopaiah @ Gopal, when such being the allegation of the defendant the burden lies upon him to prove the special fact but he failed to prove the same, hence this court is of the opinion that the suit site is not part and parcel of the defendant site and there is no connection to the defendant site and plaintiff property.

15. The further contention of the defendant that the suit for mere injunction is not maintainable with declaration of the title. At this jucture, this court relied the decision reported in (FAIR)7

P.Buchi Reddy & Others Vs. Ananthula Sudhakar on

18.01.1999 and equilent citations: 1999 Vol.(2) ALD 327,

1999 (2) ALT page no.192, the Hon'ble Judgment In para

No.12 . . . “If a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiffs title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiffs title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title”.

16. In the present case there is no cloud and the sale deed of the plaintiff Ex.A2 is very clear. Further, the vendor of the plaintiff was also examined before this court as P.W.2 and categorically deposed that he sold the suit land to the plaintiff and the defendant land is at western side of the suit land. This issue settled in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

17 . Issue No.(4) :-

In view of my finding of issues 1 to 3 the suit is to be decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff.

In the result,

The suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit site by the plaintiff.

( Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of March, 2021 )

Sd/- Smt. A.Geetha Vani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL.

(FAIR)8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS:-DEFENDANTS :

P.W.1 : Thanneru Yellaiah D.W.1 : B. Jaya Subba Reddy P.W.2 : Nagarapu SubbarayuduD.W.2 : B. Jaya Rami Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS : -

Ex.A1 : Plaint plan Ex.A2 : Original registered sale deed, dt.02.07.2007. Ex.A3 : Proposed plan submitted before Municipal Office for approval. Ex.A4 : Two photos with C.D. Ex.A5 : Certified copy of registered sale deed, dt.22.09.2004 stands in the name of the defendant.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1 : Written statement plan.

Id/- A.G.V., P.J.C.J, Badvel (FAIR)9

Plaint presented on: 29.12.2009 Plaint filed on: 29.12.2009

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

Present:- Smt A. Geetha Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Monday, the Twenty Second (22 nd ) day of March, Two thousand and Twenty first

Original Suit No. 104 / 2020

Old.O.S.No.34 / 2018

Old.O.S.No.240 / 2009

Thanneru Yallaiah, S/o.Gopaiah, Hindu, Aged about 52 years, Agriculturist, Resident of Raghavareddipeta Village, Malinenipatnam Post, Atlur Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh, Now residing at Poolabavi Street, Badvel Town & Municipality, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. . . . Plaintiff –Vs -

Bijivemula Jayasubba Reddy, S/o.Penchal Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, Agriculturist, Residing at Sri Krishnadevaraya Nagar, Badvel Town & Municipality, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. . . . Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule site by the plainitff and for costs.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is as follows:- The relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs.5,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.411/- is paid, Total court fee of Rs.411/- is paid under section 26(c) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on this 17.03.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.N.Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri E.C.Obula Reddy, Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows :-

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit site by the plaintiff.

(FAIR)10

2. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,288/- being the costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.NIL.

(costs memo not filed)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 22nd day of March, 2021.

Sd/- Smt. A.Geetha Vani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANT

Stamp on plaint411-00Costs

Stamp on vakalath2Memo

Stamp on batta memos175-00not

Typing charges200-00filed

Advocate commissioner2,500-00

Advocate fee3,000-00

Total6,288-00

S C H E D U L E

“ABCDA” site situated in Kadapa District, Badvel Sub-district, Badvel Municipal limits, Badvel Mandal, Badvel village fields, bearing D.No.1157/1, Ac.0.07 cents out of Ac.2.70 cents.

Bounded by:

East:Road in the suit survey number West:Bijivemula Jayasubba Reddy North:Site retained by the Vendor Nagarapu Subbarayudu South:Road.

Measurements:

East to West:On Southern side = 71 Links On Northern side = 65 Links North to South : On Eastern side = 96 Links On Western side = 110 Links i.e., 345.24 Sq.yards.

Id/- A.G.V., P.J.C.J. BDL.

Note:- The parties shall apply as soon as possible for return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve, as the records will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date;

(FAIR)1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

Present:- Smt. A. Geetha Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Badvel.

Friday this the 26th day of March, 2021

Original Suit No. 245 / 2018

In between:

Gangireddy Muni Reddy, S/o. Poli Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Cultivation, Kopparaju Palli Village, Now residing at Kopparthivaripalli Village, B.Koduru Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. . . . Plaintiff - Vs -

Kopparthi Subba Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Cultivation, Aged about 40 years, residing at Kumaronipalli Village, B.Koduru Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. . . . Defendant

This suit coming on 22-03-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

Pradeep Kumar Pawar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri E.C.Obula Reddy, Advocate for defendant, having stood over for consideration, after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,53,500/- basing on suit promissory note dt.24.11.2015 and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.11.2015 and executed a suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18 % p.a. After that in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount borrowed by him. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant filed his written statement denying all the allegations mentioned in the plaint and stated that the plaintiff and defendant are relation and as there is a dispute regarding the sale of land, the defendant has convened many panchayats to resolve the said dispute but plaintiff did not heed the advices of elders and bent upon to cause inconvenience to the defendant one way or other in that process to get the defendant in to his fold he has succeeded in fabricating the suit promissory note with active collusion of his hench-man, as such the suit promissory note is rank forged. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

(FAIR)2

4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed:

(1) Whether the promissory note dt.24.11.2015 of Rs.1,00,000/- is true, valid and binding on defendant ?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

(3) To what relief?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1. Ex.A1 is marked.

The scribe of the suit pronote was examined as P.W.2 and no documents are marked.

After closing the evidence of the P.Ws.1 and 2, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no document was marked.

6. Heard both sides physically and I have perused the entire material available on record.

7. ISSUES No.1 and 2:

Both the issues are interrelated and interdependent, as such, they are taken up together to avoid repetition in my discussion.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.11.2015 from the plaintiff for his family neccessities and executed the suit promissory note Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18 % p.a., Subequently, the defendant failed to repay the amount covered under Ex.A1 even on several demands made by the plaintiff, hence prayed to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff and defendant are relation and as there is a dispute regarding the sale of land, the defendant has convened many panchayats to resolve the said dispute but plaintiff did not heed the advices of elders and bent upon to cause inconvenience to the defendant one way or other in that process to get the defendant in to his fold he has succeeded in fabricating the suit promissory note with active collusion of his hench-man, as such the suit promissory note is rank forged, hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

9. On perusal of evidence of P.W.1 he filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint in his cross examination he deposed that the defendant is his nephew by curtsey. Himself and the defendant are residing in the same village. P.W.1 further deposed that “ It is not true to say that my land and the lands of defendant are situating adjacently. The defendant sold away his lands situated in my village. I have purchased the lands of defendant”. P.W.1 further deposed that “It is not true to say that there is a dispute between myself and defendant regarding the landed property. One

Lingamdinne Obul Reddy scribe of the Ex.A1 he is resident of my village”. P.W.1 further (FAIR)3 deposed that “It is true in Ex.A1 the residence of the defendant is blank except mentioning

B.Kodur Mandal”. P.W.1 further deposed that “It is not true to say that myself and the scribe of Ex.A1 created Ex.A1 for the purpose of the suit. It is not true to say that since

Ex.A1 is a fabricated document no one shown as attestor”.

10. On perusal of evidence of P.W.2 he filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of affidavit and in his cross examination he deposed that “It is true the plaintiff and defendant are residents of my village. The defendant has got land near by

Prabhalaveedu”. P.W.2 further deposed that “ It is not true to suggest that there are disputes between the plaintiff and defendant. It is not true to suggest that I know there are disputes between the plaintiff and defendant, intentionally I am deposing false”. P.W.2 further deposed that “It is not true to say that Ex.A1 was created with the collusion as there are disputes between the plaintiff and defendant in connection with landed property”.

P.W.2 further deposed that “ It is not true to suggest that no consideration was passed on

Ex.A1 to the defendant”.

11. The defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 by filing his chief affidavit by reiterating the defendant written statement contents and in the cross examination D.W.1 deposed that the signature shown on his chief affidavit belongs to him. The signature shown on his vakalath belongs to him. The signature shown on Ex.A1 not belongs to him.

There are disputes between himself and the plaintiff regarding landed property. The dispute arose between himself and the plaintiff that the landed property purchased by him at the instance of plaintiff in that connection there are disputes between himself and the plaintiff.

He has not given police report regarding the dispute arose between himself and the plaintiff regarding the landed property. D.W.1 further deposed that “ It is not true to say that there are no dispute between myself and plaintiff and the dispute mentioned in my chief affidavit is false and I am deposing false”.

12. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 it is consistent that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note. On receiving consideration only the defendant executed Ex.A1. The contention of the defendant that the plaintiff by creating Ex.A1 suit promissory note with the help of one

L.Obul Reddy is the scribe of Ex.A1 created and filed the same before the court for wrongful gain. The defendant contended that the suit promissory note rank forged.

13. When the document is said to be forgery and when a party has specifically denied the signature or the thumb impression on that particular document such party should be certainly have an opportunity to send the document to the hand writing expert for comparision of the disputed signature or thumb impression, with the admitted (FAIR)4 signature or thumb impressions. Of course the evidence of the expert is also not conclusive. The court has to examine the entire evidence on record. Probabilities of the case including the evidence of the hand writing expert on the analysis it could be come to a conclusion.

14. The court itself can look into the disputed signature and thumb impression and come to a conclusion by its known knowledge under section 73 of Indian Evidence

Act. The court has got power U/Sec 73 of Indian Evidence Act to compare the disputed signature in order to give finding on the issue involved, and come to the conclusion that the genuineness of the document. In the present case the defendant did not take any steps to send the document to FSL for comparision of his signatures, hence this court compared his signatures. On perusal of the signatures of the defendant in his vakalath, written statement are in telugu and even between those signatures there is slight variance and it shows that the defendant wantonly put his signatures to make variance.

15. Further, under section 118 (A) of Negotiable Instrument Act it laid down that “until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-

(a) that every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration . . . . ”

The language could not be similar or more emphatic or more absolute. The presumption is a compulsory presumption of law: The court is bound to presume that every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration. There are absolute No conditions attached to the drawing of the presumption: the drawing of the presumption is containted neither to proceedings in a particular court nor to proceedings of a particular nature nor to proceedings between particular person. So whenever such presumption arises, the court must start with presumption that the Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration. In the present case the plaintiff by examining himself as P.W.1 by marking Ex.A1 suit promissory note in his favour and the admissions and denials in the evidence of D.W.1 this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff discharged his intial burden and proved his version but the defendant failed to rebut the same, hence issues 1 and 2 decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

16. On a careful perusal of entire evidence on record it is clear that the suit promissory note under Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant, and the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

17. ISSUE No : 3

In view of my findings on Issues No.1 to 2, the suit is to be decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

(FAIR)5

In the result,

The suit is decreed with costs directing defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,53,500/- to plaintiff together with subsequent interest @ 12 % p.a., from the date of filing of suit to till the date of decree and there after @ 6 % p.a., till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

( Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26th day of March, 2021 )

Sd/- Smt. A.Geetha Vani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT:-

P.W.1 : Gangireddy Muni Reddy D.W.1: Kopparthi Subba Reddy P.W.2 : L. Obul Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1 : Original prmissory note dt:24.11.2015, for Rs.1,00,000/-.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:- NIL

Id/- A.G.V., P.J.C.J, Badvel.

(FAIR)6

Plaint presented on: 23.11.2018 Plaint filed on: 21.12.2018

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

Present:- Smt. A. Geetha Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Badvel.

Friday, the Twenty sixth (26 th ) day of March, Two thousand and Twenty first

O.S.No. 245 / 2018

Gangireddy Muni Reddy, S/o. Poli Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Cultivation, Kopparaju Palli Village, Now residing at Kopparthivaripalli Village, B.Koduru Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. . . . Plaintiff - Vs -

Kopparthi Subba Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Cultivation, Aged about 40 years, residing at Kumaronipalli Village, B.Koduru Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. . . . Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,53,500/- basing on promissory note dt:24.11.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/- repayable with interest @ 18 % p.a., for future interest and costs of the suit.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is as follows:- The relief of recovery of money is notionally valued at Rs.1,53,500/- and court fee of Rs.4,026/- is paid under section 20 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on today for disposal hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pradeep Kumar Pawar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri

E.C.Obula Reddy, Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:- (FAIR)7

1. That the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,53,500/- to plaintiff together with subsequent interest @ 12 % p.a., from the date of filing of suit to till the date of decree and there after @ 6 % p.a., till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,583/- being the costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs. NIL (costs memo not filed)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 26th day of March, 2021.

Sd/- Smt. A.Geetha Vani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANT

Stamp on plaint4,026-00Cost

Stamp on vakalath2Memo

Typing charges200-00not

Stamp on batta memos50-00filed

Advocate fee 6,305-00

Total10,583-00

Id/- A.G.V., P.J.C.J., BDL.

Note:- The parties shall apply as soon as possible for return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve, as the records will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date;