Sri. A.Radhakrishna Murthy

O.P.No.5/2013 Dated: 15.11.2016 

BEFORE THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL AT MIRYALGUDA

(IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MIRYALAGUDA)

TUESDAY, THE FIFEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

PRESENT

SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY

PRESIDING OFFICER – CUM -

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.P.NO. 5 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

1. Basireddy Krishna Reddy

2. Boora Janardhan …PETITIONERS

AND

1.Kandula Yadaiah

2. District Election Officer, Nalgonda

3. Divisional Electoral Officer, Nalgonda

4.Mandal Electoral Officer, Thripuraram Mandal

5.Executive Authority, Gram Panchayat, Abhangapuram

6.Mandal Election Officer (MPDO), Thripuraram

7.The District Election Officer (District Collector), Nalgonda …RESPONDENTS

This Petition is coming on 09.11.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ravindra Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Ch.Raghu Rama Rao, Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri Palreddy Ramana Reddy, the learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents No.2 to 7, and upon hearing arguments, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a petition filed by the Petitioner under Sec.233, 268 of A.P Panchayath Raj Act and Rules 2, 4 & 6 of A.P. Panchayath Raj Elections in respect of Gram Panchayath/Mandal Parishad/Zilla Parishad Rules, 1995 praying the Court to declare that the election of the Respondent No.1 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Abhangapuram is not valid and therefore liable to be set aside.

Page 1 of 7

O.P.No.5/2013 Dated: 15.11.2016 

2. The case of the Petitioner, succinctly, is as follows:

The Government of Andhra Pradesh has decided to conduct elections for Gram Panchayath in the State. Accordingly, a notification has been issued. The schedule fixed for the said elections as per the said notification. In the process of reserving posts as per Roster System certain lapses have taken place and one such lapse is reserving the post of Sarpanch of Abhangapuram village for the Schedule Tribe, since no single person is living in the said village from 2010 onwards till date as well as no single voter is also available in the said village as per the Electoral List in force by the date of notification. There is no voter belonging to Schedule Tribe till 09.07.2013 is shown in the Voters List of the said village, but strangely on 09.07.2013 the villagers of Abhangapuram village including the Petitioners came to know that the name of Respondent No.1 as well as his wife who are residents of Duggepally village of Tripuraram Mandal were included in the Voters List in clandestine manner. Almost all the officials assured the villages who made their representation about their grievance stating that they will take necessity action before the date of election, but in vain. The Petitioners and one Kadiam Srinivas approached the Hon'ble High Court for relief of declaration. The Respondent No.1 and his wife have availed benefits from the Government in Duggepally village and they are not the voters of Abhangapuram village. As per Sec.18 of Representation of Peoples Act 1950, no person is entitled to be registered in the Electoral Roll for any constituency more than once. But, knowing pretty well that the Respondent No.1 and his wife are not the residents of Abhangapuram village, they saw that their names are brought into existence in the Electoral Roll. In view of above facts, the Respondent No.1 is not entitled to contest for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Abhangapuram. Hence, this petition.

CASE OF RESPONDENT NO.1, IN BRIEF :

3.The Respondent No.1 denied all the material allegations in the Petition. The Government reserved the Sarpach of Abhangapuram to Schedule Tribe as per Rules and regulations. The Petitioners have no locus standi to file this Petition. Both the Petitioners have not contested in the election. The Petitioners filed this Petition due to political rivalry. The Respondent No.1 is the voter of Abhangapuram and only to defame the Respondent No.1 in public, the Petitioners filed this Petition. Finally, the Respondent No.1 prayed the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs.

Page 2 of 7

O.P.No.5/2013 Dated: 15.11.2016 

CASE OF RESPONDENTS NOS.2 TO 7, IN NUTSHELL :

4.The Respondents Nos.2 to 7 also denied all the material allegations in the Petition. The election authorities and staff discharged their legitimate duties by following rules and regulations issued by the Election Commission of India. There are no merits in the petition and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

TRIAL PROCEEDINGS :

5.During trial, the Petitioner himself examined as PW-1 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-23. One Kadiyam was examined as PW-2 on behalf of PW-1. The Respondent No.1 himself stepped into witness box as RW-1, the Panchayat Secretary of Abhangapuram was examined as RW-2 and no documents were exhibited. All the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, RW-1 & RW-2 are very much available on record in the form of depositions and the same are not reproducing here to avoid repetition. This Court carefully gone through the evidence adduced by both the parties and exhibits exhibited.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Respondents No.2 to 7.

7.Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point germane for my determination is “Whether the

Petitioners are entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for ?”

9. P O I N T :

9.1The learned counsel for Petitioner would contend that from the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 coupled with Ex.P-1 to P-23, it is clear that RW-1 was not the voter of Abhangapuram village, thus he is not entitled to contest the election to the Post of Sarpanch and hence his election is liable to be set aside.

9.2The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents 2 to 7, would contend that from the

Page 3 of 7

O.P.No.5/2013 Dated: 15.11.2016 

unchallenged testimonies of RW-1 & RW-2, it is clear that RW-1 was the voter of Abhangapuram village and hence this Petition is liable to be dismissed.

9.3It is the contention of RW-1 that the Petitioners have no locus-standi to file this Petition since they did not contest the elections. In the cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that neither he nor the 2nd Petitioner contested in the Panchayat election. The learned counsel for RW-1 would contend that from the said admission itself, this Petition is not maintainable since PW-1 was not contested in the election. But according to Rule 2(1) of AP Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules 1995 [herein after referred to as Rules 1995 for brevity], any candidate or elector can file an Election Petition to question the Election relating to Member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. It is not the case of RW-1 that PW-1 and the 2nd Petitioners are not the electors of Abhangapuram Gram Panchayat. Since PW-1 and the 2nd Petitioners are the electors of Abhangapuram Gram Panchayat, they have every right to question the election by filing Election Petition. Hence, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for RW-1 that Petitioners have no locus-standi to file this Petition, is untenable.

9.4The specific contention of PW-1 is that RW-1 is not the voter of Abhangapuram Gram Panchayat and from 2010 onwards till 09.07.2013 there is no voter belonging to Schedule Tribe and on 09.07.2013 the names of RW-1 and his wife are added in clandestine manner. To substantiate his contention, RW-1 exhibited Ex.P-1 to P-23. In the cross-examination PW-1 categorically admitted that RW-1 has his vote as on 03.07.2013. When such is the admission, the contention of PW-1 that from 2010 onwards till 09.07.2013 there is no voter belonging to Schedule Tribe in Abhangapuram village, is not believable. It is true that PW-1 exhibited Ex.P-1 to P-23. A perusal of Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4, it is clear that Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-4 do not contain the office seal and it is mentioned that there is no voter belonging to Schedule Tribe since 2011. Thus, the contents of Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-4 are contra to the evidence of PW-1 with regard to availabililty of voters belonging to Schedule Tribe. Further, Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-8 do not contain the signatures of PW-1 and 2nd Petitioner. PW-2 did not offer any explanation for not appending their signatures on Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-8. A perusal of Ex.P-19, it is evident that RW-1 has made an application in Form No.6 for inclusion of his name in Electoral Roll of Abhangapuram Gram Panchayat. The State Election Commission addressed a letter to the Collector & District Election Authority, Nalgonda under Ex.P-21 to take action with regard to deletion of names of certain illegal voters from the Electoral Roll

Page 4 of 7

O.P.No.5/2013 Dated: 15.11.2016 

of Abhangapuram village, as per the representations made under Ex.P-6 to P-12. The District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda addressed a letter to Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda under Ex.P-22 to enquire into the matter and submit a detailed report. But, PW-1 has not filed and exhibited the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Panchayat Officer. In the absence of any such report, it cannot be said that the names of RW-1 and his wife were added in clandestine manner in the Electoral Roll of Abhangapuram Gram Panchayat.

9.5The learned Counsel for PW-1 would contend that from Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17, it is very clear that RW-1 and his wife are the electors of Duggepally village and hence, the election of RW-1 as Sarpanch of Abhangapuram Gram Panchayat is hit by Sec.18 of Representation of Peoples Act 1950.

9.6It is true that the names of RW-1 and his wife are reflecting in Duggepally village under Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17. But, according to Sec.18 of Representation of Peoples Act 1950, no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any constituency more than once. The word “constituency” referred to in Sec.18 of Act 1950, can contain more number of Panchayats. Further, Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Sec.23 of Act 1950 says that if the applicant is registered in the electoral roll of any other constituency, the electoral registration officer shall inform the electoral registration officer of that other constituency and that officer shall, on receipt of the information, strike off the applicant's name from that roll. In this case on hand, PW-1 has not filed any material before this Court to say that the names of RW-1 and his wife have not struck-off in Duggepally village and still they are the voters of Duggepally. Further, it is not the case of PW-1 that the names of RW-1 and his wife have not struck-off. In the absence of such evidence and pleadings, it cannot be said that RW-1 and his wife are still continuing as electors of Duggepally village to disqualify RW-1 from contesting as Sarpanch of Abhangapuram village.

9.7At this juncture, this Court came across the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of AP, decided in a case Simmiti Arjuna – Vs – Pappala Narsaiah 1, it was held at Para No.9 that - “Sub-section (6) of Sec.11 prohibits vote by same person in

more than one ward and there is no prohibition for a person to vote in

two Gram Panchayats on the same day if he is registered as voter.”

12004 Lawsuit (AP) 1076 = 2005(1) ALT 403

Page 5 of 7

O.P.No.5/2013 Dated: 15.11.2016 

9.8In this case on hand, to substantiate the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 was examined. In the cross-examination PW-2 categorically admitted that RW-1 is the voter of Abhangapuram village prior to issuance of election notification. It may be true that RW-1 and his wife have votes in Duggepally village, but the same cannot be precluded to register their votes in Abhangapuram village. The very first qualification to contest the Sarpanch Election is that the contesting candidate must have his name in electoral roll in that Gram Panchayat. It is not the case of PW-1 that RW-1 has no name in Electoral Roll of Abhangapuram Gram Panchayat. Further, to demolish the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2, RW-1 & RW-2 step into witness box, but their testimonies have remained unchallenged. The Petitioners did not choose to even cross-examine RW-1 & RW-2 to discard their chief examinations. Furthermore, PW-1 has not filed any cogent and convincing evidence to show that RW-1 cast his vote in Duggepally village and even after selection as Sarpanch also, RW-1 is not residing in Abhangapuram to disqualify him as Sarpanch.

9.9In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner failed to establish his case to set aside the election as prayed for. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the Respondents and against the Petitioner.

10.IN THE RESULT, the Petition is dismissed with costs.

Typed by me in my Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of November 2016.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER

PW-1Basireddy Krishna Reddy PW-2Kadiyam Srinivas

FOR RESPONDENTS

RW-1Kandula Yadaiah RW-2Mohammad Yousuf Ali

Page 6 of 7

O.P.No.5/2013 Dated: 15.11.2016 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.P-1Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.22255 of 2013 Ex.P-2Representation dated 15.07.2013 Ex.P-3Certificate dated 10.07.2013 Ex.P-4Certificate dated 10-07-2013 Ex.P-5Certificate of VRO dated 10.07.2013 Ex.P-6Representation dated 10.07.2013 Ex.P-7Representation dated 10.07.2013 Ex.P-8Representation dated 10.07.2013 Ex.P-9Representation dated 14.07.2013 Ex.P-10Representation dated 10.07.2013 Ex.P-11Representation dated 11.07.2013 Ex.P-12Representation dated 15.07.2013 Ex.P-13Photocopy of Election Identity card Ex.P-14Photocopy of Election Identity Card Ex.P-15Copy of Job Card Holders Information Ex.P-16NREG Report Ex.P-17Statement of Account pertaining to NREG Ex.P-18Circular of State Election Commission Ex.P-19Form No.6 of RW-1 Ex.P-20Household supply card of RW-1 Ex.P-21Letter addressed by State Election Commission Ex.P-22Letter addressed by District Panchayat Officer Ex.P-23Voter Slip of Duggepally

FOR RESPONDENTS

: NIL ::

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALGUDA

Page 7 of 7

O.S.No.283/2013 Dated: 16.11.2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

MIRYALAGUDA

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

PRESENT

SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S.NO. 283 OF 201 3

BETWEEN:

Manchikanti Shakunthala …PLAINTIFF AND

Dhanalaxmi Agencies, rep. By its Proprietor, Singirikonda Mohan Rao …DEFENDANT

This suit is coming on 10.11.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch. Raghu Rama Rao, Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri G. Kiran Kumar, Counsel for the Defendant, upon hearing arguments and upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:

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

1.This is a suit by the Plaintiff against Defendant for recovery of Rs.59,375/- with costs and subsequent interest basing on Ex.A1 Promissory Note dated 11.09.2012.

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF IN NUTSHELL :

2.The Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the Plaintiff on 11.09.2012 for his business necessities and executed Ex.A-1 for the said amount in favour of the Plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at Rs.1.50 paisa per hundred per month either to the Plaintiff or to her order on demand. Despite oral request the Defendant did not choose to make repayment. Hence, the suit.

CASE OF THE DEFENDANT IN BRIEF :

3.The Defendant did not borrow any amount from the Plaintiff and Ex.A1 is devoid of consideration. The Defendant is not liable to pay any amount much less the alleged amount to the Plaintiff. The Defendant sustained huge loss in his business and he is in financial crisis. Having known the said factum, the Defendant filed the suit. Finally, the Defendant prays the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

Page 1 of 4

O.S.No.283/2013 Dated: 16.11.2016

4.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the alleged suit document is not supported by consideration ?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of suit claim as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

5.During trial, the Plaintiff herself stepped into witness box as PW-1 and got exhibited Ex.A-1 after paying deficit stamp duty and penalty as per docket order dated 29.06.2016. The Defendant himself stepped into witness box as DW-1 and his wife was examined as DW-2 and no documents were exhibited on behalf of the Defendant.

6.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the Defendant.

7. Perused the material available on record.

8. ISSUE NO.1 : Whether the alleged suit document is not supported by consideration ?

8.1The learned counsel for Defendant would contend that from the testimonies of DW-1 & DW-2, it is clear that PW-1 did not lend amount to DW-1 under Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-1 is not supported by consideration and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

8.2The learned counsel for Plaintiff would contend that from the admissions of DW-1 & DW-2 and from the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1, it is very clear that Ex.A-1 is supported by consideration.

8.3DW-1, though admitted the execution of Ex.A-1, denied the passing of consideration and hence burden lies on him to prove the same. To discharge the burden cast on DW-1, he himself stepped into witness box and filed Chief Examination Affidavit by reiterating the contents of his Written Statement and hence the Chief Examination Affidavit is nothing but replica of Written Statement of DW-1. In the cross-examination, categorically deposed that he is a Graduate and he executed Ex.A-1 stating that he borrowed the

Page 2 of 4

O.S.No.283/2013 Dated: 16.11.2016

amount of Rs.50,000/- from PW-1 on 11.09.2012 by agreeing to repay the said amount at the rate of Rs.1.50 paisa either to PW-1 or to her order on demand. DW-1 further admitted that he himself scribed Ex.A-1 and DW-2 also attested Ex.A-1. DW-1 also admitted that he appended three signatures on Ex.A-1. DW-1 is not an ordinary person and he is the Proprietor of Dhanalaxmi Agencies. If, the version of DW-1 is true, he would have got issued legal notice to PW-1 asking her either to pay the amount under Ex.A-1 or to return the same since no amount was paid to him under Ex.A-1. DW-1 did not offer any explanation for not taking such steps even after filing this suit. Further, DW-1 did not depose as to what made him to draft Ex.A-1 with his own hand that too on the letter-head of his company without receiving the amount from PW-1. Hence, the version of DW-1 that no consideration was passed under Ex.A-1 is unbelievable.

8.4To support the version of DW-1, his wife was examined as DW-2. DW-2 filed her chief examination affidavit by supporting the case of DW-1. DW-2 also testified the evidence of DW-1. In the cross-examination, DW-2 categorically deposed that she has no idea whether DW-1 borrowed the amount from PW-1 and executed a document by appending three signatures. The said statement is contra to the evidence deposed by DW-2 in her chief- examination. DW-2 also did not offer any explanation as to subscribing her signature as attester if DW-1 did not receive the amount under Ex.A-1.

8.5To encounter the testimonies of DW-1 & DW-2, the Plaintiff as PW-1 testified that DW-1 borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 11.09.2012 and executed Ex.A-1 Promissory Note. In the cross-examination of PW-1, nothing could be elicited to nullify the testimony of PW-1. The testimony of PW-1 is cogent, convincing and credible.

8.6On cumulative reading of the testimonies of PW-1, DW-1 & DW-2 coupled with Ex.A-1, it is manifest that DW-1 borrowed the amount from PW-1 and executed Ex.A-1 with his own hand on his letter-head and Ex.A-1 is supported by consideration. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

9. ISSUE NO.2 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of suit claim as prayed for ?

9.1It is the evidence of PW-1 that though she demanded the DW-1 to discharge the amount due under Ex.A-1, DW-1 did not pay. It is not the case of

Page 3 of 4

O.S.No.283/2013 Dated: 16.11.2016

DW-1 that he discharged the amount. DW-1, since borrowed the amount from PW-1 under Ex.A-1, there is an obligation on him to discharge the debt due to PW-1 under Ex.A-1 Promissory Note and PW-1 is entitled to recover the amount. The issue is answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE NO.3 : To what relief ?

10.1In view of the findings of this Court on issues Nos.1 & 2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be decreed with costs.

11.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed with costs against the Defendant for a sum of Rs.59,375/- (Rupees Fifty-nine Thousand Three Hundred and seventy-five only) and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the suit till the date of decree and thenceforth at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal sum of Rs.50,000/-.

Typed by me in my Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of November 2016.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF

PW-1Manchikanti Shakuntala

FOR DEFENDANT

DW-1Singirikonda Mohan Rao DW-2Singirikonda Savitri

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A-1Promissory Note dated 11.09.2012

FOR DEFENDANT

: NIL ::

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALGUDA

Page 4 of 4

O.S. No.91/2016 Dated: 09.11.2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MIRYALAGUDA

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

PRESENT:

SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S.NO. 91 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

1.Kaatla Prameela

2.Kaatla Laxmi Durga

3.Kaatla Lavanya

4.Kaatla Sri Laxmi …PLAINTIFFS

AND

1. Kollu Yadagiri

2. To whom so ever it may concern …DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming on 04.11.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants remainedex-parteand upon hearing arguments, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:

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

1.This is a suit for declaration filed by the Plaintiffs seeking to declare that the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Kaatla Yalamanda Rao and consequently restraining the Defendant No.1 from claiming himself as one of the legal heirs of Kaatla Yalamanda Rao.

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS, SUCCINCTLY, IS AN FOLLOWS :

2.The Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and Plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters of late Kaatla Yalamanada Rao and the Plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of said Yalamanda Rao. During his lifetime, the said Yalamanda Rao used to do business in Lorry Servicing Center and he died on 05.12.2014 at Miryalaguda leaving behind him the Plaintiffs Nos.1 to 4 as his legal heirs to succeed in his estate. After the demise of said Yalamanda Rao, the Defendant No.1 is also proclaiming that he is also one of the legal heirs of said Yalamanda Rao. Thus,

Page 1 of 3

O.S. No.91/2016 Dated: 09.11.2016

the Plaintiff NO.1 made a representation to the Tahsildar, Miryalaguda on 27.01.2016 for issuance of Legal heir Certificate, but in vain. Hence, the suit.

3.After registering the suit, the suit summons were issued to the Defendant No.1 and paper publication was ordered to the Defendant No.2. Having received the summons, the Defendant No.1 did not choose to appear

before the Court and hence he was set exparte on 01.09.2016 and none were

appeared and objected the suit claim on behalf of the 2nd Defendant.

4.During trial, the Plaintiff No.1 himself examined as PW-1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A8 in support of their claim.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for Plaintiffs.

6.Perused the Record.

7.Now the point for determination is “Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for” ?

8. P O I N T:

8.1The Plaintiff No.1, as PW-1 reiterated the contents of plaint in his examination-in-chief and got exhibited Ex.A-1 which shows that the husband of PW-1 and father of Plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4 died on 05.12.2014. A perusal of Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-5, it is evident that the husband's name of PW-1 and father's name of Plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4 is mentioned as Kaatla Yalamanda Rao. From Ex.A-2, it is manifest that Plaintiffs Nos.1 to 4 are the family members of deceased Yalamanda Rao. Ex.A-7 & Ex.A-8 show that PW-1 applied to the Tahsildar, Miryalaguda for family members certificate. The evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged. According to Sec.34 of Specific Relief Act 1963, the Court can grant the relief of declaration to any legal character or to any right as to any property in case such legal character or right is denied. In this case, it is the specific case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant No.1 denying their legal status and even there is no rival claim to the relief sought for by the Plaintiffs. The unchallenged testimony of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-8 is consistent, cogent and trustworthy. Hence, the Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for. Point is answered accordingly.

Page 2 of 3

O.S. No.91/2016 Dated: 09.11.2016

9.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed declaring that the Plaintiffs are the sole legal heirs of deceased Kaatla Yalamanda Rao. And the Defendant No.1 is hereby restrained by way of Perpetual Injunction from claiming himself as one of the legal heirs of deceased Kaatla Yalamanda Rao. However, it is made clear that as per Section-35 of Specific Relief Act, this judgment is binding only on the parties to the suit, but not on the third parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

Typed by me in my Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of November 2016.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1Kaatla Prameela:: NONE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS

Sl.No. Date of Document Description of Document

Ex.A127.12.2014Death Certificate Ex.A2–-Household supply card Ex.A3--Aadhar Card of PW-1 Ex.A4–-Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.2 Ex.A5--Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.3 Ex.A6--Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.4 Ex.A727.01.2016Letter addressed by PW-1 to Tahsildar Ex.A8--Two Postal Acknowledgment Cards

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

:: NIL ::

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALGUDA

Page 3 of 3

O.S No.348/2015 Dated: 09.11.2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MIRYALAGUDA

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

PRESENT:

SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S.NO. 348 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

Jillaboina Durgamma …PLAINTIFF AND

1. Kota Mary Jyothi

2. Kommu Punnamma

3. Batchalakuri Punnamma …DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming on 03.11.2016 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M. Uma Shanker Reddy, Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri M. Anil Kumar, Counsel for Defendants Nos.1 & 3 and the Defendant No.2 remained ex-parte and upon hearing arguments, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff for perpetual injunction against the Defendants No.1 to 3 restraining the Defendants and their men by way of Perpetual Injunction from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the ‘suit schedule property’.

CASE OF PLAINTIFF, SUCCINCTLY, IS AS FOLLOWS :

2.The Plaintiff got the suit schedule property from her father-in-law long back and since then the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The name of the Plaintiff was mutated in Revenue Records and the Plaintiff also obtained crop loan from Telangana Grameena Vikas Bank by depositing her Revenue Title Deed. The Defendants have no right or interest over the suit schedule property and they are trying to interfere with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as the Plaintiff did not consider their request to sell the property. On 10.12.2015 again the Defendants tried to interfere with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The Plaintiff is unable to resist the nefarious acts of the Defendants. Hence, the suit.

Page 1 of 3

O.S No.348/2015 Dated: 09.11.2016

3.After registering the suit, summons were issued to the Defendants. Having received the summons, the Defendant No.2 did not choose to appear and hence he was set exparte on 07.01.2016; the Defendants Nos.1 & 3, though appeared through Counsel, did not file their Written Statement even after completion of statutory period of (90) days and hence they were set exparte on 07.04.2016.

4.During trial, the Plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 and got exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-3 in support of her claim.

5.Heard. Perused the Record.

6.Now the point germane for my determination is “Whether the Plaintif

is entitled for the relief of Perpetual Injunction as prayed for” ?

7. P O I N T:

7.1The Plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 and got exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-3 on her behalf. PW-1 filed her chief examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of her plaint. A perusal of Ex.A-1, it is evident that PW-1 was the owner of suit schedule property. A perusal of Ex.A-2, it is clear that PW-1 obtained loan from Telangana Grameena Vikas Bank, Adavidevulapally by depositing her Revenue Title Deed. From Ex.A-3, it is manifest that PW-1 is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. PW-1 also testified that the Defendants have trying to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property without any right. The evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged. Hence, the unchallenged testimony of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3 clinchingly proves that the Plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

8.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed with costs and the Defendants Nos.1 to 3 and their men are hereby restrained by way of Perpetual Injunction from ever interfering with the lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Typed by me in my Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 09th day of November 2016.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALGUDA

Page 2 of 3

O.S No.348/2015 Dated: 09.11.2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1Jillaboina Durgamma:: NONE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl.No. Date of Document Description of Document

Ex.A-1–Pattadar Passbook of Plaintiff Ex.A-2–Certificate issued by Telangana GV Bank Ex.A-316.11.2015Computerized Pahani

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

:: NIL ::

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALGUDA

Page 3 of 3

O.S. No.105 of 2016 Dated: 11.11.2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

PRESENT:

SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S.NO. 105 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

Gongati Saidi Reddy …PLAINTIFF AND

Pinikeshi Srinivasa Reddy …DEFENDANT

This suit is coming on 10.11.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ravindra Reddy, Counsel for Plaintiff and of Sri V.Venkata Ramana Reddy, Counsel for Defendant and upon hearing arguments, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit for recovery of Rs.1,38,600/- with costs and subsequent interest basing on the Promissory Note, dated 02.05.2013 with the following averments. The Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the Plaintiff on 02.05.2013 and on even date, the Defendant executed demand Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff for the said amount at Tungapahad agreeing to repay the same with compound interest at Rs.2/- per hundred per month either to the Plaintiff or to his order. Subsequently, in spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff through the legal notice dated 30.07.2015 the Defendant failed to repay the remaining amount due under the above said two promissory note. Hence, the suit.

2.After registering the suit, summons were issued to the Defendant. Having received the summons, the Defendant appeared through Counsel, but did not choose to filed Written Statement though statutory period of (90) days is completed and hence he was set ex-parte on 17.10.2016.

3.During trial, the Plaintiff himself examined as PW-1, the attestor of Ex.A-1 Promissory Note was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-4 on behalf of the Plaintiff.

4.Heard. Perused the Record.

Page 1 of 2

O.S.No.105 of 2016 Dated: 11.11.2016

5.Now the point germane for my determination is “Whether the Plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for” ?

6. P O I N T:

The Plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and reiterated the contents of plaint, in verbatim and further PW-1 got exhibited Ex.A-1 to A-4 on his behalf. The attestor of Ex.A-1 was also examined as PW-2. From the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 coupled with Ex.A-1, it is clear that the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from PW-1 on 02.05.2013. It is the evidence of PW-1 that having received Ex.A-2 legal notice under Ex.A-4 Acknowledgment, the Defendant failed to repay the amount due under Ex.A-1. The testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 have remained unchallenged. Hence, from the unchallenged testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4, this Court holds that the Plaintiff has proved the suit claim and as such, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be decreed. The point is answered accordingly.

7.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,38,600/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-eight thousand and six hundred only) and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thenceforth at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal sum of Rs.80,000/-.

Typed by me in my Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of November 2016.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW-1Gongati Saidi Reddy:: NONE :: PW-2Gongati Sanjeeva Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl.No. Date of Document Description of Document

Ex.A-102.05.2013Original promissory note Ex.A-230.07.2015Office Copy of Legal Notice Ex.A-3--Postal Receipt Ex.A-4–-Acknowledgment Card

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALGUDA

Page 2 of 2