Sri A. Pardhasarathy

IN THE PRL.FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri A.Parthasarathy,

Judge, Prl.Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday this the 15th day of MARCH, 2018

O.S.NO.165/2008

Between:- 1.Yatagiri Seshu Kumari, W/o.late Krishna Murthy Acharya, Hindu, aged about 53 years, Housewife, resident of D.No.11-62-4, building styled as Uttaradhi matham, canal road, Vijayawada-520 001.

2.Yatagiri Venkata Hanumantha Rao, S/o.late Krishna Murthy Acharya, Hindu, aged about 36 years, Advocate, resident of D.No.11-62-4, Building styled as Uttaradi Matham, Canal road, Vijayawada- 520 001.

3.Yatagiri Raghavendra Rao, S/o.late Krishna Murthy Acharya, Hindu, aged about 32 years, business, resident of d.No.11-62-4, Building styled as Uttaradhi Matham, Canal road, Vijayawada- 520 001.

4. Yatagiri Narasimhachary, S/o.late Krishna Murthy Acharya, Hindu, aged about 26 years, Archaka Profession, resident of D.No.11-62-4, building styled as Uttaradhi Matham, Canal road, Vijayawada- 520 001.

5. Yatagiri Rama Devi, W/o.Satyadhisa Sarma, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Housewife, resident of D.No.11-62-4, Building styled as Uttaradhi Matham, Canal road, Vijayawada- 520 001.

6. Vummethala Naga Purnima, W/o.Narasimha Rao, Hindu, aged about 28 years, widow, resident of D.No.11-62-4, Building styled as Uttaradhi matham, Canal road, Vijayawada -520 001.

7. Yatagiri Venkata Naga Lakshmi, D/o.(L) Satyadhisa Sarma, Hindu, aged about 13 years, under the care and custody of her mother Smt.Yatagiri Rama Devi, 6th plaintiff herein, resident of D.No.11-62-4, building styled as Uttaradhi Matham, Canal road, Vijayawada -520 001.

8. Yatagiri Venkata Padmavathi, D/o.(L) Satyadhisa Sarma, Hindu, aged about 10 years, under the care and custody of her mother Smt.Yatagiri Rama Devi, 6thplaintiff herein, resident of D.No.11-62-4, 2 building styled as Uttaradhi matham, Canal road, Vijayawada- 520 001.

(Plaintiffs 1,2, 4 and 6 rep. by their registered power of attorney holder, the 3rd plaintiff herein). Plaintiffs 7 & 8 being minors rep.by their mother, natural guardian and next friend 5th plaintiff Y.Rama Devi)

... Plaintiffs

And

1. Kanugovi Vasudeva chary, s/o.Bhimachary, Hindu, aged 39 years, resident of D.No.11-62-4, Utharadhi Matham, Canal Road, Vijayawada- 520 001.

2.V.Vittal Prasad, s/o.Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, aged about 53 years, Advocate, resident of D.No.2-195, Vikas Public School Road, Pedapalakalur, Guntur- 522 005.

3.Uttaradhi Matham, Bangalore, rep.by Sri Satya Atma Theertha Swamiji, s/o.Rangachary, aged about 33 years, Hindu, Pooja Mandir, Sri Jaya Thirtha Vidya Peetam, Uttaradi Matham compound, Sankarapuram, 5throad, Basavannagudi, Near National College, Bangalore- 560 015.

4.Dammala Ramachandra Rao, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu, aged about 56 years, M/s.Bhagavati Home Needs # 11-63-2/A, Brahmin street, Opp: Canara Bank, Vijayawada- 520 001.

5.Maddala Bala Ram, S/o.Narasimha Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Punnami Tea stall & Cool Drinks, # 11-63-2/A, Brahmin street, Opp: Canara Bank, Vijayawada- 520 001.

6. Kalangi Venkaiah, s/o.Jamalaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Tea Stall # 11-63-2/A, Brahmin… street, Opp Canara Bank, Vijayawada- 520 001.Defendants

This Suit coming on 09-01-2018, 18-01-2018, 31.01-2018 for hearing in the presence of Sri.T.V.Nava Kumar, and Kum/ Smt.Ch.Rama Devi Advocate on behalf of the plaintiffs and Sri.Sistla Rama Krishna, Sri.S.Srinivas, Sri.V.Lakshminarayana, Sri.R.Satyanarayana Advocates on behalf of defendants 1 to 6 and upon hearing and considering the material on record, the suit having stoodover till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

3

1. The plaintiffs 1 to 8 have filed this suit praying to declare the title of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule property and that they are having title, ownership, interest and enjoyment and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for granting permanent injunction to restrain the defendants 1 to 3, their men etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the three shop rooms in the ground floor and one room in the Cellar shown in Green colour in the plan.

2. It is averred that one Yatagiri Narasimhachary,

S/o.Satyadhirayacharya occupied the vacant site in the year 1920 which is described in the plaint schedule property. He resided with his family and developed with his own exertions Sri

Dasanjaneya Swamy Mandiram by installing Anjaneya Swamy

Deity and used to offer Nitya Naivedyams and the daily rituals to the God Sri Dasanjaneya Swamy and developed Anjaneya

Choultry and developed Madhva Matham to accommodate pilgrims who visit holy river Krishna for spiritual offerings and who offers their rituals to their ancestors and who are having faith in Dwaitha Philosophy believed by Madhvas. Plaintiffs and their ancestors are Madhvas. They are believers of Madhva

Philosophy.

3. The said Yatagiri Narasimhachary administered Sri

Dasanjaneya Swamy temple during his life time. His son Yatagiri

Satyadhirayacharya resided with his family and attended the administration of Nitya Dhoopa Deepa Naivedhyams offering to

God Sri Dasanjaneya Swamy under Hindu rites and Customs as his father attended till his last breath till 1985. His son Sri 4

Krishnamurthy Acharya resided with his family and administered the temple choultry, and Matt during his lifetime till 2003. The public has no right of access as of right into the suit schedule properties. There is no Dwajasthambam but there is deity in the temple. Thus, the said Narasimha Acharya, his son

Satyadhirayacharya and his grandson Krishnamurthy Acharya have been in actual, physical uninterrupted peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as absolute owners. The suit schedule property is the family property. They used to maintain the suit schedule property.

4. The 1st plaintiff is the widow of said Krishna Murthy

Acharya and Yatagiri Narasimha Satyadhisa Sarma is their eldest son and plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 are the second, 3rd and 4th sons of the Krishnamurthy Acharya and 1st plaintiff. 5th plaintiff is the wife of eldest son Satya Dhisa Sarma, 6th plaintiff is the youngest daughter of Krishna Murthy Acharya and 1st plaintiff and is sisters of plaintiffs 2 to 4. 3rd plaintiff is the registered Power of Attorney

Holder of plaintiffs 1,2, 4 and 6. The suit schedule property is the ancestral joint family property of the plaintiff. Plaintiffs are residing in one room in the cellar and have sacrificed their lives for upkeep of the said Mandiram, choultry and Matham. Plaintiffs are the co-owners of the site described which at present measures an extent of 800 s.y. after losing 40 s.y. in road widening. The suit schedule property is used by the ancestors of plaintiffs for their residence as well as for establishing their family Idol Sri Dasanjaneya Swamy, Anjaneya choultry and

Madhva Matham. Hereinafter referred as the temple, choultry and Math.

5

5. In the year 1933, their forefather Sri Yatagiri

Narasimhacharya was shown as registered patta holder of the plaint schedule property in the Town Survey Register and was also shown as title holder of the same in which there was idol of

Lord Sri Dasanjaneya Swamy, a tiled house. As per the Town

Survey Register abstract and the connected proceedings of the

District Collector, Tahsildar referred Yatagiri Venkata

Narasimhacharyulu as the owner and title holder.

6. Their paternal grandfather developed suit schedule property and constructed a tiled roofed verandah as per the approved plan dt.10.03.1965 which was approved by the municipality. From then onwards their forefathers and subsequently their paternal grandfather Sri Yatagiri

Satyadhirayacharya and after that the husband of the 1st plaintiff

Sri.Y.Krishna Murthy Acharya inherited the suit schedule property and plaintiffs have been maintaining the family tradition and are administering the plaint schedule property with 3 assessments and which is consisting Dasanjaneyaswamy temple, Anjaneya choultry and Madhva Matham and regularly paying municipal taxes and other charges. Without claiming any exemption as they are their own absolute properties.

7. It is averred as the matters thus stood, it was proposed to widen the Brahmin street in April, 2003. The Municipal

Corporation proposed to demolish part of plaint schedule property. The demolition notice was given to late Sri Y.Krishna

Murthy Acharya. In fact, they were also residing in the entire plaint schedule property prior to its demolition. It is averred as 6 the building is 100 years old as the demolition would damage, the remaining building they wanted to develop the building afresh.

8. It is averred at that juncture, the Uttaradi Matham of

Bangalore i.e.3rddefendant wanted to finance for the construction of new building in the same site consisting of 800 s.y. which remained after road widening. Unfortunately late Sri

Yatagiri Krishna Murthy Acharya died after road widening process. Taking advantage of sudden demise of Sri Y.Krishna

Murthy Acharya, V.Vittal Prasadsecond defendant by styling himself as the GPA holder of the 3rd defendant without their knowledge and without obtaining signatures of their permission submitted the building application for construction of ground, first and 2nd floors in the suit schedule property by misleading the municipal Corporation and obtained Building Construction

Approved Plan. The same is illegal as their ancestors were the owners. The Municipal Corporation approved the plans bypassing the past records and Town Planning Register which shows the ancestors of the plaintiffs as the title holders. The plaintiffs also protested by issuing notice. The defendants have not shown any approved plan so far.

9. It is averred that the 1st defendant is the follower of late

Sri Krishnamurthy Acharya. Because of the 1st defendant attachment with their family and influence of the Sastric qualifications, the plaintiff allowed the 1st defendant to conduct pujas and act as administerand render services to the said Sri

Dasanjaneya Swamy deity, Anjaneya choultry and Madhva 7

Matham and while the plaintiffs were following him and rendering services. Taking advantage of the same, the defendants 1 to 3 used to command the plaintiffs in all respects. They hatched an evil plan to throw away the plaintiffs. The defendants are not having any right, title and possession. Only the plaintiffs and one

Smt.P.Sita Mahalakshmi who got married and is residing in

Rajahmundry alone are having right, title and possession.

10. It is averred that defendants 1 to 3 hatched up a plan and without any written report, made the plaintiffs to attend I town P.S. and obtained a blank signed white paper from plaintiffs on 05.12.2005 for making use of the same for wrongful purpose and for getting lawful gain and causing wrongful loss and hardship to the plaintiffs and demanded the plaintiffs to vacate the suit schedule property within one week. Almost all the documents pertaining to the temple, choultry and Math are in the custody of the defendants 1 and 2 under the guise of demolition of building and construction of a new building.

11. Defendants 1 to 3 have no right to evict plaintiffs from the suit schedule property as they influenced police, they filed

O.S.2640/2005 on the file of II Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, Vijayawada and

also obtained Orders of Status quo in I.A.2674/05. The 1st defendant filed his written statement on 10.7.2006 and denied the title of the plaintiffs and denied that he is in illegal occupation of the suit schedule property except three shop rooms and one room in cellar which is shown in Green colour. But the 1st defendant and his henchmen did not allow plaintiffs to 8 enjoy the suit schedule property except two shop rooms situated in Canal road, Vijayawada with D.No.11-62-4. The 1st defendant filed Civil Revision Petition No. 6775/2005 before the Hon’ble

High Court. The said petition was dismissed as in fructuous on 17.02.2006.

12. The plaintiffs further averred that the 3rd plaintiff as the co- owner of the property got issued legal notices on 8.1.2008 to the defendants 4 to 6 demanding them to pay the rents to plaintiffs from 1.8.2006 and to vacate the shop rooms for which the defendants 4 to 6 and to vacate the shop rooms for which the defendants 4 to 6 have to pay rents at the rate of Rs.1800/-,

Rs.1500/- and Rs.800/- respectively. The 1st and 2nd defendants have to pay mesne profits.

13. It is averred further that the 2nd defendant is in illegal occupation of the major part of the cellar portion except one room which is shown in Red colour. Defendants 4 to 6 know that they are the owners of the shop rooms in their occupation and they are bound to pay rents to them. Defendants 4 to 6 connived with defendants 1 and 2 and are not paying rents to them.

Defendants 4 to 6 did not issue any reply to the notices.

14. It is further averred that tenants of the plaintiffs Satti

Durga Rao and Satti Siva Ramakrishna who are having shop rooms in the Canal road filed RCC Nos.72/06, 73/2006 U/s.8(5) of

AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 before 9 the Rent Controller, Vijayawada. They were directed to pay rents to plaintiffs.

15. It is averred that in the plaint plan, the portions in the possession of plaintiffs are shown in Green colour. The portions in possession of defendants 1,2 and 3 are shown in Red colour and the vacant portions are shown in blue colour.

16. It is averred that on 24.08.2008 at 5-00 pm defendants 1 and 2 representing the 3rd defendant came to the suit schedule property along with rowdy elements and tried to occupy the portions shown in Green colour which are in the occupation of plaintiffs. Some local people interfered and stopped the illegal acts of defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 1 and 2 went away by threatening that they would somehow occupy the portions in the occupation of plaintiffs. As defendants 1 to 3 denied their right, title and interest, the plaintiffs filed this suit.

17. 2nd defendant was set exparte. Defendants 1, 3 and 5 filed their written statements. The 4th defendant failed to file his written statement and was initially set exparte and as per the orders in I.A.207/2010, the same was set-aside and 4th defendant also filed his written statement.

18. In the written statement filed on behalf of the 1st defendant, it is averred that the suit is speculative and suit is filed with malafide intention to harass the defendants 1 to 3 and forced them to pay some amount or yield to the dictates of the plaintiffs. There is no real cause of action. The plaintiffs have no right or title over the suit schedule property. The 3rd defendant is 10 the real owner of the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant is the local Mathadhikari /Manager. The GPA was given in favour of the 2nd defendant to look after the affairs of its religious things.

There is no cause of action to file the suit against defendants 4 to 6 also. The plaintiffs are not aware about the actual extent of the property and the extent of built up area and therefore, mentioned the built-up area as 7200 sq.feet. The plaint averments mentioned the entire area as 800 s.y. and there are cellar, ground, first and second floors. Therefore, the constructed area becomes three fold and is not 7200 sq. feet but is 21,600 sq.feet. The valuation certificate has given the value at

Rs.1,16,64,000/- and therefore Court fee paid is not correct and the issue with regard to Court Fee has to be taken up as

Preliminary Issue. The plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration of their title and recovery of possession and demolition of entire construction and clubbing the relief praying for demolition is not legal and proper. The averment that plaintiffs and one P.Sita Mahalakshmi have right, title and possession is not correct and even otherwise, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of said Sita

Mahalakshmi.

19. It is further averred that in view of the contention that the Municipal Corporation approved plans by bypassing the past records and Town Planning Register and since the plaintiffs are questioning the acts of the Municipal Corporation, Municipal

Corporation is also necessary party and the suit is also bad for non-joinder of Municipal Corporation.

11

20. The plaintiffs also made reckless allegations which are unfair and unethical as they stated that Idol Dasanjaneya swamy was installed and the Pujas are being performed to the Deity. The plaintiffs 1 to 6 filed O.S.2640/2015 on the file of II Addl. Junior

Civil Judge, Vijayawada. With a view to grab the property by

obtaining an Interim Orders and under the guise of Interim

Orders. The 1st defendant by filing his written statement exposed the fraud played by plaintiffs 1 to 6. Since plaintiffs could not succeed in their attempts they filed this present suit. The suit is hit by Order -II rule-2 of CPC.

21. It is averred that the suit schedule property belongs to

Uttaradi Matham which propagates Dvytha Cult propounded by

Madhva Acharya. Sri Satyatma Theertha Swamijiis the

Mathadhipathi of Uttaradi matham with its Headquarters at

Bangalore. The 3rd defendant Matham is having extensive and valuable properties all over India. The suit schedule property is one such property.

22. About 300 years ago, the then Matadhipati established the property. The Swamiji had installed the Deity Sri

Anjaneyaswamy. From time to time it is being managed and developed by Uttaradi Matham by engaging Archakas for offering

Nitya Deepa Dhoopa Naivedhyams are being offered to deity.

Discourses on Madhwa matham are being made to propagate the cult from time to time.Depending upon necessities, constructions and extensions are being made. As the old 12 structures have become dilapidated, the 3rd defendant took decision to demolish the old structures and constructed the new building which is worth Rs.5 to 6 crores.Re-construction was completed in the year 2004. In memory of his Holiness Sri

Satyatma Theertha Swamiji, the building is named as Sri Satya

Sandha Bhavanam, Uttaradi Matham, Vijayawada. The 1st defendant is nominated as Manager. The 1st defendant has been residing with his family in the first floor of the said building.

23. The 1st defendant denied that Yatagiri Narasimhachary occupied the vacant site in the year 1920 and with his exertions developed the temple, choultry and it is denied that he developed Madhva Matham for accommodating the pilgrims who visit the Holi River Krishna. The same is absurd and it is averred that Uttaradi Matham is the absolute owner. His Holiness Sri

Satya Atma Theerdha Swamiji installed the idol of Sri Anjaneya

Swamy. Since then prayers are being offered regularly. It is denied that the property was vacant site by 1920 and averred that as long as on 17.05.1902 a portion of the site belonging to

Matham was leased out by the 3rd defendant Uttaradi Matham in favour of one Vanka Venkata Swamy and his wife Venkamma.

The said lease deed was registered as document No.1348/1902 on the file of Sub Registry, Bezawada. A perusal of the recitals therein disclosed that Idol of Lord Sri Anjaneya swamy was installed by the erstwhile swamiji and the entire premises was in possession and enjoyment of the Matham. By leaving the open space to the east of the temple which was leased out by

Matham, the remaining open space was let out to the lessee for 13 the purpose of storing paddy. Thus, the recitals would show the existence of Anjaneya Swamy Mandiram even by 1902 and the entire property was in enjoyment of 3rd defendant Uttaradi

Matham by then. After expiry of the lease period, the lease in favour of the said lessee was extended by another lease deed dtd.05.11.1904 through a Registered document No.1810/1904 on the file of Sub Registrar, Bezawada. Several other lease deeds were executed in those days in respect of leases granted by the 3rd defendant. Due to lapse of time, the aforesaid two documents are traced. It is also denied that Narasimhachary resided with his family. He never administered temple, choultry and Matham during his life time. The records of the 3rd defendant would show that one Vemuganti Narasimhacharyulu was administering the affairs of the property including Sri Dasanjaneyaswamy

Mandiram. When the property was under the active management of Vemuganti Narasimhacharyulu, a small extent of land belonging to the 3rd defendant Matham was given to the state of

India in council in exchange to an equal extent of site for mutual convenience by executing a registered deed of exchange dt.18.21.1925 vide document No.57/1925 on the file of Sub

Registrar, Bezawada. The document was executed between

Vemuganti Narasimhacharyulu the then Archaka and Manager of the temple on one side on behalf of the 3rd defendant and by the

Secretary to the Government of Madras on behalf of Right

Hon’ble the Secretary of State for India in council. The document

shown that Sri. Vemuganti Narasimhacharyulu was representing

Sri Anjaneyaswamy temple and Y.Narasimhacharya @ Acharyulu was not acting as the Manarger/Archaka. A small extent of land 14 in which the said Mandiram was constructed was originally owned by the Government. BY considering the construction of temple, the then Sub Collector, Bezawada granted patta in favour of Sri Anjaneyaswamy, on payment of the value thereof.

Thus, the contention of occupation or encroachment by

Y.Narasimhacharya is false. The name of father of Y.Satyadhira

Charya is not traced as Y.Narasimhacharya or Narasimhacharyulu from the available records of the 3rd defendant Matham. The plaintiffs have to prove that Satyadhiracharyulu is the son of

Narasimhacharya. Y.Narasimhacharya never looked after the suit schedule property.

24. It is averred that Y.Satyadhirayacharya was an employee of the 3rd defendant Matham. He worked in the said Matham from or about 1946 onwards when there was no significant development.

The said Satyadhirayacharya who was performing pujas and acting as Manager or Agent of the Matham. There is evidence to show that Satyadhirayacharya worked as an employee of the

Matham after demise of Vemuganti Venkata Narasimhacharyulu.

25. On 01.05.1946 Y.Satyadhirayacharya wrote a post card in his own handwriting to the GPA Holder of Matham by now Sri

Markapuram Srinivasacharyulu informing that the widow of

Vemuganti Narasimhacharya was intending to leave the Matham premises and that she was intending to handover of Kavacham of

Sri Anjaneya Swamy and whether Sri Srinivasacharyulu was likely to come to take control of Matham premises. If for any reason,

Satyadhiracharyulu was not coming over to permit him to acknowledge the receipt of matham premises and sought for 15 advice whether he can take delivery of Matham premises. This letter shows that Y.Narasimhacharya so called father of

Satyadhirayacharya was never in control and management of

Matham premises. Y.Satyadhiracharyulu wrote another letter

dated 03.05.1946 to the said Srinivasacharyulu stating that

Smt.V.Sitamma was intending to leave Matham premises by delivering the Matham on the next day and that letter evidencing the delivery of the Matham premises and to endorse that there are no pending transactions between herself and the Matham.

The Letter dt.03.05.1946 confirms that even Satyadhiracharyulu was not in control or management of the Matham till 03.05.1946.

26. It is further averred that on 02.04.1946

Y.Satyadhircharyulu submitted revision petition as Archaka of the temple on behalf of the 3rd defendant to the Commissioner

Bezawada Municipality requesting for reduction of tax. Similarly a copy of Revision Petition written by Y.Satyadhiracharyulu dt.29.03.1957 in his capacity as Archaka submitted to the

Commissioner, Bezawada Municipality seeking for reduction of tax in pursuance of special notice dt.29.03.1957. On 01.06.1948 3rd defendant Matham executed rent chit in favour of Sanka

Venkaiah, s/o.Subbaiah and Dokuparti Veera Raghavaiah, s/o.Venkaiah in respect of godown let out to them. Originally rent chit was handed over to the said tenants. In those days as there was no system of obtaining photo copy, as such

Satyadhiracharyulu prepared copy of rent chit. On 10.05.1957

Y.Satyadhiracharyulu as the local Manager of Uttaradhi

Matham published a pamphlet. A perusal of the pamphlet shows that Y.Satyadhiracharyulu was aware of the fact that Sri Sri Sri 16 108 Satya Pramodha Theertha Swamiji is the Head of Uttaradhi

Matham and the said pamphlet was published by him as per the directions of the 3rd defendant Matham. This temple shows that

Satyadhiracharuyulu did not act on his own. He was acting for directions of the holiness of the 3rd defendant Matham. Taxes and water charges for the suit property was paid by 3rd defendant

Matham even during 1959. On 03.05.1959 Y.Satyadhiracharyulu wrote a letter acknowledging the receipt of Rs.60/- sent by Sri

Markapuram Srinivasacharyulu through Kemba Srinivasa Rao towards water tap charges and also mentioned that he was paying the taxes on the next day. On 10.06.1959 he also wrote another letter to the agent of the 3rd defendant Matham that the water pipelines in the suit schedule property were damaged and the water was leaking and there was need for replacing of pipeline and requested for sending an amount of Rs.80/- for carrying out repairs. If Satyadhiracharyulu was exercising the right of ownership, there was no need for him to inform about the leaking of the pipeline and he need not seek permission for repairing the same and at the cost of the 3rd defendant.

27. It is averred that on 27.08.1969 Satyadhiracharyulu sent statement of movables and valuables available in the temple to the GPA holder of Matham for the confirmation of

Authorities of the Matham. Satyadhiracharyulu as the employee of the matham who was looking after the affairs of the matham premises obtained approval from the Vijayawada Municipality for the constructions made in the matham premises on two occasions. In the approved plans, the premises is shown to be 17 that of the 3rd defendant matham. On one occasion when

Satyadhiracharyulu printed pamphlet to canvass about one of the programmes in the matham premises, the then GPA holder

Sri Markapuram Srinivasacharyulu warned through a letter the consequences for printing a pamphlet in respect of the affairs of the matham without obtaining permission from the GPA holder.

When the father of Krishnamurhty was not permitted even to print a pamphlet without the permission of the authorities concerned, the question of Krishnamurhty or his father managing the properties of matham as their family property does not arise.

Ononeoccasion,SriM.Srinivaascharyuluand

Y.Satyadhiracharyulu got issued notice dt.25.11.1964 to the tenants Sanka Venkaiah and D.Veera Raghavaiah. The said tenants Veera Raghavaiah gave reply notice dt.02.12.1964 enclosing a crossed Demand Draft in favour of 3rd defendant matham. Subsequent to the receipt of reply notice dt.02.12.1964 the counsel for the 3rd defendant P.Seetha Rama Sastry got rejoinder dt.10.12.1964 issued to the counsel for the tenants. On the office copy of said rejoinder Y.Satyadhiracharyulu signed in token of giving instructions for getting rejoinder issued.

Satyadhiracharyulu knows that 3rd defendant matham was collecting rents from the tenants in occupation of various operations. On 10.03.1965 Satyadhiracharyulu wrote a post card to the agent of the 3rd defendant that the repair works in the matham premises were being carried out and that a dispute arose with the northern side building owner of the matham premises in respect of rain water flowing from the roof and that for clarification as the rights of the respective parties, he took 18

Advocate of the 3rd defendant matham to the premises in question and the said counsel clarified that the northern side neighbour has no right over the wall. Satyadhiracharyulu requested the agent of the 3rd defendant matham to personally inspect the premises to suggest the course of action in that regard. Matham was in full control. Satyadhiracharyulu did not take any independent decisions.

28. On 15.10.1965 Sri. Y.Satyadhiracharyulu wrote a registered letter to the agent stating that the counsel of Matham

Sri Seetha Rama Sastry gave him a sum of Rs.225/- collected by the said counsel from the tenants towards rent and in addition to the said amount of Rs.225/-, further a sum of Rs.175/- was lying with Satyadhiracharyulu and the same was being sent by way of demand draft to the Agent of the 3rd defendant. It was also informed that out of the amount lying with him, municipal taxes for the premises were paid and taxes for the newly constructed shops were to be paid and the Municipal Authorities were insisting for the payment of the same. He further informed on account of the court adjournments in Kovvur filed in connection with the nonpayment of rents by the lessees in occupation of the lands belonging to the Matham, he was forced to go there and consequently he did not visit Guntur to furnish the accounts. On 11.04.1966 Satyadhiracharyulu issued receipt to the GPA holder of Matham evidencing the receipt of salary by him.

29. The Municipality collected encroachment fees from the 3rd defendant matham when the matham constructed steps encroaching a small portion of the municipal site. On 01.07.1966 19

Vijayawada Municipality issued two receipts in favour of 3rd defendant matham in connection with the collection of encroachment fees in the years 1965-1966 and 1966-67.

30. On 16.07.1967 Satyadhiracharyulu along with GPA agent of the matham executed a security bond (zamin bond) in favour of the District Munsiff Court, Vijayawada in I.A.211/1967, in SC 455/1967. A perusal of the office copy thereof contains the signaturesofSatyadhiracharyuluandMarkapuram

Srinivasacharyulu. It shows that Satyadhiracharyulu was only an

Archaka.

31. On 23.12.1967 Satyadhiracharyulu wrote a letter to the

GPA holder of Matham about the payment of fees to Vijayawada

Municipality for the construction of godown in the suit schedule property. The letter shows Satyadhiracharyulu made constructions or additional constructions in the premises belonging to the 3rd defendant matham, only as per the direction of the 3rd defendant and there was no occasion for him to construct the structures on his own exercising right of ownership over the structures therein.

32. On 01.01.1968 Satyadhiracharyulu scribed a rent agreement in respect of want of operations of 3rd defendant matham by mentioning that property let out was owned and held by 3rd defendant matham. On 20.06.1968 Satyadhiracharyulu wrote a postcard for appraising about the affairs of the premises 20 to the GPA holder of the matham. On 14.09.1968

Satyadhiracharyulu wrote another postcard to Markapuram

Srinivasacharyulu requesting to send amount for the completion of works. On 19.12.1968 the Satyadhiracharyulu wrote another postcard informing about the payment of taxes. On 29.06.1969

Satyadhiracharyulu issued a receipt for the annual salary of

Rs.360/- for performing pujas to Anjaneyaswamy.

33. On 18.09.1969 Satyadhiracharyulu wrote another postcard informing about the matham affairs to Sri Markapuram

Srinivasacharyulu. One of the tenants S.Venkaiah created troubles forcing the 3rd defendant to file HRC 37/1969 against him. I.A.139/69 the Commissioner Advocate appointed by the

Rent Controller inspected the premises which was part of the premises and filed his report on 09.04.1969. This document shows that the 3rd defendant matham was exercising rights of ownership. Two of the tenants S.Venkaiah and Dokuparti Veera

Raghavaiah issued a legal notice dt.24.09.1970 to the counsel of the 3rd defendant. The same was marked as Ex.A11 in

O.S.223/1971 on the file of Prl. District Munsiff, Vijayawada. On

16.11.1971, Judgment in O.S.223/1971 in favour of 3rd defendant matham was delivered. The Judgment shows that

Satyadhiracharyulu gave evidence as Pw2 and he stated that he was working as a clerk of the Matham. On 13.11.1972

Satyadhiracharyulu wrote a letter to the agent of the GPA holder of the 3rd defendant informing that he would collect rents from the tenants of the schedule premises and would meet GPA holder of 3rd defendant matham by the next week. Satyadhiracharyulu 21 was periodically preparing accounts and was submitting to the agent of the 3rd defendant in his handwriting. He was also showing the salary. He was receiving and the various accounts he was receiving from the agent.

34. Coming to Sri Krishnamurhty, S/o.Satyadhiracharyulu, he was also preparing accounts mentioning the expenditure. Krishna

Murthy never claimed any independent right after demise of

Satyadhiracharyulu. Krishna Murthy also received salaries. They were acknowledging the same while making entries in the Day

Books. Late Krishna Murthy Acharya resided with his family while he was administering the affairs of the matham till he died in the year 2003. He was permitted to use of the portion of the choultry. The 1st defendant is the present Mathadhikari and he is permitted to stay in the portion of the plaint schedule property.

Krishna Murthy even during lifetime of his father was corresponding with the GPA holder of matham. In postcard dt.25.12.1973 Krishna Murthy mentioned that as per the instructions of the 3rddefendant he and his father

Satyadhiracharyulu removed shops in front of the temple. During the intervening night on 24/25.12.1973 all the shops were erected again with the aid of rowdy elements and requested the

GPA to come over Vijayawada to settle the affairs.

35. The Vijayawada Municipality also issued a provisional

Order dt.13.05.1975 to the agent of the 3rd defendant requiring the 3rd defendant to stop construction of Five thatched huts and to remove them on the ground that such erections are 22 unauthorized and also to show cause as to why the unauthorized erection shall not be removed by the department. Y.Krishna

Murthy also issued a receipt to the agent of the 3rd defendant for payment of Rs.500/- received by him for carrying out repairs in the schedule premises. He also issued another receipt dt.28.02.1976 towards receipt of Rs.180/- towards payment of building taxes by the 3rd defendant. On 31.08.1976 the 3rd defendant paid water charges. On 04.01.1977 Vijayawada

Municipality again issued a notice to the agent of Matham Sri

Markapuram Venkata Ramanacharyulu under Rule 30(1) of

Schedule-II of APM Act 1965 demanding payment of house tax for three assessment numbers 8302, 8302-A and 8303 for the second period 1976-77. On 10.01.1976 the demanded taxes were paid and obtained three receipts issued by Municipality. Sri

Y.Krishna Murthy had been receiving rents from the tenants of the 3rd defendant in his capacity as the clerk. The counterfoils of said receipts from 04.01.1978 to 26.09.1978; from 27.06.1981 to 06.03.1983 and from 01.03.1986 to 10.04.1988 in the form of three books each contains 100 counterfoils also disclose that

Krishna Murthy was acting as an Agent or Clerk. The 3rd defendant was paying electricity charges. On 05.02.1980 he purchased cement from Sri Srinivasa & Co.,.

36. On 31.05.1980 Y.Krishna Murthy wrote a letter to the

GPA Holder of Matham drawing his attention to the arrangements made for selling 200 s.y. of site at Vijayawada including the house therein. He further stated that if the same was in the 23 knowledge of his holiness and if his holiness takes a decision to sell the property, first preference may be given to him. On 31.05.1980 he wrote another letter to the Diwan of the 3rd defendant requesting to consider the proposal for sale of matham premises in his favour.

37. There are documents for showing that Sri Y.Krishna

Murthy acted as an agent, clerk or Archaka. They are –i) a receipt issued by the agent of the matham to whom Sri Krishna Murthy paid Rs.500/- collected from the tenants. ii) a receipt dt.9.4.1991 for collection of Rs.1,000/- from the tenants. iii) a letter dt.16.09.1982 by Sri Y.Krishna Murthy informing about the status of payment of rents. iv) a letter dt.07.02.1983 to the GPA Holder.

v) a letter dt.10.11.1983 by Sri Y.Krishna Murthy to the GPA holder about rents paid by Sanyasamma. vi) receipt dt.17.09.1985 for Rs.4,000/- payable towards property taxes, vii) list of valuables and articles available in the mandir by Y.Krishna

Murthy in the capacity as Archaka. Viii) Inland letter dt.20.01.1987 informing about collection of Rs.3,000/- towards rents and utilization by him and promising that he would reimburse shortly. ix) another Inland letter dt.27.03.1987 to the

M.Venkata Ramana Charyulu written by Sri Krishna Murthy from

Rajahmundry informing that upon returning to Vijayawada he would look into the accounts of the matham.

38. It is averred that Wedding Invitation of late Sri Y.Krishna

Murthy available in the records of the 3rd defendant matham 24 would disclose that Krishna Murthy married one Nagamani. It is not admitted that the 1st defendant Seshu Kumari is the widow and Satyadhisa Sarma is the eldest son and plaintiffs 2,3,4 are the second, third and fourth sons of Krishna Murthy. Therefore, the plaintiffs have to prove their relationship with Sri Y.Krishna

Murthy.

39. On 25.07.2005 the 2nd plaintiff and one Y.Satyadhisa

Sarma @ Satyadhisa Acharya wrote a letter to his holiness the 3rd defendant stating that the said Satyadhisa Sarma was recently permitted to discharge his duties as a cook of the 3rd defendant matham and he was providing a room in the cellar for his residence. There are also statements by the wife of the 5th defendant and father of defendants 7 and 8 to show that

Satyadhisa Acharya @ Sarma was permitted to reside in one room. Statements also discloses that grandfather and father of the Satyadhisa Acharya discharged their duties efficiently as local managers and also about the intention of the 3rd defendant to make reconstruction. Satyadhisa Acharya also requested local

Manager to permit his wife to act as a cook on salary basis by stating that the income he gets was hardly sufficient for sustenance of the family. The 1st defendant accordingly permitted the wife of Satyadhisa Acharya i.e.5th plaintiff to act as cook. She joined as cook and was receiving salary and making signature on the receipts in the wage register. Later she exhibited irresponsible behaviour and avoided to cook in the matham. 1st defendant also gave a report to the S.I. of Police on 12.12.2005.

25

The 1st defendant reserves right to evict plaintiffs 5,7 and 8 from the room in the cellar.

40. It is denied that in the year 1933 Sri Y.Narasimhacharya was shown as patta holder as per the Town Survey Register.

Y.Narasimhacharya was never shown to be patta holder. The name of one Venkata Narasimhcharyulu was shown in column

No.16 of the Town Survey Register. The plaintiffs malafidely added surname Yatagiri to the said name and deleted prefix ‘venkata’. Venkata is not shown to be prefix to the name of

Narasimhacharyulu. It is false that the grandfather of the plaintiffs built tiled roofed verandah as per the approved plan dt.10.03.1965. It is denied that in April, 2003 when there was proposal for road widening, the municipal corporation issued demolition notice to Y.KrishnaMurthy Acharya. It is denied that plaintiffs were residing in the entire plaint schedule property and they wanted to rebuild the building. It is denied that 3rd defendant wanted to finance for the construction of the building.

It is denied that 3rd defendant submitted application for the construction of ground, first and second floors without the knowledge and permission from the plaintiff through GPA holder

B.Vittal Prasad i.e.2nd defendant.

41. It is further denied that the 1st defendant is the follower of Sri Y.Krishnamurthy Acharya and because of the attachment with the family and his sastric knowledge, the plaintiffs allowed the 1st defendant to administer and render services to the deity

Sri Dasa Anjaneya and choultry and madhva matham. It is 26 denied that defendants 1 to 3 hatched up a plan and also gave a false report with an evil intention to I town police and obtained blank signed white paper from the plaintiffs on 05.12.2005. It is averred that on making application to the 3rd defendant by the 3rd plaintiff and by considering the services rendered by his forefathers, a shop on lease basis was given to the 3rd plaintiff for a rent of Rs.1,000/- and with further condition that he shall deposit refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/-. On 25.07.2005 the 3rd plaintiff also sent a letter requesting his holiness for reduction of rents by submitting that Diwan of the 3rd defendant did not consider his request. The 3rd plaintiff is a tenant and can not claim ownership. He is also defaulting. Out of mercy, no action is initiated. Taking advantage of the lenient view the 3rd plaintiff joined the other plaintiffs.

42. It is also denied that 3rd plaintiff as co-owner issued registered notices to the defendants 4 to 6 demanding to pay rents from 01.08.2006 onwards and to vacate shop rooms and that the 2nd defendant has to pay mesne profits. The 3rd plaintiff got issued notice dt.30.11.2006 through his counsel Ch. Ajay

Kumar claiming that he is the Administrator of the temple. The plaintiffs have not referred to that notice as fearing that they would be non-suited. It is denied that the 2nd defendant is in illegal occupation of the major part of the cellar portion shown in

Red colour. It is denied that defendants 4 to 6 have connived with defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 4 to 6 are tenants of the 3rd defendant. It is denied that Satti Durga Rao and Satti Siva

Ramakrishna filed RCC 72/2006 and 73/2006 and they were 27 directed to pay rents to the plaintiffs. It is averred that the said averments are made for establishing the false contentions. It is averred that the said averments are made for establishing the false contentions. It is averred that RCC proceedings are collusive proceedings. Defendants 1 to 3 are not parties to the said proceedings. Satti Durga Rao and Satti Siva Ramakrishna are acting in collusion with plaintiffs. They committed willful default in payment of rents. If the plaintiffs received rents from the said persons, the plaintiffs are bound to face the consequences. It is denied that on 24.08.2008 defendants 1 and 2 went with rowdy elements and tried to occupy portions in the suit property which are shown in Green colour and that plaintiffs and local people resisted and prevented. It is averred that the copy of the plan containing different colours is not furnished to defendants 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 were not in a position to submit anything about the said averments with regard to colors. It is for the plaintiffs to explain how the plaintiffs can recover possession of the portions in occupation of defendants 4 to 6 without following due process of law and without paying Court Fee on annual rent basis. Suit is thus speculative suit and is liable to be dismissed.

43. In the written statement filed on behalf of the 3rd defendant, the averments made in the written statement of the 1st defendant are reiterated and given a little more details and list of documents are enclosed.

44. In the separate written statement filed on behalf of the defendants 4,5 and 6, it is averred that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action against each of them. The relief 28 against each of them has not separately valued. No Court fee is paid. The plaint is liable to be rejected on that ground. The depiction that residence of plaintiffs is a building styled as

Uttaradhi matham is not correct. It is not so styled. It is the building of Uttaradhi matham. Defendants 4,5 and 6 are also expressed their ignorance about occupation of the vacant site in 1920 and about development of Madhva Matham. They have no knowledge about ancestors of Krishnamurthy. They admitted about existence of Deity in the mandiram. They doubted about physical and uninterrupted possession by Narasimhacharya and his son Satyadhirayacharya and son Krishnamurthy Acharya.

They admitted about occupation of one room by the 5th plaintiff and her children, the 7th and 8th plaintiffs in cellar.

45. They stated that plaintiffs’ ownership appears to be not true. They are not aware that plaintiffs’ ancestors used the suit schedule property for their residence that tiled roof verandah was constructed, that plaintiffs resided in the entire property.

They have no knowledge about the allegations made against the 2nd defendant and as to what the municipal records showed. They know that the 1st defendant is the follower of Satya Atma

Theertha Swamiji of Uttaradhi matham, Bangalore. But the 1st defendant is not follower of late Krishna Murthy Acharya. Each of them is not aware about the services rendered by the plaintiffs to the temple, choultry or matham. They know that the suit schedule property belongs to the 3rd defendant. Defendants 4,5 and 6 are in occupation and enjoyment as tenants.

29

46. It is further averred that the 3rd plaintiff issued notice dt.08.01.2008 with false averments and it was not issued as co- owner. It is denied that the 2nd defendant has never been in possession of any part of the suit schedule property. It is denied that they know that plaintiffs are the owners of the shop rooms.

They denied that they connived with defendants 1 to 3. They asserted that they have been paying rent to the 3rd defendant matham. They never paid rent to the plaintiffs.

47. It is further averred that no portion of the suit schedule property is in the possession of plaintiffs or the second defendant. The 1st defendant resides in the matham. 4th defendant averred that he took a shop on lease after Krishna

Pushkarams in the year 2004 for running his Cool drink shop and

Ice cream Parlor by paying refundable deposit of Rs.50,000/- to the 3rd defendant. He has been paying rent to the 3rd defendant and paying electricity consumption charges for the Service connection No.257838.

48. The 5th defendant averred that he took shop on lease about 44 years ago in the then existing building of Uttaradi

Matham. After demolition, the present suit schedule property remained. Budda Surya Prakasa Rao the cousin of the father of the 5th defendant ran a hotel in the shop till November, 2017.

Thereafter the father of the 5th defendant Maddala Narasimharao maintained the hotel business till he died in 1975. Thereafter, the brother of the 5th defendant Veera Bhaskara Rao did hotel business for some time. Later, Maddala Poornachandra rao, 30

Senior Paternal uncle of the 5th defendant continued the business. Poornachandra rao died in the year 2003. Then the 5th defendant alone continued hotel business. Since 1965 the ancestors of the 5th defendant in succession as stated above and 5th defendant have been continuously in occupation and enjoyment as tenants and are running hotel business and paying rents to Matham. His ancestors and 5th defendant have been paying rent to the 3rd defendant Matham. Some receipts were signedbyMarkapuramSreenivasacharyuluand

M.V.Ramanacharyulu as agent of Matham. Yatagiri Krishna

Murthy husband of the 1st plaintiff signed receipts as agent or clerk since about 1975 till about 2000. 2nd defendant Vittal

Prasad also issued some receipts. After March, 1999 is the 3rd plaintiff Raghavendra rao also used to issue receipts as his father did, for the rents paid as agent or clerk on behalf of Matham till

March, 2003

49. 6th defendant further averred that he took a shop on lease about 27 years ago at monthly rent of Rs.100/- for running

Tea stall. He has been in continuous possession since then. He used to pay rent to Krishna Murthy as agent of the 3rd defendant till March, 1999 and thereafter to his son the 3rd defendant who used to issue receipts as agent of the 3rd defendant till March, 2003. 5th and 6th defendants have averred that in 2003 there was occasion to honour demolition notice by the municipality. The 3rd defendant as owner of the property represented by its Diwan

Prahladachar Upadhyay on one part and some of the tenants on another part entered into an agreement agreeing that the tenants may vacate to facilitate demolition and reconstruction 31 and the tenants may join back after re-construction is complete in the new building and further the tenants have to deposit 50% of the costs of the construction of the shop to be allotted to each of the tenant and agreeing to repay the said deposit after completion of construction and for repayment of the respective deposits at the time of vacating and that Matham will not be entitled for rents during the period from the date of demolition till the tenants re-enter the new shops. 5th defendant stated that he deposited Rs.50,000/-. 6th defendant stated that he deposited

Rs.15,000/-.

50. 4th, 5th and 6th defendants have further averred that the 3rd plaintiff issued notice 30.11.2006 claiming ownership over the entire property and again on 08.01.2008 another notice with inconsistent averments and conflicting stand with regard to the capacity of the 3rd plaintiff. Each of them have stated about their inability to honour the notices. In fact, the 3rd plaintiff is one of the tenants of one shop room of the 3rd defendant. 3rd plaintiff also entered into an agreement with Matham at the time of demolition of the then old building and to their knowledge the 3rd plaintiff also paid advance deposit. After reconstruction the 5th and 6th defendants were re-allotted shop rooms. Each of them averred that 3rd defendant matham is the owner of the building.

Plaintiffs cannot claim any right, interest over the suit schedule property and plaintiffs are estopped by the conduct of their predecessor Y.Krishna Murthy. 5th and 6th defendants are the statutory tenants. The suit is misconceived and prayed to dismiss the same.

32

51. Before stating the issues, it can be stated that pleadings are necessary to ascertain the real dispute. The object of pleadings is to ensure that the parties place relevant evidence based on their pleadings. Rule-2 (1) of Order-6 says that every pleadings shall contain only a statement in concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. Pleading should refer to facts alone and in no case shall include argumentative averments. The pleadings of the defendants are lengthy and also in the form as if the evidence is being stated. The defendants may have included the lengthy pleadings in their wisdom as a matter of abundant caution. However, the documents with regard to which the defendants 1 and 3 have stated in their pleadings are appended to the written statement of the 3rd defendant.

52. By considering the pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1) Whether the plaintiff (Sic plaintiffs) are entitled

for declaration of title and vacant possession as prayed

for?

2) Whether plaintiff (Sic plaintiffs) are entitled for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

53. The 3rd plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and examined one N.SudarsanRao as Pw2. The 1st defendant got himself examined as DW1 and PW1 and DW1 were cross- examined through Commissioner. Exs.A1 to A20 are marked on 33 behalf of the plaintiff, Exs.B1 to B63 are marked on behalf of the defendants.

54. Issue No.1 can be taken up first and then issues 2 and 3 can be taken together. While considering the issue No.1 certain factual aspects have to be considered.

ISSUE No.1:

55. Though issues are thus stated, it is the stand of the plaintiffs that the father of their great grandfather

Sri.Y.Narasimhachary, s/o.Satyadhirayacharya occupied the site corresponding to suit schedule property and some more property in 1920 and he established Madhva Matham as he belongs to

Madhva cult and he developed a temple, a choultry and Madhva matham and he managed the property while worshiping deity during his life time and thereafter his son Satyadhirayacharya administered the property till 1985 and thereafter the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 Krishna Murthy Acharya by residing with his family administered the property and name of the forefathers of the plaintiffs were also registered as patta holders in the Town

Survey Register. During the ownership of Satyadhirayacharya

Verandah was constructed as per the plan approved by the

Municipality on 10.03.1965. Subsequently, Krishna Murthy

Acharya owned and managed the property.

56. During his life time, the municipality proposed the road widening program and he considered in view of road widening and that the building was 100 years old, it was proposed to demolish the building and demolition notice was issued. 3rd 34 defendant Uttaradi Matham came forward to finance for constructing the new building consisting ground, first and second floors. But the GPA holder of 3rd defendant Vittal Prasad i.e. 2nd defendant clandestinely and illegally obtained building plan in the name of the Uttaradi Matham. Unfortunately Krishna Murhty

Acharya died on 12.05.2003 leaving behind the plaintiffs.

57. Due to the illegal occupation by defendants 1 to 3, the 3rd plaintiff and others are not able to enjoy the major part of the suit schedule property. Another irritant was as defendants 2, 4 to 6 were not paying rents and notices were given and subsequently, the plaintiffs filed O.S. 2640/2005 on the file of II

Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. They also obtained orders of statusquo. On 10.07.2006 the 1st defendant filed his written statement denying the right, title and interest of the 3rd plaintiff.

This compelled the 3rd plaintiff to seek for declaration in this background on 24.08.2008 at 5-00 pm defendants 1 and 2 representing the 3rd defendant tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment and thus the plaintiffs filed the suit.

58. The stand of defendants 1 and 3 is that the Uttaradi matham was established by his holiness Sri Sri Satya Atma

Theertha Swamiji about 300 years ago and installed Anjaneya swamy deity and daily rituals are being offered to the deity and discourses on Madhva cult were being propogated. When there was proposal for road widening and as the structures have become old and dilapidated, the 3rd defendant took decision to 35 demolish the old structures and to construct new building.

Accordingly, old structures were demolished and present building worth Rs.5 to 6 crores was constructed by 2004 and it is named

Sri Satya Sandha Bhavanam of Uttaradi Matham.

59. Their stand further is that Y.Narasimhachary has nothing to do with the suit schedule property in the year 1920.

As early as 17.05.1902 a portion of the site belonging to the

Matham was leased out by the 3rd defendant in favour of one

V.Venkata Swamy and his wife Venkamma through a registered

Lease Deed No.1348/2002 and it was renewed after two years through another registered lease deed dtd.5.11.1904 vide document No.1810/1904. It is denied that Y.Narasimhacharya resided with his family in the property.

60. Defendants 1 and 3 also contended that one Vemuganti

Narasmihacharyulu was administering the affairs of the property including the temple, choultry and matham. It is averred that a small piece of land was exchanged through registered exchange deed dt.18.12.1925 between Vemuganti Narasimhacharyulu the then Acharya and manager of Sri Anjaneya Swamy temple on one side and Secretary to Government of Madras on behalf of the

Hon’ble Secretary of State for India through a document

dt.15.07.1925.

61. From the records of the 3rd defendant

Y.Narasimhacharyulu, s/o.Satyadhirayacharya did not own the 36 property. Plaintiffs have to prove that Satyadhirayacharya is the father of Y.Narasmihacharya and that Satyadhirayacharya is the son of Narasimhacharya.

62. It is further averred that one Y.Satyadhirayacharya was an employee of the 3rd defendant who worked from about 1946 he was an Archaka as well as Manager and Agent of the Matham.

He used to take instructions from the then GPA holder of matham

M.Srinivasacharyulu. He was also preparing accounts, collecting rents, taking instructions from the GPA holder of the 3rd defendant matham and after his demise, his son Krishna Murthy

Acharyulu was acting as the Archaka, Agent, Manager of the local matham.

63. According to defendants Vemuganti Narasimhacharya ,Satyadhirayacharya and Krishna Murthy Acharya were only

Agents. They were also Archakas. They were collecting rents and getting building repaired, meeting litigations.

64. After demise of Vemuganti Narasimhacharyulu,

Y.Satyadhirayacharya also wrote a letter stating that wife of

V.Narasimhacharyulu wanted to handover the Kavacham of Sri

Anjaneyaswamy and also leave the matham premises by handing over other valuables and the letter was written to the then GPA holder M.Srinivasacharyulu enquiring whether he would be coming and whether he can take over the Kavacham etc. if the GPA holder was not coming till he wrote a letter dt.03.05.1946 stating about the intention of Smt.Sithamma 37 w/o.V.Narasimhacharyulu. Satyadhiracharyulu also had no authority. Satyadhiracharyulu also submitted Revision Petition to

Bezawada Municipality for reduction of tax and representation with regard to special notice seeking reduction of tax on behalf of 3rd defendant. These pleadings would necessitate to consider as part of issue No.1.

65. In view of these stands, the factual aspects that have to be considered though they were not framed as issues are-

1) Whether Yatagiri Narasimhacharya occupied vacant

site in the year 1920 and developed temple, choultry and

matham?

2) Whether Vemuganti Narasimhacharyulu acted as

Archaka and acted as Agent and Manager of the 3 rd

defendant prior to Satyadhiracharyulu?

3) Whether prior to 1920 as far above as 1902 a

portion of the vacant site was leased out to one

V.Venkata Swamy and his wife Venkamma was the

registered document No.1348/1902?

4) Whether Y.Narasimhacharya followed by

Satyadhiracharya, Krishna Murthy Acharya and plaintiffs

have exercised the acts of ownership?

66. The question of title would depend upon these factual aspects. Before discussing the evidence, certain questions would also arise. Plaintiffs have stated that the Green marked portions are in possession of plaintiffs, Red marked portions are in possession of defendants 1 to 7 and Blue marked vacant portions are in possession of defendants 1 to 3 as shown in the plaint plan. As can be seen from the plaint plan shown that Sri Uttaradi matham. The plan also shows that it is a corner building with 38

Brahmin street on its western site and canal road on its southern site and the building is facing South.

67. Green marked portions are shown as inside room in the

South East corner of the building in the cellar and shop Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The plaintiffs who asserted that they are in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit schedule property have to answer why the shops in their possession and inside room in the cellar are consisting of only Three shop rooms and as inside room.

68. Secondly on seeing the plan, a doubt arises to the mind why Sri.Y.Narasmihacharya belongs to Madhva cult have not retained the name Madhva Matham having established the

Madhva Matham. As such or why he has not chosen to establish the matham in the family name. Why he has established matham in the name of Uttaradi matham though there is Uttaradi matham with its Headquarters at Bangalore which is also having properties elsewhere. Another doubt also crops up in the mind if the site is occupied in 1920 by Yatagiri Narasimhacharya, when the Vijayawada Municipality proposed demolition and issued demolition notice and why the plaintiffs should think of demolishing the building on the ground that the building has become 100 years old. If the building is 100 years old, it must have been constructed in the year 1903 or earlier but not after 1920 by which date there was occupation but no construction of the whole structures.

39

69. Another query that comes to the mind is why the plaintiffs are seeking demolition of entire structures in the plaint schedule property and recovery of possession. Whether plaintiffs have considered that the prayer for demolition of entire structures would also include the demolition of Sri Dasanjaneya

Swamy temple which was built by their ancestor

Y.Narasimhacharyulu. Can it be considered that it is a tongue-in- cheek approach or casual approach without bestowing thought.

Another aspect that is puzzling is why the plaintiffs have filed suit against defendants 4 to 6 by raising certain pleas against them with regard to the relationship of owner and tenant and not seeking any prayer against them.

70. Of course, defendants 1and 3 have raised the pleas that Smt.P.Sitha Mahalakshmi, resident of Rajahmundry who is also stated to be having title according to plaintiffs and the municipal corporation, Vijayawada since it approved plan without considering the existing rights of plaintiffs are also necessary parties of the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Of course, the issue with regard to non-impleadment of necessary parties is not framed. Energies need not be diverted for discussing the same when neither side insisted for the same.

71. Ownership denotes the relationship between a person and object i.e. subject matter of the ownership. Ownership consists of complex of rights, all of which rights in rem being good against the entire world not merely specific persons. A owner will have a right to possess. However, he may get 40 divested from the subject matter. Yet he retains reversionary interest, he has right to live and enjoy the thing owned. He has right to consume, destroy or alienate the property or subject matter which is owned. Ownership is indeterminate in duration.

The interest of the ownership can endure for ever. Ownership has residuary character. For example, the owner may lease out the property and he may provide easement over his property but the remaining rights will remain with the owner after he gets himself divested of specific rights to the lessee or owner of the dominative heritage. A thing may be owned by one person only.

Two or more persons may also at the same time have ownership about the same thing.

72. PW1 as in the plaint has stated that the first plaintiff is the widow of Krishna Murthy Acharya. One Satya Dhisa Sarma is the eldest son, 2nd plaintiff is the second son and he is the 3rd son, 4th plaintiff is the 4th son of Krishna Murthy Acharya and the 1st plaintiff. 5th plaintiff is the wife of eldest son and 6th plaintiff is the youngest daughter of Krishna Murthy Acharya and the 1st plaintiff and she is the sister of himself, plaintiffs 2 and 4. Ex.A1 is the Power of Attorney executed in favour of Pw1 by the other plaintiff.

73. During cross examination on 18.03.2014 PW1, however, stated and 1st plaintiff is his junior maternal aunt. 2nd plaintiff is his consonial brother. 3rd plaintiff is the son of 1st plaintiff though he himself is the 3rd plaintiff.

41

74. With regard to Y.Narasimhachary, his evidence is he never saw Y.Narasimhachary. He could not say that he was alive till 1947 as per his historical profile. He did not file proof of it. His hastened to add that it is available at Rajahmundry. He further stated that he did not file proof that Sri Y.Narasimhachary looked after suit schedule properties once upon time and there was a person who lived with that name. He again stated that proof is available at Rajahmundry. He stated that he knows that defendant’s contention was that there was no such person

Y.Narasimhachary, S/o.Satyadhiracharya. He further stated that he has no documentary evidence to show that Sri

Y.Narasimhachary, s/o.Satyadhira charya was residing in the plaint schedule property. The said document is the survey record of the year 1933 wherein the name of Y.Narasimhachary is reflected. There is no other document in that regard except the said document. There is no document with them to show that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of

Y.Narasimhachary. His father late Krishna Murthy told him that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of

Y.Narasimhachary. He informed the said fact to all the plaintiffs.

He cannot say in which context and in which year he informed the said fact. This shows that there are no documents of any nature to show that Y.Narasimhachary exercised right of ownership over the plaint schedule property.

75. The evidence that his father late Krishna Murthy told the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral 42 property of late Y.Narasimhachary would show that Pw1 has no personal knowledge whether the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Y.Narasimhachary. His version is hear say version. He again stated, when he was cross examined on 14.12.2014, that he has no document with him to establish his contention that Y.Narasimhachary looked after or managed the plaint schedule property at any time. Y.Narasimhachary who hails from Rajahmundry shifted to Vijayawada before 1920. He was resident of Vijayawada till his death. Y.Narasimhachary has two sons. PW1 first stated that he does not know the name of first son of Y.Narasimhachary and stated that name of second son is

Satyadhiracharya. Then he stated that one Rama Narasimharao is the eldest son of Y.Narasimhachary. Rama Narasimharao is alive. He is in Rajahmundry now. He is looking after Nrusimha

Matham at Rajahmundry which is also known as Uttaradhi matham. He does not know why they have not impleaded the branch of eldest son of Y.Narasimhachary as parties to these proceedings. Y.Narasimhachary died intestate.

76. He denied that Vemuganti Narasimhacharyulu worked as priest in Anjaneyaswamy temple and managed the affairs of plaint schedule property prior to appointment of

Satyadhiracharyulu. He denied that the name of Venkata

Narasimhacharyulu shown in the true copy of Town Survey

Register issued by City Planner, Municipal Corporation,

Vijayawada relates to Vemuganti Venkata Narasimhacharyulu and that it has nothing to do with Yatagiri Narasimhachary. He denied that the plaint schedule property is not shown in the 43 municipal record as the private property of Y.Venkata

Narasimhacharyulu. Apart from the Town Survey report, no other proceedings were issued by the District Collector and Tahsildar recognizing Y.Venkata Narasimhacharyulu as the owner and title holder of the plaint schedule property. During cross-examination after Pw1 got himself recalled for marking Exs.A17 to A20 PW1 stated that he does not know that one Vemuganti Venkata

Narasimhacharyulu was the Head of Matt and he was the local

Administrator of the 3rd defendant Matham. He denied that

Venkata Narasimhacharyulu is not Yatagiri Venkata

Narasimhacharyulu but Vemuganti Venkata Narasimhacharyulu.

Vemuganti is mis-spelt here as ‘Venuganti’. It can be stated here that PW1 has admitted that he has not filed any document pertaining to Y.Narasimhacharyulu. Further it can be stated that it is not the case of plaintiffs that the name of Y.Narasimhacharyulu also contains the name ‘Venkata’ in his name. It is not their case that the property originally was occupied by Y.Venkata

Narasimhacharyulu. He further stated that there was a temple in existence by the year 1920 in the suit schedule property,

Narasimhachary occupied the property even before 1920. The evidence of the plaintiffs that the property was occupied initially by Y.Narasimhacharyulu is un-substantiate and unconvincing without any basis and the evidence of the plaintiff is doubtful and speculative.

77. PW1 stated in his chief that Y.Narasimhacharyulu managed the temple, choultry and matham till his demise. His son Y.Satyadhiracharya resided with his family and attended the 44 administration and Nitya Dhoopa, Deepa offerings to God Sri

Dasanjaneya Swamy. During cross-examination, PW1 stated that his grandfather’s name is Y.Satyadhirachar. He does not know whether he is also known as Y.Satyadhiracharyulu or

Satyadhirachary. He cannot identify the signatures of his grandfather. He does not have any document to show that

Y.Satyadhiracharya was resident of Vijayawada at any time. He has to make enquiries as to whether there are any such documents or not. He does not remember from which year to which year Y.Satyadhiracharya exercised the rights of ownership over the plaint schedule property. It can be stated here that PW1 must have personally seen to say that he does not remember.

When he has not personally seen, the answer that he does not remember from which year to which year Satyadhiracharya exercised the rights of ownership is mischievous. PW1 also stated during cross examination on 13.08.2014 that

Y.Satyadhiracharya constructed and developed Dasanjaneya

Mandiram and Anjaneya choultry. It was Y.Narasimhacharya who developed Anjaneya temple in the plaint schedule property. If

Satyadhira charya developed Anjaneya temple, choultry, the evidence that Y.Narasimhacharya developed temple and choultry would become incorrect. While cross-examining on 14.12.2014 when a document dt.02.06.1946 was confronted whether the said document contains the signature of Y.Satyadhiracharyulu.

He stated that he cannot identify the signature of

Y.Satyadhiracharyulu and he further denied that the document dt.02.06.1946 contain the signature of Y.Satyadhiracharyulu.

When questioned as to when he came to know about the 45 appointment of Sri. Y.Satyadhiracharya as Priest in the plaint schedule property empowering him to collect rents from the tenants he answered that Satyadhiracharya was not appointed by Uttaradi matham. He does not know in which year

Satyadhiracharya came into management of the plaint schedule property. He does not know whether there is any document to show as to why he came into the management in respect of the plaint schedule property. As of now there is no document to the effect of management of the plaint schedule property by

Satyadhiracharya. There is no document to show that what rights

Satyadhiracharya was in management of plaint schedule property. He has no document with him to show the correspondence of Y.Satyadhiracharya made by him as a person in management of the plaint schedule property. He never heard of name of Markapuram Srinivasacharyulu. He does not know that M.Srinivasacharyulu was the erstwhile Power of Attorney

Agent of the 3rd defendant matham. He does not know in which year he passed away. When stamped receipt dt.04.04.1962 is showed and questioned whether the said receipt was issued by

Y.Satyadhiracharya to the 3rd defendant for payment of salary. His answer is that he does not know. He has seen Y.Satyadhiracharya during the year 1983. By the date of death of Satyadhiracharya, his father was doing Purohityam. He does not know that after the death of Y.Satyadhiracharya whether his father applied to

Uttaradhi mattam for joining him as the Priest to the said temple or not. He can identify the signature of his father. He denied that signature on the document dtd.8.5.1987 is that of his father. He does not know that prior to Y.Satyadhiracharya one Vemuganti 46

Narasimhachary worked as Priest in the 3rd defendant matham at

Vijayawada. All this evidence shows that the version of plaintiffs that Satyadhiracharya exercised the rights of ownership over the suit schedule property hangs by a thread called doubting thread.

78. PW1 deposed that the Corporation demolished the remaining building on the ground that it is 100 years old building and they wanted to develop the property freshly. He has not clarified whether the decision to demolish the entire building is by the Municipality or the decision of the late Krishna Murthy

Acharya who was alive by then. PW1 stated during cross examination, the GPA holder of Uttaradi matham Vittal Prasad submitted plans to the Municipal Corporation for its approval for construction of plaint schedule building as the Municipal

Corporation, Vijayawada demolished the then existing old structures. The G.P.A. holder of 3rd defendant matham submitted plans for approval to the Municipal Authorities. The plaintiffs do not know as to where the plans for construction of plaint schedule property were got prepared. The entire expenditure in connection with the building application and payment of building fee was paid by the 3rd defendant. In or about 2003 the then existing structures were demolished. PW1 stated during his cross-examination, on 14.12.2014 that he does not know whether any compensation was paid to his father during the road widening in April, 2003. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation demolished erstwhile building in the plaint schedule property. He does not know whether any notice was issued to his father prior to demolition of the then building. He does not remember 47 whether such notice was issued by the municipal corporation to the defendant No.3 and the tenants in occupation of the then building. They did not remove debris after demolition of old buildings in the plaint schedule property. They do not know who removed the same. They did not object when such debri was removed from the said property. For about one year, the site was vacant.

79. Ownership includes right to destruct ones own property.

There are vast structures in an extent of 840 s.y. The structures will have doors, windows, wooden beams, tiles, cross bars, pipelines, electrical fixtures etc. If the property belonged to the plaintiffs, it is for the plaintiffs to show why they did not remove the debris after demolition of old building. Then what happened to the doors, windows, door frame, window frames, grills if present any wooden beams in the roof, electrical fixtures etc. It cannot be considered that debris is with regard to small shed or a little house. He also has not stated what happened to the iron whether the iron was disposed of or reused.

80. PW1 stated that the defendant No.3 wanted to finance in the construction of new building in the same site. During cross examination, he has stated that there is Anjaneyaswamy mandir,

Mruttika Brundavan of Raghavendra Swamy on the Brundavan there is a pratima of Sri Raghavendra Swamy. Punah Pratishta function of Sri Anjaneya swamy was performed in the plaint schedule property during the year 2005. He also stated that the said Idol was installed about 200 years. Persons belonging to the 48 3rd defendant have been performing puja in Anjaneya swamy mandir since 2005. He does not remember to whom compensation was paid on account of road widening whether to his father or to the 3rd defendant. There is no document between 3rd defendant and plaintiffs to show that the 3rd defendant agreed to construct the plaint schedule building and agreed to deliver the same to them. The understanding between plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant for the construction of plaint schedule building was that the construction should be useful to Madhva community the plaint schedule building was opened by the father of Swamiji on 22.08.2004. There are no documents to show the understanding that they permitted the 3rd defendant to construct the building and to use it for the purpose of Madhva community for the matham. At the time when the construction was being made the plaintiffs did not object the 3rd defendant on the ground that plans were illegally obtained by them by wrongly reflected the name of 3rd defendant as the owner of the plaint schedule site.

There is no title deed in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiffs individually. There are no title deeds in respect of the said property in the name of anyone. He does not know as to who was owning the plaint schedule property prior to their forefathers. If the father of the great grandfather of plaintiffs 2 to 4 Narasmiha chary occupied and constructed the temple, choultry and matham, the answer by the plaintiff should be there were no prior owners to the property if there was occupation. If the property was purchased and if it was site, there may be prior owners. If there are buildings, it is for the plaintiff to explain. PW1 admitted that Anjaneyaswamy idol was installed more than 200 49 years ago. If Anjaneyaswamy idol was there in existence even prior to occupation, the version of the plaintiffs that

Y.Narasimhachary occupied the site and constructed the temple, choultry and matt would be false. The evidence of the plaintiff was shaken by the evidence of Pw1 that it was

Y.Satyadhiracharya who developed Anjaneyaswamy temple in the plaint schedule premises. He also stated that he has no documents with him to show that 3rd defendant agreed to finance for construction of new building after demolition of the structures by Vijayawada Municipality Corporation. On behalf of the defendant No.3 matham Diwan of the matt by name

Prahladachar earlier informed to their family members that 3rd defendant would finance for the construction of new building. He was not present at that time when he informed the same to his family members. He informed the same to 1st plaintiff. He does not remember the date, month and year when he did so. This evidence of PW1 is also peculiar.

81. It is not a small erection. It is the construction of a two storeyed building. The plaintiffs did not bother to get the plans prepared on their behalf. The plaintiff did not bother to submit plans for approval. The plaintiffs did not bother when the debris was removed. The plaintiffs did not bother when the massive structures were raised by digging foundations. Plaintiffs have to explain their silence and inaction if the property is their own property. The evidence of PW1 that Diwan of the 3rd defendant matt has informed the 1st plaintiff and he does not know when they informed about their intention to finance. The plaintiff has 50 stated that 1st plaintiff is the wife of Krishna Murthy Ahcarya.

During cross examination, he has stated that the 1st plaintiff is his junior maternal aunt. He has not stated whether she is step mother or the younger sister of his mother.

82. It is not the agreement to get plans prepared and to make constructions and to handover the building. It was an agreement to finance. Though it is mammoth structure yet there was no written agreement. There is no evidence how much the 3rd defendant wanted to finance and on what terms. It is perplexing why plaintiffs kept quiet when the 3rd defendant proceeded with the construction and proceeded with inauguration of the building. Plaintiffs did not bother to whom the compensation was paid and they did not bother when the construction was being made by the others but not the plaintiffs.

This conduct of the plaintiffs is not in consonance with his assertion that they are owners of the suit schedule property.

83. PW1 stated that they filed O.S.2640/05. He also deposed that two of the tenants Satti Durga Rao and Satti Siva

Ramakrishna are having shops in the canal road filed petitions and the A.P.Buildigns (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960

before Rent Controller, Vijayawada in RCC 72/06 and 73/06.

These RCCs. are subsequent to filing of O.S.2640/2005. The plaintiffs have filed Exs.A2,A3 and A4 which are the office copies of legal notices to defendants 4,5 and 6. Exs.A2 ,A3 shows that the 3rd plaintiff styled himself as the Administrator on behalf of landlords of Sri Dasanjaneya Swamy temple,Anjaneya Choultry 51 and Madhva Matham does not know who are those landlords. In the numbered para-1 of the legal notices, it is mentioned that the client of the Learned Counsel is the owner and administrator of the entire building. It is mentioned that the 4th defendant ,5th defendant, 6th defendant have taken the schedule premises in

January, 2005 on lease from his plaint for the purpose of running

Bhagavati Home Needs on a rent of Rs.1800/- by the 4th defendant. Punnami Tea Stall and Cool drinks on rent of Rs.1500/- by the 5th defendant and at unnamed Tea Stall for rent of

Rs.800/- by the 6th defendant. All the legal notices are dated 08.01.2008. Marking of the acknowledgements and postal acknowledgement is also confusing. They appeared to be Exs.A5 to A7. It is for the plaintiffs to explain when they have not constructed the building and when they shut their eyes and turn the other side when the construction was commenced and completed and when the building was inaugurated, when they let out the shops and rooms to defendants 4 to 6. Of course, the plaintiffs have not claimed any relief against defendants 4 to 6.

Had they claimed any relief they would have been liable for payment of Court Fee. It is also not proper to direct not to draft a decreeunless Court fee is paid. Of course that such course is not required as the plaintiffs have not claimed any relief against defendants 4 to 6.

84. Ex.A8 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.P.2640/05 filed only against the 1st defendant herein. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of the written statement therein who is the 1st defendant herein. Ex.A10 is the endorsement by the Municipality on 52 23.01.2008 addressed to the M.Sudarsan Rao, PW2. It appears to have been obtained under Right to Information Act by PW2.

Exs.A11, A12 and A13 are demand notices for payment of property tax. These demand notices are issued in the name of

Anjaneya swamy temple, choultry, Anjaneya temple Trustee and

Madhva Matt. Ex.A14 is an endorsement dated 04.01.2007. It shows that PW2 addressed a letter as Archaka of Jangalapalli,

Vinukonda whether there were any representations and whether there was any order seeking change of name Madhva matham as

Uttaradi matham. It was mentioned that there were no such applications. Ex.A15 is another endorsement dt.28.03.2007 with regard to information sought under Right to Information Act. It is mentioned that plans vide BA.27/04 were rejected on technical grounds. Later, BA 317/04 it was shown that as per the Adangals the property is in the name of Sri Anjaneya swamy temple and plans were sanctioned in the name of management.

85. It is further mentioned that as per BA 80/65 a permission was granted for constructing additional verandah for the building with D.No.11-62-2 and there are no documents for proving the rights and it was given in the approved plan in the name of Satyadhiracharya. It is shown that no document in proof of right of Satyadhiracharya was there.

86. The plaintiff got himself recalled. The plaintiff filed attested copy of proceedings of the Commissioner, Vijayawada

Municipality vide RF 54/65 BA 80/65 addressed to

Satyadhiracharya. It is permission for execution of that work as per the approved plans. Exs.A18 and A19 is the attested copies 53 of proposed construction and site plan. Ex.A17 to A19 are attested by the City Planner. Ex.A20 is the extract from Town

Survey Register pertaining to Revenue Ward -2, block-3. In

Ex.A20 in the column 16 name Venkata Narasimhacharyulu is mentioned, in column 17 Anjaneya temple is mentioned, in column 18 tiled house is mentioned and in the remarks column it is mentioned that it is corrected from ROC –B4-2738-3, dt.26.04.1933 of the District Collector and it was corrected then as per RC 30-8A -410/2 dt.02.10.1939 of the Tahsildar. Extent of the property is shown as 7622 sq.feet.

87. The evidence of PW2 shows that he is a Priest to Gudi

Anjaneyaswamy temple in Vinukonda in Guntur District. He says that 5th plaintiff is his sister and his brother-in-law who is the husband of 5th plaintiff performed puja at Anjaneya temple and also performed yearly ceremonies to the pilgrims. After the death of his Satyadhisa Sarma the 1st defendant raised objection about living of his sister in the premises. At that juncture, he made enquiries about property of Anjaneya temple and the surrounding tiled house and choultry. This shows that he was not sure as to who was the owner of the property. He stated that

Y.Krishnamurthy Acharya and his forefathers have managed the above said property. Till date, the property is levied tax under three assessment numbers and Uttaradi matham was not having any ownership or title either in the Municipal records or Revenue

Records. During cross examination, he stated that Uttardi matham is a religious institution established about 800 years back by Madhvacharya which is under the management of Saints 54 of Madhvacharya and is managed by Acharyas. He admitted that

Uttaradi matt in Vijayawada is being managed by his Holiness having Headquarters at Bangalore. He admitted that 5th plaintiff was residing in one room situated in the cellar of the said building. 5th plaintiff is having documentary proof. He does not have any documentary proof to show that she was having right over the said property. He has not seen the document which is in possession of his sister. He can not say who executed the said document in favour of 5th plaintiff. He stated that tax receipts are issued in the name of Y.Venkata Narasimhacharyulu. As he is only a witness, he has not produced the same before the Court but he brought the said document to the Court. He has no objection to file the said document i.e. copy application dt.19.07.1965 given by Vijayawada Municipality before Court. The same is marked as

Ex.A16. He admitted that Ex.A16 is not a tax receipt. Ex.A16 is a colour Xerox application. In Ex.A16 BA 476/65 is mentioned. It is shown in Ex.A16 the name Yatagiri Satyadhiracharyulu Uttaradi

Matham, D.NO.11-62-2, Hyderabad road, Vijayawada. It is an application to convert tiled house into terraced building. It is also mentioned that the applicant intended to use the building only as a matham Rest House. PW2 admitted that Y.Satyadhiracharyulu was an employee of Uttaradi matham under Ex.A16 and he himself presented the application to the Municipal Corporation for permission as an employee of Uttaradi matham. He admitted that Municipality has given permission to construct the property under Ex.A16 for the purpose of rest house of the 3rd defendant.

He came to know through plaintiffs that they are claiming ownership over the plaint schedule property as they are 55 performing pujas and maintaining building. In general no ownership will be claimed over any institution by merely performing pujas and maintenance.

88. During cross-examination of Pw1, Pw1 admitted that on 07.01.2005 he executed rent note in favour of the 3rd defendant represented by GPA holder. He admitted that it is true that lease agreement is in respect of shop which is in occupation. He signed on the lease agreement after it was typed. He added that he did not read the contents of the said document. Ex.B1 is the said document. It was objected at the time of marking that the contents were not read over to him. He denied that having read the contents of Ex.B1, he is falsely denying his knowledge about the contents. PW1 further stated the staff of the 3rd defendant have been performing pujas and running service in

Anjaneyaswamy mandiram and they are obstructing them from doing service from the date of construction of the plaint schedule property. PW1 admitted that he signed on the lease agreement after it was typed. He admitted that the document was shown. It is not proper to say that while marking a document , the contents of the document has to be read over to him. Objection fissles out. Even otherwise, this agreement was executed after dispute started in the previous suit. This document was executed and captioned as “Adde khararu patram”. It is also mentioned that the 3rd plaintiff is the lessee and GPA of the Peetadhipati of

Uttaradi Matham Sri Sri Sri Satya Atma Theertha Swamiji by name U.Vittal Prasad, s/o.Hanumantharao is the lessor and the deed is for the shop No.2 for setting up STD telephone booth, 56 cool-drinks. The 3rd plaintiff signed on three pages. Having signed on a lease deed as a lessee, the contention of the plaintiffs that

Satti Durga Rao and Satti Siva Ramakrishna are his tenants is untenable. 3rd plaintiff himself is a tenant and he also entered into an agreement. In RCC 72/06 and 73/06 it is not shown about making the 3rd defendant or the 1st defendant as parties. It is for the plaintiffs to show in such a case how the Plaintiffs have ownership rights.

89. Ex.B2 and B3 were also marked through PW1. PW1 also admitted that the receipt book containing counterfoils of the rent receipts bear the signatures of tenants in occupation. Ex.B2 is the receipt book.Ex.B2 is containing counterfoils for the receipts from 22 to 100. It is for the period of 01.01.1989 to 01.05.1991.

Exs.B3 and B4 are the lease deeds dt.17.05.1902 and 05.11.1904 executed in favour of Venkayamma vide document

No.1348/1902 and 18.10.1904. Existence of Anjaneya swamy temple is also mentioned in these documents. This shows that temple was built even prior to 1920. The plaintiffs have to explain when Y.Narasimhacharyulu “occupied” the vacant site when there was already a temple in existence with Sri Anjaneya swamy as the presiding Deity. Ex.B5 is the postcard handwritten on 01.04.1946. It was written that he reached Bezawada on previous day by then Vemuganti Sitamma. It was written by

Satyadhiracharyulu to Markapuram Srinivasacharyulu, Ananda

Theertha Agraharam, Guntur. He has written that V.Sitamma was packed of her belongings and was ready. Her grandsons examinations are scheduled to commence on 4th. He further stated that she wanted to handover brass Kavacham of the Lord 57 and whether the addressee was coming there and whether he can take over the Kavacham and other things. InEx.B6 is the another letter dated 03.05.1946 written by Satyadhiracharya to

Marakapuram Srinivasacharyulu informing that V.Sithamma wanted to leave matham by handing over matham and she requires the presence of Srinivasacharyulu or their clerk

Srinivasarao and sought for instructions. The letter on the notebook page also contains the reply on its reverse by stating that letter written on 1st was not received by him and clerk went to Narsaraopet Court and instructed to take possession of the matham under receipt. It shows that Satyadhiracharyulu did not take any independent possession and he was under the control of the matham authorities. Ex.B7 is the representation by

Satyadhiracharyulu to Bezawada Municipal Commissioner dt.02.04.1947 praying for reduction of tax. In that letter he has described himself as Archaka.Ex.B8 is the unstamped Lease

Agreement. Ex.B9 is the rent chit executed by the 3rd defendant matham in favour of Sanka Venkaiah and Dokuparthi Veera

Raghavaiah. It is attested by one M.Krishna Murthy and one

Manepalli Appala Raju. It is with regard to hall on the western side in the down stairs of Uttaradi matham.Ex.B10 is a letter requesting to send Rs.60/- for water tax and he would pay by next date. Ex.B11 is the postcard informing that the water pipe leaked as grain bags were placed on it and it requires repairs and requested to send Rs.80/- for repairing the same. Ex.B12 is an inventory of employees and items in the Anjaneyaswamy temple dt.27.03.1961. Ex.B13 is approved plan vide BA 476/65 dt.29.01.1966. The proposed constructions are shown in Red 58 colour. The plan is captioned as follows.” the plan showing the proposed conversion of existing tiled roof into Madras Terraced roof of the building of D.No.11-62-2 of Uttaradi Matham in

Hyderabad road. The plaintiffs have to answer why it is in the name of Uttaradi Matham even by then Ex.B14 is the registered legal notice from K.Venkateswarlu, Advocate to Sita Rama Sastry,

Advocate dt.02.12.1964. In that legal notice, it is clearly mentioned that his clients S.Venkaiah and D.Veera Raghavaiah received letter dt.25.11.1964 issued on behalf of the client of Sri

P.Sitha Rama Sastry i.e.Uttaradi Matham represented by its agent through Markapuram Srinivasacharyulu and Y.Satyadhiracharylu and it is mentioned that his clients paid all the rents till July, 1964 and are sending crossed Demand Drafts for Rs.300/-.

Ex.B15 is the reply notice stating that the said tenants have not given vacant possession of the premises under their tenancy. In

Ex.B14 it is clearly mentioned that Marakapuram

Srinivasacharyulu and Satyadhiracharyulu are agents of the matham. Ex.B15 is mentioned as postcard addressed to

Markapuram Srinivasacharyulu. It is mentioned that Matham works are on progress. There is a dispute with regard to northern boundary wall and he has taken his counsel to the site.Ex.B17 is the postal letter from Satyadhiracharyulu stating about certain accounts and that Rs.168/- has to be paid to Municipality towards the end of the September. Ex.B18 is a receipt issued by

Satyadhiracharyulu in favour of the agent of matham for receiving Rs.50/- and Rs.150/- towards salaries. This shows that

Satyadhiracharyulu is a salaried employee. Ex.B19 and B.20 are the receipts issued by receipts for payment of property tax.

59

Ex.B21 is the postcard dt.23.12.1967. Ex.B22 is a Rent

Agreement scribed by Satyadhiracharyulu in respect of one portion of matham. Ex.B23 is the postcard dt.20.6.1968 addressed to Markapuram Srinivasacharyulu informing that he has applied for the changing the godown from tiled house to

Daba or RCC building. Ex.B24 is the another postcard dt.14.09.1968 requesting to send Rs.1,000/-. Ex.B25 is another postcard dt.19.12.1968 informing about intention to file HRC and he paid municipal tax due by September of Rs.400/-. Ex.B26 is a receipt by Satyadhiracharyulu to GPA holder M.Srinivasacharyulu stating about receiving Rs.360/- for doing pujas in

Anjaneyaswamy temple.Ex.B27 is another postcard stating that a court matter was posted to 07.10.1969. He was not sure whether proceedings may take place or not and proceedings may take place when the new Munisiff joins. Ex.B28 is the copy of report filed by authorized person Sri P.L.Narayana Advocate in

I.A.139/1969 in HRC 37/1969 between Uttaradi mathadipati Sri

Satya Pramoda Theerdha Swamy represented by his GPA agent

Sri Markapuram Srinivasacharyulu. Ex.B28 shows that even by then it was recognized that Uttaradi matham is headed by

Mathadhipati and then mathadhipati Sri Satya Promoda Theertha

Swamy and Marakapuram Srinivasacharyulu was the GPA holder.

Ex.B29 is the legal notice issued by DRS Poornachandra rao ,Advocate to Sri V.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate. Ex.B30 is a

Judgment in O.S.223/1971 on the file of Prl.District Munsiff,

Vijayawada in Eviction suit filed by Uttaradi Matham represented by mathadhipati who is represented by his GPA holder M.Venkata

Rama Charyulu. It shows that HRC351/1966 filed for eviction was 60 withdrawn for technical reasons for want of notice. Suit was decreed by the Judgment dt.16.11.1971.

90. Ex.B31 is another letter addressed by Satyadhiracharyulu informing that he would come after collecting rents. Ex.B32 is consisting of accounts prepared by Satyadhiracharyulu from 29.08.1951 onwards. Ex.B33 is another bunch of accounts dt.26.6.1987 onwards. Ex.B34 is a post card dt.25.12.1973 informing that his father has not come from Rajahmundry. Diwan has instructed to remove shops in front of temple and he got the shops removed and on the night of previous day at 1-00 pm shops were again erected by blocking the window. If Krishna

Murthy Acharyulu was the owner of the property, there is no need for writing such letter. Ex.B35 is a notice issued by Sri

Markapuram Venkata Ramanachary agent of Uttaradi matham requiring to remove thatched huts erected without approval. It shows that one M.Venkata Ramanacharyulu was considered as the agent. Ex.B36 is the receipt issued by Krishna Murthy to the agent of Matham Ramanacharyulu for the expenses towards repairs to the building. Ex.B37 is the receipt for receiving

Rs.180/- towards the property tax. Ex.B38 is tax receipt issued by

Vijayawada Municipal Corporation.Ex.B39 is demand notice dt.04.01.1977. Ex.B40 is the tax receipt dt.10.01.1977, Ex.B41 is consisting of four receipts for payment of electricity charges.

Ex.B42 is the receipt by Sri Srinivasa &Co., for purchasing two

ACC cement bags for Rs.53.60 ps. Ex.B43 is the handwritten letter by Sri Y.Krishna Murthy of Diwan Sri Prahladacharyulu stating that from his father’s time since 30 years they are 61 serving in Sri Anjaneya swamy temple and since Seven(7) generations their people are also serving at Rajahmundry for Sri

Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy and Sri Satyadhisa Satya Gnana

Theertha Swamy stating that if there is a proposal to sell 200 sq.yards of site he should be given preference. It is 30.05.1980.It shows that he has no connection with ownership rights. Ex.B44 is another letter requesting to give preference to him in the event of proposal to sell the house site in matham premises.

Ex.B45 is a receipt dt.08.06.1980 for the rent of Rs.500/- paid by one of the tenants. It was issued by M.V.Ramanachary agent of the matham. Ex.B46 is another letter for receiving Rs.1,000/- towards rent paid by the tenants.Ex.B47 is another letter. Ex.B48 is the letter in torn condition of postcard size paper. Ex.B49 is

Inland letter addressed to M.V.Ramanacharyulu with regard to pan shop of Sanyasamma. Ex.B50 is receipt for receiving

Rs.4,000/- received through Kemba Srinivasa rao clerk of GPA holder of Matham towards municipal taxes.

91. Ex.B51 is postal cover with a list of the valuables of the Deity and other articles in the temple. Ex.B52 is another

Inland letter addressed to the Agent of M.V.Ramanacharyulu dt.08.01.1987. Ex.B53 is another Inland letter dt.27.03.1987,

Ex.B54 is a letter written by Y.Satyadhiracharyulu and Y.Venkata

Hanumanthacharya i.e.2nd plaintiff and another dt.25.07.2005. It is mentioned that his grandfather Satyadhiracharyulu and his son

Krishna Murthy Acharyulu efficiently worked as mathadikaris and they would also show the similar devotion and after completion of the new building as assured, the work of looking after matham activities may be entrusted to them. Ex.B55 is letter by the 3rd 62 plaintiff stating that he gave advance of Rs.10,000/- towards deposit and paying rent of Rs.1,000/- and is facing financial hardship and prayed for the grace and to reduce rent. He also stated that he requested Diwan and the latter not responded.Ex.B56 is the copy of Gift Deed.

92. Ex.B57 is an affirmation by Satyadhiracharyulu. It is executed on 8 Annas Non Judicial Stamp purchased on 01.06.1946. It is dated 02.06.1946. It is addressed to the GPA holder Sri M.V.Srinivasacharyulu, R/o.Ananda Theerthapuram of

Guntur. It is mentioned that Archaka Sri V.Narasimhacharyulu who has been doing pujas has passed away and he expressed to work as Archaka in the Uttaradi matham for which

M.Srinivasacharyulu was the GPA agent and his request was considered and he would work w.e.f. 04.05.1946 and he has been doing pujas since then. This letter strengthens the letters Ex.B5 and B6 that Vemuganti Sitamma was intending to leave matham premises and she wanted to leave by 03.05.1946. It also shows that the erstwhile pujari was Venkata Narasmihacharyulu. It is nowhere mentioned that the previous Archaka was Yatagiri

Narasimhacharyulu. However, it shows that father of

Y.Satyadhiracharyulu is Y.Narasimhacharyulu. It does not show that Y.Narasimhacharyulu was the previous Archaka. This is like an affirmation for taking charge as Archaka.Ex.B58 is the certified copy of deposition of Satyadhiracharyulu as PW2 in

O.S.No.225/1971 on the file of District Munsiff, Vijayawada. In it,

it is mentioned that he is mathadikari of Bezawada Uttaradi matham and also its Manager. All these mutts are in the management of Markapuram Srinivasacharyulu. He manages 63 only the properties at Bezawada. It is shown that he has recognized G.P.A. holder of 3rd defendant. Ex.B59 is another deposition in O.S.223/1971 on the file of Prl.District Munsiff,

Vijayawada in which it was similarly stated. Ex.B60 is declaration by Sri Y.Krishna Murthy Acharya informing that as his father

Satyadhiracharyulu passed away and he is intending to act as

Archaka and he consulted GPA holder of the 3rd defendant

M.Venkata Ramanacharya, s/o.M.Srinivasacharyulu and he agreed to attend to work with salary of Rs.300/-. It is also executed on Non Judicial Stamp papers for Rs.350/- and Rs.200/- totaling Rs.550/-. It was executed on 05.05.1987 .He considered the authority of the GPA holder. Ex.B61 is certified true copy of photo copy vide document No.165/1982 issued by Joint Sub

Registrar ,Guntur. It shows that it was executed by Kadapa

Raghavendra Rao, S/o.Krishna rao and his son Srinivasarao. They were executed Gift Deed with regard to a property which was the subject matter of Civil Appeal Suit A.S.1795/1873 from the

O.S.6/1973 on the file of District Munsiff, Guntur in favour of one

Purushothamayya and the said Raghavendra rao and Srinivasa rao purchased the same. Purushothamayya and they have gifted the land measuring Ac.13.43 cents and Ac.22.65 cents towards permanent Deeparadhana and Kaimkaryam for performing the permanent offerings. It is a deed of gift of land. It is given under

D.No.44 in Bezawada. It was executed on 14.01.1882 i.e.

Sankranthi day of 1882. Ex.B62 is the attested true copy of GPA executed by 108 Sri Satya Atma Theertha Swamiji of

Peethadipati Smt.Jagadguru Madhvacharyulu Moola Samsthanam

Sri Uttardi matham in favour of Sri K. Vasudevachary i.e. 1st 64 defendant. It was executed on 17.11.2015 at Bangalore. During the cross-examination when PW1 was got himself recalled Ex.B63 was marked. He denied that after demise of his father, he collected rents by using receipt books. What is stated in his cross-examination in O.S.35/2014 on the file of VI Addl.Junior Civil

Judge, Vijayawada as in Ex.B63 is not correct. He has thus

admitted that he has stated in O.S.35/2014 that he collected rents for the matham. Ex.B61 only shows that there is landed property for the mutt. The land was gifted by one Kadapa

Raghavendra rao and his son Krishna Rao. Ex.B57 and B.60 would confirm that both Yatagiri Satyadhiracharya and father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 Y.KrishanaMurthy Acharya made a declaration about their intention to be appointed as Archakas and the said offer was accepted and they have been working as Archakas of

Uttardhi matham. They always admitted about power of matham.

93. Rules of evidence in the Evidence Act prevents straying of human thought logic and reasoning and analysis beyond a track. Section 67 of the Evidence Act –requires proof of signature and handwriting that a person alleged to have signed or written the document produced. It does not require subscribing the witnesses or writer of a document be produced, if document is alleged to be signed.

94. However, Section 90 of Evidence Act provides for presumption as to documents 30 years old. Whether any document purporting or proved to be 30 years old is produced from any custody which the court in the particular case considers 65 proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person is in that person’s handwriting and in case of a document executed or attested that it was duly executed and attested by the person by whom which purports to be executed and attested.

95. The object of Section 90 is not to make it difficulty for persons relying upon ancient document to utilize these documents in proving their case. It is intended to do away with the insuperable difficulty of proving handwriting, execution and attestation of documents in the ordinary way after lapse of many years. It is based on the principle that when a document is or purports to be more than 30 years old, if it is produced from what the court considers to be proper custody, it may be presumed that it was executed and attested by the parties whose signatures it bears. There can, however, be no presumption as to who this person is and what authority he had to execute document and whether he had requisite authority or whether the contents of the document are true. It is not disputed about the execution of documents relied upon by defendants. Defendants also filed Deed of Exchange dt.18.12.1925 for a house site worth

Rs.45/- between one Hon’ble Secretary of State for India in

Council, rep.by Secretary to the Govt. of Madras and Vemuganti

Narasimhacharyulu Archaka and Manager of Anjaneyaswamy temple. They have not however got it marked. Thus it is a registered document somehow it was not marked. Nothing can be stated about it except stating about the omission.

66

96. The Learned Counsel for plaintiffs submitted on the lines of plaint averments and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and submitted that DW1 admitted that he happened to be the 1st defendant in the suit. One Khembavi as the G.P.A. holder of

Uttaradhi matham submitted the written statement. He signed the written statement. For sometime the 2nd defendant was the

GPA holder of the 3rd defendant. The Power of Attorney given to

Sri Kembhavi is still subsisting. He does not know whether the

Power of Attorney given to 2nd defendant is in force or not since he is not maintaining good health and thus from the deposition of DW1, it is clear that the G.P.A. executed in favour of Kembhavi is not in force and as such adverse inference can be drawn for non entering into the witness box. DW1 also stated that except documents filed in this suit he has no other document to show that 3rd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. He also admitted that the suit schedule property is assessed under three assessment numbers in the names of Anjaneya temple trust, Anjaneya temple choultry and

Madhva Matt . As can be seen from Exs.A11 to 13. Ex.A18 to A20 also make it crystal clear that Uttaradi matham is not owner of plaint schedule property unless contra is proved by showing contrary to the pleadings and evidence of the 3rd plaintiff. His evidence also shows that since the beginning the forefathers of plaintiffs are broad-minded to accommodate the pilgrims who visit the holi river Krishna and perform rituals. The ancestors of the 3rd plaintiff invited and accommodate one Peethadhipati and

Mathadipati but they cannot claim supreme rights by making use 67 of the generosity of the ancestors of the plaintiff. The forefathers of the 3rd plaintiff out of loyalty and respect with regard to Madwa cult and Teerdha Swamy have gifted to the holy people of

Uttaradi matham.

97. The evidence of PW1 that idol of Sri Anjaneya swamy is in existence since 200 years and the evidence shown by Exs.B3 and B4 the registered lease deeds dt.17.05.1902 and 05.11.1904 would show that the property of matham was enjoyed by Uttaradhi matham and was administered by its G.P.A.

agent even prior to 1920. Ex.B56, B57 would show that

Vemuganti Narasimhacharyulu was the Archaka and agent prior to Satyadhiracharya. The same is also shown while discussing the evidence of Pw1. Various letters, suit proceedings and deposition of Satyadhiracharya such as Ex.B1, B30, B28 etc would show that Satyadhiracharya was an employee and

Archaka. It cannot be said that Y.Narasimhacharya occupied the vacant site in the year 1920 and developed temple choultry and matt. It cannot be said that Y.Narasmihacharya acted as Archaka, agent and Manager of the 3rd defendant matham prior to

Satyadhiracharyulu. There is evidence that Vemuganti

Narasimharyulu was the Archaka prior to assumption of the duties by Satyadhiracharyulu.

98. It is averred and shown that prior to 1920 as far back as 1902 a portion of the vacant site was leased out to V.Venkata

Swamy and his wife Venkamma through a registered document

Ex.B3 followed by Ex.B4. The letters Exs.B54 and 55 also would show that 2nd plaintiff and the husband of the 5th plaintiff and the 68 3rd plaintiff have not exercised the acts of ownership. It cannot be said that Y.Narasimhacharya and Satyadhiracharya, Krishna

Murthy Acharya and the plaintiffs exercised the acts of ownership. The points relevant for answering issue No.1 are answered and have to be considered for deciding the issue

No.1.Plaintiffs are, therefore, not entitled for declaration of title and vacant site as prayed for. Issue No.1 is answered.

ISSUE Nos. 2 and 3:

2) Whether V.Narasimhacharyulu acted as Archaka

and acted as Agent and Manager of the 3 rd defendant

prior to Satyadhiracharyulu?

3) Whether prior to 1920 as far above as 1902 a

portion of the vacant site was leased out to one

V.Venkata Swamy and his wife Venkamma was the

registered document No.1348/1902?

99. When issue No.1 is negatived for plaintiffs, plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction and they are not entitled for any relief. Issues 2 and 3 are answered.

100. In the result, issues 1 to 3 are negatived for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. Suit is liable to be dismissed. Suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I. transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of MARCH,2018.

JUDGE, PRL.FAMILY COURT-CUM

IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiffs:

PW1: Yatagiri Raghavendra Rao PW2: Narahari Sudarsana Rao Defendant:

69

DW1: K.Vasudevacharya

Documents marked for

Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Registered General Power of Attorney. Ex.A2: Office copy of Registered notice Ex.A3: Acknowledgment dt.11.01.2008 Ex.A4: Office copy of Registered notice dt.08.01.2008 Ex.A5: Acknowledgement dt.10-01-2008. Ex.A6: Office copy of Registered notice dt.08.01.2008. Ex.A7: Acknowledgement dt.11.01.2008 Ex.A8: Certified copy of plaint in O.S.2640/05 Ex.A9: Certified copy of Written statement in O.S.2640/05. Ex.A10: Endorsement dt.23.01.2008. Ex.A11: House tax receipts dt.04.08.1999 (3 in Nos.) Ex.A12: -do- Ex.A13: -do- Ex.A14: Endorsement dt.04.01.2007 Ex.A15: Endorsement dt.28.03.2007 Ex.A16: colour Xerox application Ex.A17: Attested copy of proceedings of the Commissioner vide R.F.54/65 BA No.80 of 1965 dt.07.10.1965. Ex.A18: Attested copy of plan showing the proposed construction attested by a City Planner. Ex.A19: Site plan attested by City Planner. Ex.A20: Extract by the Town Survey Register issued by the City Planner

Respondent:

Ex.B1 & B2 :Receipt books Ex.B3: Registered sale deed executd in favour of Lessees Vanka Venkamma and another dt.17.05.1902. Ex.B4: Registered Lease Deed 1810/1901executed in favour of lessees Vanka Venkamma and anthers dt.05.11.1904. Ex.B5: Post card written by Y.Satyadhirayachar to GPA holder of matham. Ex.B6: Letter written by Y.Satyadhirayachar to GPA Holder of matham. Ex.B7: -do- in the capacity of as Archaka of Anjaneyaswamy temple of Uttaradi matham. Ex.B8: Lease agreement in favour of Uttaradi matham dt.01.06.1948. Ex.B9: Rent chit executed by 3rd defendant matham in favour of Sanka Venkaiah and others dt.01.06.1948. Ex.B10: Letter issued by Y.Satyadhirayacharya to M.Venkata Ramanacharyuly dt.03.05.1959. Ex.B11: Postal card addressed to M.Srinivasacharyulu from Yatagiri Satyadhirayacharya, Uttaradi matham dt.10.06.1959. Ex.B12: Statement of movables and valuables available in Anjaneyaswamy mandir, Uttaradi matham 70 dt.27.08.1961 Ex.B13: Approved plan issued by V.M.C. in favour of Uttaradi matham dt.28.01.1966.

Ex.B14: Regd legal notice from K.Venakteswaralu ,Advocate to Seetharama Sastry, Advocate dt.02.11.1964. Ex.B15: Regd.legal notice from P.Seetharamasastry, Advocate to K.Venakteswarlu dt.10.12.1964. Ex.B16: Postal card addressed to M.Srinivasacharyulu from Y.Satyadhirayacharya dt.10.3.1965. Ex.B17: Postal letter addressed to M.Srinivasacharyulu from Y.Satyadhirayacharya dt.15.10.1965. Ex.B18: Receipt issued by Y.Satyadhirayacharya to GPA Agent of matham dt.11.04.1966. Ex.B19: Receipt issued by VMC evidencing the encroachment fee collected for stairs and pial dt.01.07.1966. Ex.B20: -do- Ex.B21: Post card sent by Satyadhiracharylu to the GPA Holder of matham dt.23.12.1967. Ex.B22: Rent agreement scribed by Y.Satyadhirayacharya in respect of one of the portions of matham building 01.01.1968. Ex.B23: Post card written by y.Satyadhirayacharya toGPA holder of matham M.Srinivasacharyulu dt.20.06.1968. Ex.B24: Postal card addressed to M.Srinivasacharylu from Y.Satyadhiracharya dt.14.09.1968. Ex.B25: Postal card addressed to M.Srinivasacharyulu from Y.Satyadhirayacharya, uttaradi matham, dt.19.12.1968. Ex.B26: Receipt issued by Y.Satyadhirayacharya to GPA Holder dt.29.6.1969. Ex.B27: Postal card dt.18.09.1969. Ex.B28: Copies of I.A.139/69 in HRC 37/1969 dt.10.03.1969. Ex.B29: Legal notice dt. 24.09.1970 Ex.B30: Judgment in O.S.223/1971 dt.16.11.1971. Ex.B31: Postal card dt.03.11.1972 Ex.B32: Accounts prepared by Satyadhiracharyulu consisting of 50 number of sheets. Ex.B33: -do- 8 number of sheets Ex.B34: Post card written by Y.Krishna murthy, dt.25.12.1973. Ex.B35: Demand notice issued by Town planning Department dt.13.05.1975. Ex.B36: Receipt issued by Y.Krishna Murthy dt.12.06.1975. Ex.B37: Receipt in handwriting of Y.Krishna Murthy dt.28.02.1976. Ex.B38: Tax receipt issued by VMC dt.31.08.1976. Ex.B39: Demand notice by VMC dt.04.04.1977 Ex.B40: Tax receipt paid in the name of Anjaneyaswamy temple dt.10.01.1977. Ex.B41: Electricity payment charges receipt Ex.B42: Receipt issued by Srinivasa & Co., Ex.B43: Letter handwriting of Y.Krishna Murhty dt.30.05.1980.

Ex.B44: Letter in handwriting of Y.krishna Murhty dt.31.05.1980.

71

ExB45: Receipt scribed by Y.Krishna Murthy dt.08.06.1980. Ex.B46: Letter written by Krishna Murthy towards rent dt.09.04.1981. Ex.B47 : Letter written by Y.Krishna Murhty to M.Venkata Ramanacharyulu informing the position of the tenants outstanding rents dt.16.09.1982. Ex.B48: -do- dt.07.02.1983.

Ex.B49: Postal cover containing handwriting and signature of Y.Krishna Murthy,dt.10.11.1983.

Ex.B50: Receipt of handwriting of Y.Krishna Murthy payment of Rs.4,000/ dt.17.09.1985. Ex.B51: Postal cover in the handwriting of Y.Krishna Murthy dt.17.09.1985. Ex.B52: Letter from Y.Krishna Murthy Acharya to M.Venkata Ramanacharyulu dt.20.01.1987. Ex.B53: Letter from Y.Krishna Murthy Acharya to M.Venkata Ramanacharyulu dt.27.03.1987. Ex.B54: Letter written by 2nd plaintiff and 3rd plaintiff dt.25.07.2005. Ex.B55: Letter written by 2nd plaintiff and 3rd plaintiff dt.25.07.2005. Ex.B56: Copy of gift deed dt.08.08.1900 Ex.B57: Confirmation letter written by Y.Satyadhiracharya dt.02.06.1946. Ex.B58: Copy of deposition of Y.Satyadhiracharya in

O.S.223/1971 on the file of Prl.Dist.MUnsiff,

dt.20.09.1971. Ex.B59: -do- 07.10.1971. Ex.B60: Confirmation letter written by Y.Krishna Murthy Acharya to the then GPA holder dt.08.05.1987. Ex.B61: Gift deed dt.14.01.1882. Ex.B62: Copy of GPA Ex.B63: Deposition of Pw1 in O.S.35/14 on the file of VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

JUDGE, Prl.Family Court-cum-

IV A.D.J, Vijayawada 72

IN THE PRL.FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri A.Parthasarathy,

Judge, Prl.Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday this the 15th day of MARCH, 2018

O.S.NO.165/2008

Between:- 1.Yatagiri Seshu Kumari, W/o.late Krishna Murthy Acharya, Hindu, aged about 53 years, Housewife, resident of D.No.11-62-4, building styled as Uttaradhi matham, canal road, Vijayawada-520 001.

2.Yatagiri Venkata Hanumantha Rao, S/o.late Krishna Murthy Acharya, Hindu, aged about 36 years, Advocate, resident of D.No.11-62-4, Building styled as Uttaradi Matham, Canal road, Vijayawada- 520 001.

3.Yatagiri Raghavendra Rao, S/o.late Krishna Murthy Acharya, Hindu, aged about 32 years, business, resident of d.No.11-62-4, Building styled as Uttaradhi Matham, Canal road, Vijayawada- 520 001.

73

4. Yatagiri Narasimhachary, S/o.late Krishna Murthy Acharya, Hindu, aged about 26 years, Archaka Profession, resident of D.No.11-62-4, building styled as Uttaradhi Matham, Canal road, Vijayawada- 520 001.

5. Yatagiri Rama Devi, W/o.Satyadhisa Sarma, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Housewife, resident of D.No.11-62-4, Building styled as Uttaradhi Matham, Canal road, Vijayawada- 520 001.

6. Vummethala Naga Purnima, W/o.Narasimha Rao, Hindu, aged about 28 years, widow, resident of D.No.11-62-4, Building styled as Uttaradhi matham, Canal road, Vijayawada -520 001.

7. Yatagiri Venkata Naga Lakshmi, D/o.(L) Satyadhisa Sarma, Hindu, aged about 13 years, under the care and custody of her mother Smt.Yatagiri Rama Devi, 6thplaintiff herein, resident of D.No.11-62-4, building styled as Uttaradhi Matham, Canal road, Vijayawada -520 001.

8. Yatagiri Venkata Padmavathi, D/o.(L) Satyadhisa Sarma, Hindu, aged about 10 years, under the care and custody of her mother Smt.Yatagiri Rama Devi, 6th plaintiff herein, resident of D.No.11-62-4, building styled as Uttaradhi matham, Canal road, Vijayawada- 520 001.

(Plaintiffs 1,2, 4 and 6 rep. by their registered power of attorney holder, the 3rd plaintiff herein). Plaintiffs 7 & 8 being minors rep.by their mother,

natural guardian and next friend 5th plaintiff Y.Rama... Plaintiffs

Devi)

And

1. Kanugovi Vasudeva chary, s/o.Bhimachary, Hindu, aged 39 years, resident of D.No.11-62-4, Utharadhi Matham, Canal Road, Vijayawada- 520 001.

2.V.Vittal Prasad, s/o.Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, aged about 53 years, Advocate, resident of D.No.2- 195, Vikas Public School Road, Pedapalakalur, Guntur- 522 005.

3.Uttaradhi Matham, Bangalore, rep.by Sri Satya Atma Theertha Swamiji, s/o.Rangachary, aged about 33 years, Hindu, Pooja Mandir, Sri Jaya Thirtha Vidya Peetam, Uttaradi Matham compound, Sankarapuram, 5th road, Basavannagudi, Near National College, Bangalore- 560 015.

74 4.Dammala Ramachandra Rao, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu, aged about 56 years, M/s.Bhagavati Home Needs # 11-63-2/A, Brahmin street, Opp: Canara Bank, Vijayawada- 520 001.

5.Maddala Bala Ram, S/o.Narasimha Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Punnami Tea stall & Cool Drinks, # 11-63-2/A, Brahmin street, Opp: Canara Bank, Vijayawada- 520 001.

6. Kalangi Venkaiah, s/o.Jamalaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Tea Stall # 11-63-2/A, Brahmin… street, Opp Canara Bank, Vijayawada- 520 001.Respondents

The plaintiffs 1 to 8 have filed this suit praying to declare the title of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule property and that they are having title, ownership, interest and enjoyment and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for granting permanent injunction to restrain the defendants 1 to 3, their men etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the three shop rooms in the ground floor and one room in the Cellar shown in Green colour in the plan.

Plaint presented on 26-08-2008.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction U/s.50(1) of A.P.C.F.& S.V.Act is Rs.2,39,26,000/-on which a Total court fee of Rs.2,42,412/- (which is made up of Rs.2,41,626/- + Rs.786/-) is paid herewith U/s.19 of A.P.C.F.&S.V.Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose in the year 1920 when forefathers of the plaintiffs occupied the plaint schedule property and since then they had been in actual, physical and uninterrupted peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and on 10.03.1965 when late Sri Yatagiri Satyathirayachari, the paternal Grandfather of plaintiffs obtained building approved plan for construction of building in the plaint schedule property and from then onwards the said Satyadhirachari and subsequently the son Y.Krishna Murthy Acharya and subsequently the plaintiffs have been in physical possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by maintaining their family idol Sri Dasanjaneyaswamy, performing poojas and also maintaining Anjaneya choultry and Madhwa matham in the plaint schedule property and paying municipal taxes and on 12.05.2003 when Sri Yatagiri Krishna Murthy , s/o.Satyadhirayachari died leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his legal heirs to the plaint schedule property entitled to enjoy the property as owners thereof and due to illegal possession by defendants 1 to3 the plaintiff are not able to enjoy the major part of plaint schedule property excepting three shop rooms in the ground floor and one room in the cellar and when the defendants 4 to 6 are bound to pay rents but they are not paying rents to plaintiffs inspite of regd. notice given by plaintiffs and when the 75 plaintiffs filed O.S.2640 of 2005 on the file of II Addl.Junior Civil

Judge, Vijayawada for permanent injunction against the 1st

defendant and on 24.08.2008 at 5-00 pm when the defendants 1 and 2 representing 3rd defendant tried to interfere with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the green marked portion of the plaint plan and thereafter at Vijayawada where the plaint schedule property is situated and within the jurisdiction of this court.

Particulars of suit claim:

a) for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property with rights of title and enjoyment and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants after demolishing the structures in the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs value the relief under section 24(a) of APCF& S.V.Act at 3/4th of the market value which comes to

Rs.2,39,16,000/-

Market value of the plaint schedule property is Rs.3,18,88,000/- (As per market value assistance Extract) 3/4 th of the market value of the

Plaint schedule property is Rs.2,39,16,000/-

On which a the plaintiffs paid Court fee of Rs.2,43,812/- herewith U/s.19 of APCF & S.V.Act.

b)for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants 1 to 3, their men, agents, servants, henchmen etc., from ever interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of three shop rooms in the ground floor and one room in the cellar possession in any manner whatsoever pending disposal of the suit, the plaintiffs value the relief under Section 26© of APCF & S.V.Act at Rs.10,000/-

Total court fee paid Rs.2,41,626/-+Rs.786/- is Rs.2,42,412/-.

This Suit coming on 09-01-2018, 18-01-2018, 31.01-2018 for hearing in the presence of Sri.T.V.Nava Kumar, and Kum/ Smt.Ch.Rama Devi Advocate on behalf of the plaintiffs and Sri.Sistla Rama Krishna, Sri.S.Srinivas, Sri.V.Lakshminarayana, Sri.R.Satyanarayana Advocates on behalf of defendants 1 to 6 and upon hearing and considering the material on record, the suit having stoodover till this day for consideration, this Court doth Order and Decree:

1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed and 76

2) that plaintiffs do pay a sum of Rs. nil (no bill of costs filed) to the defendants towards costs and do bear their own costs of Rs.4,43,254-00.

(COPY OF PLAINT SCHEDULE AND PLAN ATTACHED TO DECREE).

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COURT ON THIS

THE 15th DAY OF MARCH, 2018.

JUDGE, PRL.FAMILY COURT

VIJAYAWADA

Memo of costs for

Plaintiffs: 1.Stamp on vakalat:Rs. 2-00 2.Stamp on plaint:Rs.2,42,412-00 3.Stamp on petition:Rs. 10-00 4.Stamp on process:Rs. 630-00 5.Advocate fee:senior:Rs.1,50,000-00 6.-do- junior:Rs. 50,000-00 7.Writing charges:Rs. 100-00 8.Typing charges:Rs. 100-00 ------------------ Total=Rs.4,43,254-00 ------------------

Defendants: No bill of costs filed.

Judge/PFC/Vijayawada.

77

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE’S COURT

AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri A.Parthasarathy

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Monday this the 18th day of SEPTEMBER, 2017

O.P.No.666/2009, O.P. 226/2010, OP 357/2012 & M.C.127/2009

O.P.NO.666/2009. Between:-

Sri Praveen Pathuri, S/o.late P.Poornachandra

Sekhar rao, aged about 32 years, r/o.Prakash .. Petitioner

Nilayam, 8-3-669/10/6, Plot No.793, 2nd floor, M.P.C.H. society, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad.

And

Smt.P.Sravanthi,W/o.SriP.Praveen, D/o.Sri.N.Lakshmana Rao, aged 29 years, Occ: Housewife, r/o.D.NO.32-2-9C, 4F,flat …Respondent. No.501, Lokesh towers, behind Madhu Kalyana Mandapam, Madhu gardens, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada-520 010.

O.P.NO.226/2010

Praveen Pathuri, S/o.late P.Purna Chandra Sekhara Rao, aged 32 years, Occ: Private service, r/o.H.No.8-3-669/10/6, Plot NO.793, 2nd floor, MPCH society, J.P.Nagar, Yellareddiguda, Hyderabad. ……Petitioner And.

Smt. P.Sravanthi, W/o.SriP.Praveen, d/o.Sri.N.Lakshmana Rao,aged 29 years, Occ: Housewife, r/o.D.NO.32-2-9C, 4F,flat No.501, Lokesh towers, behind Madhu Kalyana Mandapam, Madhu gardens, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada-520 010.

…..Respondent

OP.NO.357/2012

Pathuri Sravanthi @ Nutakki Sravanthi, W/o.Pathuri Praveen, D/o.Nutakki Lakshmanarao, Hindu, aged about 31 years, Housewife, r/o.Flat No.501, Lokesh towers, Behind Madhu Kalyana mandapam, Moghalrajaupram, Vijayawada.

…….Petitioner

And

Pathuri Praveen, S/o. late Pathuri Poorna Chandra Sekhara Rao, Hindu, aged about 32 years, business, & Properties, Flat No.793, D.No.8-3- 899/10/6, Second floor, MP.C.H.Society, J.P.Nagar, Yellareddy guda, Hyderabad. ….Respondent

M.C.127/2009

1.Pathuri Sravanthi @ Nutaki Sravanthi, W/o.Pathuri Praveen, D/o.Nutakki Lakshmanarao, Indian, Hindu, aged about 29 years, Housewife, r/o. Flat No.501, Lokesh towers, Behind Madhu kalyana Mandapam, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

2. Pathuri Ishita, D/o.Pathuri Praveen, Indian, Hindu, aged about 3 years, being minor rep.by her next friend /natural guardian/mother Pathuri 2 Sravanthi @ Nutakki Sravanthi, W./o.Pathuri Praveen, D/o.Nutakki Lakshmanarao Indian, Hindu, aged about 29 years, Housewife, r/o.Flat No.501, Lokesh towers, Behind Madhu Kalyana Mandapam, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada. ….Petitioners

And

Pathuri Praveen, S/o.Late Pathuri Poorna Chandra Sekhara Rao, Indian, Hindu, aged about 32 years, business & Properties, flat No.793, D.No.8-3- 699/10/6, Second floor, M.P.C.H. society, J.P.Nagar, Yellareddy guda, Hyderabad.

….Respondent

These petitions coming on 7-7-2017, 2-8-2017, 22-8-2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.K.Jaya Ram, Counsel legally assistingforpetitioner(husband),Sri.S.RajendraPrasad, Sri.Ch.Vaddikasulu, Counsel legally assisting for respondent(wife) and upon hearing and perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

COMMON ORDER

1. Husband filed O.P.666/09 seeking divorce U/s.13(1)(ia) of

H.M.Act. He also filed GWOP 226/10 U/s.10 & 25 of Guardian

Wards Act. Wife filed M.C.127/09 along with her daughter Baby

Ishita praying for maintenance U/s.125 Cr.P.C. Wife also filed

O.P.357/12 praying for directing the husband to pay

Rs.2,53,74,323/­ which is worth of gold ornaments, diamond jewellery, cost of laptop, cash said to have been paid Rs.25 lakhs,

Rs.50 lakhs etc. on various dates the expenses of marriage etc. 

2. On the memo filed on dt.28­01­2013 the enquiry in these

O.Ps. is clubbed together and common evidence is recorded in

O.P.666/09. For avoiding confusion and for easy reference as evidence is recorded in O.P.666/09 the husband will be referred as petitioner/husband or petitioner or by his name , the wife will be referred as respondent/wife or respondent or by her name except when his or her status as petitioner or respondent has to be specifically mentioned when considering about the relief. 

3

3) The petitioner/husband filed O.P. 666/09. It was initially filed as O.P. 673/09 on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad averring that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 14.12.2005 at Siddhartha College,

Vijayawada as per Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner never took any dowry as the respondent is fair and good looking. The parents of the respondent orally informed that the wet land measuring Ac.4.50 cents is standing in the name of the respondent in Mandadam village, Guntur District and yield worth Rs.1 lakh p.a. is coming from the land. The marriage is consummated and daughter Ishita was born on 27.11.05. On 27.11.05 the petitioner and his mother gifted a diamond emerald set worth Rs.2 lakhs and two kanchipattu sarees worth

Rs.20,000/­ to the respondent, expensive clothes were also presented to all the family members of the respondent. At the time of marriage the mother of the petitioner gifted gold chain with tally and blackbeeds chain, diamond gold ring and expensive kanchipattu sarees and other sarees.

4. Spouses went to Chennai, Puducheri and Bangalore from 30.12.2005 to 4.1.2006 for celebrating the new year. The respondent did shopping and purchased sarees for herself and her mother worth Rs.45,000/­ .The spouses went to Cochin for

honeymoon from 5.1.06 to 12.1.06.They also went to

Visakhaptanam in May, 2006.They went to New Delhi and

Jaipur in July, 2006 for site seeing. 

4

5. It is averred that after marriage the respondent used to frequently visit her parents house and used to stay there for 10 days. Every time the petitioner used to drop her and again pick up the petitioner. It became routine. The petitioner and the respondent waited with patience and hoped that the respondent would change during the course of time. The respondent did not discharge her duties as wife and daughter –in­law. She used to pick up quarrels on petty issues. She used to inform that she had no interest in marriage and marital life. She has negative attitude and suicide tendency and made many attempts to commit suicide. She used to get up by 10­30 AM. The petitioner who is working in a private company had to wait till she gets up.

The mother of the respondent has to attend for cooking. She used to insist that the respondent shall return by 4.30 pm. He has to take her to Star Hotels for dinner. Otherwise, she used to pick up quarrels. Every month he has to spend Rs.20,000/­ to

Rs.30,000/­per month for her shopping. She used to purchase dresses worth Rs.4,000/­ to Rs.5,000/­ and sarees worth minimum of Rs.10,000/­. She used to talk with her mother over cell phone. She bluntly follows what her mother says. The younger brother of the petitioner died in a road accident on 26.10.2004 at the age of 25 years. The petitioner used to garland his portrait everyday. The respondent quarreled with the petitioner till that portrait is removed. 

6. It is averred that the mother of the petitioner presented a diamond set worth Rs.80,000/­ after marriage. She also presented silver pooja articles worth Rs.20,000/­ at the time of 5

Varalakshmi Vratam. A day prior to Vinayakachaviti 2006, the mother of the petitioner suffered with chiken guniea and was admitted in the hospital. The petitioner was going to the hospital for seeing his mother. Then the respondent tried to cut her wrist with knife and quarreled with the petitioner with a bad intention and asked him not to go to the hospital and forced him to stay with the respondent.

7. At the time of any function at home or when they have to attend for any function outside, the respondent used to express her disinterest to talk with any one. In the absence of mother of the petitioner, the respondent does not even prepares coffee or food to her husband. The entire gold and diamond jewellery and silver articles presented by petitioner’s mother on various occasions are kept in the house of the parents of the respondent.

8. During the 5th month of her pregnancy she went to her parents house. The petitioner used to go there at weekends and spend Rs.20,000/­ per month for her medical and other needs.

They were blessed with daughter Ishita on 26.12.2007. The petitioner and his mother went to Vijayawada for seeing the respondent and baby. At the time of cradle ceremony, the petitioner and his mother presented dresses to the baby and the respondent and a gold chain, bangles, anklet etc., chains worth

Rs.1 lakh to the child. The respondent picked up quarrels that gold ornaments and dresses are not upto the status and are not sufficient. The respondent returned to her matrimonial house with the child Ishita during the 5th month. Till then the petitioner used to visit the house of parents of the respondent. The 6 petitioner arranged all the needs of the respondent and his daughter from feeding bottles diapers etc., . He purchased toys, bottle heater etc. and cradle worth Rs.10,000/­ to his daughter at the instance of the respondent. He purchased a video camera wroth Rs.35,000/­ .He purchased two cell phones worthRs.20,000/­. The respondent used to take Rs.5,000/­ to

Rs.10,000/­ for pocket money. The respondent who came with child stayed only for three days and went to her parents house again. She told she does not want to show the daughter to her mother­in­law. 

9. The respondent has taken insurance policy under Child plan for Rs.12 lakhs from Birla SunLife Insurance. He has been paying Rs.53,200/­ per year towards yearly premium. He purchased ICICI Life Insurance Policy for amount of Rs.28 lakhs for his daughter and is paying yearly premium of Rs.1lakh. In

October, 207 he also took a medical insurance policy covered the petitioner, respondent and his daughter for Rs.3 lakhs from

Reliance General Insurance Company and is paying Rs.8,580/­ towards yearly premium. He took medical insurance policies as per TATA AIG insurance company and for the respondent i.e.

critical care policy covering risk of Rs.15 lakhs and paid premium worth Rs.6,465/­ per year. He also has taken hospital cash benefit plan which is a medico in policy for Rs.5,40,000/­ and paid premium ofRs.4,163/­ per year. The mother of the petitioner also took a policy for her granddaughter Ishita for

Rs.2,30,000/­ from Royal Sundarm Insurance Policy and is paying Rs.1,78,000/­ per year. 

7

10. The respondent did not agree for performing

Annaprasanna function at Hyderabad and perform the same at

Vijayawada during the 6th month of the child. She informed the petitioner not to bring any of his relatives. The mother of the petitioner gifted gold chain wrothRs.30,000/­ to the child. Even after the birth of the child, the respondent used to get up at 10­ 30 AM. She used to pickup quarrels with the petitioner requiring him to attend needs of the child without going to the office. 

11. The respondent stayed only for five months after birth of the child. On the Eve of wedding of petitioner’s brother, to be performed on 18.4.2008 she went to her parents house in March, 2008. The petitioner and his mother attended for marriage and gifted cash of Rs.75,000/­ to his brother­in­law. After the marriage along with newly wedded couple, the petitioner, respondent, parents of the respondent and family of the sister of the respondent went to Tirumala. The mother of the petitioner also went there for tonsuring ceremony of the child. In Tirupathi also the respondent and her mother quarreled with the petitioner in the presence of relatives. 

12. The respondent also refused to celebrate first birthday of the child at Hyderabad and celebrated it at Vijayawada. The petitioner and his mother presented cash of Rs.2 lakhs on 26.4.2008. When asked to come with him, the respondent stated that she would return after her brother goes to U.S. After two days the respondent telephoned and told the petitioner that he has to leave his mother and put up separate family and all the properties and money with his mother shall be transferred to her 8 and asked the petitioner to come to her parents house to settle there. As the petitioner refused to consider her demand, the respondent her brother and parents started abusing the petitioner and his mother in filthy language and over phone and falsely claiming to return the money. The petitioner never received any money either from the respondent or her parents at any time. The respondent and his mother also abused the petitioner in the presence of relatives and neighbouring apartment owners. The petitioner his mother senior paternal uncle of the petitioner went to the father of the respondent. They requested that the respondent be sent along with child Ishita.

The father of the respondent informed that he would talk with the respondent and his wife and would convey but he never telephoned. 

13. The petitioner himself booked a train tickets dt.28.5.2008 for getting back the respondent with the child and informed to the respondent that he was coming for taking them. The respondent and used the petitioner over phone. The petitioner came to know that the respondent and her parents telephoned to petitioner’s relatives and informed that the petitioner ill­treated the respondent by not providing food and harassed her and his mother also abused the relatives of the respondent. The respondent and her mother abused the petitioner and his mother by calling through his cell phone. The petitioner dropped the respondent in their house. The respondent then started abusing by giving sms message to the petitioner’s cell phone. In

November, 2008 the respondent sent sms that the respondent 9 and her mother would come to their house and damaged their reputation in the presence of colony people. On 29.11.2008 the respondent and her mother came to petitioner’s house at 10­00 pm without Ishita and started abusing in filthy language. The petitioner informed them to come on the next day with the daughter and mediators. The respondent and her mother did not hear their words and abused the petitioner and his mother in foul and filthy language and on 30.11.2008 at noon 12­00 p.m.

the neighbours and colony people who witnessed the same also requested the respondent and her mother at 11­30pm on 29.11.2008 to come inside and take rest, the problems can be sorted out on the next day morning. But they did not listen. All the costly sarees, gold and diamond jewellery and gifts given to the child Ishita are in the parents’ house of the respondent. The respondent when asked stated that she would bring the jewellery after her brother’s marriage. She never came after her brother’s marriage. He also sought custody of the child in the same petition. 

14. The respondent and her mother abused the petitioner and his mother by calling names and by demanding that they have to return the money allegedly taken. The petitioner never received any money from the respondent or her mother. They did not listen the advise of the neighbours. 

15. The petitioner left his job due to this disturbance. The petitioner has got lot of love and affection towards his child. The child shall not be kept exposed to the condition of the petitioner and her mother. The respondent left the company of the 10 petitioner without any reasonable cause and excuse in March, 2008 and deserted the petitioner. Hence the petition.

16. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondent the marriage of the petitioner and the birth of the daughter Ishita is admitted. The other allegations to a large extent are denied. It is averred to consider the averments in M.C.127/09 as part of averments of her counter. Hence while considering the counter of the respondent, the averments of the petitioners in M.C.127/09 can also be considered.

17. It is averred that in the 1st week of November, 2005 the proposal from petitioner’s family came through one Maddineni

Subba rao.It was represented that the petitioner was attracted by attractive and impressive personality of the respondent. The petitioner is the only surviving son of his mother who inherited the properties wroth crores of rupees. He gets maximum returns of Rs.1 lakh from the properties apart from his salary of

Rs.25,000/­ p.m. He is working in Jaya Projects owned by the husband of the senior maternal aunt of the petitioner. The parents of the respondent went to the house of the petitioner.

The mother of the petitioner also repeated high claims and visited about affluent family owning crores of rupees and that the respondent can live very happy life which is unimaginable for her.

18. It is averred that the petitioner demanded Rs.25 lakhs towards dowry apart from gold , bracelet, diamond ring and costly suit worth not less than Rs.75,000/­ .They also demanded 11

Rs.3 lakhs towards clothes for presentation to their relatives who come for engagement function. The father of the respondent initially expressed his reluctance to pay so much. He was persuaded by the petitioner and his relatives by referring to the financial status of the petitioner. The father of the respondent considered that it would be better the future of his daughter and thereby agreed for demands. It is averred that engagement function was held on 27.11.2005 at Swarna Vedika at

Vijayawada. On that day a gold braclet, diamond ring and suit wroth Rs.75,000/­ and Rs.3 lakhs towards presentation of clothes to the petitioner, his relatives were given. The father of the respondent incurred expenditure of Rs.3 lakhs for the engagement function. 

19. After 10 days lagnapatrika was exchanged at the house of the petitioner at Hyderabad and cash of Rs.25 lakhs towards dowry was handed over to the petitioner in the presence of the mother of the petitioner and elders M.Subba rao and K.Sai

Yedunandana. The mother of the petitioner raised and stated that jewellery adorned to the respondent are not befitting and demanded that there should be 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments besides Adapadachu lanchanams of Rs.1 lakh to the cousin of the petitioner one K.Sarada and another Rs.4 lakhs cash towards for presenting to adapadachu and that the marriage should be performed in a grand manner. When the father of the respondent expressed his reluctance, it was stated to him that it was the respondent who was going to enjoy valuables and cash given to her husband. He then agreed for additional amounts.

12

20. The marriage was performed on 14.12.2005. The expenditure of Rs.15 lakhs was incurred for the marriage arrangements and towards food ,stay of guests. Rs.4 lakhs was given towards clothes to the petitioner and their relatives. An amount of Rs.1 lakhs was given to one K.Sarada cousin of the petitioner. The respondent was given 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments. 

21. Immediately after the marriage the attitude of the petitioner changed. They found fault with the respondent and her parents over trivial issues. The petitioner and his mother insulted the respondent and her parents in the presence of relatives and friends. The respondent joined the petitioner. She was ill­treated and harassed with illegal demands in several ways. The petitioner demanded Sony music system worth

Rs.25,000/­, cell phone worth Rs.30,000/­ and took cash of

Rs.55,000/­ for these items. He however, used his credit card for the purchase of Sony system and cell phone by saying that it would be useful for him to get tax deductions.

22. The mother of the petitioner never liked to see the respondent in happy mood. She did not like her to move closely with the petitioner. When the petitioner questions her she used to beat and say that recently his younger brother died in a road accident and the petitioner is not caring for her feelings. The petitioner used to get disturbed and used to withdraw himself from the company of the respondent.

13

23. The respondent averred that whenever the petitioner was in the house, the mother of the petitioner used to purposefully keep; the petitioner in her company and used to require the respondent to remain in the bedroom. The petitioner should either remain with his mother or has to go to the house of senior maternal aunt Koneru Vijaya Kumari who is next door neighbour. This used to happen on holidays and delivered over midnight. It is averred that when the petitioner and the respondent goes out for film or restaurant, the mother of the petitioner used to ring up to the petitioner and tell that her deceased second son is appearing in her dreams and she was unable to tolerate and require couple to come back by saying that anything may happen to her. It is averred that the petitioner never allowed the respondent even to prepare tea for herself and used to say taking food in the house is expensive and demand her to go to neighbouring house of his maternal aunt K.Vijaya

Kumari. The respondent used to feel ashamed. The mother of the petitioner used to say that the respondent should starve and should not enter into the kitchen. The petitioner’s mother used to say that her sisters, daughter­in­law K.Bhavani brought three crores of dowry besides skoda car and Rs.3 lakhs towards

Adapadachu lanchanams and that the dowry brought by the respondent is nothing. She used to say that the respondent should have brought at least Rs.1 crore as dowry and diamond necklace. When the respondent says that her parents have given everything. The petitioner’s mother used to embarrass and abuse the respondent. The respondent could not satisfy the demands of the petitioner. The petitioner used to abuse the respondent and 14 her parents in filthy language and used to beat the respondent.

They used to say that the respondent has to bring at least Rs.25 lakhs more from her parents. The father of the respondent took

Rs.25 lakhs to Hyderabad and gave to the petitioner and requested them not to ill­treat the respondent. The petitioner and his mother took an amount of Rs.25 lakhs and spent for completing construction of shopping complex at Kukatpalli. Then the respondent came to know that the petitioner has good earnings from rentals as claimed by the petitioner at the time of fixation of alliance. 

24. In June, 2006, the petitioner and his mother demanded the respondent to inform her parents that they should bring Rs.3 lakhs for purchasing latest furniture and household articles by saying that the respondent did not bring the suitable furniture and household articles. The father of the respondent gave Rs.3 lakhs and colour TV, and entire household articles worth Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner. 

25. The petitioner and his mother used to go to the house of

Koneru Vijaya Kumari for their requirements including food. It was irksome and all her efforts to change this attitude of both petitioner and his mother proved futile and she suffered the wrath of the petitioner in the result. The petitioner devised a plan in such a way that the petitioner and the respondent would accompany the family of the said K.Vijaya kumari in their family tours, so that petitioner need not spend any amount and also in total disregard to any inconvenience of the respondent.

15

26.The respondent became pregnant during eighth month of her marriage, both petitioner and his mother ignoring her physical condition used to force her do the entire household work and did not even allow her to take food prescribed by doctors.

The petitioner and his mother used to exhibit pride and egoism as they recently constructed shopping complex at Kukatpalli and they started getting huge monthly rents. They used to treat the respondent as if she is inferior in status and petitioner got more than Rs.1 crore as dowry. The ill­treatment and cruel acts of his mother increased. The respondent narrated the following instances:

i)In November, 2006 when the father of the respondent was selling the property and the respondent has to go for executing the necessary documents as required by the purchasers as a measure of precaution a condition was set that the respondent has to bring Rs.25 lakhs out of sale consideration knowing fully that the respondent has no right in the said property. The respondent’s father was forced to give Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioner in the first week of March, 2007.

ii) When the brother of the respondent was returning from U.S. the petitioner and his mother demanded that he has to bring costly gift to the petitioner. The petitioner’s brother N.Kishore brought Laptop worth Rs.65,000/­ and gave it to the petitioner through the respondent.

iii) They demanded Rs.1 lakh for celebrating 1st Wedding Anniversry on 4.12.2006. The parents met the demand.

iv)When the parents of the respondent went to Hyderabad for attending the function of their close relatives in February, 2007, the petitioner on the pretext of purchasing gold ornaments for Srimantham function of the respondent purchased gold ornaments worth RS.2 lakhs by using his credit card but to the utter surprise of the parents of the respondent, the mother of the petitioner on seeing the gold ornaments raised big galata and demanded parents of the respondent to pay the amount Rs.2 lakhs and threatened that unless the amount is paid she would not allow for the function to be performed. On the next day the respondent’s father paid Rs.2 lakhs. The petitioner used to make a show by purchasing gold with dubious plans to extract the cost of the same a little latter from the respondent’s parents. 

16

v)By coming to know that the father of the respondent is having some money, the petitioner demanded that the father of the respondent to give Rs.50 lakhs for depositing in the Jaya Projects owned by the husband of the senior maternal aunt K.V.Kuamri and that Jaya Projects would pay interest. Though the father of the respondent was not willing, he was made to pay Rs.50 lakhs. The petitioner did not disclose how he used the said amount. 

vi) The petitioner and his mother started to say that the value of their properties increased manifold and the respondent did not bring any fixed assets to them from her father. The petitioner used to goad the respondent and mentally torture her when he came to Vijayawada. During the advanced stage of pregnancy of the respondent, the petitioner used to threaten her that he would not see the face of the respondent and child to be born. The father of the respondent registered Ac.4.50 cents of agricultural land at Mandadam village, Guntur district on 12.04.2007.The respondent delivered the child on 26.04.2007 who is second petitioner Ishita in M.C.

vii)The respondent was never happy as she was tense and horrified and was never happy during her pregnancy and consequently there were severe complications at the time of her delivery and finally she gave birth to a female child Ishita. 

viii)They demanded that the cradle ceremony has to celebrated in a grand scale and gift worth not less than Rs.1 lakh should be given to the new born baby. The cradle function was held in D.V.Manor hotel and the father of the respondent presented gold ornaments worth Rs.1 lakh to the baby.

ix)The respondent with the baby joined the petitioner in Hyderabad in August,2007. The petitioner and his mother did not show any affection towards the child. They have not even engaged servant maid or domestic help. The respondent was unable to do the entire work and to attend new born baby. When the respondent requested to engage servant maid they abused her by saying that the respondent and the new born child are already sufficient burden to them. The petitioner used to purchase small items for the new born baby by using his credit card and used to collect amounts from the father of the respondent. 

x)They demanded the respondent to bring diamond jewellery and threatened that they would not send her for marriage of her brother scheduled on 18.04.2008 at Hyderabad. The father of the respondent gave diamond jewellery worth Rs.16 lakhs. The brother of the respondent was forced to give expensive wrist watch worth Rs.75,000/­ to the petitioner when the petitioner came for the marriage. 

xi)When it was proposed to perform the first birthday of the child, the petitioner and his mother has stated that the function has to be performed only by the parents of the respondent and they have to give gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs.The father of 17 the respondent arranged function at Manor Food Plaza and presented gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs to the child.

xii)It is averred that due to neglect and improper care, the child became sick and in August,2008 the respondent and the child were sent to Vijayawada by keeping the entire gold and diamond jewellery with them and the child and the respondent were sent with minimum clothing. With careful treatment the child was treated at Vijayawada. The petitioner and his mother did not show the courtesy of visiting their child and did not enquire about her father’s health. Though the petitioner and his mother attended for engagement of their relatives in August, 2008 and for the marriage in October, 2008, they have not come to see the child. After recovery of the child, the respondent went to Dwaraka Tirumala and got the head of the child tonsured in view of miracle recovery of the child from serious illness.

27. The respondent further averred that she and her parents requested to fix auspicious day for the respondent to return with child. The petitioner and his mother however, demanded that she should sell away agricultural land measuring Ac.4.50 cents standing in her name and shall come with the sale proceeds and then only they would allow her to rejoin the petitioner. 

28.For somehow to convince the petitioner, the respondent and her mother, her brother­in­law Ch.Ramu and along with child one Pimmasani Sailendra went to Hyderabad to the petitioner’s house on 28.11.2008 at 10­20 p.m. The petitioner knowing about their arrival did not open the door of their house though they requested. The petitioner abused them in un­ utterable and indecent words from inside the house. The respondent and her mother, her brother­in­law and child and said P.Shailendra waited all over night in cold season in front of the house of the petitioner without food and water. They waited till 12.30 pm (noon) on 29.11.2008. But the petitioner and his mother did not open the door. The respondent and others suffered in the cold and also due to mosquito bites only for the 18 reason that the respondent did not satisfy the illegal demand of bringing the sale proceeds of the land. The respondent is forced to stay along with child with her parents at Vijayawada because of the acts of cruelty and greedy nature of the petitioner and his mother. They planned to prohibit the respondent. They implicated the respondent in false case U/s.498­A IPC in

C.C.235/09 for central crime station, Hyderabad by colluding with the wife of the brother of the respondent and his in­laws. 

29. It is averred that the respondent approached Machavaram

P.S. on 17.5.2009. They promised to arrange counseling. Later they were commenced by the petitioner and such political leaders on their behalf and also the father of the wife of the brother of the respondent who is highly influential, the police did not take any action. They refused to register the case. Having lost hope the respondent filed private complaint. The same was referred and registered as crime No.404/09 and is pending in C.C635/09 on the file of II A.C.CM.M, Vijayawada. 

30. It is further averred that the petitioner does not think and act independently and impartially. He follows the ill­advice of his mother. The petitioner joined his mother in teasing, torturing and ill­treating the respondent both physically and mentally.

They also neglected the child Ishita who is the 2nd petitioner in

M.C.127/09. The petitioner failed as dutiful husband or father.

There is no security to the lives of the respondent and the child.

The respondent bore harassment with a hope that the petitioner may change his attitude. The respondent went to her parents house only for saving the life of the child Ishita. The petitioner 19 refused to take the respondent and the child into his fold. The petitioner filed O.P. 666/09 with false averments. There is no cause of action and prayed to dismiss the petition.

31. In M.C. 127 of 2009 the respondent as petitioner No.1 averred verbatim on the same lines of her counter in

O.P.666/09and averred that there is no income from the agricultural land. The parents of the 1st petitioner in M.C. spent lakhs of rupees and are not in a position to maintain the respondent and 2nd petitioner. The petitioner who is the respondent in M.C. is drawing Rs.40,000/­ p.m. besides income of Rs.1,25,000/­ from the immovable properties. The petitioners require Rs.25,000/­ each for the food, clothing, medicines, shelter and others. Hence the petition.

32. In the counter filed by the petitioner who is the respondent in M.C. the petition averments in M.C. are denied. It is denied about making proposal through M.Subba rao. They denied about inducing by referring to the properties worth crores of rupees.

They denied about demand of Rs.25 lakhs dowry, gold bracelet, diamond ring and suite worth Rs.75,000/­ and Rs.3 lakhs clothes towards clothes at the time of engagement and Rs.4 lakhs at the time of marriage for clothes. They also denied about giving cash of Rs.25 lakhs at the time of exchanging Lagnapatrika. They denied that the mother of Praveen demanded 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments land Adapadachu lanchanams of Rs. 1lakh and

Rs.4 lakhs towards clothes. He denied that Rs.1 lakh was given to Koneru Sarada. He denied that he purchased music system and cell phone worth Rs.25,000/­ and Rs.30,000/­ and paid 20 through credit card and recovered Rs.55,000/­ from the father of the Sravanthi. He also traversed all the averments in the petition in M.C. and denied that verbatim. On his part, the petitioner reiterated the averments in sub para numbers 1 to 22 of para­31 as in O.P.666/09. It is averred that his wife herself played fraud against him and treated him in a cruel manner and she is the responsible for breakdown of the marriage. She is having sufficient income and is not liable to pay any maintenance. Claim made by the 1st petitioner is excessive and arbitrary and imaginary. His wife is getting annual income of Rs.1 lakhs from the agricultural land of Ac.4.50 cents situated in Mandadam village. There are no merits in the petition and prayed to dismissed. 

33. Pathuri Praveen filed O.P.226/10 by averring that his daughter Baby Ishita shall not be exposed to the company of the respondent as her interest will be prejudiced in the custody of the respondent because in an unpleasant , unbearable and worst atmosphere on account of his wife and her parents, for welfare of family and her child and when she is living with the petitioner. It is not in the interest of the psychological and intellectual growth of the child to stay under the control and custody of Sravanti and her parents. He came to know that Sravanti and her parents are involved in several criminal cases and were arrested by police and remanded to judicial custody in a case filed by the wife of the brother of the Sravanti for the offence U/s.498­A IPC and Dowry

Prohibition Act . His wife left his company without any cogent reasons and sufficient cause. The petitioner/husband averred 21 that he took several insurance policies with her parents. She is intending to admit the child in baby Care centre. Sravanti is chronic litigant and filed several criminal cases against him and his family members. It is averred that the respondent in O.P.

sent message through well wishers of the petitioner expressing her willingness to handover the child if an amount of Rs.15 lakhs is paid. When he agreed for the said demand she enhanced the demand to Rs.25 lakhs. The respondent/wife is not providing food and education and good culture. Her only interest is to extract money from the petitioner/husband and prayed to appoint him as the guardian of the minor baby Ishita then 12 ½ years old.

34.In the counter filed on behalf of the respondent/wife in

O.P.226/09. It is averred that due to neglect and improper care by the petitioner, the child became very sick in August,2008. The petitioner vehemently sent away the respondent/wife and the child. The respondent never removed the custody of the child only for giving good treatment she has taken the child. Her husband filed this O.P. as counterblast to criminal cases and the maintenance case. Petitioner/husband did not file this petition with true love and affection towards the child or real intention of taking the child. He filed it for self serving purpose. She reiterated her averments in the petition M.C. 127/12 and the averments in counter in O.P. 666/09.

35. The respondent/wife averred that the child is being brought up in healthy pleasant and calm atmosphere without 22 any apprehension. The respondent is making sacrifices for the sake of welfare of the child. The petitioner/husband threw away the child from his fold when she was finding her love and did not have glance at the child. He visited Vijayawada during the critical condition of the child but did not visit the child. He cannot be permitted to take about the child and her welfare. There is no need to apprehend about the psychological or intellectual growth of the child. The respondent and her parents became a prey in the hands of petitioner and on one side and the daughter­in­law of the parents of the respondent on the other side. The cases filed against them is false. The petitioner sent away the respondent when the child was in critical health condition. The averments made by the respondent and her fold show that the petitioner is speaking falsehood. Several insurance policies mentioned by the petitioner no way come within the purview of the welfare of the child. The petitioner only threw away the child in August,2008 and forced the respondent to remain with her parents. The child is being brought up with utmost care and caution in consonance with human values. The respondent within her permitted means is providing best facilities for the growth of the child. The petitioner never provided to food, education, clothing etc and he can not state about good food and culture of the child. The welfare of the child is paramount consideration. The respondent is safeguard the welfare of the child. The respondent is showing personal care and attention and sharing love and affection and child is her life. The petitioner has aversion towards the child.

His family totally ignored and neglected her and did not care for her survival and prays to dismiss the petition.

23

36. The respondent in O.P.666/09 also filed O.P.357/12 praying to direct the respondent to pay amount of

Rs.2,53,74,323/­ which is worth of the petition schedule properties with interest at the rate of 24%p.a. She further averred that her parents presented gold bracelet weighing 24 gms and diamond ring weighing 8 gms and half carat of diamond costly suite worth Rs.15,000/­ and garments worth Rs.3 lakhs, 14 kilos of silver articles which are mentioned in the petition schedule and incurred expenditure of Rs.3 lakhs for the engagement. 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments were presented to the petitioner/wife by her parents. They gave Adapadachu lanchanams of Rs.1 lakh to Koneru Sarada , Rs.4 lakhs cash was presented towards clothes at the time of marriage. The father of the petitioner spent Rs.15 lakhs for the marriage. The present value of the silver articles, 14 kilos articles presented is

Rs.7,56,000/­. The present value of the gold is Rs.32,81,000/­

He presented Sony music system and cell phone worth

Rs.25,000/­ and 35,000/­ were purchased by using credit card of the respondent/husband and an amount of Rs.55,000/­is credited and got reimbursed. The father of the petitioner also gave Rs.25 lakhs on 20.3.2006. He purchased the furniture worth Rs.3 lakhs and household articles worth Rs.1 lakh .The father of the petitioner also paid Rs.25 lakhs out of sale consideration on 4.3.07.The brother of the petitioner N.Kishore brought Laptop Rs.65,000/­ and gave it to the respondent/husband. An amount of Rs.1 lakhs was spent on 1st wedding anniversary. In Februaruy,207 the respondent purchased jewellery of Rs.2 lakhs by using his credit card and 24 recovered the same from the father of the petitioner/wife. The present value of the haram weighing about 150 gms worth

Rs.4,20,000/­.

37. The respondent/husband demanded the father of the petitioner to give Rs.50 lakhs for depositing in Jayal Projects. As the petitioner was in her advance state of pregnancy her father was forced to pay Rs.50 lakhs to the respondent on 20.4.2007.

Till date the respondent did not choose to disclose what the respondent did with that amount and what in manner he invested the same.

38. By threatening not to see the face of the child to be born, the respondent made the father of the petitioner to register Ac.

4.50 cents of agricultural land at Mandadam village, Guntur

District on 12.04.2007. 

39. The belt weighing 60 gms. And gold weighing 40 gms. Were presented to the child during the cradle function as the respondent and her mother demanded with gold ornaments worth Rs.1 lakhs have to be given to the baby by threatening that she cannot attend for the marriage of her brother fixed on 18.4.2008 diamond jewellery Rs.16 lakhs were extracted from the father of the petitioner. The diamond set includes necklace , ear rings, bangles, pendent, bracelet, and the present value of the jewellery is Rs.33,54,723/­. Expensive wrist watch worth

Rs.75,000/­ was presented at the time of the marriage of petitioner’s brother.

25

40. At the time of first birthday of the child, gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs were demanded , vaddanam weighing 165 gms kasula pair weighing 608 gull chain 60 gms were presented to the child. Their present value is Rs.7,98,000/­.

41. It is averred that when the child became seriously sick in

August,2008, the respondent sent away the petitioner and the child by keeping of gold and diamond jewellery. Only minimum clothing were given to the petitioner. The child was treated at

Vijayawada. Parents of the petitioner presented gold and diamond jewellery , furniture, household articles, clothes, garments and the petitioner prayed for these ornaments or cash value, cash, silver articles, music system ,cell phone furniture TV , household articles There are listed items 1 to34 and their value is Rs.2,53,74,323/­.

42.The respondent filed his counter which is verbatim on the lines of the counter in M.C.127/09 and denied about the presentation of various ornaments, dowry, clothes, music system, cell phone etc. Reproduction of the same is not required for saving for confusion and repetition. 

43. As stated earlier the O.P. 666/09 ,M.C.127/09 ,O.P.226/10 and O.P.357/12 were clubbed and common evidence was recorded in O.P.666/09. 

44. The petitioner got himself examined as Pw1 .The petitioner examined one D.Praveen Kumar as Pw2 however, his evidence is eschewed as he has not tendered himself for cross examination 26 after seeking time for examination by the respondent. One Ravi

Koneru cousin of Pw1 is examined as Pw3 . The respondent/wife who is the petitioner No.1 in M.C. 127/09, the petitioner in

O.P.357/12 got herself examined as Rw1. The mother of the respondent N.Sobha Rani is examined as Rw2 and Pemmasani

Shailendra ,a relative of the respondent is examined as RW3 and one Pade Sai Yedunandana is examined as Rw4. Exs.A1 and A2 are marked on behalf of petitoenr.Exs.B1 to B4 are marked on behalf of the respondent.

45. Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether the petitioner in O.P. 666/09 is entitled for the relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion as prayed for ? 

The part of the point can be answered here itself without looking at the evidence as the petitioner filed this O.P. as

O.P.673/09 on the file of Family Court, at Hyderabad on 15.6.09.

Since it is averred that the respondent went to attend the marriage of brother of the respondent which was scheduled on 18.4.2008 and she went to her parents house in March, 2008.

He further averred that the petitioner made reservation for the petitioner and respondent on 28.5.2008 but the respondent refused to come with him. He averred that the respondent and her mother came on 29.11.2008 at 10­00 pm and abused the petitioner and his mother till noon on 30.11.2008.The case of the petitioner is that the respondent went away in March, 2008 and not returned since O.P. filed on 15.6.09. it cannot be said that there is desertion for 2 years period. So, the petitioner is not entitled for divorce on the ground of desertion. So, the petitioner is not entitled for divorce on the ground of desertion. The part of 27 the point No.1 is answered. The point that remains is whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty?

2) Whether the respondent who is the petitioner No.1 in

M.C.127/09 and 2nd petitioner child baby Ishita are entitled for

maintenance at the rate ofRs.25,000/­ as prayed for?

3) If not what shall be the quantum of maintenance?

4) Whether the petitioner who also filed O.P.226/10is entitled for the relief of appointing him as the guardian of the child Ishita as prayed for?

5) Whether the respondent/wife who filed O.P.357/12 is entitled for the relief of directing the respondent to pay Rs.2,53,74,323/­ which according to her was entrusted to the respondent and which includes expenses and whether she is entitled for the said amount with interest at 24%p.a. as prayed for?

6) What shall be the relief that can be granted to the petitioner/wife in O.P.357/12?

POINT No.1:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of divorce

on the ground of cruelty?

46. Certain uncontroverted aspects can be stated here

before discussing the point. The petitioner is the resident of

Hyderabad. The respondent is the resident of Vijayawada. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 14.12.2005 at Siddhartha College, Vijayawada. The petitioner studied M.B.A. and the respondent/wife did M.Sc., Computers.

The younger brother of the petitioner is stated to have died in an accident on 26.10.2004. The 2nd petitioner in M.C.127/09 Baby

Ishita was born out of wedlock. O.P.666/09was filed at

Hyderabad as O.P.673/2009 and it was presented on 15.6.2009 and it was registered on 22.6.2009. The respondent/wife filed

M.C. 127/09 on 15.7.2009 she got the O.P. transferred to this

court by approaching the Hon’ble High Court. The child was born 28 on 26.4.2007. The petitioner and the respondent have separated in 2008. According to the petitioner, the respondent went away in March, 2008.According to the respondent/wife she was sent away when the child was seriously sick in August, 2008.The child who was aged about 2 years 3 months and odd at the time of filing of O.P. for divorce and M.C. has become 10 years old.

47. The petitioner stated that he never took any dowry from the parents of the respondent as the respondent is fair and good looking and he expressed his willingness to marry the respondent in the presence of elders and mediators. The parents of the respondent informed orally in the presence of elders that Ac.4.50 cents of wet land in Mandadam village, Guntur District is in the name of the respondent and income of Rs.1 lakh will be derived from that agricultural land. At the time of engagement on 27.11.2005, his mother gifted diamonds and emarld set worth

Rs.2 lakhs and two kanchipattu sarees worth Rs.20,000/­ at the time of marriage her mother gifted diamond set, gold chain with tally blackbeeds chain and diamond ring. Immediately after marriage he and the respondent went to Chennai, Pudicherry ,Bangalore. They went to honeymoon on 5.1.206 to 12.1.2006.

Himself and respondent went tour in July, 2006 and had trip for one week to New Delhi ,Jaipur for visiting important places. 

48. His version is that the respondent used to go to her parents house frequently and used to stay for 10 days every time.

He used to drop her and pick up her. This became a habit. He also stated that the respondent never discharged her duties as a 29 housewife. She has negative attitude and suicide tendency and threatened many times that she would commit suicide. 

49. She used to get up at 10­30 pm. He has to wait till she gets up for going to his work in a private company. Admittedly, he is working in Jaya Projects. It is elicited that his office is adjacent to his house. He also stated that his mother presented diamond set worth Rs.6 lakhs., gold set worth Rs.80,000/­and silver articles worth Rs.20,000/­. He stated that when his mother is admitted in a hospital with chickun guniea disease a day

before Vinakyaka Chaviti in 2006, the respondent cut her wrist

with a knife when he was about to go to hospital and asked him not to go to hospital. He stated that he spent amount when the respondent was in the house of her parents during conception and also after delivery of the child. He further stated that he purchased cell phone worth Rs.25,000/­ and music system worth Rs.35,000/­ and video camera. He has taken insurance policy for the benefit of the child which he listed in para­10 of his chief. He also stated that the respondent celebrated both

Annaprasanna and first birthday of the child at her parents house. 

50. On behalf of the petitioner, his wedding invitation and the news item in Vijayawada city Edition in Eenadu on 30.5.2009 with regard to arrest of three persons are marked as Ex.A1 and

A2. The photo of the petitioner and the respondent in wedding costumes though filed is not got marked. 

30

51. The evidence of Pw1 in his chief is on the lines of petition averments. The evidence of RW1 is on the lines of her averments in M.C.127/09 and her averments in counter in O.P.666/09. The version of RW1 is that her father spent Rs.15 lakhs for marriage.

He was forced to give Rs.4 lakhs toward clothes and Rs.1 lakh towards Adapadachu lanchanams to Koneru Sarada. She was given gold ornaments worth 125 sovereigns and she wore them at the time of marriage. The petitioner purchased Sony music system worth Rs.25,000/­ and cell phone Rs.30,000/­ paid with his credit card and later recovered same in cash from her father.

The mother of the petitioner never liked her and she took measures to see that spouses do not remain together when they were at house. She had to remain at bedroom and petitioner has to remain with his mother or he must go to the house of his senior paternal aunt. She was harassed for additional dowry. She deposed that on the eve of marriage a dowry Rs.25 lakhs gold , bracelet ,diamond ring and costly suite worth minimum of

Rs.75,000/­ shall be given to the petitioner by his father. The petitioner also demanded Rs.3 lakhs for purchase of clothes for the relatives. Cash ofRs.25,000/­ was given at the time of exchanging lagnapatrika. The betrothal function was held at

Swarna vedika on 27.11.2005.

52 She also stated that her mother­in­law demanded after the marriage that she has to bring at least Rs.25 lakhs from her parents otherwise, they will not allow her to live in the house. For saving her marriage her father gave Rs.25 lakhs. The same was 31 used to complete the construction of shopping complex at

Kukatpally.

53. Her father gave Rs.3 lakhs for purchasing new furniture and Rs.1 lakh for purchasing colour TV and other articles Rs.25 lakhs was given to the petitioner in the 1st week of March, 2007 ,her brother Kishore brought Laptop worth Rs.65,000/­ from U.S. in December,2006 and gave it to the petitioner. Her parents gave Rs.1 lakh for the 1st wedding anniversary on 14.12.2006. The petitioner purchased jewellery worth Rs.2 lakhs in February,2007 on the eve of Srimantham function. The petitioner used credit card for purchase of jewellery and on the next day his father paid Rs.2 lakhs. Her father paid Rs.50 lakhs for depositing in Jaya Projects. Her father registered Ac.4.50 cents in her name on 12.04.2007.Her father gave gold ornaments worth Rs.1 lakh towards cradle function in D.V.Manor,

Vijayawada. On the eve of marriage of her brother on 18.4.2008 the petitioner and his mother stated that she has to bring diamond jewellery otherwise they will not send the respondent to the marriage of her brother and her father gave diamond jewellery worth Rs.16 lakhs. A wrist watch worth Rs.75,000/­ is also given to the petitioner at the time of marriage of her brother.

On the eve of first birthday of the child her father gave gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs on demand. She averred that the petitioner and her mother designed a plan for prohibiting her and in collusion with wife of her brother and got registered a case for the alleged offence U/s.498­A IPC against her parents ,her 32 brother and her in crime 235/09 in Central crime station,

Hyderabad. 

54. Pw1 stated in her chief that due to neglect and improper care by the petitioner, the child became very sick again in

August, 2008 she and her child were sent away to Vijayawada to her parents house. She came to Vijayawada with her child. They kept all the gold and diamond jewellery and belongings except minimum clothing. After careful treatment and care the child was treated at Vijayawada .The petitioner has not visited the child though he came for engagement function during

August,2008 and for marriage in October 208 and has not seen the child. He got the child taken to Dwaraka Tirumala and got her tonsured in view of miracle recovery of the child. Here it has to be stated that she has not sated she informed the petitioner about taking the child for tonsuring i.e. for removing birth time hair of the child or only for fulfilling owe. Then she stated about going to Hyderabad on 28.11.2008 and remained there till noon on 29.11.2008. The petitioner stated that they came at 10 or 10­30 am on 29.11.2008 and remained till 12­00 non on 30.11.2008 with regard to date of this incident there is discrepancy. 

55. From the pleadings and evidence of Pw1 and Rw1,it can be seen that the petitioner and the respondent are spitting venom against each other .They are speaking about money and money only. The value of the money can be known when it saves life.

The value of the money will be known by person who is starving.

When the tummy of hungry person is filled. It is a great virtue, 33 when money is used for an evil purpose. It is misuse of money.

The petitioner and the respondent who spit venom for the sake of money in the form of money in the name of money. They are talking in the name of jewels, in the form of diamond and in the name of gold. The petitioner and respondent are not talking about love and affection. No amount of wealth can bring love and affection. If the wealth can bring love and affection, it is artificial.

If the human emotions and human feelings and sensitivities feelings bring about love and affection. It can be said that love is sacred. The petitioner and the respondent did not state about love and affection. They did not talk about accommodation and adjustment. They stated about display of ornaments. The petitioner and the respondent are living separately since 9 years.

They have not stated about any mediation. Except for stating about one Ram Gopal. During cross examination of Rw1 it was denied that Rw1 was sent by her husband. She stated that they sent Ramgopal to her in­laws to ask for refund of amount to parents and requested her in­laws to receive her back. Ram

Gopal is not examined either for the petitioner or for the respondent. It is elicited from Pw1 one K.Prasada rao and

K.Manmadharao of Tadigadapa are the elders who mediated the elders of the marriage and they are family friends of the petitioner. 

56. On behalf of the petitioner, his cousin Ravi Koneru is examined. He also stated about marriage and presentations.

57. RW2 also stated about presentations etc., Rw2 is the mother of the respondent.

34

58.The Learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband relied upon a decision reported in (2008) 7 SCC 734 Satish Sitole vs.

Ganga(Smt) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court relying upon (1995) 2 SCC 7, Romesh Chander vs. Savitri, by considering that the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife had been living separately for 14 years out of their 16 years of marital life and upon being convinced that any attempt at reconciliation will be futile and with a view to bring quietus to all litigations pending between the parties and also by relying upon

i) Anjana Kishore vs. Puneet Tripathy (2002) 10 SCC 194 (ii)

Swati Varma vs.Rajan Verma (2004) 1 SCC 123, (iii) Durga

Prasanna Tripathy vs.Arundhati Tripathy (2005) 7 SCC 353

and by invoking powers Under Article 142 of Constitution of

India by observing that marriage is dead emotionally and practically and there is no chance of its being retrieved, the continuance of such a marriage would amount to cruelty to parties and granted relief of divorce. 

59. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the wife submitted decision is not applicable for granting divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage as the Hon’ble

Apex Court by exercising their Lordships powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India have granted divorce and consequently, the irretrievably break down of marriage has not become a statutory ground of divorce.

60. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon 2010 (5) ALT 1 (SC) Neelam Kumar vs.

35

Dayarani, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered

Satish Sithole vs.Ganga (2008) 7 SCC 734. Their Lordships held ­ “ There is nothing to indicate that the respondent has contributed in any way to the alleged breakdown of the marriage. If a party to a marriage, by his own conduct brings the relationship to a point of irretrievable breakdown, he/she cannot be allowed to seek divorce on the ground of breakdown of the marriage. That would simply mean giving someone the benefits of his/her own misdeeds. Moreover, in a later decision of this court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs.Manju Sharma (2) (2009) 6 SCC 379, it has been held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce as it is not contemplated under Section 13 and granting divorce on this ground alone would amount to adding a clause therein by a judicial verdict which would amount to legislation by Court. In the concluding paragraph of this judgment, the Court observed; “ If we grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, then we shall by judicial verdict be adding a clause to Section 13 of the Act to the effect that irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is also a ground for divorce. In our opinion, this can only be done by the legislature and not by the Court. It is for the Parliament to enact or amend the law and not for the Courts.”

61. In Dutt Sarma vs.Manju Sharma 2009(3) ALT 12 (SC) their Lordships held that irretrievable break down of marriage is not provided by the legislature for granting decree U/s.13 of H.M.

Act.

62. The Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon

2015(5) ALT 564 (DB) Anchuri Subba Raju vs.Anchuri Sunitha

their Lordships held that – “ every conduct alleged that it tentamounts to cruelty must be proved by preponderance of probabilities and even giving of police report or filing of complaint or pursuing or case U/s.498­A IPC and U/s.3 and 4 of D.P.Act by the wife against the husband or his family members per se do not constitute cruelty including from the result of acquittal therein; in the absence of showing and proving by the husband that the complaint filed or report given or pursuing of the case is aimed to harass and ill­treat the husband that constitute mental cruelty.” 36

63.The Learned Counsel for the respondent by further relied upon2010(3) ALT 421 (D.B.) M.Pushpalatha vs.

M.Venkateswarlu their Lordship held that only Supreme Court alone has exclusive powers to declare a marriage between parties has irretrievably broken down in exercise of powers under article 142 of the Constitution of India on the facts and circumstances of the case to do complete justice to parties. No other court has such power. 

64. Their Lordships further held that family Court is not empowered to grant of decree of divorce on the ground that marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down. 

65. Coming back to the facts and circumstances of the case,

PW1 deposed in his chief that the respondent used to go to her parents house frequently and used to stay their for 10 days. The respondent failed to discharge duties as wife or daughter­in­law.

She used to pick up quarrels with him and she is having negative attitude and suicidal tendency as she threatened so many times to commit suicide. It is put to Pw1 that the respondent has no suicidal tendency and never threatened to commit suicide. Pw1 denied the same.

66. PW1 further stated that he and his mother requested the respondent and her parents for performing Annaprasanna function of the child Ishita in Vijayawada but the 1st respondent and her parents refused to perform the same at Hyderabad and performed the function at Vijayawada. He further stated that in the 6th month Annaprasanna function of baby Ishita was 37 performed at Vijayawada. The respondent informed him not to bring any of his relatives. He stated that the behaviour of the respondent did not change even after birth of the child. During cross examination Pw1 stated that he does not remember when

Annaprasanna function was celebrated. However, the aspect with regard to informing the petitioner/husband not to bring any of the relatives is not denied on behalf of the respondent. RW1 has not stated that Anna prasanna function was not performed at

Vijayawada and that it was performed at Hyderabad.

67. Pw1 stated that Kesakandanam a tonsuring ceremony for the removal of the birth hair of the child was performed at

Tirupati. It is stated that they went to Tirupati along with the respondent newly wedded couple, that is brother of the respondent and his wife and the said function was held there.

Pw1 also stated that the respondent refused for celebrating first birth day function of Baby Ishita at Hyderabad and it was performed at Vijayawada. She stated that when she proposed to perform first birthday function of their child Ishita, the petitioner and his mother took serious objection saying that it should be performed by her parents only and for that function gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs were presented and they celebrated first birthday function at Manor Food Plaza and presented gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs. It is not put to Rw1 that parents of the respondent and her mother insisted that first birthday shall be performed by her parents only and that they have to present the gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs. In the absence of such suggestion it has to be considered that the respondent/wife 38 refused to celebrate the first birthday at Hyderabad and celebrated at Vijayawada in her parents house. Further the petitioner has stated that the respondent went to her parents house in March, 2008 on the eve of celebration of the marriage of her brother on 18.04.2008. After the marriage when he asked the respondent to come with him, the respondent informed that she would come to Hyderabad after her brother left America. He further stated that after two days, the respondent telephoned to him and informed that he should leave his mother and if a separate family is set up and further informed that all the properties and money shall be transferred from his mother to the name of the respondent and asked him to come to her parents house to settle there. The said evidence of the petitioner is not countered during cross examination. Pw1 further stated that he and his mother got telephoned through elder paternal uncle, senior maternal uncle of the respondent to the father of the respondent and requested to bring the respondent along with baby Ishita and settle disputes if any in the presence of mediators and father of the respondent informed that he would talk to his wife and respondent and informed but the father of the respondent did not respond after wards he himself took railway tickets from Vijayawada to Hyderabad for both the petitioner and the respondent and informed the respondent that he was coming to take back her and to get ready with their daughter. The respondent abused him over phone and stated that she will not come and asked him not to go and asked both the petitioner and his mother to die. This evidence of the petitioner is not countered. Pw1 is not cross­examined with 39 regard to this aspect. The respondent also not traversed this pleading of the petitioner and not met evidence of Pw1. 

68. PW1 further stated that everyday the respondent and her mother used to abuse him by calling over phone. He stopped lifting cell phone after few days. Then the respondent used to start abusing him by giving SMS to cell phone. In the month of

November, 2008 the respondent sent SMS to him that she and her mother will come to their house and damage their reputation in the presence of their relatives and colony people. On 29.11.2008 the respondent and her mother came to their house without Ishita and started abusing in filthy language. Thus he informed the respondent to come on the next day with their daughter and mediators but the respondent and her mother did not hear and abuse him and his mother very badly with foul and filthy language till 12­00 non on 13.11.2008, colony people and neighbouring families witnessed the scene. The neighbours of the house on 29.11.2008 also requested the respondent and her mother to go inside and take rest and the problems if any can be sorted out but they did not hear anyone. 

69. The evidence with regard to this aspect by RW1 is that she along with her mother and brother­in­law Ch.Ramu along with child Ishita , P.Shailendra went to the house on 28.11.2008 at 10­20 pm after knowing about their arrival they did not open doors of their house and when she and her mother requested the petitioner to open the door, the petitioner abused them in unutterable and indecent language from inside their house. She and her brother­in­law and Pimmasani Shailendra waited all over 40 the night in the cold season in front of the house of the petitioner without food and water until 12.30 noon time on 29.11.2008 but the petitioner and his mother vehemently did not open the door of their house for the sake of at least one year old child. 

70. During cross examination Rw1 stated that she has no documentary proof that she went to Hyderabad on 28.11.2008.

She stated that she went in a car. She denied that she came to her parents house in the month of August, 2008. There is one day difference between the version of petitioner and the respondent. The Petitioner stated that the respondent and his mother came on 29.11.2008 at 10­00 pm without Ishita. The respondent stated that they went there on 28.11.2008 at 10­20 pm. According to the petitioner they were there till noon on 30.11.2008. According to the respondent they were there till 12.30 on 29.11.2008 . It has to be stated that the respondent and her mother etc., have gone there during odd hours. If the door of the house of the petitioner is opened nothing would have happened. If the doors of the house of the petitioner are not opened, nothing would have prevented the respondent and her persons accompanying her from taking photograph of the scene of not opening the doors. So, visit by the respondent, her mother is admitted. It is not shown that she went along with her father.

It is for her to explain why she has not gone along with her both parents. Of course Rw1 was not cross examined on this aspect.

The respondent has not stated that after the marriage of her brother, she went back to the house of the petitioner and joined the conjugal home. The petitioner also not traversed the evidence 41 of Pw1 that she stated that she would come after her brother went to America and she put­up a condition that the petitioner has to leave his mother and has to put up separate family and should get the properties transferred from the name of her mother in her name. This evidence is not traversed. On the other hand, Rw4 during cross examination stated that she does not like either to send her daughter to her husband or to allow her husband to see her daughter. She stated that she has not given any legal notice to express her willingness to join the petitioner prior to filing of this O.P. This evidence of RW1 would show the mindset of the respondent. It is shown that the petitioner and the respondent are living separately since March, 2008. The respondent’s version is that she is living separately since August, 2008. It is not shown about making any efforts for reunion. It is not shown about making any efforts through mediators for reunion. The petitioner has stated that he got telephoned to the father of the respondent through the senior paternal uncle and senior maternal uncle of the respondent and requested to bring the respondent along with the baby Ishita and his mother requested him to bring baby and the respondent. The father of the respondent informed that he would talk with his wife and respondent and later did not respond. He got tickets from

Vijayawada to Hyderabad booked for himself and the respondent and telephoned to the respondent and the respondent abused him over phone and asked him not to come and asked him and his mother to die. This evidence of petitioner also remained untouched. The same is not denied on behalf of the respondent. 

42

71. The petitioner averred about taking the respondent for new year celebrations, honeymoon trip, going to Visakhaptanam and making shopping, purchasing various items and spending amounts for the respondent. The respondent on the other hand stated about dowry, status of the petitioner, their properties etc.

She stated about presenting jewels, gold ornament, diamond ornaments. She deposed that they presented Rs.1.5 crores. Rw2 stated that they gave Rs.1.36 crores and now the respondent has filed O.P. for recovery of Rs.2,53,74,323/­. The petitioner and the respondent have stated about money and money. They have not stated anything about happy moments or sharing love and affection and sharing and caring for each other. The entitlement of the respondent for the amounts claimed by her will be discussed in point No.5. The averments of the petitioner and the respondent would show that their marriage is practically dead.

There is no emotional bonding between them. The approach of the petitioner and the respondent appears, more particularly that of the respondent is like settlement of accounts and parting by claiming amounts. It is also shown that the petitioner and the respondent have no emotional bonding. The same also shows that spouses cannot live together and they lived separately for long years. 

72. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be considered that the conduct of the respondent would amount to subjecting the petitioner to cruelty. The petitioner is entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty. Point No.1 is answered. 

POINT Nos 2 &3 :

43

73. It is shown that the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. It is also shown that the respondent is not provided any maintenance after period of separation. It is admitted by the respondent during her cross examination that the court granted interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/­ for her and

Rs.1,000/­ to her daughter and her husband has been paying same regularly. The petitioner in his chief has stated that his mother gifted diamonds and emarld set worth Rs.2 lakhs and two kanchipattu sarees worth Rs.20,000/­ to the respondent and expensive clothes were given to the entire family members. He also stated that the respondent did shopping worth Rs.45,000/­ and purchased dresses and sarees when they went for celebrating new year at Chennai, Pudicherry and Bangalore dt.30.12.2005 to 4.01.2006. He also stated that the respondent used to ask him to take her dinner in Star hotels. He spent

Rs.20,000/­ to Rs.30,000/­ for shopping. He has taken insurance for his daughter for Rs.12 lakhs from Birla Life

Insurance Company by paying annual premium Rs.53,200/­. He also stated in para­10 of his chief that he has taken various insurance policies. His mother gifted gold chain worth

Rs.30,000/­ at the time of Annaprasanna. He gave cash

Rs.75,000/­ to his brother­in­law at the time of his brother­in­ law. He stated in his evidence that he is working as Accountant in Jaya Projects (Pvt.) Ltd., at Hyderabad. It belonged to Sri

Dhana Koteswara rao Managing Director who is his senior paternal uncle. He stated that he is paying Rs.1,67,980/­ towards property tax for his building. Besides his salary, he used to get rent from the building at Moosapet. His last drawn salary 44 was Rs.25,000/­ .He is also owning agricultural lands in an extent of Ac.2.08 cents at Jakkula Nekkalam village,

Gannavaram mandal, His mother is also having property adjacent to his property. His mother is also getting Rs.25,000/­ pm. from the said property. His mother gets Rs.50,000/­ to

Rs.60,000/­ per year from the land at Sanarigudem at

Gannavaram mandal. He admitted during cross examination he used to pay Rs.50,000/­ towards premium of LIC policy of his wife and RS.8,000/­ towards medical insurance policy. During cross examination, he stated that he presented Rs.60,000/­ or

Rs.70,000/­ to his brother­in­law at the time of his marriage.

74.Rw1 stated during cross examination that she does not know whether her husband is doing any job at present or not.

The evidence of the petition indicates the financial status of the petitioner. It is also clear that the petitioner has not provided any maintenance after the respondent went to her parents house. It is also not shown that he sent any amount for his child and cared for the needs of the child. The child who was 2 ½ years at the time of parting of the spouses has crossed 10 years.

The petitioner is shown to have did his M.B.A., and is working in a promising company. It is also shown that he constructed a shopping complex at Kukatpalli. The petitioner has not stated about her specific needs. The salary of the petitioner is shown to be Rs.25,000/­. He has income from agricultural income from house and income from the shopping complex and he is paying huge property tax. The maintenance has to be granted by considering the needs of the petitioner and income and paying 45 capacity of the petitioner for granting of Rs.25,000/­ to each to respondent and 2nd petitioner child. The respondent/wife who is the first petitioner in MC. has to show that how much was being spent on the respondent in the conjugal fold. She has not shown that her father used to spend that much prior to her marriage .

Under the circumstances granting of Rs.25,000/­ each to petitioners 1and 2 in M.C.127/09 cannot be made. In the circumstances of the petition and considering the way, the petitioner projected about his spending and admissions of the respondent and that he has stated that the emrald set , diamond set etc., would be given to his wife granting of maintenance of

Rs.18,000/­ to the 1st petitioner and Rs.9,000/­ to the 2nd petitioner is considered just and appropriate. Point Nos. 2and 3 are answered.

POINT No.4:

75. The petitioner/husband is seeking to appoint him as guardian of his child. He stated that in the interest and progress of the minor child and for protecting the best interest of the child, he should be given custody. He also stated that it is not in the interest of the child to remain in the custody of the respondent/wife. During cross examination, he stated that on the last occasion, he saw the Baby on 27.4.2008 on the next day of her first birthday. He does not know in which school or which class his daughter is studying. He never sent any gifts to his daughter to any of her birthdays. He is not in a position to identify her if she is shown to him at present.

46

76. The child is aged 2 ½ years, when spouses separated. The child has attained 10 years .The petitioner has not shown any learning towards child. It is not that the petitioner has no connection with Vijayawada. It is not that the petitioner does not visit Vijayawada. The petitioner has not approached the child. He never saw the child. He never shown love and affection after the spouses parted towards child. He is not continuing insurance policies which he has taken. It is not for promoting the welfare, well being of the child to appoint the petitioner as guardian of the child. Petitioner cannot be appointed as guardian of the child as prayed for. Point No.4 is answered accordingly.

POINT No.5&6:

77. The respondent/wife who filed O.P.357/12 has filed O.P.

three years after filing of O.P.673/09 on the file of Family Court,

Hyderabad which correspondents to O.P.666/09. She filed this

O.P. three years after filing M.C.127/09. She stated that the petitioner demanded Rs.25 lakhs demanded by the petitioner was handed over. During cross examination she has stated that in toto they have given Rs.1.5 crores to the petitioner but she cannot say exactly. She is, however, seeking Rs.2,53,74,323/­.

She stated that for construction of shopping complex they have given Rs.25 lakhs. There is evidence to show that they gave

Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioner. She stated that bank statement is available and she will file the same. However, she has not filed any bank statement. She stated that her father is having Ac.16­ 00 of agricultural land at the time of her marriage. 

47

78. The mother of the petitioner as RW2 deposed that she cannot say the particulars of the dates on which they gave cash.

On 8.12.2005 they paid Rs.8 lakhs on 23.12.2006. They paid

Rs.25 lakhs on 4.3.2007. They paid Rs.25 lakhs and on 24.10.2007 they gave Rs.50 lakhs. Her husband withdrawn

Rs.60 lakhs from the bank. The marriage was solemnized on 14.12.2005. The engagement function was performed on 27.11.2005. Lagnapatrikas were exchanged after 10 days. The evidence of RW2 that they paid Rs.8 lakhs on 8.12.2005 would contradicts the evidence of Rw1 that at the time of exchange

Lagnapaatrika at the house of the petitioner at Hyderabad cash of Rs.25 lakhs demanded by the petitioner as dowry was handed over in the presence of mother of the petitioner and some of their relatives. One M.Subba rao, K.Yedunanda was present at that time. M.Subba rao was not examined but Yedunandana was examined as RW4. RW4 stated that he present and participated during Lagnapatrika function for the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent 10 days after function the parents of the respondent informed him that the petitioner and his mother were demanding Rs.25 lakhs towards dowry and having no othergo they were intending to pay the said amount and requested him to accompany. He went to the house of the petitioner on 8.12.2005 and handed over the said amount to the petitioner.

The evidence of RW1 shows that this event of handing over cash of Rs.25 lakhs happened 10 days after exchanging lagnapatrika.

This is shown that amount was not handed over at the time of exchanging lagnapatrika. RWs.1and 4 has stated that Rs.25 lakhs was given at the same time but RW2 stated that Rs.8 lakhs 48 was given on 8.12.2005. According to RW4 Rs.25 lakhs was handed over on 8.12.2005 at 1­00 pm. it is not put to RW4 that

Rs.25 lakhs was not given. However, the evidence of Rw2 contradicts the evidence of Rws.1and 4. The respondent offered to file bank statement. She has not filed bank statements. RW2 stated that her husband withdrawn Rs.60 lakhs from the bank .Husband of Rw2 has not come forward to give evidence that he paid Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.50 lakhs. 

79. PW3 K.Ravi is the Director of Jaya Projects Ltd., When the

Director of the Jaya projects is examined and tendered himself for cross examination it is not put to Pw3 about investing Rs.50 lakhs in Jaya Projects. It is not elicited about investing and making about Jaya Projects paying amount towards investment made by respondent or her father. It cannot be believed that without any scrap of paper, the respondent or her father would invest Rs.50 lakhs in Jaya Projects that too to when the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was not smooth and was troublesome. The respondent/wife has not cross examined Pw1 with regard to paying Rs.25 lakhs towards construction of shopping complex and paying Rs.50 lakhs for investing in Jaya Projects. It was put to Pw1 that he received

Rs.2,74,003/­ from the parents of the respondent and that he is liable to return the same. It is also put to him that he and his mother are in the custody of the gold jewellery and valuables of the respondent and their daughter Ishita except these two questions, nothing is put to Pw1 with regard to listed out properties. It was not put to Pw1 about Vaddanam to the child , 49 harams, Aravankees etc., RW1 stated that she has no documentary proof to show that she invested Rs.50 lakhs in Jaya

Projects belonging to the cousin of the petitioner. She admitted that 3 years after filing M.C. she filed O.P. 357/12 for recovery of amounts and gold ornaments. She denied that she did not disclose about the gold ornaments with her husband in her complaint U/s.498­A IPC in M.C. and GWOP. The petitioner has stated that her father is owning AC.16.00 of land. At one stage, she admitted that it is true that Ac.4.50 cents in Mandadam village in her name and her father Ac.12.00 of land including the above said Ac.4.50 cents of land in the same place. The petitioner filed Exs.B1 to B4 which are assessment order Appellate Order.

Except filing Ex.B1 to B.4 nothing is stated about the payment of income tax. In Exs.B1 to B.4 it is shown that the income shown is treated as unexplained and extent is shown as unexplained.

The father of Rw1 has not come forward for giving evidence with regard to Exs.B1 to B4. RW2 stated that her husband has no other business activities. She denied that income from agricultural is the only source for maintenance for their family and education of her children. She stated that they are having building rents. RW1 stated that she cannot say total weight of gold ornaments presented to her. There is evidence to show that the said ornaments were purchased by her parents at the time of her marriage. Her father is having Ac.16­00 of agricultural land at the time of marriage and he is resident of Vijayawada. She denied that the said agricultural land was given on lease to other persons.

50

80. RW3 stated during cross examination that the father of respondent is businessman. Previously her father was maintaining a tractor showroom. RWs.1 and 2 have not stated about maintaining Tractor showroom. RW2 stated about maintaining Tractor showroom. RW2 stated that they have given

Rs.1,36,00,000/­ to her son­in­law. RW1 also stated that she does not know how much income is fetching on Ac.16.00 of land of his farther. She admitted except income from the land her father has no other source of income. She also admitted with the income from Ac.16­00 of land her father performed the marriage of her brother and provided education to her and her brother and she denied that her father has no capacity to pay. When the father of the respondent is only an agriculturist having Ac.16.00 of land, it is perplexing to understand that they agreed for the demand of dowry of Rs.25 lakhs, gold bracelet and costly suite which has minimum worth of Rs.75,000/­. They have given suite worth Rs.75,000/­.

81.It cannot be believed that the father of the respondent has given garments worth Rs.3 lakhs at the time of betrothal and he has given cloths worth Rs.4 lakhs at the time of marriage. It cannot be considered that clothes gold diamond jewellery etc., can be purchased without bills. And they will not think that it is not worth preserving bills. RW1 stated that in June, 2006 they have given furniture worth Rs.3 lakhs and household articles worth Rs.1 lakh. She stated that at the time of Srimantham function, the gold ornaments worth Rs.2 lakhs were demanded and given. Diamond jewellery worth Rs.16 lakhs were given on 51 the eve of marriage of her brother as the petitioner and her mother threatened that they will not allow them to attend for the marriage unless diamond jewellery worth Rs.16 lakhs is given.

On the first birthday of the child they demanded and her father gave gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs when the first birthday of child was celebrated in Manor Food Plaza. Ac.4.50 cents is in her name. The land is still remaining with her. Pw1 stated that he perused the title deeds of an extent of Ac.4.50 cents of agricultural and after filing of MC. Nothing is put to Pw1 with regard to dowry of Rs.25 lakhs payment of Rs.25 lakhs at the time of construction of shopping complex and payment of Rs.50 lakhs in Jaya Projects. Nothing is put to Pw1 with regard to various gold ornaments, diamond ornaments, silver items. Even with regard to Sony music system, cell phone, it is shown that these were purchased for the respondent. It is not shown that the father of the respondent is so affluent that he would provide lakhs and lakhs of rupees and gold and diamond jewellery just for mere asking at the drop of the hat. Even otherwise not even single bill for purchasing these items is filed by respondent. In such prayer of the respondent to order that the petitioner should be made to pay Rs.2,53,74,323/­ shall not be ordered. The respondent/wife who is the petitioner in O.P.357/12 is not entitled for the relief of ordering the payment of

Rs.2,53,74,323/­. Point No.5 is answered.

82. In the result, O.P.666/09 Petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted divorce on the ground of cruelty. The marrige between 52 petitioner and respondent solemnized on 14­12­2005 stood dissolved. Both parties shall bear their own costs.

In O.P.226/2010 petition is liable to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed. No costs.

In O.P. 357/2012 petition is liable to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed. No costs.

In M.C.127/2009 petition claimed proved in part. Petition is allowed in part. The 1st petitioner is granted maintenance @

Rs.18,000/­ per month from this day. The 2nd petitioner is granted maintenance @ Rs.9,000/­ per month from this day. 

The respondent is ordered to pay the total maintenance of

Rs.27,000/­ p.m. to the petitioners 1 and 2 from this day on or

before 10th of every calendar month for which maintenance is due

by crediting the same into the SB Account of the 1st petitioner directly, so that there will be prompt and direct payment which can be verified. 

For this purpose the 1st petitioner shall furnish her S.B.

Account details to the respondent. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of

SEPTEMBER, 2017.

JUDGE, PRL.FAMILY COURT­CUM­

IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioner: PW1: P.Praveen Pw2: D.Praveen Kumar Pw3: Koneru Ravi

Respondent: Rw1: P.Sravanthi RW2: N.Sobha Rani RW3: P.Shailendra RW4: K.S.Yedunandana.

53 Documents marked for Petitioner: Ex.A1:Wedding card Ex.A2:News item published in Eenadu city edition.

Respondent; Ex.B1:Income Tax Returns for the year 2006­07 Ex.B2:Income Tax Returns for the year 2007­08 Ex.B3:Income Tax Returns for the year 2008­09 Ex.B4:Income Tax returns for the year 2009­10

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT­CUM­

IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

54

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE’S COURT

AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri A.Parthasarathy

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Monday this the 18th day of SEPTEMBER, 2017

O.P.No.666/2009, O.P. 226/2010, OP 357/2012 & M.C.127/2009

O.P.NO.666/2009. Between:-

Sri Praveen Pathuri, S/o.late P.Poornachandra

Sekhar rao, aged about 32 years, r/o.Prakash .. Petitioner

Nilayam, 8-3-669/10/6, Plot No.793, 2nd floor, M.P.C.H. society, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad.

And

Smt.P.Sravanthi,W/o.SriP.Praveen, D/o.Sri.N.Lakshmana Rao, aged 29 years, Occ: Housewife, r/o.D.NO.32-2-9C, 4F,flat …Respondent. No.501, Lokesh towers, behind Madhu Kalyana Mandapam, Madhu gardens, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada-520 010.

O.P.NO.226/2010

Praveen Pathuri, S/o.late P.Purna Chandra Sekhara Rao, aged 32 years, Occ: Private service, r/o.H.No.8-3-669/10/6, Plot NO.793, 2nd floor, MPCH society, J.P.Nagar, Yellareddiguda, Hyderabad. ……Petitioner And.

Smt. P.Sravanthi, W/o.SriP.Praveen, d/o.Sri.N.Lakshmana Rao,aged 29 years, Occ: Housewife, r/o.D.NO.32-2-9C, 4F,flat No.501, Lokesh towers, behind Madhu Kalyana Mandapam, Madhu gardens, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada-520 010.

…..Respondent

OP.NO.357/2012

Pathuri Sravanthi @ Nutakki Sravanthi, W/o.Pathuri Praveen, D/o.Nutakki Lakshmanarao, Hindu, aged about 31 years, Housewife, r/o.Flat No.501, Lokesh towers, Behind Madhu Kalyana mandapam, Moghalrajaupram, Vijayawada.

…….Petitioner

And

Pathuri Praveen, S/o. late Pathuri Poorna Chandra Sekhara Rao, Hindu, aged about 32 years, business, & Properties, Flat No.793, D.No.8-3- 899/10/6, Second floor, MP.C.H.Society, J.P.Nagar, Yellareddy guda, Hyderabad. ….Respondent

M.C.127/2009

1.Pathuri Sravanthi @ Nutaki Sravanthi, W/o.Pathuri Praveen, D/o.Nutakki Lakshmanarao, Indian, Hindu, aged about 29 years, Housewife, r/o. Flat No.501, Lokesh towers, Behind Madhu kalyana Mandapam, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

2. Pathuri Ishita, D/o.Pathuri Praveen, Indian, Hindu, aged about 3 years, being minor rep.by her next friend /natural guardian/mother Pathuri 2 Sravanthi @ Nutakki Sravanthi, W./o.Pathuri Praveen, D/o.Nutakki Lakshmanarao Indian, Hindu, aged about 29 years, Housewife, r/o.Flat No.501, Lokesh towers, Behind Madhu Kalyana Mandapam, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada. ….Petitioners

And

Pathuri Praveen, S/o.Late Pathuri Poorna Chandra Sekhara Rao, Indian, Hindu, aged about 32 years, business & Properties, flat No.793, D.No.8-3- 699/10/6, Second floor, M.P.C.H. society, J.P.Nagar, Yellareddy guda, Hyderabad.

….Respondent

These petitions coming on 7-7-2017, 2-8-2017, 22-8-2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.K.Jaya Ram, Counsel legally assistingforpetitioner(husband),Sri.S.RajendraPrasad, Sri.Ch.Vaddikasulu, Counsel legally assisting for respondent(wife) and upon hearing and perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

COMMON ORDER

1. Husband filed O.P.666/09 seeking divorce U/s.13(1)(ia) of

H.M.Act. He also filed GWOP 226/10 U/s.10 & 25 of Guardian

Wards Act. Wife filed M.C.127/09 along with her daughter Baby

Ishita praying for maintenance U/s.125 Cr.P.C. Wife also filed

O.P.357/12 praying for directing the husband to pay

Rs.2,53,74,323/­ which is worth of gold ornaments, diamond jewellery, cost of laptop, cash said to have been paid Rs.25 lakhs,

Rs.50 lakhs etc. on various dates the expenses of marriage etc. 

2. On the memo filed on dt.28­01­2013 the enquiry in these

O.Ps. is clubbed together and common evidence is recorded in

O.P.666/09. For avoiding confusion and for easy reference as evidence is recorded in O.P.666/09 the husband will be referred as petitioner/husband or petitioner or by his name , the wife will be referred as respondent/wife or respondent or by her name except when his or her status as petitioner or respondent has to be specifically mentioned when considering about the relief. 

3

3) The petitioner/husband filed O.P. 666/09. It was initially filed as O.P. 673/09 on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad averring that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 14.12.2005 at Siddhartha College,

Vijayawada as per Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner never took any dowry as the respondent is fair and good looking. The parents of the respondent orally informed that the wet land measuring Ac.4.50 cents is standing in the name of the respondent in Mandadam village, Guntur District and yield worth Rs.1 lakh p.a. is coming from the land. The marriage is consummated and daughter Ishita was born on 27.11.05. On 27.11.05 the petitioner and his mother gifted a diamond emerald set worth Rs.2 lakhs and two kanchipattu sarees worth

Rs.20,000/­ to the respondent, expensive clothes were also presented to all the family members of the respondent. At the time of marriage the mother of the petitioner gifted gold chain with tally and blackbeeds chain, diamond gold ring and expensive kanchipattu sarees and other sarees.

4. Spouses went to Chennai, Puducheri and Bangalore from 30.12.2005 to 4.1.2006 for celebrating the new year. The respondent did shopping and purchased sarees for herself and her mother worth Rs.45,000/­ .The spouses went to Cochin for

honeymoon from 5.1.06 to 12.1.06.They also went to

Visakhaptanam in May, 2006.They went to New Delhi and

Jaipur in July, 2006 for site seeing. 

4

5. It is averred that after marriage the respondent used to frequently visit her parents house and used to stay there for 10 days. Every time the petitioner used to drop her and again pick up the petitioner. It became routine. The petitioner and the respondent waited with patience and hoped that the respondent would change during the course of time. The respondent did not discharge her duties as wife and daughter –in­law. She used to pick up quarrels on petty issues. She used to inform that she had no interest in marriage and marital life. She has negative attitude and suicide tendency and made many attempts to commit suicide. She used to get up by 10­30 AM. The petitioner who is working in a private company had to wait till she gets up.

The mother of the respondent has to attend for cooking. She used to insist that the respondent shall return by 4.30 pm. He has to take her to Star Hotels for dinner. Otherwise, she used to pick up quarrels. Every month he has to spend Rs.20,000/­ to

Rs.30,000/­per month for her shopping. She used to purchase dresses worth Rs.4,000/­ to Rs.5,000/­ and sarees worth minimum of Rs.10,000/­. She used to talk with her mother over cell phone. She bluntly follows what her mother says. The younger brother of the petitioner died in a road accident on 26.10.2004 at the age of 25 years. The petitioner used to garland his portrait everyday. The respondent quarreled with the petitioner till that portrait is removed. 

6. It is averred that the mother of the petitioner presented a diamond set worth Rs.80,000/­ after marriage. She also presented silver pooja articles worth Rs.20,000/­ at the time of 5

Varalakshmi Vratam. A day prior to Vinayakachaviti 2006, the mother of the petitioner suffered with chiken guniea and was admitted in the hospital. The petitioner was going to the hospital for seeing his mother. Then the respondent tried to cut her wrist with knife and quarreled with the petitioner with a bad intention and asked him not to go to the hospital and forced him to stay with the respondent.

7. At the time of any function at home or when they have to attend for any function outside, the respondent used to express her disinterest to talk with any one. In the absence of mother of the petitioner, the respondent does not even prepares coffee or food to her husband. The entire gold and diamond jewellery and silver articles presented by petitioner’s mother on various occasions are kept in the house of the parents of the respondent.

8. During the 5th month of her pregnancy she went to her parents house. The petitioner used to go there at weekends and spend Rs.20,000/­ per month for her medical and other needs.

They were blessed with daughter Ishita on 26.12.2007. The petitioner and his mother went to Vijayawada for seeing the respondent and baby. At the time of cradle ceremony, the petitioner and his mother presented dresses to the baby and the respondent and a gold chain, bangles, anklet etc., chains worth

Rs.1 lakh to the child. The respondent picked up quarrels that gold ornaments and dresses are not upto the status and are not sufficient. The respondent returned to her matrimonial house with the child Ishita during the 5th month. Till then the petitioner used to visit the house of parents of the respondent. The 6 petitioner arranged all the needs of the respondent and his daughter from feeding bottles diapers etc., . He purchased toys, bottle heater etc. and cradle worth Rs.10,000/­ to his daughter at the instance of the respondent. He purchased a video camera wroth Rs.35,000/­ .He purchased two cell phones worthRs.20,000/­. The respondent used to take Rs.5,000/­ to

Rs.10,000/­ for pocket money. The respondent who came with child stayed only for three days and went to her parents house again. She told she does not want to show the daughter to her mother­in­law. 

9. The respondent has taken insurance policy under Child plan for Rs.12 lakhs from Birla SunLife Insurance. He has been paying Rs.53,200/­ per year towards yearly premium. He purchased ICICI Life Insurance Policy for amount of Rs.28 lakhs for his daughter and is paying yearly premium of Rs.1lakh. In

October, 207 he also took a medical insurance policy covered the petitioner, respondent and his daughter for Rs.3 lakhs from

Reliance General Insurance Company and is paying Rs.8,580/­ towards yearly premium. He took medical insurance policies as per TATA AIG insurance company and for the respondent i.e.

critical care policy covering risk of Rs.15 lakhs and paid premium worth Rs.6,465/­ per year. He also has taken hospital cash benefit plan which is a medico in policy for Rs.5,40,000/­ and paid premium ofRs.4,163/­ per year. The mother of the petitioner also took a policy for her granddaughter Ishita for

Rs.2,30,000/­ from Royal Sundarm Insurance Policy and is paying Rs.1,78,000/­ per year. 

7

10. The respondent did not agree for performing

Annaprasanna function at Hyderabad and perform the same at

Vijayawada during the 6th month of the child. She informed the petitioner not to bring any of his relatives. The mother of the petitioner gifted gold chain wrothRs.30,000/­ to the child. Even after the birth of the child, the respondent used to get up at 10­ 30 AM. She used to pickup quarrels with the petitioner requiring him to attend needs of the child without going to the office. 

11. The respondent stayed only for five months after birth of the child. On the Eve of wedding of petitioner’s brother, to be performed on 18.4.2008 she went to her parents house in March, 2008. The petitioner and his mother attended for marriage and gifted cash of Rs.75,000/­ to his brother­in­law. After the marriage along with newly wedded couple, the petitioner, respondent, parents of the respondent and family of the sister of the respondent went to Tirumala. The mother of the petitioner also went there for tonsuring ceremony of the child. In Tirupathi also the respondent and her mother quarreled with the petitioner in the presence of relatives. 

12. The respondent also refused to celebrate first birthday of the child at Hyderabad and celebrated it at Vijayawada. The petitioner and his mother presented cash of Rs.2 lakhs on 26.4.2008. When asked to come with him, the respondent stated that she would return after her brother goes to U.S. After two days the respondent telephoned and told the petitioner that he has to leave his mother and put up separate family and all the properties and money with his mother shall be transferred to her 8 and asked the petitioner to come to her parents house to settle there. As the petitioner refused to consider her demand, the respondent her brother and parents started abusing the petitioner and his mother in filthy language and over phone and falsely claiming to return the money. The petitioner never received any money either from the respondent or her parents at any time. The respondent and his mother also abused the petitioner in the presence of relatives and neighbouring apartment owners. The petitioner his mother senior paternal uncle of the petitioner went to the father of the respondent. They requested that the respondent be sent along with child Ishita.

The father of the respondent informed that he would talk with the respondent and his wife and would convey but he never telephoned. 

13. The petitioner himself booked a train tickets dt.28.5.2008 for getting back the respondent with the child and informed to the respondent that he was coming for taking them. The respondent and used the petitioner over phone. The petitioner came to know that the respondent and her parents telephoned to petitioner’s relatives and informed that the petitioner ill­treated the respondent by not providing food and harassed her and his mother also abused the relatives of the respondent. The respondent and her mother abused the petitioner and his mother by calling through his cell phone. The petitioner dropped the respondent in their house. The respondent then started abusing by giving sms message to the petitioner’s cell phone. In

November, 2008 the respondent sent sms that the respondent 9 and her mother would come to their house and damaged their reputation in the presence of colony people. On 29.11.2008 the respondent and her mother came to petitioner’s house at 10­00 pm without Ishita and started abusing in filthy language. The petitioner informed them to come on the next day with the daughter and mediators. The respondent and her mother did not hear their words and abused the petitioner and his mother in foul and filthy language and on 30.11.2008 at noon 12­00 p.m.

the neighbours and colony people who witnessed the same also requested the respondent and her mother at 11­30pm on 29.11.2008 to come inside and take rest, the problems can be sorted out on the next day morning. But they did not listen. All the costly sarees, gold and diamond jewellery and gifts given to the child Ishita are in the parents’ house of the respondent. The respondent when asked stated that she would bring the jewellery after her brother’s marriage. She never came after her brother’s marriage. He also sought custody of the child in the same petition. 

14. The respondent and her mother abused the petitioner and his mother by calling names and by demanding that they have to return the money allegedly taken. The petitioner never received any money from the respondent or her mother. They did not listen the advise of the neighbours. 

15. The petitioner left his job due to this disturbance. The petitioner has got lot of love and affection towards his child. The child shall not be kept exposed to the condition of the petitioner and her mother. The respondent left the company of the 10 petitioner without any reasonable cause and excuse in March, 2008 and deserted the petitioner. Hence the petition.

16. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondent the marriage of the petitioner and the birth of the daughter Ishita is admitted. The other allegations to a large extent are denied. It is averred to consider the averments in M.C.127/09 as part of averments of her counter. Hence while considering the counter of the respondent, the averments of the petitioners in M.C.127/09 can also be considered.

17. It is averred that in the 1st week of November, 2005 the proposal from petitioner’s family came through one Maddineni

Subba rao.It was represented that the petitioner was attracted by attractive and impressive personality of the respondent. The petitioner is the only surviving son of his mother who inherited the properties wroth crores of rupees. He gets maximum returns of Rs.1 lakh from the properties apart from his salary of

Rs.25,000/­ p.m. He is working in Jaya Projects owned by the husband of the senior maternal aunt of the petitioner. The parents of the respondent went to the house of the petitioner.

The mother of the petitioner also repeated high claims and visited about affluent family owning crores of rupees and that the respondent can live very happy life which is unimaginable for her.

18. It is averred that the petitioner demanded Rs.25 lakhs towards dowry apart from gold , bracelet, diamond ring and costly suit worth not less than Rs.75,000/­ .They also demanded 11

Rs.3 lakhs towards clothes for presentation to their relatives who come for engagement function. The father of the respondent initially expressed his reluctance to pay so much. He was persuaded by the petitioner and his relatives by referring to the financial status of the petitioner. The father of the respondent considered that it would be better the future of his daughter and thereby agreed for demands. It is averred that engagement function was held on 27.11.2005 at Swarna Vedika at

Vijayawada. On that day a gold braclet, diamond ring and suit wroth Rs.75,000/­ and Rs.3 lakhs towards presentation of clothes to the petitioner, his relatives were given. The father of the respondent incurred expenditure of Rs.3 lakhs for the engagement function. 

19. After 10 days lagnapatrika was exchanged at the house of the petitioner at Hyderabad and cash of Rs.25 lakhs towards dowry was handed over to the petitioner in the presence of the mother of the petitioner and elders M.Subba rao and K.Sai

Yedunandana. The mother of the petitioner raised and stated that jewellery adorned to the respondent are not befitting and demanded that there should be 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments besides Adapadachu lanchanams of Rs.1 lakh to the cousin of the petitioner one K.Sarada and another Rs.4 lakhs cash towards for presenting to adapadachu and that the marriage should be performed in a grand manner. When the father of the respondent expressed his reluctance, it was stated to him that it was the respondent who was going to enjoy valuables and cash given to her husband. He then agreed for additional amounts.

12

20. The marriage was performed on 14.12.2005. The expenditure of Rs.15 lakhs was incurred for the marriage arrangements and towards food ,stay of guests. Rs.4 lakhs was given towards clothes to the petitioner and their relatives. An amount of Rs.1 lakhs was given to one K.Sarada cousin of the petitioner. The respondent was given 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments. 

21. Immediately after the marriage the attitude of the petitioner changed. They found fault with the respondent and her parents over trivial issues. The petitioner and his mother insulted the respondent and her parents in the presence of relatives and friends. The respondent joined the petitioner. She was ill­treated and harassed with illegal demands in several ways. The petitioner demanded Sony music system worth

Rs.25,000/­, cell phone worth Rs.30,000/­ and took cash of

Rs.55,000/­ for these items. He however, used his credit card for the purchase of Sony system and cell phone by saying that it would be useful for him to get tax deductions.

22. The mother of the petitioner never liked to see the respondent in happy mood. She did not like her to move closely with the petitioner. When the petitioner questions her she used to beat and say that recently his younger brother died in a road accident and the petitioner is not caring for her feelings. The petitioner used to get disturbed and used to withdraw himself from the company of the respondent.

13

23. The respondent averred that whenever the petitioner was in the house, the mother of the petitioner used to purposefully keep; the petitioner in her company and used to require the respondent to remain in the bedroom. The petitioner should either remain with his mother or has to go to the house of senior maternal aunt Koneru Vijaya Kumari who is next door neighbour. This used to happen on holidays and delivered over midnight. It is averred that when the petitioner and the respondent goes out for film or restaurant, the mother of the petitioner used to ring up to the petitioner and tell that her deceased second son is appearing in her dreams and she was unable to tolerate and require couple to come back by saying that anything may happen to her. It is averred that the petitioner never allowed the respondent even to prepare tea for herself and used to say taking food in the house is expensive and demand her to go to neighbouring house of his maternal aunt K.Vijaya

Kumari. The respondent used to feel ashamed. The mother of the petitioner used to say that the respondent should starve and should not enter into the kitchen. The petitioner’s mother used to say that her sisters, daughter­in­law K.Bhavani brought three crores of dowry besides skoda car and Rs.3 lakhs towards

Adapadachu lanchanams and that the dowry brought by the respondent is nothing. She used to say that the respondent should have brought at least Rs.1 crore as dowry and diamond necklace. When the respondent says that her parents have given everything. The petitioner’s mother used to embarrass and abuse the respondent. The respondent could not satisfy the demands of the petitioner. The petitioner used to abuse the respondent and 14 her parents in filthy language and used to beat the respondent.

They used to say that the respondent has to bring at least Rs.25 lakhs more from her parents. The father of the respondent took

Rs.25 lakhs to Hyderabad and gave to the petitioner and requested them not to ill­treat the respondent. The petitioner and his mother took an amount of Rs.25 lakhs and spent for completing construction of shopping complex at Kukatpalli. Then the respondent came to know that the petitioner has good earnings from rentals as claimed by the petitioner at the time of fixation of alliance. 

24. In June, 2006, the petitioner and his mother demanded the respondent to inform her parents that they should bring Rs.3 lakhs for purchasing latest furniture and household articles by saying that the respondent did not bring the suitable furniture and household articles. The father of the respondent gave Rs.3 lakhs and colour TV, and entire household articles worth Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner. 

25. The petitioner and his mother used to go to the house of

Koneru Vijaya Kumari for their requirements including food. It was irksome and all her efforts to change this attitude of both petitioner and his mother proved futile and she suffered the wrath of the petitioner in the result. The petitioner devised a plan in such a way that the petitioner and the respondent would accompany the family of the said K.Vijaya kumari in their family tours, so that petitioner need not spend any amount and also in total disregard to any inconvenience of the respondent.

15

26.The respondent became pregnant during eighth month of her marriage, both petitioner and his mother ignoring her physical condition used to force her do the entire household work and did not even allow her to take food prescribed by doctors.

The petitioner and his mother used to exhibit pride and egoism as they recently constructed shopping complex at Kukatpalli and they started getting huge monthly rents. They used to treat the respondent as if she is inferior in status and petitioner got more than Rs.1 crore as dowry. The ill­treatment and cruel acts of his mother increased. The respondent narrated the following instances:

i)In November, 2006 when the father of the respondent was selling the property and the respondent has to go for executing the necessary documents as required by the purchasers as a measure of precaution a condition was set that the respondent has to bring Rs.25 lakhs out of sale consideration knowing fully that the respondent has no right in the said property. The respondent’s father was forced to give Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioner in the first week of March, 2007.

ii) When the brother of the respondent was returning from U.S. the petitioner and his mother demanded that he has to bring costly gift to the petitioner. The petitioner’s brother N.Kishore brought Laptop worth Rs.65,000/­ and gave it to the petitioner through the respondent.

iii) They demanded Rs.1 lakh for celebrating 1st Wedding Anniversry on 4.12.2006. The parents met the demand.

iv)When the parents of the respondent went to Hyderabad for attending the function of their close relatives in February, 2007, the petitioner on the pretext of purchasing gold ornaments for Srimantham function of the respondent purchased gold ornaments worth RS.2 lakhs by using his credit card but to the utter surprise of the parents of the respondent, the mother of the petitioner on seeing the gold ornaments raised big galata and demanded parents of the respondent to pay the amount Rs.2 lakhs and threatened that unless the amount is paid she would not allow for the function to be performed. On the next day the respondent’s father paid Rs.2 lakhs. The petitioner used to make a show by purchasing gold with dubious plans to extract the cost of the same a little latter from the respondent’s parents. 

16

v)By coming to know that the father of the respondent is having some money, the petitioner demanded that the father of the respondent to give Rs.50 lakhs for depositing in the Jaya Projects owned by the husband of the senior maternal aunt K.V.Kuamri and that Jaya Projects would pay interest. Though the father of the respondent was not willing, he was made to pay Rs.50 lakhs. The petitioner did not disclose how he used the said amount. 

vi) The petitioner and his mother started to say that the value of their properties increased manifold and the respondent did not bring any fixed assets to them from her father. The petitioner used to goad the respondent and mentally torture her when he came to Vijayawada. During the advanced stage of pregnancy of the respondent, the petitioner used to threaten her that he would not see the face of the respondent and child to be born. The father of the respondent registered Ac.4.50 cents of agricultural land at Mandadam village, Guntur district on 12.04.2007.The respondent delivered the child on 26.04.2007 who is second petitioner Ishita in M.C.

vii)The respondent was never happy as she was tense and horrified and was never happy during her pregnancy and consequently there were severe complications at the time of her delivery and finally she gave birth to a female child Ishita. 

viii)They demanded that the cradle ceremony has to celebrated in a grand scale and gift worth not less than Rs.1 lakh should be given to the new born baby. The cradle function was held in D.V.Manor hotel and the father of the respondent presented gold ornaments worth Rs.1 lakh to the baby.

ix)The respondent with the baby joined the petitioner in Hyderabad in August,2007. The petitioner and his mother did not show any affection towards the child. They have not even engaged servant maid or domestic help. The respondent was unable to do the entire work and to attend new born baby. When the respondent requested to engage servant maid they abused her by saying that the respondent and the new born child are already sufficient burden to them. The petitioner used to purchase small items for the new born baby by using his credit card and used to collect amounts from the father of the respondent. 

x)They demanded the respondent to bring diamond jewellery and threatened that they would not send her for marriage of her brother scheduled on 18.04.2008 at Hyderabad. The father of the respondent gave diamond jewellery worth Rs.16 lakhs. The brother of the respondent was forced to give expensive wrist watch worth Rs.75,000/­ to the petitioner when the petitioner came for the marriage. 

xi)When it was proposed to perform the first birthday of the child, the petitioner and his mother has stated that the function has to be performed only by the parents of the respondent and they have to give gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs.The father of 17 the respondent arranged function at Manor Food Plaza and presented gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs to the child.

xii)It is averred that due to neglect and improper care, the child became sick and in August,2008 the respondent and the child were sent to Vijayawada by keeping the entire gold and diamond jewellery with them and the child and the respondent were sent with minimum clothing. With careful treatment the child was treated at Vijayawada. The petitioner and his mother did not show the courtesy of visiting their child and did not enquire about her father’s health. Though the petitioner and his mother attended for engagement of their relatives in August, 2008 and for the marriage in October, 2008, they have not come to see the child. After recovery of the child, the respondent went to Dwaraka Tirumala and got the head of the child tonsured in view of miracle recovery of the child from serious illness.

27. The respondent further averred that she and her parents requested to fix auspicious day for the respondent to return with child. The petitioner and his mother however, demanded that she should sell away agricultural land measuring Ac.4.50 cents standing in her name and shall come with the sale proceeds and then only they would allow her to rejoin the petitioner. 

28.For somehow to convince the petitioner, the respondent and her mother, her brother­in­law Ch.Ramu and along with child one Pimmasani Sailendra went to Hyderabad to the petitioner’s house on 28.11.2008 at 10­20 p.m. The petitioner knowing about their arrival did not open the door of their house though they requested. The petitioner abused them in un­ utterable and indecent words from inside the house. The respondent and her mother, her brother­in­law and child and said P.Shailendra waited all over night in cold season in front of the house of the petitioner without food and water. They waited till 12.30 pm (noon) on 29.11.2008. But the petitioner and his mother did not open the door. The respondent and others suffered in the cold and also due to mosquito bites only for the 18 reason that the respondent did not satisfy the illegal demand of bringing the sale proceeds of the land. The respondent is forced to stay along with child with her parents at Vijayawada because of the acts of cruelty and greedy nature of the petitioner and his mother. They planned to prohibit the respondent. They implicated the respondent in false case U/s.498­A IPC in

C.C.235/09 for central crime station, Hyderabad by colluding with the wife of the brother of the respondent and his in­laws. 

29. It is averred that the respondent approached Machavaram

P.S. on 17.5.2009. They promised to arrange counseling. Later they were commenced by the petitioner and such political leaders on their behalf and also the father of the wife of the brother of the respondent who is highly influential, the police did not take any action. They refused to register the case. Having lost hope the respondent filed private complaint. The same was referred and registered as crime No.404/09 and is pending in C.C635/09 on the file of II A.C.CM.M, Vijayawada. 

30. It is further averred that the petitioner does not think and act independently and impartially. He follows the ill­advice of his mother. The petitioner joined his mother in teasing, torturing and ill­treating the respondent both physically and mentally.

They also neglected the child Ishita who is the 2nd petitioner in

M.C.127/09. The petitioner failed as dutiful husband or father.

There is no security to the lives of the respondent and the child.

The respondent bore harassment with a hope that the petitioner may change his attitude. The respondent went to her parents house only for saving the life of the child Ishita. The petitioner 19 refused to take the respondent and the child into his fold. The petitioner filed O.P. 666/09 with false averments. There is no cause of action and prayed to dismiss the petition.

31. In M.C. 127 of 2009 the respondent as petitioner No.1 averred verbatim on the same lines of her counter in

O.P.666/09and averred that there is no income from the agricultural land. The parents of the 1st petitioner in M.C. spent lakhs of rupees and are not in a position to maintain the respondent and 2nd petitioner. The petitioner who is the respondent in M.C. is drawing Rs.40,000/­ p.m. besides income of Rs.1,25,000/­ from the immovable properties. The petitioners require Rs.25,000/­ each for the food, clothing, medicines, shelter and others. Hence the petition.

32. In the counter filed by the petitioner who is the respondent in M.C. the petition averments in M.C. are denied. It is denied about making proposal through M.Subba rao. They denied about inducing by referring to the properties worth crores of rupees.

They denied about demand of Rs.25 lakhs dowry, gold bracelet, diamond ring and suite worth Rs.75,000/­ and Rs.3 lakhs clothes towards clothes at the time of engagement and Rs.4 lakhs at the time of marriage for clothes. They also denied about giving cash of Rs.25 lakhs at the time of exchanging Lagnapatrika. They denied that the mother of Praveen demanded 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments land Adapadachu lanchanams of Rs. 1lakh and

Rs.4 lakhs towards clothes. He denied that Rs.1 lakh was given to Koneru Sarada. He denied that he purchased music system and cell phone worth Rs.25,000/­ and Rs.30,000/­ and paid 20 through credit card and recovered Rs.55,000/­ from the father of the Sravanthi. He also traversed all the averments in the petition in M.C. and denied that verbatim. On his part, the petitioner reiterated the averments in sub para numbers 1 to 22 of para­31 as in O.P.666/09. It is averred that his wife herself played fraud against him and treated him in a cruel manner and she is the responsible for breakdown of the marriage. She is having sufficient income and is not liable to pay any maintenance. Claim made by the 1st petitioner is excessive and arbitrary and imaginary. His wife is getting annual income of Rs.1 lakhs from the agricultural land of Ac.4.50 cents situated in Mandadam village. There are no merits in the petition and prayed to dismissed. 

33. Pathuri Praveen filed O.P.226/10 by averring that his daughter Baby Ishita shall not be exposed to the company of the respondent as her interest will be prejudiced in the custody of the respondent because in an unpleasant , unbearable and worst atmosphere on account of his wife and her parents, for welfare of family and her child and when she is living with the petitioner. It is not in the interest of the psychological and intellectual growth of the child to stay under the control and custody of Sravanti and her parents. He came to know that Sravanti and her parents are involved in several criminal cases and were arrested by police and remanded to judicial custody in a case filed by the wife of the brother of the Sravanti for the offence U/s.498­A IPC and Dowry

Prohibition Act . His wife left his company without any cogent reasons and sufficient cause. The petitioner/husband averred 21 that he took several insurance policies with her parents. She is intending to admit the child in baby Care centre. Sravanti is chronic litigant and filed several criminal cases against him and his family members. It is averred that the respondent in O.P.

sent message through well wishers of the petitioner expressing her willingness to handover the child if an amount of Rs.15 lakhs is paid. When he agreed for the said demand she enhanced the demand to Rs.25 lakhs. The respondent/wife is not providing food and education and good culture. Her only interest is to extract money from the petitioner/husband and prayed to appoint him as the guardian of the minor baby Ishita then 12 ½ years old.

34.In the counter filed on behalf of the respondent/wife in

O.P.226/09. It is averred that due to neglect and improper care by the petitioner, the child became very sick in August,2008. The petitioner vehemently sent away the respondent/wife and the child. The respondent never removed the custody of the child only for giving good treatment she has taken the child. Her husband filed this O.P. as counterblast to criminal cases and the maintenance case. Petitioner/husband did not file this petition with true love and affection towards the child or real intention of taking the child. He filed it for self serving purpose. She reiterated her averments in the petition M.C. 127/12 and the averments in counter in O.P. 666/09.

35. The respondent/wife averred that the child is being brought up in healthy pleasant and calm atmosphere without 22 any apprehension. The respondent is making sacrifices for the sake of welfare of the child. The petitioner/husband threw away the child from his fold when she was finding her love and did not have glance at the child. He visited Vijayawada during the critical condition of the child but did not visit the child. He cannot be permitted to take about the child and her welfare. There is no need to apprehend about the psychological or intellectual growth of the child. The respondent and her parents became a prey in the hands of petitioner and on one side and the daughter­in­law of the parents of the respondent on the other side. The cases filed against them is false. The petitioner sent away the respondent when the child was in critical health condition. The averments made by the respondent and her fold show that the petitioner is speaking falsehood. Several insurance policies mentioned by the petitioner no way come within the purview of the welfare of the child. The petitioner only threw away the child in August,2008 and forced the respondent to remain with her parents. The child is being brought up with utmost care and caution in consonance with human values. The respondent within her permitted means is providing best facilities for the growth of the child. The petitioner never provided to food, education, clothing etc and he can not state about good food and culture of the child. The welfare of the child is paramount consideration. The respondent is safeguard the welfare of the child. The respondent is showing personal care and attention and sharing love and affection and child is her life. The petitioner has aversion towards the child.

His family totally ignored and neglected her and did not care for her survival and prays to dismiss the petition.

23

36. The respondent in O.P.666/09 also filed O.P.357/12 praying to direct the respondent to pay amount of

Rs.2,53,74,323/­ which is worth of the petition schedule properties with interest at the rate of 24%p.a. She further averred that her parents presented gold bracelet weighing 24 gms and diamond ring weighing 8 gms and half carat of diamond costly suite worth Rs.15,000/­ and garments worth Rs.3 lakhs, 14 kilos of silver articles which are mentioned in the petition schedule and incurred expenditure of Rs.3 lakhs for the engagement. 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments were presented to the petitioner/wife by her parents. They gave Adapadachu lanchanams of Rs.1 lakh to Koneru Sarada , Rs.4 lakhs cash was presented towards clothes at the time of marriage. The father of the petitioner spent Rs.15 lakhs for the marriage. The present value of the silver articles, 14 kilos articles presented is

Rs.7,56,000/­. The present value of the gold is Rs.32,81,000/­

He presented Sony music system and cell phone worth

Rs.25,000/­ and 35,000/­ were purchased by using credit card of the respondent/husband and an amount of Rs.55,000/­is credited and got reimbursed. The father of the petitioner also gave Rs.25 lakhs on 20.3.2006. He purchased the furniture worth Rs.3 lakhs and household articles worth Rs.1 lakh .The father of the petitioner also paid Rs.25 lakhs out of sale consideration on 4.3.07.The brother of the petitioner N.Kishore brought Laptop Rs.65,000/­ and gave it to the respondent/husband. An amount of Rs.1 lakhs was spent on 1st wedding anniversary. In Februaruy,207 the respondent purchased jewellery of Rs.2 lakhs by using his credit card and 24 recovered the same from the father of the petitioner/wife. The present value of the haram weighing about 150 gms worth

Rs.4,20,000/­.

37. The respondent/husband demanded the father of the petitioner to give Rs.50 lakhs for depositing in Jayal Projects. As the petitioner was in her advance state of pregnancy her father was forced to pay Rs.50 lakhs to the respondent on 20.4.2007.

Till date the respondent did not choose to disclose what the respondent did with that amount and what in manner he invested the same.

38. By threatening not to see the face of the child to be born, the respondent made the father of the petitioner to register Ac.

4.50 cents of agricultural land at Mandadam village, Guntur

District on 12.04.2007. 

39. The belt weighing 60 gms. And gold weighing 40 gms. Were presented to the child during the cradle function as the respondent and her mother demanded with gold ornaments worth Rs.1 lakhs have to be given to the baby by threatening that she cannot attend for the marriage of her brother fixed on 18.4.2008 diamond jewellery Rs.16 lakhs were extracted from the father of the petitioner. The diamond set includes necklace , ear rings, bangles, pendent, bracelet, and the present value of the jewellery is Rs.33,54,723/­. Expensive wrist watch worth

Rs.75,000/­ was presented at the time of the marriage of petitioner’s brother.

25

40. At the time of first birthday of the child, gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs were demanded , vaddanam weighing 165 gms kasula pair weighing 608 gull chain 60 gms were presented to the child. Their present value is Rs.7,98,000/­.

41. It is averred that when the child became seriously sick in

August,2008, the respondent sent away the petitioner and the child by keeping of gold and diamond jewellery. Only minimum clothing were given to the petitioner. The child was treated at

Vijayawada. Parents of the petitioner presented gold and diamond jewellery , furniture, household articles, clothes, garments and the petitioner prayed for these ornaments or cash value, cash, silver articles, music system ,cell phone furniture TV , household articles There are listed items 1 to34 and their value is Rs.2,53,74,323/­.

42.The respondent filed his counter which is verbatim on the lines of the counter in M.C.127/09 and denied about the presentation of various ornaments, dowry, clothes, music system, cell phone etc. Reproduction of the same is not required for saving for confusion and repetition. 

43. As stated earlier the O.P. 666/09 ,M.C.127/09 ,O.P.226/10 and O.P.357/12 were clubbed and common evidence was recorded in O.P.666/09. 

44. The petitioner got himself examined as Pw1 .The petitioner examined one D.Praveen Kumar as Pw2 however, his evidence is eschewed as he has not tendered himself for cross examination 26 after seeking time for examination by the respondent. One Ravi

Koneru cousin of Pw1 is examined as Pw3 . The respondent/wife who is the petitioner No.1 in M.C. 127/09, the petitioner in

O.P.357/12 got herself examined as Rw1. The mother of the respondent N.Sobha Rani is examined as Rw2 and Pemmasani

Shailendra ,a relative of the respondent is examined as RW3 and one Pade Sai Yedunandana is examined as Rw4. Exs.A1 and A2 are marked on behalf of petitoenr.Exs.B1 to B4 are marked on behalf of the respondent.

45. Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether the petitioner in O.P. 666/09 is entitled for the relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion as prayed for ? 

The part of the point can be answered here itself without looking at the evidence as the petitioner filed this O.P. as

O.P.673/09 on the file of Family Court, at Hyderabad on 15.6.09.

Since it is averred that the respondent went to attend the marriage of brother of the respondent which was scheduled on 18.4.2008 and she went to her parents house in March, 2008.

He further averred that the petitioner made reservation for the petitioner and respondent on 28.5.2008 but the respondent refused to come with him. He averred that the respondent and her mother came on 29.11.2008 at 10­00 pm and abused the petitioner and his mother till noon on 30.11.2008.The case of the petitioner is that the respondent went away in March, 2008 and not returned since O.P. filed on 15.6.09. it cannot be said that there is desertion for 2 years period. So, the petitioner is not entitled for divorce on the ground of desertion. So, the petitioner is not entitled for divorce on the ground of desertion. The part of 27 the point No.1 is answered. The point that remains is whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty?

2) Whether the respondent who is the petitioner No.1 in

M.C.127/09 and 2nd petitioner child baby Ishita are entitled for

maintenance at the rate ofRs.25,000/­ as prayed for?

3) If not what shall be the quantum of maintenance?

4) Whether the petitioner who also filed O.P.226/10is entitled for the relief of appointing him as the guardian of the child Ishita as prayed for?

5) Whether the respondent/wife who filed O.P.357/12 is entitled for the relief of directing the respondent to pay Rs.2,53,74,323/­ which according to her was entrusted to the respondent and which includes expenses and whether she is entitled for the said amount with interest at 24%p.a. as prayed for?

6) What shall be the relief that can be granted to the petitioner/wife in O.P.357/12?

POINT No.1:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of divorce

on the ground of cruelty?

46. Certain uncontroverted aspects can be stated here

before discussing the point. The petitioner is the resident of

Hyderabad. The respondent is the resident of Vijayawada. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 14.12.2005 at Siddhartha College, Vijayawada. The petitioner studied M.B.A. and the respondent/wife did M.Sc., Computers.

The younger brother of the petitioner is stated to have died in an accident on 26.10.2004. The 2nd petitioner in M.C.127/09 Baby

Ishita was born out of wedlock. O.P.666/09was filed at

Hyderabad as O.P.673/2009 and it was presented on 15.6.2009 and it was registered on 22.6.2009. The respondent/wife filed

M.C. 127/09 on 15.7.2009 she got the O.P. transferred to this

court by approaching the Hon’ble High Court. The child was born 28 on 26.4.2007. The petitioner and the respondent have separated in 2008. According to the petitioner, the respondent went away in March, 2008.According to the respondent/wife she was sent away when the child was seriously sick in August, 2008.The child who was aged about 2 years 3 months and odd at the time of filing of O.P. for divorce and M.C. has become 10 years old.

47. The petitioner stated that he never took any dowry from the parents of the respondent as the respondent is fair and good looking and he expressed his willingness to marry the respondent in the presence of elders and mediators. The parents of the respondent informed orally in the presence of elders that Ac.4.50 cents of wet land in Mandadam village, Guntur District is in the name of the respondent and income of Rs.1 lakh will be derived from that agricultural land. At the time of engagement on 27.11.2005, his mother gifted diamonds and emarld set worth

Rs.2 lakhs and two kanchipattu sarees worth Rs.20,000/­ at the time of marriage her mother gifted diamond set, gold chain with tally blackbeeds chain and diamond ring. Immediately after marriage he and the respondent went to Chennai, Pudicherry ,Bangalore. They went to honeymoon on 5.1.206 to 12.1.2006.

Himself and respondent went tour in July, 2006 and had trip for one week to New Delhi ,Jaipur for visiting important places. 

48. His version is that the respondent used to go to her parents house frequently and used to stay for 10 days every time.

He used to drop her and pick up her. This became a habit. He also stated that the respondent never discharged her duties as a 29 housewife. She has negative attitude and suicide tendency and threatened many times that she would commit suicide. 

49. She used to get up at 10­30 pm. He has to wait till she gets up for going to his work in a private company. Admittedly, he is working in Jaya Projects. It is elicited that his office is adjacent to his house. He also stated that his mother presented diamond set worth Rs.6 lakhs., gold set worth Rs.80,000/­and silver articles worth Rs.20,000/­. He stated that when his mother is admitted in a hospital with chickun guniea disease a day

before Vinakyaka Chaviti in 2006, the respondent cut her wrist

with a knife when he was about to go to hospital and asked him not to go to hospital. He stated that he spent amount when the respondent was in the house of her parents during conception and also after delivery of the child. He further stated that he purchased cell phone worth Rs.25,000/­ and music system worth Rs.35,000/­ and video camera. He has taken insurance policy for the benefit of the child which he listed in para­10 of his chief. He also stated that the respondent celebrated both

Annaprasanna and first birthday of the child at her parents house. 

50. On behalf of the petitioner, his wedding invitation and the news item in Vijayawada city Edition in Eenadu on 30.5.2009 with regard to arrest of three persons are marked as Ex.A1 and

A2. The photo of the petitioner and the respondent in wedding costumes though filed is not got marked. 

30

51. The evidence of Pw1 in his chief is on the lines of petition averments. The evidence of RW1 is on the lines of her averments in M.C.127/09 and her averments in counter in O.P.666/09. The version of RW1 is that her father spent Rs.15 lakhs for marriage.

He was forced to give Rs.4 lakhs toward clothes and Rs.1 lakh towards Adapadachu lanchanams to Koneru Sarada. She was given gold ornaments worth 125 sovereigns and she wore them at the time of marriage. The petitioner purchased Sony music system worth Rs.25,000/­ and cell phone Rs.30,000/­ paid with his credit card and later recovered same in cash from her father.

The mother of the petitioner never liked her and she took measures to see that spouses do not remain together when they were at house. She had to remain at bedroom and petitioner has to remain with his mother or he must go to the house of his senior paternal aunt. She was harassed for additional dowry. She deposed that on the eve of marriage a dowry Rs.25 lakhs gold , bracelet ,diamond ring and costly suite worth minimum of

Rs.75,000/­ shall be given to the petitioner by his father. The petitioner also demanded Rs.3 lakhs for purchase of clothes for the relatives. Cash ofRs.25,000/­ was given at the time of exchanging lagnapatrika. The betrothal function was held at

Swarna vedika on 27.11.2005.

52 She also stated that her mother­in­law demanded after the marriage that she has to bring at least Rs.25 lakhs from her parents otherwise, they will not allow her to live in the house. For saving her marriage her father gave Rs.25 lakhs. The same was 31 used to complete the construction of shopping complex at

Kukatpally.

53. Her father gave Rs.3 lakhs for purchasing new furniture and Rs.1 lakh for purchasing colour TV and other articles Rs.25 lakhs was given to the petitioner in the 1st week of March, 2007 ,her brother Kishore brought Laptop worth Rs.65,000/­ from U.S. in December,2006 and gave it to the petitioner. Her parents gave Rs.1 lakh for the 1st wedding anniversary on 14.12.2006. The petitioner purchased jewellery worth Rs.2 lakhs in February,2007 on the eve of Srimantham function. The petitioner used credit card for purchase of jewellery and on the next day his father paid Rs.2 lakhs. Her father paid Rs.50 lakhs for depositing in Jaya Projects. Her father registered Ac.4.50 cents in her name on 12.04.2007.Her father gave gold ornaments worth Rs.1 lakh towards cradle function in D.V.Manor,

Vijayawada. On the eve of marriage of her brother on 18.4.2008 the petitioner and his mother stated that she has to bring diamond jewellery otherwise they will not send the respondent to the marriage of her brother and her father gave diamond jewellery worth Rs.16 lakhs. A wrist watch worth Rs.75,000/­ is also given to the petitioner at the time of marriage of her brother.

On the eve of first birthday of the child her father gave gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs on demand. She averred that the petitioner and her mother designed a plan for prohibiting her and in collusion with wife of her brother and got registered a case for the alleged offence U/s.498­A IPC against her parents ,her 32 brother and her in crime 235/09 in Central crime station,

Hyderabad. 

54. Pw1 stated in her chief that due to neglect and improper care by the petitioner, the child became very sick again in

August, 2008 she and her child were sent away to Vijayawada to her parents house. She came to Vijayawada with her child. They kept all the gold and diamond jewellery and belongings except minimum clothing. After careful treatment and care the child was treated at Vijayawada .The petitioner has not visited the child though he came for engagement function during

August,2008 and for marriage in October 208 and has not seen the child. He got the child taken to Dwaraka Tirumala and got her tonsured in view of miracle recovery of the child. Here it has to be stated that she has not sated she informed the petitioner about taking the child for tonsuring i.e. for removing birth time hair of the child or only for fulfilling owe. Then she stated about going to Hyderabad on 28.11.2008 and remained there till noon on 29.11.2008. The petitioner stated that they came at 10 or 10­30 am on 29.11.2008 and remained till 12­00 non on 30.11.2008 with regard to date of this incident there is discrepancy. 

55. From the pleadings and evidence of Pw1 and Rw1,it can be seen that the petitioner and the respondent are spitting venom against each other .They are speaking about money and money only. The value of the money can be known when it saves life.

The value of the money will be known by person who is starving.

When the tummy of hungry person is filled. It is a great virtue, 33 when money is used for an evil purpose. It is misuse of money.

The petitioner and the respondent who spit venom for the sake of money in the form of money in the name of money. They are talking in the name of jewels, in the form of diamond and in the name of gold. The petitioner and respondent are not talking about love and affection. No amount of wealth can bring love and affection. If the wealth can bring love and affection, it is artificial.

If the human emotions and human feelings and sensitivities feelings bring about love and affection. It can be said that love is sacred. The petitioner and the respondent did not state about love and affection. They did not talk about accommodation and adjustment. They stated about display of ornaments. The petitioner and the respondent are living separately since 9 years.

They have not stated about any mediation. Except for stating about one Ram Gopal. During cross examination of Rw1 it was denied that Rw1 was sent by her husband. She stated that they sent Ramgopal to her in­laws to ask for refund of amount to parents and requested her in­laws to receive her back. Ram

Gopal is not examined either for the petitioner or for the respondent. It is elicited from Pw1 one K.Prasada rao and

K.Manmadharao of Tadigadapa are the elders who mediated the elders of the marriage and they are family friends of the petitioner. 

56. On behalf of the petitioner, his cousin Ravi Koneru is examined. He also stated about marriage and presentations.

57. RW2 also stated about presentations etc., Rw2 is the mother of the respondent.

34

58.The Learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband relied upon a decision reported in (2008) 7 SCC 734 Satish Sitole vs.

Ganga(Smt) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court relying upon (1995) 2 SCC 7, Romesh Chander vs. Savitri, by considering that the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife had been living separately for 14 years out of their 16 years of marital life and upon being convinced that any attempt at reconciliation will be futile and with a view to bring quietus to all litigations pending between the parties and also by relying upon

i) Anjana Kishore vs. Puneet Tripathy (2002) 10 SCC 194 (ii)

Swati Varma vs.Rajan Verma (2004) 1 SCC 123, (iii) Durga

Prasanna Tripathy vs.Arundhati Tripathy (2005) 7 SCC 353

and by invoking powers Under Article 142 of Constitution of

India by observing that marriage is dead emotionally and practically and there is no chance of its being retrieved, the continuance of such a marriage would amount to cruelty to parties and granted relief of divorce. 

59. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the wife submitted decision is not applicable for granting divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage as the Hon’ble

Apex Court by exercising their Lordships powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India have granted divorce and consequently, the irretrievably break down of marriage has not become a statutory ground of divorce.

60. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon 2010 (5) ALT 1 (SC) Neelam Kumar vs.

35

Dayarani, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered

Satish Sithole vs.Ganga (2008) 7 SCC 734. Their Lordships held ­ “ There is nothing to indicate that the respondent has contributed in any way to the alleged breakdown of the marriage. If a party to a marriage, by his own conduct brings the relationship to a point of irretrievable breakdown, he/she cannot be allowed to seek divorce on the ground of breakdown of the marriage. That would simply mean giving someone the benefits of his/her own misdeeds. Moreover, in a later decision of this court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs.Manju Sharma (2) (2009) 6 SCC 379, it has been held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce as it is not contemplated under Section 13 and granting divorce on this ground alone would amount to adding a clause therein by a judicial verdict which would amount to legislation by Court. In the concluding paragraph of this judgment, the Court observed; “ If we grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, then we shall by judicial verdict be adding a clause to Section 13 of the Act to the effect that irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is also a ground for divorce. In our opinion, this can only be done by the legislature and not by the Court. It is for the Parliament to enact or amend the law and not for the Courts.”

61. In Dutt Sarma vs.Manju Sharma 2009(3) ALT 12 (SC) their Lordships held that irretrievable break down of marriage is not provided by the legislature for granting decree U/s.13 of H.M.

Act.

62. The Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon

2015(5) ALT 564 (DB) Anchuri Subba Raju vs.Anchuri Sunitha

their Lordships held that – “ every conduct alleged that it tentamounts to cruelty must be proved by preponderance of probabilities and even giving of police report or filing of complaint or pursuing or case U/s.498­A IPC and U/s.3 and 4 of D.P.Act by the wife against the husband or his family members per se do not constitute cruelty including from the result of acquittal therein; in the absence of showing and proving by the husband that the complaint filed or report given or pursuing of the case is aimed to harass and ill­treat the husband that constitute mental cruelty.” 36

63.The Learned Counsel for the respondent by further relied upon2010(3) ALT 421 (D.B.) M.Pushpalatha vs.

M.Venkateswarlu their Lordship held that only Supreme Court alone has exclusive powers to declare a marriage between parties has irretrievably broken down in exercise of powers under article 142 of the Constitution of India on the facts and circumstances of the case to do complete justice to parties. No other court has such power. 

64. Their Lordships further held that family Court is not empowered to grant of decree of divorce on the ground that marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down. 

65. Coming back to the facts and circumstances of the case,

PW1 deposed in his chief that the respondent used to go to her parents house frequently and used to stay their for 10 days. The respondent failed to discharge duties as wife or daughter­in­law.

She used to pick up quarrels with him and she is having negative attitude and suicidal tendency as she threatened so many times to commit suicide. It is put to Pw1 that the respondent has no suicidal tendency and never threatened to commit suicide. Pw1 denied the same.

66. PW1 further stated that he and his mother requested the respondent and her parents for performing Annaprasanna function of the child Ishita in Vijayawada but the 1st respondent and her parents refused to perform the same at Hyderabad and performed the function at Vijayawada. He further stated that in the 6th month Annaprasanna function of baby Ishita was 37 performed at Vijayawada. The respondent informed him not to bring any of his relatives. He stated that the behaviour of the respondent did not change even after birth of the child. During cross examination Pw1 stated that he does not remember when

Annaprasanna function was celebrated. However, the aspect with regard to informing the petitioner/husband not to bring any of the relatives is not denied on behalf of the respondent. RW1 has not stated that Anna prasanna function was not performed at

Vijayawada and that it was performed at Hyderabad.

67. Pw1 stated that Kesakandanam a tonsuring ceremony for the removal of the birth hair of the child was performed at

Tirupati. It is stated that they went to Tirupati along with the respondent newly wedded couple, that is brother of the respondent and his wife and the said function was held there.

Pw1 also stated that the respondent refused for celebrating first birth day function of Baby Ishita at Hyderabad and it was performed at Vijayawada. She stated that when she proposed to perform first birthday function of their child Ishita, the petitioner and his mother took serious objection saying that it should be performed by her parents only and for that function gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs were presented and they celebrated first birthday function at Manor Food Plaza and presented gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs. It is not put to Rw1 that parents of the respondent and her mother insisted that first birthday shall be performed by her parents only and that they have to present the gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs. In the absence of such suggestion it has to be considered that the respondent/wife 38 refused to celebrate the first birthday at Hyderabad and celebrated at Vijayawada in her parents house. Further the petitioner has stated that the respondent went to her parents house in March, 2008 on the eve of celebration of the marriage of her brother on 18.04.2008. After the marriage when he asked the respondent to come with him, the respondent informed that she would come to Hyderabad after her brother left America. He further stated that after two days, the respondent telephoned to him and informed that he should leave his mother and if a separate family is set up and further informed that all the properties and money shall be transferred from his mother to the name of the respondent and asked him to come to her parents house to settle there. The said evidence of the petitioner is not countered during cross examination. Pw1 further stated that he and his mother got telephoned through elder paternal uncle, senior maternal uncle of the respondent to the father of the respondent and requested to bring the respondent along with baby Ishita and settle disputes if any in the presence of mediators and father of the respondent informed that he would talk to his wife and respondent and informed but the father of the respondent did not respond after wards he himself took railway tickets from Vijayawada to Hyderabad for both the petitioner and the respondent and informed the respondent that he was coming to take back her and to get ready with their daughter. The respondent abused him over phone and stated that she will not come and asked him not to go and asked both the petitioner and his mother to die. This evidence of the petitioner is not countered. Pw1 is not cross­examined with 39 regard to this aspect. The respondent also not traversed this pleading of the petitioner and not met evidence of Pw1. 

68. PW1 further stated that everyday the respondent and her mother used to abuse him by calling over phone. He stopped lifting cell phone after few days. Then the respondent used to start abusing him by giving SMS to cell phone. In the month of

November, 2008 the respondent sent SMS to him that she and her mother will come to their house and damage their reputation in the presence of their relatives and colony people. On 29.11.2008 the respondent and her mother came to their house without Ishita and started abusing in filthy language. Thus he informed the respondent to come on the next day with their daughter and mediators but the respondent and her mother did not hear and abuse him and his mother very badly with foul and filthy language till 12­00 non on 13.11.2008, colony people and neighbouring families witnessed the scene. The neighbours of the house on 29.11.2008 also requested the respondent and her mother to go inside and take rest and the problems if any can be sorted out but they did not hear anyone. 

69. The evidence with regard to this aspect by RW1 is that she along with her mother and brother­in­law Ch.Ramu along with child Ishita , P.Shailendra went to the house on 28.11.2008 at 10­20 pm after knowing about their arrival they did not open doors of their house and when she and her mother requested the petitioner to open the door, the petitioner abused them in unutterable and indecent language from inside their house. She and her brother­in­law and Pimmasani Shailendra waited all over 40 the night in the cold season in front of the house of the petitioner without food and water until 12.30 noon time on 29.11.2008 but the petitioner and his mother vehemently did not open the door of their house for the sake of at least one year old child. 

70. During cross examination Rw1 stated that she has no documentary proof that she went to Hyderabad on 28.11.2008.

She stated that she went in a car. She denied that she came to her parents house in the month of August, 2008. There is one day difference between the version of petitioner and the respondent. The Petitioner stated that the respondent and his mother came on 29.11.2008 at 10­00 pm without Ishita. The respondent stated that they went there on 28.11.2008 at 10­20 pm. According to the petitioner they were there till noon on 30.11.2008. According to the respondent they were there till 12.30 on 29.11.2008 . It has to be stated that the respondent and her mother etc., have gone there during odd hours. If the door of the house of the petitioner is opened nothing would have happened. If the doors of the house of the petitioner are not opened, nothing would have prevented the respondent and her persons accompanying her from taking photograph of the scene of not opening the doors. So, visit by the respondent, her mother is admitted. It is not shown that she went along with her father.

It is for her to explain why she has not gone along with her both parents. Of course Rw1 was not cross examined on this aspect.

The respondent has not stated that after the marriage of her brother, she went back to the house of the petitioner and joined the conjugal home. The petitioner also not traversed the evidence 41 of Pw1 that she stated that she would come after her brother went to America and she put­up a condition that the petitioner has to leave his mother and has to put up separate family and should get the properties transferred from the name of her mother in her name. This evidence is not traversed. On the other hand, Rw4 during cross examination stated that she does not like either to send her daughter to her husband or to allow her husband to see her daughter. She stated that she has not given any legal notice to express her willingness to join the petitioner prior to filing of this O.P. This evidence of RW1 would show the mindset of the respondent. It is shown that the petitioner and the respondent are living separately since March, 2008. The respondent’s version is that she is living separately since August, 2008. It is not shown about making any efforts for reunion. It is not shown about making any efforts through mediators for reunion. The petitioner has stated that he got telephoned to the father of the respondent through the senior paternal uncle and senior maternal uncle of the respondent and requested to bring the respondent along with the baby Ishita and his mother requested him to bring baby and the respondent. The father of the respondent informed that he would talk with his wife and respondent and later did not respond. He got tickets from

Vijayawada to Hyderabad booked for himself and the respondent and telephoned to the respondent and the respondent abused him over phone and asked him not to come and asked him and his mother to die. This evidence of petitioner also remained untouched. The same is not denied on behalf of the respondent. 

42

71. The petitioner averred about taking the respondent for new year celebrations, honeymoon trip, going to Visakhaptanam and making shopping, purchasing various items and spending amounts for the respondent. The respondent on the other hand stated about dowry, status of the petitioner, their properties etc.

She stated about presenting jewels, gold ornament, diamond ornaments. She deposed that they presented Rs.1.5 crores. Rw2 stated that they gave Rs.1.36 crores and now the respondent has filed O.P. for recovery of Rs.2,53,74,323/­. The petitioner and the respondent have stated about money and money. They have not stated anything about happy moments or sharing love and affection and sharing and caring for each other. The entitlement of the respondent for the amounts claimed by her will be discussed in point No.5. The averments of the petitioner and the respondent would show that their marriage is practically dead.

There is no emotional bonding between them. The approach of the petitioner and the respondent appears, more particularly that of the respondent is like settlement of accounts and parting by claiming amounts. It is also shown that the petitioner and the respondent have no emotional bonding. The same also shows that spouses cannot live together and they lived separately for long years. 

72. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be considered that the conduct of the respondent would amount to subjecting the petitioner to cruelty. The petitioner is entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty. Point No.1 is answered. 

POINT Nos 2 &3 :

43

73. It is shown that the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. It is also shown that the respondent is not provided any maintenance after period of separation. It is admitted by the respondent during her cross examination that the court granted interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/­ for her and

Rs.1,000/­ to her daughter and her husband has been paying same regularly. The petitioner in his chief has stated that his mother gifted diamonds and emarld set worth Rs.2 lakhs and two kanchipattu sarees worth Rs.20,000/­ to the respondent and expensive clothes were given to the entire family members. He also stated that the respondent did shopping worth Rs.45,000/­ and purchased dresses and sarees when they went for celebrating new year at Chennai, Pudicherry and Bangalore dt.30.12.2005 to 4.01.2006. He also stated that the respondent used to ask him to take her dinner in Star hotels. He spent

Rs.20,000/­ to Rs.30,000/­ for shopping. He has taken insurance for his daughter for Rs.12 lakhs from Birla Life

Insurance Company by paying annual premium Rs.53,200/­. He also stated in para­10 of his chief that he has taken various insurance policies. His mother gifted gold chain worth

Rs.30,000/­ at the time of Annaprasanna. He gave cash

Rs.75,000/­ to his brother­in­law at the time of his brother­in­ law. He stated in his evidence that he is working as Accountant in Jaya Projects (Pvt.) Ltd., at Hyderabad. It belonged to Sri

Dhana Koteswara rao Managing Director who is his senior paternal uncle. He stated that he is paying Rs.1,67,980/­ towards property tax for his building. Besides his salary, he used to get rent from the building at Moosapet. His last drawn salary 44 was Rs.25,000/­ .He is also owning agricultural lands in an extent of Ac.2.08 cents at Jakkula Nekkalam village,

Gannavaram mandal, His mother is also having property adjacent to his property. His mother is also getting Rs.25,000/­ pm. from the said property. His mother gets Rs.50,000/­ to

Rs.60,000/­ per year from the land at Sanarigudem at

Gannavaram mandal. He admitted during cross examination he used to pay Rs.50,000/­ towards premium of LIC policy of his wife and RS.8,000/­ towards medical insurance policy. During cross examination, he stated that he presented Rs.60,000/­ or

Rs.70,000/­ to his brother­in­law at the time of his marriage.

74.Rw1 stated during cross examination that she does not know whether her husband is doing any job at present or not.

The evidence of the petition indicates the financial status of the petitioner. It is also clear that the petitioner has not provided any maintenance after the respondent went to her parents house. It is also not shown that he sent any amount for his child and cared for the needs of the child. The child who was 2 ½ years at the time of parting of the spouses has crossed 10 years.

The petitioner is shown to have did his M.B.A., and is working in a promising company. It is also shown that he constructed a shopping complex at Kukatpalli. The petitioner has not stated about her specific needs. The salary of the petitioner is shown to be Rs.25,000/­. He has income from agricultural income from house and income from the shopping complex and he is paying huge property tax. The maintenance has to be granted by considering the needs of the petitioner and income and paying 45 capacity of the petitioner for granting of Rs.25,000/­ to each to respondent and 2nd petitioner child. The respondent/wife who is the first petitioner in MC. has to show that how much was being spent on the respondent in the conjugal fold. She has not shown that her father used to spend that much prior to her marriage .

Under the circumstances granting of Rs.25,000/­ each to petitioners 1and 2 in M.C.127/09 cannot be made. In the circumstances of the petition and considering the way, the petitioner projected about his spending and admissions of the respondent and that he has stated that the emrald set , diamond set etc., would be given to his wife granting of maintenance of

Rs.18,000/­ to the 1st petitioner and Rs.9,000/­ to the 2nd petitioner is considered just and appropriate. Point Nos. 2and 3 are answered.

POINT No.4:

75. The petitioner/husband is seeking to appoint him as guardian of his child. He stated that in the interest and progress of the minor child and for protecting the best interest of the child, he should be given custody. He also stated that it is not in the interest of the child to remain in the custody of the respondent/wife. During cross examination, he stated that on the last occasion, he saw the Baby on 27.4.2008 on the next day of her first birthday. He does not know in which school or which class his daughter is studying. He never sent any gifts to his daughter to any of her birthdays. He is not in a position to identify her if she is shown to him at present.

46

76. The child is aged 2 ½ years, when spouses separated. The child has attained 10 years .The petitioner has not shown any learning towards child. It is not that the petitioner has no connection with Vijayawada. It is not that the petitioner does not visit Vijayawada. The petitioner has not approached the child. He never saw the child. He never shown love and affection after the spouses parted towards child. He is not continuing insurance policies which he has taken. It is not for promoting the welfare, well being of the child to appoint the petitioner as guardian of the child. Petitioner cannot be appointed as guardian of the child as prayed for. Point No.4 is answered accordingly.

POINT No.5&6:

77. The respondent/wife who filed O.P.357/12 has filed O.P.

three years after filing of O.P.673/09 on the file of Family Court,

Hyderabad which correspondents to O.P.666/09. She filed this

O.P. three years after filing M.C.127/09. She stated that the petitioner demanded Rs.25 lakhs demanded by the petitioner was handed over. During cross examination she has stated that in toto they have given Rs.1.5 crores to the petitioner but she cannot say exactly. She is, however, seeking Rs.2,53,74,323/­.

She stated that for construction of shopping complex they have given Rs.25 lakhs. There is evidence to show that they gave

Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioner. She stated that bank statement is available and she will file the same. However, she has not filed any bank statement. She stated that her father is having Ac.16­ 00 of agricultural land at the time of her marriage. 

47

78. The mother of the petitioner as RW2 deposed that she cannot say the particulars of the dates on which they gave cash.

On 8.12.2005 they paid Rs.8 lakhs on 23.12.2006. They paid

Rs.25 lakhs on 4.3.2007. They paid Rs.25 lakhs and on 24.10.2007 they gave Rs.50 lakhs. Her husband withdrawn

Rs.60 lakhs from the bank. The marriage was solemnized on 14.12.2005. The engagement function was performed on 27.11.2005. Lagnapatrikas were exchanged after 10 days. The evidence of RW2 that they paid Rs.8 lakhs on 8.12.2005 would contradicts the evidence of Rw1 that at the time of exchange

Lagnapaatrika at the house of the petitioner at Hyderabad cash of Rs.25 lakhs demanded by the petitioner as dowry was handed over in the presence of mother of the petitioner and some of their relatives. One M.Subba rao, K.Yedunanda was present at that time. M.Subba rao was not examined but Yedunandana was examined as RW4. RW4 stated that he present and participated during Lagnapatrika function for the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent 10 days after function the parents of the respondent informed him that the petitioner and his mother were demanding Rs.25 lakhs towards dowry and having no othergo they were intending to pay the said amount and requested him to accompany. He went to the house of the petitioner on 8.12.2005 and handed over the said amount to the petitioner.

The evidence of RW1 shows that this event of handing over cash of Rs.25 lakhs happened 10 days after exchanging lagnapatrika.

This is shown that amount was not handed over at the time of exchanging lagnapatrika. RWs.1and 4 has stated that Rs.25 lakhs was given at the same time but RW2 stated that Rs.8 lakhs 48 was given on 8.12.2005. According to RW4 Rs.25 lakhs was handed over on 8.12.2005 at 1­00 pm. it is not put to RW4 that

Rs.25 lakhs was not given. However, the evidence of Rw2 contradicts the evidence of Rws.1and 4. The respondent offered to file bank statement. She has not filed bank statements. RW2 stated that her husband withdrawn Rs.60 lakhs from the bank .Husband of Rw2 has not come forward to give evidence that he paid Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.50 lakhs. 

79. PW3 K.Ravi is the Director of Jaya Projects Ltd., When the

Director of the Jaya projects is examined and tendered himself for cross examination it is not put to Pw3 about investing Rs.50 lakhs in Jaya Projects. It is not elicited about investing and making about Jaya Projects paying amount towards investment made by respondent or her father. It cannot be believed that without any scrap of paper, the respondent or her father would invest Rs.50 lakhs in Jaya Projects that too to when the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was not smooth and was troublesome. The respondent/wife has not cross examined Pw1 with regard to paying Rs.25 lakhs towards construction of shopping complex and paying Rs.50 lakhs for investing in Jaya Projects. It was put to Pw1 that he received

Rs.2,74,003/­ from the parents of the respondent and that he is liable to return the same. It is also put to him that he and his mother are in the custody of the gold jewellery and valuables of the respondent and their daughter Ishita except these two questions, nothing is put to Pw1 with regard to listed out properties. It was not put to Pw1 about Vaddanam to the child , 49 harams, Aravankees etc., RW1 stated that she has no documentary proof to show that she invested Rs.50 lakhs in Jaya

Projects belonging to the cousin of the petitioner. She admitted that 3 years after filing M.C. she filed O.P. 357/12 for recovery of amounts and gold ornaments. She denied that she did not disclose about the gold ornaments with her husband in her complaint U/s.498­A IPC in M.C. and GWOP. The petitioner has stated that her father is owning AC.16.00 of land. At one stage, she admitted that it is true that Ac.4.50 cents in Mandadam village in her name and her father Ac.12.00 of land including the above said Ac.4.50 cents of land in the same place. The petitioner filed Exs.B1 to B4 which are assessment order Appellate Order.

Except filing Ex.B1 to B.4 nothing is stated about the payment of income tax. In Exs.B1 to B.4 it is shown that the income shown is treated as unexplained and extent is shown as unexplained.

The father of Rw1 has not come forward for giving evidence with regard to Exs.B1 to B4. RW2 stated that her husband has no other business activities. She denied that income from agricultural is the only source for maintenance for their family and education of her children. She stated that they are having building rents. RW1 stated that she cannot say total weight of gold ornaments presented to her. There is evidence to show that the said ornaments were purchased by her parents at the time of her marriage. Her father is having Ac.16­00 of agricultural land at the time of marriage and he is resident of Vijayawada. She denied that the said agricultural land was given on lease to other persons.

50

80. RW3 stated during cross examination that the father of respondent is businessman. Previously her father was maintaining a tractor showroom. RWs.1 and 2 have not stated about maintaining Tractor showroom. RW2 stated about maintaining Tractor showroom. RW2 stated that they have given

Rs.1,36,00,000/­ to her son­in­law. RW1 also stated that she does not know how much income is fetching on Ac.16.00 of land of his farther. She admitted except income from the land her father has no other source of income. She also admitted with the income from Ac.16­00 of land her father performed the marriage of her brother and provided education to her and her brother and she denied that her father has no capacity to pay. When the father of the respondent is only an agriculturist having Ac.16.00 of land, it is perplexing to understand that they agreed for the demand of dowry of Rs.25 lakhs, gold bracelet and costly suite which has minimum worth of Rs.75,000/­. They have given suite worth Rs.75,000/­.

81.It cannot be believed that the father of the respondent has given garments worth Rs.3 lakhs at the time of betrothal and he has given cloths worth Rs.4 lakhs at the time of marriage. It cannot be considered that clothes gold diamond jewellery etc., can be purchased without bills. And they will not think that it is not worth preserving bills. RW1 stated that in June, 2006 they have given furniture worth Rs.3 lakhs and household articles worth Rs.1 lakh. She stated that at the time of Srimantham function, the gold ornaments worth Rs.2 lakhs were demanded and given. Diamond jewellery worth Rs.16 lakhs were given on 51 the eve of marriage of her brother as the petitioner and her mother threatened that they will not allow them to attend for the marriage unless diamond jewellery worth Rs.16 lakhs is given.

On the first birthday of the child they demanded and her father gave gold ornaments worth Rs.3 lakhs when the first birthday of child was celebrated in Manor Food Plaza. Ac.4.50 cents is in her name. The land is still remaining with her. Pw1 stated that he perused the title deeds of an extent of Ac.4.50 cents of agricultural and after filing of MC. Nothing is put to Pw1 with regard to dowry of Rs.25 lakhs payment of Rs.25 lakhs at the time of construction of shopping complex and payment of Rs.50 lakhs in Jaya Projects. Nothing is put to Pw1 with regard to various gold ornaments, diamond ornaments, silver items. Even with regard to Sony music system, cell phone, it is shown that these were purchased for the respondent. It is not shown that the father of the respondent is so affluent that he would provide lakhs and lakhs of rupees and gold and diamond jewellery just for mere asking at the drop of the hat. Even otherwise not even single bill for purchasing these items is filed by respondent. In such prayer of the respondent to order that the petitioner should be made to pay Rs.2,53,74,323/­ shall not be ordered. The respondent/wife who is the petitioner in O.P.357/12 is not entitled for the relief of ordering the payment of

Rs.2,53,74,323/­. Point No.5 is answered.

82. In the result, O.P.666/09 Petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted divorce on the ground of cruelty. The marrige between 52 petitioner and respondent solemnized on 14­12­2005 stood dissolved. Both parties shall bear their own costs.

In O.P.226/2010 petition is liable to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed. No costs.

In O.P. 357/2012 petition is liable to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed. No costs.

In M.C.127/2009 petition claimed proved in part. Petition is allowed in part. The 1st petitioner is granted maintenance @

Rs.18,000/­ per month from this day. The 2nd petitioner is granted maintenance @ Rs.9,000/­ per month from this day. 

The respondent is ordered to pay the total maintenance of

Rs.27,000/­ p.m. to the petitioners 1 and 2 from this day on or

before 10th of every calendar month for which maintenance is due

by crediting the same into the SB Account of the 1st petitioner directly, so that there will be prompt and direct payment which can be verified. 

For this purpose the 1st petitioner shall furnish her S.B.

Account details to the respondent. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of

SEPTEMBER, 2017.

JUDGE, PRL.FAMILY COURT­CUM­

IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioner: PW1: P.Praveen Pw2: D.Praveen Kumar Pw3: Koneru Ravi

Respondent: Rw1: P.Sravanthi RW2: N.Sobha Rani RW3: P.Shailendra RW4: K.S.Yedunandana.

53 Documents marked for Petitioner: Ex.A1:Wedding card Ex.A2:News item published in Eenadu city edition.

Respondent; Ex.B1:Income Tax Returns for the year 2006­07 Ex.B2:Income Tax Returns for the year 2007­08 Ex.B3:Income Tax Returns for the year 2008­09 Ex.B4:Income Tax returns for the year 2009­10

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT­CUM­

IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

54

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

IN THE PRL.FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri A.Parthasarathy,

Judge, Prl.Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Monday this the 16th day of JULY, 2018

F.C.O.S.NO.1/2017

Between:-

Vemireddy Venkata Reddy, s/o. Bakkireddy, Hindu, aged 49 years, cultivation, r/o.Munukulla village,

Tiruvuru mandal, Tiruvuru JCJC. ... Plaintiff

And

1. Pidaparthi Lakshmi Kumari, w/o.Narayanareddi, aged 50 years, Hindu, properties, Native of Chintalapadu, Presently residing at D.No.1-459, H/o.Seelam Pitchireddi, Near Santhi Theatre, Wyra Road, Madhira, Khammam District.

2. Pidaparthi Narayanareddi , s/o.Kotireddi, Hindu, aged 55 years, business and properties, r/o.Chintalapadu, Native of Chintalapadu, presently residing at D.No.1-459, H/o.Seelam Pitchireddi, Near Santhi Theatre, Wyra road, Madhira, Khammam District.… Defendants

This Suit coming on 06-04-2018, 08.06.2018, 12.06.2018 and 13.06.2018 for hearing in the presence of Sri.U.Naga Prasad, Sri.D.Chandrasekhara Rao, Advocates on behalf of the plaintiff and Sri.S.Sreenivas, Sri.J.V.R.L.Narasimham, Sri.Ch.Tirupati Rao, Advocates on behalf of defendants and upon hearing and considering the material on record, the suit having stoodover till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit was initially filed as O.S.No.13/2011 on the file of V Addl. District Court, Vijayawada. The suit was transferred to the Court of XV Addl. District Judge, Nuzvid and was renumbered as O.S.5/2014. The O.S.5/2014 on the file of XV Addl.

District Judge, Nuzvid is transferred to this Court as per Orders in

Tr.CMP No.655/2016by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad.

2.This is a suit for recovering a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- based on the promissory note dt.02.02.2010 averred to have been executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff for

Rs.14,00,000/-.

3.It is averred that the plaintiff is resident of Munukulla village whereas defendants are permanent residents of

Chintalapadu. Now the defendants are residing in Madhira in

Khammam District. For construction of Devi Sai Colg Storage, the defendants approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.14 lakhs and executed a promissory note dt.02.02.2010 agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18%p.a. from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6%p.a. from the date of decree till realization at Munukulla village. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendants postponed repayment on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 28.01.2011 but defendants failed to repay. Hence the suit.

4.The Written Statement of the 1st defendant and adoption memo of the 2nd defendant was filed. Here, it has to be stated that the verified affidavit bears the name and details of 1st defendant but the said verified affidavit and the written statement is signed by the defendant. It was filed on 22.11.2011

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 and subsequently the defendants have filed separate written statement as per the Orders in I.A.509/2016 dtd.30.06.2016.

5.In the initial written statement filed on 22.11.2011 filed in the name of the 1st defendant and signed by the 2nd defendant, it is denied that the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.14 lakhs for the construction of Devi Sai Cold Storageand agreed to repay with interest at 18%p.a. with yearly rests and executed the suit promissory note dtd.02.02.2010 at Munukulla villageIt is further denied that the plaintiff made repeated demands and defendants postponed to repay the amount on one pretext or another. It is averred that defendants never borrowed any amount and never executed suit promissory note and much less on the alleged date. The defendants who are landlords have no necessity to borrow any such huge amount of Rs.14 lakhs for construction of Devi Sai

Cold Storageexpenses. It is averred that the suit promissory note might have been forged and fabricated by plaintiff and the plaintiff filed this suit to harass the defendants for causing wrongful loss and for gaining wrongfully to the plaintiff. No consideration passed under the suit promissory note. Defendants reserved their right to take necessary criminal proceedings against the plaintiff for the offences of Forgery etc. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hand, clean mind, clean heart and for a clean objective. 1st defendant reserves right to file additional written statement and prayed to dismiss the suit.

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

6.In the written statement subsequently filed, the defendants reiterated the same and instead of doubtfully stating that the suit promissory note might have been forged have stated that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated.

7.It is averred that the plaintiff is total stranger to the defendants. There was no acquaintance of any nature between the plaintiff and defendants. As the plaintiff and the defendants hail from different villages, defendants could not initially evaluate the financial capacity or the persons behind the plaintiff in filing the case.

8.It is averred that during the course of proceedings, it is established that the plaintiff is a close associate one Mukkera

Venkata Krishna Reddy who is inimically disposed of towards the defendants. Wife of the said Mukkera Venkata Krishna Reddy by name Smt. Venkata Ramana and 1st defendant jointly purchased a site inThotamula villagewhich is hamlet of Pedakomiri village, of Gampalagudem mandal, Krishna District with an intention to develop the same. After registration of the said deed, a third party filed the suit claiming right, title over the said property.

Ultimately at the instance of elders the dispute between the 3rd party on one hand and defendant No.1 Pidaparthi Lakshmi

Kumari and Mukkera Venkata Ramana on the other hand was settled and an award was passed in Lok Adalat. As per the terms settled by the elders a portion of the said site was given to the 3rd party. The remaining extent of the site was given to the 1st defendant since she invested total amount for purchasing the said property with an understanding that M.V.Ramana should

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 invest the amounts for construction of the structures in it. In view of the dispute with the aforesaid 3rdparty, the said

Smt.M.V.Ramana was not inclined to invest any money fro construction charges and consequently it was decided by the elders that the remaining site should be given to the 1st defendant. The decision of the elders as aforesaid was not palatable to the said Venkata Krishna Reddy and his wife

Smt.Venkata Ramana. As such they decided to harass the defendants. With the said motive, they started creating false documents containing the forged signatures of these defendants either independently or jointly and filed several suits against defendants either before the Hon’ble Court (XV ADJ, Nuzvid) or

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nuzvid or at District Court, Khammam

using the services of their close relatives and henchmen. The defendants have given a list of suits filed before Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Nuzvid and before XV Addl.District Judge’s court at

Nuzvid in separate tables as given below:

SuitDescription ofName ofPronotePurposeNameof No.plaintifftheamount andattester(s) and defendanDt.scribe t 57/10MukkeraP.Lakshmi5,00,000/-For constructingVelpula VenkataKUmaria building inRamachandra Ramana,05-05-2007Gampalagudemrao(sole w/o.Venkataattestor) Krishna Reddy r/o.Munukulla village.

86/10VeduruP.Lakshmi7,00,000/-Agriculture andNo attesters. LakshmaKumarifamily needsSreenivasa Reddy,17.06.2007Reddy, Seelam s/o.Venkata(scribe) date of Reddy,filing r/o.Munukulla18.04.2010. vilalge.

88/10MukkeraP.Lakshmi5,00,000/-Agriculture andVelpula SatyanarayanKumarifamily needsRamachandra

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 aReddy,15.06.2007rao.(only s/o.Sreenivasaattester) Reddy, r/o.MunukullaNarasingu vilalgeVenkata (Brother’s sonKrishna of M.V.Krishna(scribe). Dt.of Reddy)filing 28.04.2010.

111/10YaramalaNarayana7,00,000/- Agricultural andKonasani NarasimhaReddyfamily expensesPrabhakara Rao Reddy,15.08.2007(sole attestor) Velvadam villageAddagiri (Brother-in-lawSrinivasa rao of M.V.Krishna(scribe) Reddy)

All the attesters and scribes are residents of Munukulla village.

Suits filed before Addl.District Courts

All the attesters and scribes are residents of Munukulla village.

SuitDescription ofName ofPronotePurposeNamesof No.plaintiff.defendanAmt.& Dt.Attestor(s)&Scribe t 153/10MukkeraLakshmiSuitfor1.For familyAttesters: VenkataKumarispecificnecessities; Krishnaperformanc1.Vemireddy Venkata Reddy,ealleged2.ColdReddy. r/o.MunukullaAgreementstorage village.dt.27.12.092.Narasingu Prahlada in respect of3.PurchasingRao Ac.13.30immovable centspropertiesScribe: etc. Gurrala Prabhakara Reddy.

13/11VemireddyLakshmi14,00,000/-DeviSaiAttesters: VenkataKumari & cold storage Reddy,02-02-20101.Seelam Rama Koti s/o.BakkiNarayanaConstructionReddy. Reddy, agedReddy 49yrs,Scribe:N.V.Narasimha cultivation.Rao Munukulla village.

51/11Karnati HariLakshmi15,00,000/-DeviSaiAttesters: KrishnaKumari &Cold storage Reddy,Narayana11-01-2010construction1.S.R.M.Reddy. r/o.MunukullaReddy. villageScribe:

Y.Janardhana Rao.

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

All the attesters and scribes are residents of Munukulla village.

9.It is averred that the enquires made by the 2nd defendant after establishing the identity of the plaintiff reveal that he is a close associate and stooge of the said Mukkera

Venkata Krishna Reddy. The defendants learnt that the plaintiff is an agriculturist owning small extent of Ac.6.00 of dry land. The plaintiff is eking out his livelihood by cultivating the said land.

Income being derived by the plaintiff is totally insufficient for maintenance of the plaintiff’s family and for educating his two unmarried daughters. Plaintiff has been contracting debts from or about 2004 onwards. As on 02.02.2010 the averred date of promissory note on which the plaintiff lent a sum of Rs.14 lakhs.

The plaintiff was heavily indebted. Plaintiff has been borrowing money from PACS every year towards crop loan. The said borrowing would speak the financial inability of the plaintiff to lend money. The plaintiff was running short of about Rs.50,000/- every year for cultivation purposes and he has been continuously depending upon PACS for crop loan. It is unimaginable as to how the plaintiff could secure amount of Rs.14 lakhs alleged to have been lent. The defendants learnt that the plaintiff obtained a loan for repairing his well and a sum of Rs.29,000/- is outstanding and the plaintiff was not in a position to discharge the same. That apart, the defendants learnt that the plaintiff contracted loan of

Rs.1 lakh for tractor repairs several years ago and that various loans referred above are still outstanding. That being financial position, it is impossible for the plaintiff to lend a huge amount of

Rs.14 lakhs to defendants on 02.02.2010. It is averred that

Ac.6.00 cents of land owned by the plaintiff is valued at Rs.12

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 lakhs and as such it is ridiculous to aver that a sum of Rs.14 lakhs was lent by defendants and prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs, as the suit is frivolous and vexatious.

10.Initially, the following issues were framed:

1)Whether the defendants executed the suit promissory note? If so?

2) Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from defendants?

4) To what relief?

11.In view of the filing of additional written statement, as per the Orders in I.A.509/16, the following additional issues were framed

1) Whether the plaintiff had no capacity to lend Rs.14 lakhs?

2) Whether the plaintiff forged and fabricated

the suit promissory note at the instance of Mukkera

Venkata Krishna Reddy and his wife Venkata Ramana?

12.Additional Issues 1 and 2 are re-numbered as issues 3 and 4. Issue No.3 framed earlier is renumbered as Issue No.5.

Issue No.4 is struck off as unnecessary.

13.The plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and examined one Narasingu Venkata Narasimha Rao, the averred scribe is examined as PW2.The 1st defendant got herself examined as DW1 and Exs.A1 to A12 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. No documents are marked on behalf of defendants.

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

14.The issues Whether defendants executed the suit promissory note and whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration, are connected. Whether the plaintiff had no capacity to lend Rs.14 lakhs would clinch about lending and borrowing and execution of promissory note. Hence issues 1, 2 and 3 have to be considered together and will be considered. If it is shown that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated at the instance of Mukkera Venkata Krishna Reddy and his wife

Venkata Ramana would deny the plaintiff the relief. Hence issue

No.4 will be considered later and thereafter issue No.5 will be considered.

ISSUE Nos 1 to 3:

1)Whether the defendants executed the suit promissory note?

2) If so, Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration?

3) Whether the plaintiff had no capacity to lend Rs.14 lakhs?

15.There is evidence of PW1 and the evidence of scribe

PW2. PW1 initially marked the suit promissory note as Ex.A1 and the legal notice dt.28-01-2011 as Ex.A2 and postal receipts addressed to defendants 1 and 2 as Exs.A3 and A4. He got himself recalled and marked Exs.A5 to A11 subsequently. PW1 is cross examined with regard to his capacity to lend Rs.14 lakhs.

PW1 has given evidence with regard to the lands that he himself and his brother owned and the tractors they owned.

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

16.The evidence of PW1 is that defendants who are wife and husband approached him on 02.02.2010 and borrowed an amount of Rs.14 lakhs for the construction of Devi Sai Cold

Storage. They agreed to repay with interest at the rate of 18%p.a. The suit promissory note was scribed by Venkata

Narasimha Rao at his instructions and the instructions of the defendants. The scribe read over the contents in the promissory note and both admitted the contents. At the time of promissory note transaction one Seelam Rama Kota Reddy was also present.

He witnessed the transaction. The scribe read over the contents in the demand promissory note. He paid an amount of Rs.14 lakhs to Pidaparthi Narayana Reddy i.e. 2nd defendant. Both defendants counted the amount and after satisfying themselves they signed on the suit promissory note in their presence and at his house in Munukulla. Thereafter, Seelam Rama Kota Reddy signed as witness and at last Narsingu Venkata Narasimha Ro singed in the column for scribe. The scribe handed over the promissory note to him. The defendants by taking the amounts went away. The allegations in the written statement of the defendants are not correct. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note. He demanded defendants for repayment. The defendants postponed the same from time to time. He got issued notice on 28.01.2011.

Defendants did not comply with the demand in the notice and he filed the suit. Ex.A2 is the office copy of notice. Exs.A3 and A4 are postal receipts.

17.PW1 was cross examined with regard to his capacity to lend Rs.14 lakhs. PW1 admitted that he is not an Income tax

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

Assessee. He never paid income tax. He is an agriculturist. He has no other source of income. He and his brother Srinivasa

Reddy are jointly owning Ac.16.00 of agricultural land at

Vinukonda (sic Munukulla) and Akkapalem village. Some of the lands are purchased and some of the lands are hereditary lands.

There is document for the lands purchased but they have no documents for the lands inherited from ancestors. The self acquired land is about Ac.4.00. They have pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of Ac.10.00 cents and not for Ac.16.00.

PW1 stated that 2 years ago he and his brother partitioned the properties through an oral partition.

18.PW1 admitted that he availed crop loan for purchasing the tractor etc. from the bank. In the year 2006 he mortgaged documents and availed loan for purchasing a tractor.

The said loan was closed upon repayment. He again mortgaged in 2008 and purchased another tractor. He availed loan of Rs.4 lakhs on the second time. Still there is an outstanding balance of

Rs.75,000/- towards crop loan. He again stated how much loan was due towards tractor loan by February, 2010. He has two school going children. He knows the defendants who are from

Tiruvuru.

19.PW1 stated that Devi Sai Cold Storage is a partnership firm. He does not know the details of registration of the said firm and when the site for construction of cold storage was purchased. He did not verify about the establishment of the firm. He saw the construction work of the cold storage after 2 or

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 3 months later. PW1 stated that he has not filed any proof to show that he was possessing Rs.14 lakhs on 02.02.2010. He was not having any bank balance as on that day. He does not know whether permission for construction of cold storage was sanctioned as on 02.02.2010. The defendants are owning

Ac.30.00 of land at Chintalapadu. He does not know that they are owning commercial complex also. He denied that the 2nd defendant is not a partner in cold storage firm. He has not verified the papers pertaining to the partnership firm. The attestor and scribe belong to their village. The attestor is no more. He admitted that for the last 15 years there was no bank balance exceeding Rs.1 lakh in his account. PW1 further stated that he has not called Narasingu Venkata Krishna and scribe

Venkata Narasimha Rao. He has not called the attestor also. He denied that he has no financial capacity to lend Rs.14 lakhs and the suit promissory note was created for having wrongful gain and the suit promissory note was created at the instance of

Mukkera Venkata Krishna Reddy. He is not doing any money lending business except the present suit. He has not filed any other suits against anyone.

20.PW1 stated that he does not know whether 8 suits are filed against defendants for recovery of money by different persons on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid and Addl.District

Court, Nuzvid. He denied that M.V.Krishna Reddy filed the suit though him in view of disputes between him, defendant and

Krishna Reddy and he has no acquaintance with defendants at all. It is also elicited that he issued legal notice to defendants,

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 but defendants did not give reply. He got him recalled and filed

Ex.A5 to show that tractor bearing No.AP16 BL 0813 is standing in the name of V.Srinivas Reddy, s/o.Bakki Reddy and it is a new tractor of Punjab Tractors Ltd. Ex.A6 is the death certificate to show that the father of the plaintiff Vemireddy Bakki Reddy died on 23.08.2002.

21.Ex.A7 is the copy of Adangal to show that Ac.2.23 cents in S.NO.195-2C is standing in the name of Vemireddy

Srinivasa Reddy. Ex.A8 is to show that Ac.1.63 cents is in the name of Srinivasa Reddy and Ac.2.18 cents is in the name of

Katuri Suseela in S.No.195/1C. Ex.A9 shows that Ac.0.98 cents in

S.No.160-2;Ac.1.08 cents in S.No.160-1; Ac.0.50 cents in

S.No.145-2 and Ac.1.67 cents in S.No.107-1 of Munukulla village fields is in the name of the plaintiff Vemireddy Venkata Reddy.

Ex.A10 shows that 1B Extract for the lands in the name of the brother of the plaintiff Vemireddy Srinivasa Reddy. Ex.A11 is the 1B extract for the lands in the name of father of the plaintiff

Vemireddy Bakki Reddy. One item is shown as dry land and other bits are shown as wet lands. Ex.A11 shows Ac.5.77 cents of land is in the name of the father of the plaintiff. Pw1 denied that the tractor shown in Ex.A5 was purchased by his brother Srinivas

Reddy that is exclusive funds and he stated that it is joint tractor of himself and his brother. PW1 stated that still there is

Rs.1,18,000/- due on the tractor and he again stated that it was joint loan availed by both of them and they totally repaid jointly but there was no documentary proof to show that it was purchased jointly. Ex.A10 shows the Ac.6.10 cents in the name of

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 his brother and Ex.A9 shown Ac.4.10 cents are in his name. It was purchased about 10 years back. There are title deeds to the said property which were submitted for availing loans. He denied that all the loans to the PACS were discharged by him only in

February, 2016 and therefore, those documents are not filed earlier that he and his brother are living jointly and jointness of the property is also not reflected. He denied that Exs.A5 to A11 are produced as an after thought and after cross examination only for proving his case and for showing that he has financial capacity to lend Rs.14 lakhs but in fact, he has no such capacity.

22.The evidence of PW2 is about 6 years back defendants borrowed Rs.14 lakhs from the plaintiff for the purpose of construction of cold storage and agreed to repay with interest at the rate of 18%p.a. at Munukulla village. One Seelam

Rama Kota Reddy was also present at that time. As per the instructions of the plaintiff and defendants he scribed Ex.A1.

Plaintiff and defendants admitted the contents. Defendants also went through the contents. Plaintiff paid Rs.14 lakhs to

P.Narayana Reddy, and his wife Lakshmi Kumari counted the amount and after satisfying themselves they signed on the promissory note in their presence. Thereafter, Seelam Rama Kota

Reddy signed as witness. The said Ramakota Reddy is no more.

He died about 3 years back. He signed as scribe. During cross examination, PW2 stated that Narasingu Venkata Krishna is his younger brother. He denied that M.V.Krishna and M.Venkata

Satyanarayana Reddy are his close associates. He stated that he

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 knows them but they are not close to him. He does not know whether his brother Venkata Krishna is an attestor in the promissory notes on the basis of which M.Venkata Satyanarayana

Reddy and M.Venkata Ramana filed suits against defendants herein.

23.PW2 admitted that he used to scribe promissory notes. Plaintiff knows that he has practice of scribing documents.

Because he has the practice of scribing promissory note, he was called to the place of transaction. On 02.02.2010 Narayana

Reddy called him for scribing documents. Plaintiff did not call him. He did not scribe any document to Narayana Reddy i.e. 2nd defendant. He has no connection with any sale transaction pertaining to the 2nd defendant in respect of the properties purchased by the 2nd defendant. He has no knowledge about financial capacity or source of income of the defendants. The plaintiff immediately took a decision to lend that money on the request of the 2nd defendant on the same date. Plaintiff was having money in his house by that time. The plaintiff and his brother partitioned their properties 3 years ago. Both got

Ac.10-00 each in partition. He was not the scribe of the partition documents. The said partition document was scribed by some other person but not by him. He studied upto 9th class. He denied that he has no acquaintance with the defendants and that the statement that the 2nd defendant called him to scribe the document and the consideration was received in his presence and both defendants signed in his presence are false.

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

24.PW2 further stated that the 2nd defendant asked the plaintiff to lend the amount in his presence on 02.02.2010. The plaintiff immediately took a decision to lend that money on the request of the 2nd defendant on the same date. Plaintiff was having money in his house by that time. Plaintiff and his brother partitioned their properties 3 years ago. Both got Ac.10.00 cents each in partition. He was not the scribe of the partition documents. The said partition document was scribed by some other person but not by him. He studied upto 9th class. He denied that 2nd defendant called him to scribe the document and the consideration was received in his presence and both defendants signed in his presence are false. He denied that no transaction took place in his presence and Ex.A1 is a created document and he is giving false evidence. He denied that the plaintiff is indebted to several persons, he owns Ac.5.00 cents and there was no possibility of lending Rs.14 lakhs by the plaintiff. He denied that he is used as a tool in creating Ex.A1 and no consideration passed in his presence and the defendants did not sign in his presence.

25.The chief of DW1 was filed on 10.06.2016. She was cross examined on 10.8.2016. DW1 filed her additional chief and after that additional issues were framed on 20.9.2017.

26.The evidence of DW1 in her chief and additional chief is on the lines of written statement and the additional written statement. The written statement was filed on 22.11.2011 and

additional written statement was filed on 24.06.2016. In the

written statement initially filed, the supporting affidavit was

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 singed by the 1st defendant and the written statement bears the signature of the 2nd defendant. In the additional written statement both of them signed.

27.The evidence of DW1 is with the allegation that they approached the plaintiff and borrowed Rs.14 lakhs and executed the suit promissory note on 02.02.2010 is not true and correct.

They never borrowed any amount. They have no necessity to borrow any such amount as on 02.02.2010. They are landlords.

They have no necessity to borrow Rs.14 lakhs for the construction of Devi Sai Cold Storage. It belongs to partnership firm. In the partnership firm, 2nd defendant is not a partner.

Further Devi Sai Cold storage was registered on 19.01.2010. The application for approval of the plans submitted by the firm were ultimately issued during April,2010. Only thereafter, the construction of Cold Storage was commenced. The suit promissory note is forged and fabricated by the plaintiff with a view to harass the defendants and to cause wrongful loss. It is totally created and invented by the plaintiff and the signatures on the said promissory were forged. No consideration ws passed under the suit promissory note. It is devoid of consideration. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount. The plaintiff is a total stranger to defendants. There was no acquaintance of any nature between the plaintiff and defendants who hail from different villages. As they hail from different villages, the defendants could not initially evaluate the financial capacity or the persons behind the plaintiff in filing the suit. During the course of proceedings, it is established that the plaintiff is a close aid and associate of

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

Mukkera Venkata Krishna Reddy who is inimically disposed towards defendants. Wife of Venkata Krishna Reddy by name

Venkata Ramana and the 1st defendant jointly purchased a site in

Thotamula village which is hamlet of Pedakomiri village,

Gampalagudem mandal, Krishna District with an intention to develop the same. After registration of the said site, the 3rd party has filed the suit claiming right and title over the said property.

Ultimately at the instance of elders, dispute between the 3rd party on one hand and first defendant and Smt.Mukkera Venkata

Ramana on the other hand were settled and an award was passed before Lok Adalat. As per the terms settled by elders, a portion of the site was given to third party. Remaining extent fell to the share of the 1st defendant since she invested the total amount for purchasing the said property with an understanding that M.Venkata Ramana should invest the amounts for construction of structures in it. In view of the disputes with the aforesaid 3rd party, the said Venkata Ramana was not inclined to invest any money for construction purpose and consequently it was decided by the elders that the remaining site should be given to the 1st defendant. The decision of the elders as aforesaid was not palatable to the said Venkata Krishna Reddy and his wife

M.Venkata Ramana. She has reproduced the table showing the various suits filed against the 1st defendant and defendants.

SuitDescription ofName ofPronotePurposeNameof No.plaintifftheamount andattester(s) and defendanDt.scribe t 57/10MukkeraP.Lakshmi5,00,000/-For constructingVelpula VenkataKUmaria building inRamachandra Ramana,05-05-2007Gampalagudemrao(sole

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 w/o.Venkataattestor) Krishna Reddy r/o.Munukulla village.

86/10VeduruP.Lakshmi7,00,000/-Agriculture andNo attesters. LakshmaKumarifamily needsSreenivasa Reddy,17.06.2007Reddy, Seelam s/o.Venkata(scribe) date of Reddy,filing 18.04.2010. r/o.Munukulla vilalge.

88/10MukkeraP.Lakshmi5,00,000/-Agriculture andVelpula SatyanarayanKumarifamily needsRamachandra aReddy,15.06.2007rao.(only s/o.Sreenivasaattester) Reddy, r/o.MunukullaNarasingu vilalgeVenkata (Brother’s sonKrishna of M.V.Krishna(scribe). Dt. of Reddy)filing 28.04.2010.

111/10YaramalaNarayana7,00,000/- Agricultural andKonasani NarasimhaReddyfamily expensesPrabhakara Rao Reddy,15.08.2007(sole attestor) Velvadam villageAddagiri (Brother-in-lawSrinivasa rao of M.V.Krishna(scribe) Reddy)

All the attesters and scribes are residents of Munukulla village.

Suits filed before Addl.District Courts

All the attesters and scribes are residents of Munukulla village.

SuitDescription ofName ofPronotePurposeNamesof No.plaintiff.defendanAmt.& Dt.Attestor(s)&Scribe t 153/10MukkeraLakshmiSuitfor1.For familyAttesters: VenkataKumarispecificnecessities; Krishnaperformanc1.Vemireddy Venkata Reddy,ealleged2.ColdReddy. r/o.MunukullaAgreementstorage village.dt.27.12.092.Narasingu Prahlada in respect of3.PurchasingRao Ac.13.30immovable centspropertiesScribe: etc. Gurrala Prabhakara Reddy.

13/11VemireddyLakshmi14,00,000/-DeviSaiAttesters: VenkataKumari & cold storage

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

Reddy,Narayana02-02-2010Construction1.Seelam Rama Koti s/o.BakkiReddy Reddy. Reddy, aged 49yrs,Scribe:N.V.Narasimha cultivation.Rao Munukulla village.

51/11Karnati HariLakshmi15,00,000/-DeviSaiAttesters: KrishnaKumari &Cold storge Reddy,Narayana11-01-2010construction1.S.R.M.Reddy. r/o.MunukullaReddy villageScribe:

Y.Janardhana Rao.

All the attesters and scribes are residents of Munukulla village.

27.DW1 further deposed that the enquiries made by the 2nd defendant after establishing the identity of the plaintiff reveal that he is close associate and stooge of the said Mukkera

Venkata Krishna Reddy. The plaintiff is an agriculturist owning small extent of Ac.6-00 cents of dry land and the income that is being derived from the said land is insufficient for maintenance of plaintiff’s family and for educating his two unmarried daughters. The plaintiff has been contracting debts from about 2004 and as on 02.02.2010, the plaintiff was heavily indebted.

The plaintiff has been borrowing money from PACS every year towards crop loans speaks about his financial inability. The plaintiff was running short of about Rs.50,000/- every year and he has been continuously depending upon PACS for crop loan. It is unimaginable as to how the plaintiff can secure an amount of

Rs.14 lakhs. Defendants learnt that the plaintiff obtained loan for repairing his Well and a sum of Rs.29,000/- and is postponing and the plaintiff was not in a position to discharge the same. The plaintiff contacted loan of Rs.1 lakh per tractor repairs. It is impossible for the plaintiff to lend huge amount of Rs.14 lakhs on

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 02.02.2010. The value of Ac.6.00 cents of land owned by the plaintiff is not even Rs.12 lakhs and it is a ridiculous that a sum of Rs.14 lakhs was lent to them.

29.DW1 stated during cross examination on 29.12.2009 she purchased Ac.1.50 cents for construction of Durga Sai Cold

Storage and then she clarified that it is Devi Sai Cold Storage.

She purchased the land through a registered sale deed dtd.29.12.2009 from one Menugu Venkateswarlu and Menugu

Hanumanthu. She was the managing partner. Her mother and

Tiruvuri Susila and one Sarada, are the other partners. Plan was approved for the Cold Storage. She stated that approximate cost of Cold Storage is Rs.3 to 3 ½ crores. DW1 denied that in view of obtaining loan from IDBI and granting of matching grants they contacted loan from the plaintiff in the suit and from other creditors. She further stated that they cleared the loan to IDBI.

They sold the cold storage on behalf of the firm 3 years after completion of the construction. Her partner who is the Managing

Partner by name Sarada took decision on behalf of the firm. She was also seen for some time, therefore by taking decision on behalf of the firm, the cold storage was sold. She admitted that a publication on behalf of IDBI was published. By then they already sold the cold storage. They have not given any clarification against the new items which was published. They sold the cold storage for Rs.3,50,00,000/- to one Ashok. Unless she sees the sale deed, she cannot say what reason was mentioned for making the sale. There was a paper publication in Andhra Jyothi about non-payment of dues in connection with the loan granted

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 to Devi Sai Cold Storage. She stated that there may be many publications in newspapers.Ex.A12 is the paper publication. They did not issue any notice to the publisher. On the next day, a counter publication, that the news item is not correct, is made.

She denied that they have not made any counter publication.

29.DW1 stated that her husband was Ex- Chairman of

Durga Malleswara Swamy Temple, Vijayawada. She denied that

Ex.A1 contains signature of herself and her husband. She has stated that they have not received any notice form the plaintiff.

When Ex.A1 is shown, she stated that they do not sign in Telugu.

She stated that she studied 9th class in ZP School in Reddigudem and she has taken English Tuitions. English was also taught to her. She denied that she and her husband received cash of Rs.4 lakhs in the presence of scribe Venkata Narasimha rao and attestor Seelam Rama Kotaiah. She never saw them. She has not given any notice to the alleged scribe and attestor. She has not given any report against them. She came to know later, their signatures as scribed and attestor are there. If required, she would give notice. After filing of the suit and after receiving summons she made enquiries and came to know that Narasimha rao and Seelam Rama Kotaiah made signatures. She denied that since the suit transaction is true, she and her husband has not contemplated any action against them.

31.She stated that in her additional chief, she mentioned that Mukkera Venkata Krishna Reddy made the plaintiff and others to file various suits. She denied that Mukkera

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

Venkata Krishna Reddy purchased TATA Safari when her husband was Chairman of Durga Malleswara Swamy temple, Vijayawada and her husband used the said TATA Safari for his official purpose as Chair person. She stated that they have 2 Cars and they have capacity to purchase the cars on their own. She cannot readily say the registration number of the TATA Safari. She denied that

M.Venkata Krishna Reddy paid EMIs towards car loan.

32.With regard to various loans or suits or E.Ps. filed against her husband, she stated that she does not know whether

Dalam Siva Prasad filed a suit O.S.67/2003 on the file of PJCJ,

Tiruvuru against her husband for recovering amount due under promissory note for Rs.75,000/-. She does not know whether

Sanka Vara Prasada Rao field O.S.298/03 claiming Rs.40,000/- and whether Sanka RajaRao filed O.S.299/2003 claiming

Rs.54,650/- and whether Kolla Rajeswararao filed O.S.444/2011 claiming Rs.24,530/- and whether Syed Majid filed O.S.24/2004 claiming Rs.56,656/- against her husband. She does not know whether they obtained decrees and filed E.P.s and whether they (defendants) paid small amounts in installments.

33.She denied that Sanka Vara Prasada Rao obtained decree in O.S.298/2003 and filed E.P.135/2009 on the file of PJCJ,

Tiruvuru for recovering Rs.99,156/- and her husband made small payments by taking time till 05.02.2012 for making full satisfaction. She denied that one Kolla Nageswara Rao filed

O.S.444/2001 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru and

filed E.P.281/2012 for recovering Rs.38,608/-. She denied that

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 she and her husband are chronic defaulters in repaying debts.

She denied that she also borrowed Rs.15 lakhs from Karnati

Ashok Babu on 30.10.2010 and also issued cheque bearaing

No.363962, dt.31.08.2013 drawn on SBH, Madhira for Rs.24 lakhs and that the cheque bounced. She hastened to state that the cheque was stolen and forged. It was their contention that the cheque was forged. C.C.2/2014 is pending on the file of

AJFCM, Madhira.

34.The contention of the defendants is that they have not borrowed amount from the plaintiff. Plaintiff has no capacity to pay that amount. According to them, they have not borrowed the amount on 02.02.2010. Borrowing does not arise as the plans for construction of Cold Storage were approved on 12.03.2010 i.e. subsequent to 02.02.2010. Only after getting plans approved, the construction was made.

35.If the defendants have not borrowed and in such a case if the suit is decreed, it would amount to resulting in unjust, enrichment of the plaintiff and deprivation of defendants to the extent of suit amount. If the defendants borrowed as claimed by the plaintiff, if the suit is dismissed, it would amount to making the defendants to gain the amount which is claimed by the plaintiff and it amounts to depriving the plaintiff his just claim.

These questions are involved in considering the averments and contentions. Therefore, care is required in appreciating the evidence and considering the evidence while determining th suit.

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

36.PW1 during cross examination has stated that he is an agriculturist and he is not an Income Tax Assessee. He further stated that he and his brother owned about Ac.16.00 of land. He has shown that they have purchased two tractors. One tractor in 2006 and another tractor in 2008. PW1 also stated that he has not filed any proof to show that he was having Rs.14 lakhs on 02.02.2010. He was not having any balance as on that date. He admitted that for the last 15 years, there was never any balance of more than Rs.1 lakh in his account. He denied that Mukkera

Venkata Krishna Reddy got filed the present suit through him in view of the disputes between the defendant and Krishna Reddy and he has no acquaintance with defendants at all. He denied that he has no financial capacity to lend such huge amount of

Rs.14 lakhs and the suit promissory note is a created document to have wrongful gain from the defendants. He denied that the document is created at the instance of Mukkera Venkata Krishna

Reddy. He is not doing money lending business. Except the present suit, he has not filed any other suits against anybody.

PW1 has given evidence with regard to lands owned by him and his brother Srinivasa Reddy. He stated about the manner in which they gave instructions to the scribe Pw2. PW1 deposed that defendants 1 and 2 approached him and borrowed Rs.14 lakhs on 02.02.2010 for the construction of Devi Sai Cold Storage.

Promissory note was scribed by Narsingu Venkata Narasimharao.

Seelam Rama Kota Reddy was also present and he also witnessed the transaction. Seelam Rama kota Reddy singed as

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 witness and Narasingu Narasimha rao singed at column for the scribe. He also stated during cross examination that attestor is no more. The evidence of PW2 is also on the lines of evidence of

PW1. PW2 also stated about the death of Seelam Rama Kota

Reddy and that he died about 3 years back. PW1 was not questioned from where he brought the money which the defendants 1 and 2 received.

37.On the other hand, there was examination of PW2 in this regard. PW2 stated that the plaintiff immediately took a decision to lend money on the request made by the 2nd defendant on 02.02.2010. The plaintiff was having money in his house by that time. PW1 is not questioned from where he brought money which he handed over to the defendants 1 and 2.PW1 has given answers honestly to all the questions which were put to him. He also stated that except the present suit, he has not filed any other suits against anyone. PW1 is not examined with regard to his relationship with Mukkera Venkata

Krishna Reddy. It is not shown that Pw1 has any transactions with

Mukkera Venkata Krishna Reddy. Only while cross examining

PW2, it is suggested that Mukkera Venkata Krishna Reddy and

M.Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy are his close associates. PW2 denied the said suggestion and he stated that he knows them but they are not close to him. As stated by PW1, PW2 also stated that he was not called by the plaintiff. PW1 has stated that he does not know whether his brother Narsingu Venkata Krishna is an attestor in the promissory note. On the basis of which

M.V.Satyanrayana reddy and M.V.Ramana filed suit is against

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 defendants. He also stated that on 02.02.2010 Narayana Reddy (D2) called him for scribing the documents. He also stated that he did not scribe any document to Narayana Reddy. 2nd defendant does not belong to their village. It cannot be believed why in such a case, the 2nd defendant should depose falsehood.

PW1 was cross examined with regard to payment of Income Tax and with regard to his bank account and with regard to debts he has borrowed from PACS and two mortgage loans he availed for obtaining tractor loans.

38.Though he was examined with regard to his bank account and with regard to balance in those accounts, he was not examined with regard to cash he was having earlier or at the time of averred lending of Rs.14 lakhs. He was not examined how he got cash of Rs.14 lakhs. If any question was put with regard to possession of cash by the plaintiff, Pw1 would have given answer.

PW1 was not put any such question with regard to cash, he was having earlier or on 02.02.2010.

39.The defendants have initially filed the written statement. It was styled as written statement of the 1st defendant. Supporting affidavit was also given by the 1st defendant. But the 2nd defendant has signed the written statement which was filed on 22.11.2011. In Adoption memo signed by Advocate for the 2nd defendant has filed adoption memo though the 2nd defendant himself has signed the written statement. It was contended that promissory note might have been forged and fabricated by the plaintiff. It was not contended

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 that the plaintiff had no capacity. While filing I.A.509/16 on 24.06.2016 the defendants have filed written statement on 24.06.2016. I.A.509/16 was allowed on 30.06.2016. In the written statement filed subsequently, the defendants 1 and 2 have signed. Both of them have given tables as shown and which are reproduced in the evidence of DW1 with regard to suits filed

before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court and before Addl. District

Courts. PW1 also has shown that he has given legal notice corresponding to Ex.A2 which is the office copy dt. 28.01.2011.

He has shown the postal receipts Ex.A3 and A4. It is not the case that the plaintiff has not given pre suit notice. In the written statement filed on 24.06.2016 only the defendants have averred

additional pleadings. It was averred that defendants could not

initially evaluate the financial capacity or the persons behind the plaintiff in filing this case etc. During the course of aforesaid proceedings, it is established that the plaintiff before this court is a close aid and associate of one Mukkera Venkata Krishna Reddy who is inimically disposed of towards the defendants.

40.Though the DW1 has stated about the reason for the dispute between defendants and Mukkera Venkata Krishna

Reddy, they mentioned third party who filed the suit. It is her version that wife of Venkata Krishna Reddy by name Venkata

Ramana and the 1st defendant jointly purchased site at

Thotamula. After registration of the said sale deed, a third party filed a suit. She has not revealed who is that 3rd party. She has stated that the 3rd party, the 1st defendant and Venkata Ramana settled the dispute through Lok Adalat Award. She has not filed

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

Lok Adalat Award. According to her, the total amount for purchasing the property was invested by the 1st defendant.

According to her, there was an understanding that Mukkera

Venkata Ramana shall invest amounts for construction of structures in it. In view of the dispute, with the 3rd party Mukkera

Venkata Ramana was not inclined to invest money for the purpose of construction and consequently it was decided by the elders that the remaining site should be given to the 1st defendant. It is not known why it should be decided by the elders that the remaining site should be given to the 1st defendant. It is not her case that the unknown 3rd party and she i.e.1st defendant purchased site at Thotamula. She stated that she invested the total amount for purchasing the said property with an understanding that M.Venkata Ramana should invest the amounts for construction of structures in it. It is also not revealed what structures were proposed in that site. Devi Sai Cold Storage is not constructed at site purchased in Thotamula.

41.DW1 admitted that they purchased the land in

Ac.1.50 cents of land in Atkuru village of Madhira mandal through a registered sale deed dt.29.12.2009. How the dispute with regard to site purchased by the 1st defendant has connection is not known. It was suggested to DW1 that M.Venkata Krishna

Reddy purchased TATA Safari and the husband of DW1 i.e.2nd defendant used that TATA safari. DW1 denied about such use.

However, she stated that she cannot readily say the registration number of TATA Safari. She has not stated that her husband is also having TATA Safari. It is not known with regard to which TATA

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

Safari the DW1 cannot readily say. The same can only be known to DW1. Of course, the plaintiff has not shown that the 2nd defendant has used TATA Safari as the Chairman of Sri Durga

Malleswara Swamy temple, Vijayawada and that TATA Safari was purchased by M.V.Krishna Reddy. It is not put to PW1 about this dispute. It remain close to the chest of the defendants about the 3rd party who raised the dispute with regard to site in Thotamula.

Though it is mentioned that there is rivalry between M.V.Krishna

Reddy and defendants in view of the Thotamula site transaction nothing is put to PW1 with regard to transaction between the 1st defendant and M.V.Ramana who is the wife of M.V.Krishna Reddy.

It is not known how there will be animus or ruckus between

M.V.Krishna Reddy and defendants and how M.V.Krishna Reddy will use the plaintiff.

42.The plaintiff has given a legal notice. That legal notice was given on 28.01.2011.It was not just prior to 24.06.2016 when the defendants have substituted a written statement which is having the signatures of both the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant. It is not that defendants have obtained permission to enable the defendants to file an

additional written statement. Averments and details are supplied

into the written statement filed on 24.06.2016. It is not that the 1st defendant’s written statement is not existing and only 2nd defendant’s written statement is subsisting. The ingeniousness of defendants have led into fling of written statement which was filed on 24.06.2016 apart from the written statement which was filed on 22.11.2011.

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

43.The defendants have not given any reply notice. It is not the case that the plaintiff has not given legal notice corresponding to Ex.A2. The defendants have received summons in 2011 itself when the suit was filed. If the plaintiff is a total stranger and if the plaintiff is claiming huge amount of

Rs.16,50,000/- by filing a suit, it cannot be believed that defendants in such a case would keep quiet.

44.Further the defendants have made an admission about filing of several suits against them. These suits are with regard to money transactions. DW1 was also cross examined with regard to filing of various suits on the file of Prl.Junior Civil

Judge, Tiruvuru. It shows that several suits for small amounts

were filed against defendants 1 and 2 who are having substantial properties and also commercial complex. The defendant denied about filing most of the suits and E.Ps. and expressed ignorance.

She also stated that she does not know whether her husband took a stand in suits on the file of Tiruvuru Court that he had not borrowed amounts and did not execute the said promissory notes. The 2nd defendant has not chosen to get himself examined as a witness. Had he chose to come as a witness, he would have got an opportunity to assertively state about suits etc., filed by

D.Siva Prasad, Sanka Vara Prasada Rao, Sanka Raja Rao and Kolla

Rajeswara Rao etc. 2nd defendant would have got an opportunity of smashing the version of the plaintiff to smithereens.

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

45.DW1 stated that they have not sought permission of the Court for issuing original suit promissory note by filing either memo or petition. She stated that the signature shown on Ex.A1 does not belong to herself and 2nd defendant. She is ready in filing a petition for forwarding Ex.A1 for comparison of the signatures with the admitted signatures to the handwriting expert. The defendant has not done that.

46.PWs.1 and 2 have given evidence with regard to

Ex.A1. DW1 has not stated whether the signatures in Ex.A1 are like the signatures of herself and her husband or not. She has stated that she will sign only in English. It is not that she does not know Telugu and she cannot write Telugu. If she does not sign in Telugu, she can easily show that the signature on Ex.A1 is not her signature and it does not resemble her handwriting. If the suit promissory note is not containing the signatures of the defendants 1 and 2, it will be within the special knowledge of defendants. Then the defendants can shatter the claim of the plaintiff. If the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated, there is no necessity to forge and fabricate the said promissory note by creating the signatures of both the 1st and 2nd defendants. Creating or forging the signature of one of them is sufficient. It is also not known why Mukkera Venkata Krishna

Reddy would make the plaintiff to forge and fabricate the suit promissory note by supplying the signatures of not one person but signatures on two persons. According to the defendants, plaintiff is totally stranger to them. If he is total stranger to defendants, it is not known how the plaintiff would imagine and

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018 would create a promissory note which contains signatures like that of first and 2nd defendant signatures. It is not known how anyone can imagine about the signature of a particular person and would file a suit claiming about borrowing and execution of promissory note. If the signatures in Ex.A1 does not resemble like the signatures of defendants 1 and 2, defendants 1and 2 can easily show that the signatures in Ex.A1 are not the signatures of the defendants 1 and 2. If the signatures resemble like their signatures also, they can show that Ex.A1 contains signatures which are forged signatures. The defendant has denied about publication of Ex.A12 under the caption about attachment of properties of the 2nd defendant. The news item also contain photograph of a commercial complex which is stated to have been attached by the bank officials. DW1 stated that they sold the Cold Storage to one Ashok after 3 years after construction of the cold storage. She has not filed the document about sale of

Cold Storage. DW1 also stated that she came to know that the signatures of Venkata Narasimharao and further attestor Seelam

Rama Kotaiah are there in the suit promissory note. She stated that she has not given any report against them. If required, she will give a notice. After filing the suit and after receiving summons she made enquiries and came to know about

Narasimharao and Seelam Rama Kotaiah making signatures. It is not her case that she is not furnishing the copy of the suit promissory note. Considering all these circumstances, and by considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and documents executed for the plaintiff, it is difficult to come to conclusion that defendants have not executed the suit promissory note. Issue

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

No.1 has to be answered that defendants have executed the suit promissory note. Likewise, it is difficult to consider that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. Issue No.2 has to be answered that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration. In view of properties shown by plaintiffs, it cannot be considered that the plaintiff had no capacity to lend Rs.14 lakhs. Issue No.3 has to be answered that it cannot be said that the plaintiff had no capacity to lend Rs.14 lakhs.

ISSUE No.4:

Whether the plaintiff forged and fabricated the

suit promissory note at the instance of Mukkera Venkata

Krishna Reddy and his wife Venkata Ramana?

47. It was already discussed while discussing issues 1 to 3 about a dispute with regard to site stated to have been purchased by the 1st defendant with her own investment and about raising of dispute by an unknown third person and settlement of that dispute by allotting a portion to the said third person through a Lok Adalat Award. Name of the 3rd person is not known. The details of suit he filed are not known. It is averred that there was understanding that 1st defendant shall make investment for purchasing a site under Venkata Ramana, w/o.Venkata Krishna Reddy shall make investment for raising the structures. What structures were proposed there is not known and all these things were not put to DW1. They were not referred to PW1 while cross examining PW1. In the absence of making reference about genesis for the dispute between Venkata Krishna

Reddy and defendants, it can not be believed that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated at the instance of

Mukkera Venkata Krishna Reddy and his wife Venkata Ramana.

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

There is nothing to show that the plaintiff forged and fabricated the suit promissory note at the instance of one Mukkera Venkata

Krishna Reddy and his wife Venkata Ramana. Issue No.4 is answered.

ISSUE No.5:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants?

48.Issue No.1 is answered that the defendants executed the suit promissory note. Issue No.2 is answered that it cannot be said that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. Issue No.4 is answered that it cannot be believed that the plaintiff forged and fabricated the suit promissory note at the instance of one Mukkera Venkata Krishna Reddy and his wife Venkata Ramana. In such a case, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, from the defendant, which is based on

Ex.A1. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants. Issue No.5 is answered accordingly.

48.In the result, suit claim proved. Suit is decreed with costs. Defendants 1 and 2 are ordered to pay the suit amount of

Rs.16,50,000/- with interest on the principal sum of

Rs.14,00,000/- at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of presenting the plaint till date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of JULY,

2018.

JUDGE, PRL.FAMILY COURT-CUM

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff:

PW1: Vemireddy Venkata Reddy

PW2: Narasingu Venkata Narasimharao

Defendants:

DW1: Pidaparthi Lakshmi Kumari

Documents marked for

Plaintiff: Ex.A1:Demand promissory note dt.02.02.2010 Ex.A2:Office copy of Legal notice dt.28.01.2011. Ex.A3: Postal receipt of D1. Ex.A4: Postal receipt of D2.

Ex.A5: Certificate of Registration issued by R.T.O. in respect of Tractor Registration in the name of PW1’s younger brother.

Ex.A6:Death Certificate issued by Grama Panchayat .

Ex.A7: Pattadar Adangal/pahani in respect of land covered by R.S.No.195/2C of Akapalem for the faslie 1425.

Ex.A8:Pattadar Adangal/pahani in respect of land covered by RS No.195/1C of Akapalem for the faslie 1425.

Ex.A9:1B Namuna in respect of land covered by R.S.160/2, 160/1, 145/2,107/1 of Munukulla village.

Ex.A10:1B Namuna in respect of lands standing in the name of Srinivasa Reddy.

Ex.A11:1B Namuna stands in the name of father of Pw1.

Ex.A12: Paper publication dt.11.06.2015.

Defendants: nil.

JUDGE, Prl.Family Court-cum-

IV A.D.J, Vijayawada

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

IN THE PRL.FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri A.Parthasarathy,

Judge, Prl.Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Monday this the 16th day of JULY, 2018

F.C.O.S.NO.1/2017

Between:-

Vemireddy Venkata Reddy, s/o. Bakkireddy, Hindu, aged 49 years, cultivation, r/o.Munukulla village,

Tiruvuru mandal, Tiruvuru JCJC. ... Plaintiff

And

1. Pidaparthi Lakshmi Kumari, w/o.Narayanareddi, aged 50 years, Hindu, properties, Native of Chintalapadu, Presently residing at D.No.1-459, H/o.Seelam Pitchireddi, Near Santhi Theatre, Wyra Road, Madhira, Khammam District.

2. Pidaparthi Narayanareddi , s/o.Kotireddi, Hindu, aged 55 years, business and properties, r/o.Chintalapadu, Native of Chintalapadu, presentlyl residing at D.No.1-459, H/o.Seelam Pitchireddi, Near Santhi Theatre, Wyra road, Madhira, Khammam District.… Defendants

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

The suit was initially filed as O.S.No.13/2011 on the file of V Addl. District Court, Vijayawada. The suit was transferred to the Court of XV Addl. District Judge, Nuzvid and was renumbered as O.S.5/2014. The O.S.5/2014 on the file of XV Addl.

District Judge, Nuzvid is transferred to this Court as per Orders in

Tr.CMP No.655/2016by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

Plaint presented on 01-02-2011.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction U/s.50(1) of APCF & S.V.Act is Rs.16,50,000/- on which a Court Fee of Rs.19,026/- is paid herewith U/s.20 , schedule -1 of APCF & S.V.Act.

Cause of action of the suit arose on and from 02.02.2010 when the defendants borrowed amount of Rs.14,00,000/- from the plaintiff on their executing demand promissory note and on and from 28.01.2011 when the plaintiff got issued a registered demand notice to the defendants and at Munukulla village where the suit promissory note was executed and within the jurisdiction of this court.

Particulars of suit claim:

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount due from the defendants under suit promissory note and valued the relief as follow:

Principal amount : Rs.14,00,000/-

Interest on Rs.14,00,000/- at 18% From 02.02.2010 to 31.01.2011.Rs.2,50,600/-

This Suit coming on 06-04-2018, 08.06.2018, 12.06.2018 and 13.06.2018 for hearing in the presence of Sri.U.Naga Prasad,, Sri.D.Chandrasekhara Rao, Advocates on behalf of the plaintiffandSri.S.Sreenivas,Sri.J.V.R.L.Narasimham, Sri.Ch.Tirupati Rao, Advocates on behalf of defendants and upon hearing and considering the material on record, the suit having stoodover till this day for consideration, this Court doth Order and Decree:

1) that the defendants 1 and 2 be and are hereby directed to pay the suit amount of Rs.16,50,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. on

principal amount of Rs.14,00,000/- from the date of presenting

the plaint i.e.01-02-2011 till date of decree and thereafter at 6%p.a. till realization and

2) that defendants 1 and 2 do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.87,828-00 towards costs and do bear their own costs of Rs.nil (no bill of costs filed).

Dt.of Judgment 16-07-2018

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COURT ON THIS

THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2018.

JUDGE, PRL.FAMILY COURT

VIJAYAWADA

Memo of costs for

Plaintiff:

1. Stamp on vakalat: Rs.2-00 2.Stamp on plaint: Rs.19,026-00 3.Stamp on process: Rs.600-00 4.Advocate fee: senior:: Rs.51,000-00 5.-do- Junior Fee: Rs.17,000-00 6.Writing charges: Rs.100-00 7.Typing charges: Rs.100-00 ---------------------- Total=Rs.87,828-00 ---------------------- Defendants: No bill of costs filed.

Judge,Prl.Family Court

Vijayawada.

1

CHAIRMAN, ADDL.M.V.A.C.T.­Cum ­JUDGE, FAMILY COURT­CUM­IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri A.PARTHASARATHY

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAWADA

Thursday this the 23rd day of NOVEMBER, 2017

M.V.O.P.No.713/2008

Between:

1.Namalipuri Venkataratnam, W/o. late Naganjaneya Vara Prasad, Hindu, aged 25 years, Housewife, dependant, C/o.Vellanki Venkateswarlu, B/24, N.S.P.Colony,P.W.D.Grounds, Vijayawada.

2.Nemalipuri Parvathi, W/o. late Radhakrishna, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Housewife and dependent, C/o.Bandi Suresh, S/o.Nageswara Rao, D.No.43­150­19, K.L.Rao road, Ajitsingh nagar, Vijayawada­15.

(the 4th respondent transposed as 2nd petitionerasperordersin I.A.No.180/2015, dt.08.10.2015). ……Petitioners

And 

1. R.M.SrinivasaRao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about –yrs, driver of Qualis bearing No.AP10IV 3753, resident of D.No.21­8­188, Near Eluru canal, Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada.

2. M.S.Prasad, s/o.Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged about –yrs, owner of Qualis bearing No.AP 10IV 3753, resident of D.No.52­11/2­8A, plot No.174,Veterinary colony, Vijayawada. 

3. Reliance General Insurance company …. Respondents Ltd, rep.by its Branch Manager.

This petition coming on 27­10­2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.N.Narasimha Rao, M.Adinarayana 2

Rao, Advocate for petitioner No.2 and Sri.T.Veerabhadra Rao, Advocate for respondent No.3 and upon hearing and considering the entire material on record, the petition having stood over to this day for consideration, this court upon consideration delivered the following:­

ORDER

1.This is a petition initially filed by the 1st petitioner

U/s.16 of M.V.Act r/w.455 of A.P.M.V.Rules against respondents 1 to 3 and 2nd petitioner by showing her as 4th respondent praying to grant compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the death of Naganjaneya Prasad. 

2. It is averred that the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 33 years and was working as Conductor in APSRTC.

On 20.8.2007 the 1st respondent drove the Qualis van bearing

No.AP 10 V 3753 in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Vijayawada to Hyderabad. The deceased was travelling in the car. The 1st respondent dashed the car against lorry bearing No. AHH 3825 between Thotacherla village bus stop and Annapurna Hotel on the NH­9 within the jurisdiction limits of Penuganchiprolu of Krishna District. As a result, the husband of the 1st petitioner and other inmates of the car died on the spot and others sustained injuries. The injured and deceased were taken to Govt. Hospital,

Nandigama. The inquest was held by police and post­mortem was conducted by noting the injuries on the body of the deceased. Earlier on the report given by one 3

V.Venkateswararao, Penuganchiprolu Police registered case as Crime 73/07 for the offence U/s.304­A and 337 of IPC.

The M.V. Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued his report stating that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the Qualis van involved in the accident.

The deceased was drawing salary of Rs.7,000/­ p.m. Thus petitioners have lost their source of income and dependency.

The petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs considering the age and earning capacity of the deceased. The 4th respondent who is the mother of the 1st petitioner was residing far away and did not cooperate in filing the petition.

Hence the 1st petitioner alone filed the petition. 

3. The 1st respondent remained exparte. Petition is dismissed against 2nd respondent. 4th respondent was initially set exparte. In the written statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, it is averred that the particulars mentioned in the form CID in columns No.1 to 26 are not true. The date, time and place of accident mentioned is not correct. The death of the deceased is not due to accident arising out of use of the vehicle bearing No.AP10V 3753. The claim does not come under sections 165 of M.V.Act and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The reason is not covered U/s.147 and 149 of

M.V.Act. There was no rash and negligent driving by the driver. The petitioner is bad for non­joinder of proper parties.

4

As the driver of the opposite lorry bearing No.AHH 3825 is its driver is responsible for the accident.

4. It is denied that the deceased was aged 33 years and was working as Conductor and was drawing salary of

Rs.7,000/­ p.m. The petitioner is not the real legal representative. She was not dependant on the income of the deceased. There was no loss to the estate of the petitioner.

The crime was registered belatedly for wrongful gain in collusion with the owner of the alleged crime vehicle. The concerned police officer failed to comply with the Section 158(6) r/w.150 of the M.V.Rules and failed to forward the copy of FIR. There was no notice or information from the driver or owner of the alleged crime vehicle in writing to the insurer. It has to be duly proved that vehicle bearing registration No.AP 10V 3753 is duly insured. It has to be duly established that the vehicle has valid certificate of registration and also covered by permitting to ply in a public place. The claim under special damages is highly excessive and arbitrary and prayed to dismiss the petition. 

5. The following points for determination are:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash

driving of car bearing No.AP10V 3753 on 20.8.2007?

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for

compensation? If so, for how much amount she is

entitled ?

5

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation against all the respondents?

4) To what relief?

6. The 1st petitioner did not come for commencing enquiry.

Consequently the petition was dismissed on 10.6.2013 which was restored on 22.6.2013 on filing petit on. The petition was dismissed on 19.6.2014 and was again restored as per order on 16.9.2014. The 4th petitioner later came on record and filed I.A.180/15 praying to transpose herself as 2nd petitioner and permit her to pursue the petition. She got her transposed as the 2nd petitioner as per orders in I.A.180/15. the 2nd petitioner got her examined as Pw1 and examined Dy.

SuperintendentAPSRTCM.ChandramouliAPSRTC

Jaggaiahpet depot as Pw2 and one Puligadda Subbarao who was the passenger in Qualis van involved in the accident as

Pw3. Ex.A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of petitioners.Ex.X1 and X2 are marked through Pw2 which are letter of authorisation by Deputy Manager and salary certificate of the deceased. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent. However, the policy schedule­cum­certificate of insurance is marked as Ex.B1 on behalf of the 3rd respondent.

ISSUE No.1:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash driving of car bearing No.AP10V 3753 on 20.8.2007?

7. Issue No.1 will be considered first. Then issues 2 to 4 will be considered together.

6

8. The 1st petitioner did not come for giving evidence. The 4th respondent who got transposed as 2nd petitioner gave evidence as PW1. The Depot Manager was summoned for giving evidence and Deputy Superintendent, Jaggaiahpet

Depot M.Gopi Chandra Mouli was deputed and he gave evidence as PW2 and one P.Subba Rao was examined as PW3.

It is mentioned in the petition that the vehicle involved in the accident is AP 10 IV 3753. Actually it is the slash or bar typed as IV instead of /v. In the written statement of the 3rd respondent the number is mentioned as AP10/V 3753 as the registration number of the vehicle. 

9. In the chief of PW1 also it is mentioned that the Qualis

Car bearing No.AP 10 3753 is involved in the accident and son of PW1 who was travelling in the vehicle died in the accident when the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling dashed against the lorry bearing No.AHH 3825. In fact, the driver of the lorry V.Venkateswara rao gave report against the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP 10V3753.It is shown that police intimation was given on 20.8.2007 at 3.30

AM in the report of defacto complainant described the vehicle as AP 10V3753. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of FIR.Ex.A1 is the attested copy of FIR. Ex.A2 is the inquest report, Ex.A3 is the post­mortem report. Ex.A4 is the MVI report,Ex.A5 is the charge sheet. All of them are the attested copies.Ex.A6 is the photo copy of insurance company issued by the 3rd 7 respondent in Ex.A4. The accident report of the M.V.

Inspector. The vehicle is mentioned as AP10/V 3753. It is described as LMV car like motor vehicle and is Toyota

Kirloskar vehicle. The charge sheet is also filed by police against the 1st respondent driver of the vehicle. The deceased is shown to have aged 33 years at the time of accident as can be seen from Ex.A3 post­mortem report. PW1 was not initially cross examined. It is elicited from Pw1 that she is not an eyewitness. It is merely suggested that there was violation of policy by the injured and the compensation need not be paid to petitioners and as the 1st petitioner did not come forward for giving her evidence and compensation need not be paid.

The other cross examination is with regard to quantum of compensation. Pw3 is stated that he travelled in the ill­fated vehicle. It is elicited during cross examination that he sat in the back seat behind middle seat in the car. He denied that since he sat in the back seat it was not possible for him to see the road ahead. The Qualis car and the lorry colluded with each other. He did not lodged any report to the police.

The deceased died and he sustained simple injuries. He did not file any petition for compensation. He has not given evidence in any court. He denied that at the time of accident, he was sleeping in the car and he had not witnessed the accident. He further denied that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. But 8 the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver bearing No.AHH 3825. Nothing is elicited from Pw3 that he is not the inmate of the Qualis car.It has to be stated herein that in Ex.A5 charge sheet his name is not shown as one of the witnesses. The same is not elicited from

PW3 and it is not the case of the 3rd respondent that PW3 was not travelling in the ill­fated vehicle bearing No.AP10V 3753.

Nothing is elicited for showing that the accident did not occur due to rash driving of the driver of quails car bearing

No.AP10V 3753 on 20.8.2007. In Ex.X2 the photo copy of

Service Register of the deceased also it is mentioned that the deceased expired on 20.8.2007. It is shown that P.F. ,

Gratuity, SRBS and SBT amounts are paid to the 1st petitioner Smt.M.Venkata Ratnam and it is also shown that she submitted representation for additional monetary benefit and lumpsum monthly benefit of Rs.1 lakh was also sanctioned. In view of the same, it is shown about the vehicle involved in the accident and the date and time of accident.

Issue No.1 has to be answered that t he accident occurred due to the rash driving of the car bearing No.AP10V 3753 on 20.8.2007. 

ISSUE No.2:

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If

so, for how much amount she is entitled ?

9

10. In view of amendment of the petition and transposition of the 4th respondent as the 2nd petitioner issue No.2 has to be read as follows: 

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for how much amount she is entitled? 

Issue No.3 has to be read as follow:

Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation against all respondents?

Issue No.4 is read as follow:

To what relief?

11. These issues have to be considered together. The deceased is the husband of the 1st petitioner and the son of 2nd petitioner. The deceased is shown to have died in motor accident. Hence petitioners are entitled to compensation. Part of Issue No.2 is answered. The remaining part of issue is for how much amount they are entitled. Issue No.4 i.e. to what relief and this part of the second issue are with regard to the same aspect. The same will be considered after considering issue No.3. The1st respondent is shown to be driver 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer.

The 1st and 2nd respondent remained exparte. They have not contested the petition. The 3rd respondent alone contested.

3rd respondent also however, not adduced any oral evidence apart from filing Ex.B1. The Ex.B1 is the policy schedule cum certificate of insurance. PW1 also got photo copy of insurance policy earlier marked as Ex.A6. In the Ex.A6 and Ex.B1 it is ,however, shown that the vehicle which was insured is AP 10 10V 3753. It is Toyota Qualis. The same is also mentioned in

Ex.A4. In Ex.A4 also the maker is mentioned as TOYOTA

KIRLOSKAR MOTORS. It is mentioned in Ex.A4 that the accident occurred at 2­00AM on NH­9 near Thotacherla village. The vehicle involved in the accident is Innova bearing

No.AP 10 V 3753. 1st respondent is its driver and 2nd respondent is shown as M.S.Prasad is the owner of the vehicle. In Ex.B1 also it is mentioned the owner of the vehicle is shown as M.Sesha Prasad, s/o.Suryanarayana. 3rd respondent is Reliance General Insurance company is the insurer. In view of the accident and the death caused in motor accident the respondents 1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing No.AP10V 3753 they are jointly and severally responsible and they are liable to pay compensation. Petitioners are entitled from respondents 1 to 3 .Issue No.3 is answered. 

12. The deceased is shown to be working as conductor in

APSRTC .He died at the age of 33 years. He was survived by the 1st and 2nd petitioners. 1stpetitoner is the wife, second petitioner is the mother. It is elicited from PW1 that the deceased died without issues. So, petitioners 1and 2 are left behind by the deceased and they alone can claim compensation. The Depot Manager was summoned and PW2 was deputed. Through Pw2 a letter of authorisation Ex.X1 and the salary certificate along with Service Register of the 11 deceased was marked as Ex.X2. PW1stated during cross­ examination that her husband died in harness while working as Attender in RTC. The deceased Prasad was appointed in

RTC on compassionate grounds. It is elicited from PW1, the same is also elicited from Pw2. According to Service Register the deceased got job on compassionate grounds. It is true that he was absent for duties for three months. During the tenure of the deceased, he was kept under suspension for some time. Subsequently, he was removed from service.

Appeal was also rejected. Later he was reinstated and his annual increments were deferred. The death benefits of the deceased were given to the 1st petitioner. 

13. It is elicited from Pw1 that the 1st petitioner V.Ratnam went away from the house with all her belongings and the belongings of the deceased. She has not seen her during 10 years. She does not know whether she married again. She can not say the whereabouts of the 1st petitioner. It is also elicited that as there was threat of dismissal of OP she filed petition for transposing her as 2nd petitioner and I.A. was allowed. She got her transposed as 2nd petitioner. The same cannot be disputed. 

14. The General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport

Coropration vs.Susamma Thomas 1994 (2) SCC 176. After exhaustive consideration, this Honourable Supreme Court 12 laid down the principles laid down as follows : 

"In fatal accident action, the measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependant as a result of the death. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether." "The matter of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year's purchase." "The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last."

15. In Sarala Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298, their Lordships held that basically only three photos need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : a)age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. Issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; 13 and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. 

16. The future prospects have to be considered. Their

Lordships accepted ratio in Sarala Dixit and considered that they are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of the actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. 

17.The deceased died at the age of 33 years. Their

Lordships also observed that there will be so many imponderables which have to be considered in fatal accident cases. In Ex.X2 the pay of the deceased is shown as

Rs.4,810/­, his D.A. and HRA is Rs.241/­ and Rs.481/­. It is shown that he was drawing net salary of Rs.3031/­. There are so many deductions of the deceased such as P.F., CCS subscription, CCS loan, Surety loan, SBT subscription, CTC,

P.Tax, festival advance and cash shot etc., totalling

Rs.2,699/­ and he was getting net salary of Rs.332/­ which is shown that Service Register shows that the deceased was selected as Conductor and under Bread Winner Scheme and as appointed w.e.f.18.12.1995 in the Pay Scale of Rs.1450­ 40­1640­45­2100. It also shows that he was suspended w.e.f.

19.8.1996. His suspension was extended. He was removed 14 from service on 2.5.1997. He preferred an appeal. The same was rejected and later he was reinstated subject to certain conditions of furnishing security deposit, undergoing medical examination and undergoing training etc. He was reinstated into service on 18.12.2001 we.f. 30.11.2001. His annual increments were deferred for one year on one occasion for six months, on another occasion and his annual increments were restored w.e.f. 1.12.2004 and later he died. This is his career background. The pay of the individual is shown as Rs.4,810/­ but he was drawing net salary of Rs.332/­ i.e. pathetic . Now the deceased is no more. His family should not suffer. There is no material as to when some of the deductions/recoveries will end. The recoveries towards security or surety loan and festival advance cannot be considered as perpetual recoveries.

Hence his pay Rs.4,810/­ can be considered as the income of the deceased. The pay of the individual has to be considered as Rs.4,810/­ only. 

18. As per the ratio in Sarala Varma and Sarala Dixit 50% of the salary has to be considered as addition which has to be added. Rs.2,405/­ has to be added , the same would come to

Rs.7215/­. As the dependant left behind two adult members i.e. wife and mother, the 1/3rd has to be deducted as out of pocket expenses or personal expenses of the deceased. If

Rs.4,810/­ is considered as the salary his annual income will 15 come to Rs.57,720/­. This is the annual loss of dependency of petitioners 1 and 2. This is the multiplicand. By applying formula 2/3rd of income x A.I. (annual income) x multiplier (2/3 x A.I.) the amount of compensation can be arrived at.

Rs.4,810/­ is the loss of dependency per month and it is

Rs.57.720/­ p.a. The deceased is aged 33 years at the time of death. Therefore, the multiplier 16 has to be adopted. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the compensation of

Rs.9,23,520/­.

19. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sarala

Varma while considering the death of the deceased Rajinder

Prasad who died in road accident on 18.4.1988 at the age of 38 years considered the sanctioning of Rs.5,000/­ towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/­towards funeral expenses;

Rs.10,000/­ towards consortium. The accident in this case occurred on 20.8.2007. The deceased died on that day. In view of the time log, the following sums can be sanctioned.

i) towards loss of estate:Rs.15,000/­ ii) towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitionerRs.30,000/­ iii) towards funeral expenses:Rs.20,000/­ iv) towards transportation charges:Rs.10,000/­

Therefore, the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,23,520/­ for the death of the deceased loss of estate is Rs.15,000/­. The loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner Rs.30,000/­, funeral expenses is Rs.20,000/­ and transportationchargesisRs.10,000/­.Totalling 16

Rs.9.98.520/­. The petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled total compensation of Rs.9.98,520/­ including the above break­ ups. 

20. The next aspect that has to be considered for how the amount has to be apportioned between petitioners 1and 2. In

U.P. State Transport Corporation vs. Trilokchand, it was considered that various imponderables include remarriage of the widow. The petitioner No.1 has not come for giving evidence. It is shown that she received P.F. amount and other death benefits. There is no material to show whether 1st petitioner married again or not. Nothing is known. It is shown that the husband of the 2nd petitioner died in harness.

While working as Atender he died. The deceased got job under the bred winner scheme or on compassionate grounds.

He had chequered career. The 2nd petitioner is also sufferer equally and the 1st petitioner has not come forward for giving evidence. Normally it would be appropriate to apportioning the amount at the rate of 60% and 40% between wife and mother which may be one of the approaches. But in the peculiar circumstances, wherein it is shown that the 1st petitioner received death benefits from the corporation and the deceased got job upon the death of the husband of the 2nd petitioner, apportioning amount at 50% : 50% is considered just and appropriate. Among the amounts, the 1st petitioner alone is entitled for loss of consortium. Therefore, out of the total compensation Rs.9,98,520/­ ,the 1st petitioner 17 is entitled for Rs.5,14,260/­ and 2nd petitioner is entitled forRs.4,84,260/­. The making such apportionment between petitioners 1and 2 is considered just and appropriate in my view. 

21.In the result, petition claim proved. Petition is allowed in part. Petitioners 1 and 2 are granted compensation of

Rs.9,98,520/­ (Rupees Nine lakhs Ninety Eight thousand

Five hundred and twenty only). 

The respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation.

R1 being the driver, R­2 being the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, R­3 being the insurer is liable to indemnify. The 3rd respondent is liable to pay the said compensation amount.

The said amount is ordered to be deposited by the respondents within TWO months from this day with interest at the rate of 7%p.a. from the date of filing of petition till the amount is fully realized. 

Out of the total amount of Rs.9,98,520/­, 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,14,260/­ and 2nd petitioner is entitled for

Rs.4,84,260/­ with proportionate interest on the said amounts. The 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2 lakhs and the balance amount along with total interest on Rs.5,14,260/­ is ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit in any Nationalilsed Bank for a period of Two years. 

Out of the said compensation amount of Rs.4,84,260/­ the 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.3 lakhs as it is shown 2nd petitioner is aged 52 years in her evidence and balance amount along with total interest on Rs.4,84,260/­ is ordered to be deposited in Fixed deposit for a period of Two years. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/­.

18

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the day of 23rd day of NOVEMBER,2017.

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.­Cum­

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT­

CUM­IV ADDL.DISTRICT

JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONERRESPONDENTS

PW­1Nemalapuri Parvathi­­ PW2M.G.Chandra Mouli PW3P.Subba Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER :

Ex.A1Copy of FIR Ex.A2:Copy of inquest report Ex.A3Copy of post­mortem Ex.A4:Copy of MVI report Ex.A5:Copy of charge sheet Ex.A6:Insurance policy of 3rd respondent.

FOR RESPONDENTS :

Ex.X1Authorisation letter Ex.X2Salary certificate Ex.B1Policy schedule cum certificate of insurance.

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.­Cum­

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT­

CUM­IV ADDL.DISTRICT

JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

19

CHAIRMAN, ADDL.M.V.A.C.T.­Cum ­JUDGE, FAMILY COURT­CUM­IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri A.PARTHASARATHY

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAWADA

Thursday this the 23rd day of NOVEMBER, 2017

M.V.O.P.No.713/2008

Between:

1.Namalipuri Venkataratnam, W/o. late Naganjaneya Vara Prasad, Hindu, aged 25 years, Housewife, dependant, C/o.Vellanki Venkateswarlu, B/24, N.S.P.Colony,P.W.D.Grounds, Vijayawada.

2.Nemalipuri Parvathi, W/o. late Radhakrishna, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Housewife and dependent, C/o.BandiSuresh,S/o.Nageswara Rao,D.No.43­150­19, K.L.Rao road, Ajitsingh nagar, Vijayawada­15.

(the 4th respondent transposed as 2nd petitioner as per orders in I.A.No.180/2015, dt.08.10.2015). ……Petitioners

And 

1. R.M.SrinivasaRao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about –yrs, driver of Qualis bearing No.AP10IV 3753, resident of D.No.21­8­188, Near Eluru canal, Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada.

2. M.S.Prasad, s/o.Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged about –yrs, owner of Qualis bearing No.AP 10IV 3753, resident of D.No.52­11/2­8A, plot No.174,Veterinary colony, Vijayawada. 

3. Reliance General Insurance company …. Respondents Ltd, rep.by its Branch Manager.

1.This is a petition initially filed by the 1st petitioner U/s.16 of M.V.Act r/w.455 of A.P.M.V.Rules against 20 respondents 1 to 3 and 2nd petitioner by showing her as 4th respondent praying to grant compensation ofRs.10 lakhs for the death of Naganjaneya Prasad.

Petition presented on 29­10­2008.

This petition coming on 27­10­2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.N.Narasimha Rao, M.Adinarayana Rao, Advocate for petitioner No.2 and Sri.T.Veerabhadra Rao, Advocate for respondent No.3 and upon hearing and considering the entire material on record, the petition having stood over to this day for consideration, this court upon consideration doth Order and Decree:

1) that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed in part

and 

2) that petitioners 1 and 2 be and are hereby granted compensation of Rs.9,98,520/­ (Rupees Nine lakhs Ninety Eight thousand Five hundred and twenty only) and 

3) that respondents 1 to 3 be and are hereby liable to pay compensation. R1 being the driver, R­2 being the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, R­3 being the insurer is liable to indemnify. The 3rd respondent is liable to pay the said compensation amount and 

4) that the said amount is ordered to be deposited by the respondents within TWO months from this day with interest at the rate of 7%p.a. from the date of filing of petition till the amount is fully realized and 

5) that out of the total amount of Rs.9,98,520/­, 1st petitioner be and is hereby entitled for Rs.5,14,260/­ and 2nd petitioner be and is hereby entitled for Rs.4,84,260/­ with proportionate interest on the said amounts and 

6) that the 1st petitioner be and is hereby permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2 lakhs and the balance amount along with total interest on Rs.5,14,260/­ is ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit in any Nationalilsed Bank for a period of Two years and 

7) that out of the said compensation amount of Rs.4,84,260/­ the 2nd petitioner be and is hereby permitted to withdraw Rs.3 lakhs as it is shown 2nd petitioner is aged 52 years in her evidence and balance amount along with total interest on Rs.4,84,260/­ is ordered to be deposited in Fixed deposit for a period of Two years and 21

8) that the respondents do pay to the 1st petitioner a sum of

Rs.10,638­00 towards costs and also pay a sum of Rs.1152/­ towards costs to the 2nd petitioner and do bear their own costs of Rs.nil. (no bill of costs filed). 

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COURT

ON THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017.

CHAIRMAN, Addl.M.A.C.T.­Cum­

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT­CUM­

IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, 

VIJAYAWADA

Memo of costs for

Petitioner No.1; 1.Stamp; on vakalat;Rs.2-00 2.STampon petition;Rs.9360-00 3.Stamp; on process;Rs. 126-00

4. Advocate fee;Rs.1,000-00 5.Writing charges:Rs. 50-00 6.Typing charges:Rs. 100-00 -----------------

Total=Rs.10,638-00 ------------------ 2 nd petitioner; 1.stamp on vakalat;Rs.2-00 2.Advocate feeRs.1000-00 3.Writing charges;Rs. 50-00 4.Typing charges;Rs.100-00 ----------------

Total=Rs.1152-00 -------------------

Respondents;

Nil.

CHAIRMAN, Addl.M.A.C.T.­Cum­

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT­CUM­

IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, 

VIJAYAWADA