OS No.263 of 2012 - 1 -
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:
NELLORE
Wednesday, this the 30th day of JANUARY, 2019
Present:
Sri A.SOLOMON,
VI Additional District Judge, Nellore
ORIGINAL SUIT No.263 of 2012
Maddineni @ Chirumamilla Aruna Kumari, W/o. Defendant, Hindu, aged about ..years, Housewife, R/o. D.NO.10-10-3, Raja Street, Kavali, Nellore District … Plaintif
Vs.
Chirumamilla Ramesh S/o. Peda Veeraswamy, Hindu, Aged about 33 years, LIC Development Officer, R/o. D.NO.8/82, Royal Nagar,
Tirupathi Town, Chittoor District.... Defendant
This suit coming up for final hearing before me on 25.01.2019 in the presence of Sri R.N. Suneetha, advocate for the plaintif and of Sri P. Suneel Kumar Singh, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing both sides, this matter stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G E M E N T
1.The plaintif filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.10,02,000/- with costs and subsequent interest on
Rs.10,02,000/- at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.
2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:-
OS No.263 of 2012 - 2 -
The marriage of the plaintif was performed with the defendant on 9.3.2008 in Brindavanam Housing Association Kalyana mandapam, Kavali, Nellore District as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. At the time of marriage, the parents of the plaintif gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and presented 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments and some silver pooja items to the defendant.
3.The plaintif and the defendant were job holders in
Tirupathi. The plaintif and the defendant lived happily only for a period of three months. The plaintif worked as Assistant teaching faculty of Padmavathi Mahila University till March, 2009 and after conceiving, the defendant pressurized the plaintif to go for abortion, for which, the plaintif refused, due to which, disputes arose between them. Because of pregnancy, the plaintif opted for maternity leave to her job, but the defendant forced the plaintif to resign her job. After that, the plaintif came to Kavali for the purpose of delivery to her parents’ house. When the plaintif came for delivery, she left all her gold ornaments at the defendant’s house.
4.On 17.6.2009, the plaintif was admitted in Bollineni hospital for delivery and blessed with a son by name Chirumamilla
Charan Sri Vatsav @ Chirumamilla Charan Sriram.
5.As the things stood thus, the defendant filed a divorce application before the Family Court, Tirupathi, which was transferred to
OS No.263 of 2012 - 3 -
the Family Court, Nellore, as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature.
6.The plaintif filed an application for maintenance for her minor son before the Learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali and the same was transferred to Family Court, Nellore, as per the orders of
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.
7.Later, the defendant preferred an application for custody of the minor child in GOP No.245/2012.
8.In the meanwhile the plaintif came to know that the defendant got prepared a consent agreement dated 4.7.2010 to the efect that the plaintif has taken back all the articles presented to the defendant at the time of marriage of the plaintif and the defendant.
The said consent agreement is a forged document created by the defendant to avoid returning her articles at the time of taking divorce, as the defendant preferred an application for divorce.
9.The plaintif waited till the date of filing of this suit with a fond hope that their marital life would be normalized but the eforts made by the plaintif and her parents went in vain. Hence, the plaintif sent a legal notice dated 18.6.2012 to the defendant calling upon him to return all her articles including the money given to the defendant at the time of marriage. The defendant received the said legal notice but he failed to return the articles and gave false reply notice dated
OS No.263 of 2012 - 4 -
26.6.2012. Hence, the plaintif filed this suit for return of the amount of
Rs.2 lakhs given to the defendant, 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments and silver pooja articles worth Rs.8,02,000/-.
10.The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments mentioned in the petition.
11.The defendant admitted in his written statement that the marriage of the plaintif and the defendant was performed on 9.3.2008 at Kavali and out of their lawful wedlock, they were blessed with a son by name Chirumamilla Charan Sri Vatsav @ Chirumamilla Charan
Sriram.
12.The defendant contends that the parents of the plaintif did not give an amount of Rs.2 lakhs to him, at the time of marriage.
13.The defendant contends that there is no specification of the articles and its corresponding worth and that the plaintif arrived at the value of the articles to tune of Rs.8,02,000/- by her own imagination and guess work and that there is no mention about the specification of articles delivered.
14.The defendant further contends that it is alleged by the plaintif that 35 sovereigns of gold were given to the defendant but in
Cr.No.2/2014 of Kavali, Rural P.S., it was mentioned that only 30 sovereigns of gold were given to the defendant. In the legal notice
OS No.263 of 2012 - 5 -
dated 18.6.2012, it was mentioned that only 30 ½ sovereigns of gold
were given to the defendant. Hence, there is lot of inconsistency in her case.
15.The defendant further contends that at the time of the plaintif going to her parents house situated at Kavali for delivery, she took all her valuables including the gold ornaments thinking that it is not safe to keep the gold ornaments in the house as the defendant used to go for camp as he is working as LIC Development Officer.
Hence, all the gold ornaments are in the custody of the plaintif.
16.The defendant further contends that on 4.7.2010, he delivered all the household articles given to him by the parents of the plaintif under Oppudala Patram (consent agreement dated 4.7.2010).
After returning the articles to the parents of the plaintif on 4.7.2010 after a long time, the plaintif sent a legal notice dated 18.6.2012 demanding the defendant to return all the gold and silver articles with a malafide intention to get undue advantage and that he gave a suitable reply notice to the plaintif on 26.6.2012.
17.The defendant further contends that he filed a complaint for fraudulent acts of the plaintif in C.C No.63/2013 on the file of the IV
Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Tirupathi for breach of trust and other ofences. Hence, the defendant prays this Court to dismiss this suit with costs.
OS No.263 of 2012 - 6 -
18.Basing on the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed trial:-
1) Whether the plaintif is entitled for Rs.10,02,000/- from the defendant?
2) Whether the defendant has handed over household articles to the parents of the plaintif on 4.7.2010 under consent agreement? and
3) To what relief?
19.To prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif examined
P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 and closed her evidence.
On behalf of the defendant, the defendant examined D.W.1 to D.W.3 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 and closed his evidence.
20.Arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintif and the learned counsel for the defendant are heard and perused the oral and documentary evidence produced by both parties.
21.Issue No.1 & 2:- (1) Whether the plaintif is entitled for Rs.10,02,000/- from the defendant?
(2) Whether the defendant has handed over household articles to the parents of the plaintif on 4.7.2010 under consent agreement?
It is an admitted fact that the marriage of the plaintif was performed with the defendant on 9.3.2008 in Brindavanam Housing
Association Kalyana mandapam, Kavali, Nellore District, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community and out of their lawful wedlock, they were blessed with a son by name Chirumamilla Charan
OS No.263 of 2012 - 7 -
Sri Vatsav @ Chirumamilla Charan Sriram. Ex.A1 is the marriage card and Ex.A2 is the marriage photo. Hence, there is no dispute with regard to the above said fact.
22.It is not in dispute that that she conceived 3 months after the marriage, the defendant forced her to get abortion of the pregnancy, for which she refused and hence disputes arose between them and subsequently, as the things stood thus, the defendant filed a divorce application before the Family Court, Tirupathi, which was transferred to the Family Court, Nellore, as per the orders of the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature. To prove this point, the plaintif got
marked Ex.A3. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of petition in FCOP No.189/2012 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Tirupathi. Hence, it is evident that the defendant herein filed the above said divorce petition against the plaintif herein.
23.It is not in dispute that after delivery of the child, as the defendant neglected to maintain the child, the plaintif filed an application for maintenance for her minor son before the Learned
Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali and the same was transferred to
Family Court, Nellore, as per the orders of Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Nellore. To prove this point, the plaintif got marked
Ex.A4. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of petition in F.C.O.P. No.246/2012 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Nellore. Hence, it is evident that the plaintif filed the above said maintenance petitioner against the defendant on behalf of her minor son.
OS No.263 of 2012 - 8 -
24.It is not in dispute that later, the defendant preferred an application for custody of the minor child in G.O.P.No.245/2012. To prove this point, the plaintif got marked Ex.A5. Ex.A5 is the served copy of the petition in G.O.P.No.245/2012on the file of Judge, Family Court, Nellore.
Hence, it is evident that the defendant herein filed the above said petition against the plaintif, seeking custody of the son of the plaintif.
25.The plaintif filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of the dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by her parents to the defendant at the time of marriage and the cost of gold and silver articles of 30 sovereigns given to the plaintif, which are in the custody of the defendant. The defendant denied the receipt of dowry and gold and silver ornaments. Hence, the burden lies on the plaintif to prove that at the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant and that her parents presented 30 sovereigns of gold and silver articles to the plaintif at the time of marriage and that those gold and silver articles are in the possession of the defendant.
26.The plaintif contends that at the time of her marriage with the defendant, the parents of the plaintif gave an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry. On the other hand, the defendant contends that the parents of the plaintif did not give an amount of
Rs.2 lakhs to him, at the time of marriage. Hence, the burden lies on the plaintif to prove that at the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant towards dowry. To prove this
OS No.263 of 2012 - 9 -
aspect, the plaintif examined herself as P.W.2 and her father as P.W.2 and one 3rd party as P.W.3. P.W.1-Maddineni Chirumamila Aruna Kumari, who is the plaintif herein, P.W.2-Maddineni Ramalingeswara Rao, who is the father of the plaintif and P.W.3-Nandigam Jagadeesh Verma, who is the 3rd party reiterated the above said contention in their chief- examination affidavits. Except the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the plaintif did not produce any documents like photos or videos to show that at the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant towards dowry. Hence, the plaintif failed to prove the above said allegation.
27.The plaintif further contends that her parents presented 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments and some silver pooja items to the defendant at the time of her marriage. The defendant did not specifically deny the above allegation, but, he contends that there is no specification of the articles and its corresponding worth and that the plaintif arrived at the value of the articles to tune of Rs.8,02,000/- by her own imagination and guess work and that there is no mention about the specification of articles delivered. On this aspect, P.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that she did not mention in her plaint and also in her chief-examination affidavit the descriptive particulars of the gold ornaments. I perused the plaint schedule. The plaintif mentioned the descriptive particulars of the gold ornaments and their corresponding values in the plaint schedule. Hence, he defendant failed to prove that that there is no specification of the articles and its corresponding value in the plaint.
OS No.263 of 2012 - 10 -
28.The defendant further contends that it is alleged by the plaintif that 35 sovereigns of gold were given to the defendant but in
Cr.No.2/2014 of Kavali, Rural P.S., it was mentioned that only 30 sovereigns of gold were given to the defendant. In the legal notice
dated 18.6.2012, it was mentioned that only 30 ½ sovereigns of gold
were given to the defendant. Hence, there is lot of inconsistency in her case. To prove this point, the defendant got marked Ex.B1. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of F.I.R. along with complaint in C.C No.252/2014 on the file of the learned I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kavali. In Ex.B1, the plaintif mentioned that her parents gave 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and silver articles. Hence, the plaintif herself admitted in her complaint (Ex.B1) that her parents presented 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her at the time of marriage. The plaintif got marked the legal notice dated 18.6.2012 as Ex.A6. I perused ExA6. In the said legal notice, the plaintif mentioned that at the time of marriage, her parents gave 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her. But, during the course of cross- examination, P.W.1 admitted that the total weight of gold ornaments is 30 sovereigns. Hence, the defendant proved that the parents of the plaintif presented 30 sovereigns to the defendant at the time of her marriage.
29.P.W.1-Maddineni @ Chimamlilla Aruna Kumari stated in the cross-examination that her father sold his landed property to one
Medikonda Srilatha to meet her marriage expenses and that he purchased some gold ornaments to her at the time of marriage. To
OS No.263 of 2012 - 11 -
prove this point, the plaintif got marked Ex.A10. Ex.A10 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 16-06-2008 executed by
Maddineni Ramalingesarao in favour of Medikonda Srilatha. P.W.2-
Maddineni Ramalingeswara Rao, who is the father of the plaintif stated in the cross-examination that he did not file any receipts or any documentary evidence to show that he purchased 30 sovereigns of gold and ½ Kg silver articles and household articles worth
Rs.1,05,000/-. He did not mention in his chief-examination affidavit about the sale of his land to meet the marriage expenses of the plaintif. Hence, it is doubtful whether the father of the plaintif sold his land to meet the marriage expenses of the plaintif. Hence, the plaintif failed to prove that her father sold his land that her father sold his land to purchase 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the plaintif at the time of her marriage. Admittedly, the marriage of the plaintif was performed on 09-03-2008 whereas the father of the plaintif sold his land on 16-06-2008 i.e., 3 months after the marriage. Hence, it is evident that the father of the plaintif did not sell his land before marriage to meet the marriage like purchasing gold ornaments, but
D.W.1 admitted in the cross examination that he came to know that his father-in-law presented gold and silver articles to the plaintif. Hence, It is evident that the father of the plaintif presented gold and silver articles to the plaintif at the time of her marriage.
30.The plaintif contends that after she conceived, she came to her parents’ house situated at Kavali for the purpose of delivery and when she came for delivery, she left all her gold ornaments at the
OS No.263 of 2012 - 12 -
defendant’s house. On the other hand, the defendant contends that at the time of the plaintif going to her parents’ house situated at Kavali for delivery, she took all her valuables including the gold ornaments thinking that it is not safe to keep the gold ornaments in the house as the defendant used to go for camp as he is working as LIC
Development Officer and hence, all the gold ornaments are in the custody of the plaintif. Hence, the burden lies on the plaintif to prove that when she came to her parents’ house for delivery, she left all her gold ornaments at the defendant’s house. But, since the defendant himself admitted in his written statement that at the time of the plaintif going to her parents’ house situated at Kavali for delivery, she took all her valuables including the gold ornaments with her, the defendant, thereby impliedly, admitted that the plaintif joined him to lead marital life with him at Tirupathi, the plaintif brought her gold ornaments with her. Hence, the burden lies on the defendant to prove that at the time of the plaintif going to her parents’ house situated at
Kavali for delivery, she took all her valuables including the gold ornament.To prove this point, the defendant examined D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B3. D.W.1-Chirumamilla Ramesh, who is the defendant herein reiterated the above said allegation in his chief-examination affidavit. In Ex.B3, the defendant got mentioned that he returned gold ornaments to the plaintif even prior to the execution of Ex.B3. Hence, it is evident that the gold ornaments were not returned to the plaintif under Ex.B3 dated 4-07-2010. Hence, Ex.B3 is not helpful to the defendant to prove thatat the time of the plaintif going to her
OS No.263 of 2012 - 13 -
parents’ house situated at Kavali for delivery, she took all her valuables including the gold ornaments with her.
31.D.W.1-Chirumamilla Ramesh, who is the defendant herein admitted in the cross-examination that in Ex.B4 legal notice issued by him to the plaintif, he got mentioned that on 6-08-2010, the plaintif and her parents came to his house and taken away her gold ornaments. He further admitted in the cross examination that he got mentioned in his chief-examination that on 18-03-2009, the plaintif took away her gold ornaments at the time of delivery. Hence, it is evident that there is no consistency in the evidence of D.W.1 regarding the date of delivery of gold ornaments to the plaintif. Hence, the evidence of D.W.1 with regard to the delivery of the gold ornaments to the plaintif in found to be untrustworthy. The defendant did mention the names of persons in whose presence, he returned the gold ornaments to the plaintif. The defendant neither examined any witnesses nor produced any evidence to show that he has already returned the gold ornaments to the plaintif. Hence, the defendant failed to prove that he has already returned the gold ornaments to the plaintif.
32.The defendant further contends that on 4.7.2010, he delivered all the household articles given to him by the parents of the plaintif under Oppudala Patram (consent agreement) dated 4.7.2010.
On the other hand, the plaintif contends that the defendant got prepared a consent agreement dated 4.7.2010 to the efect that the
OS No.263 of 2012 - 14 -
plaintif has taken back all the articles presented to the defendant at the time of marriage of the plaintif and the defendant and that the said consent agreement is a forged document created by the defendant to avoid returning her articles. Hence, the burden lies on the defendant to show that on 4.7.2010, he delivered all the household articles given to him by the parents of the plaintif under Oppudala
Patram (consent agreement) dated 4.7.2010. To prove this point, the defendant examined D.Ws 1 to 3 and got marked ExB3 and ExB7.
D.W.1 Chirumamilla Ramesh, who is the defendant herein reiterated the above said contention in his chief-examination affidavit. But, during the course of cross-examination, D.W.1 admitted that he came to know that Ex.B3 agreement was entered into between him and the plaintif.
He further admitted that Ex.B3 did not contain his signature and the signature of the plaintif. Since Ex.B3 is not signed by both parties, there is no valid agreement between both parties. Hence, there is no privity of contract between the parties. Hence, Ex.B.3 is not valid and binding on the plaintif.
33.Besides that the defendant got marked Ex.B7-photos to show that the parents of the plaintif transported the household articles in a mini-lorry. Ex.B7 are the photos showing the Mini-lorry with some luggage. Ex.B7 did not show the descriptive particulars of the household articles alleged to have been taken away by the parents of the plaintif. D.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that the time and date of the photos is not mentioned in Ex.B7. He further admitted that he did not file any CDs or negatives of the photos mentioned
OS No.263 of 2012 - 15 -
under Ex.B7. He further stated that the said photos were taken through his cell phone and hence there are no negatives or photos of the said
CDs. The defendant did not produce his cell phone containing the photos of Ex.B7 before this Court. Hence, ExB7 is not at all helpful to the defendant to prove that the father of the plaintif took away the household articles from the house of the defendant on 04-07-2010.
34.D.W.1 further admitted in the cross-examination that he did not know the truck number, the name of the driver of the said truck, in which the parents of the plaintif allegedly transported the house hold articles of the plaintif with them. Hence, the evidence of D.W1 is not convincing.
35.D.W.2 J.Subrahmanyam. who is a retired Development
Officer, L.I.C. stated in his chief examination affidavit that on 04.07.2010, he went to the house of the defendant and noticed that his in-laws were present in the house and coolies were shifting the house hold articles into a mini-lorry and then, he tried to convince them, but they did not listen to him and took way their household articles and silver pooja articles along with them and that after receiving the household articles a consent agreement(Oppudala
Patram) was executed by the parents of the plaintif and they signed in the consent agreement. But, he admitted in the cross-examination that he does not know the particulars of household articles given by the father of the plaintif to the defendant and that he cannot tell the number or make of the Mini-van of the plaintif. He further admitted in
OS No.263 of 2012 - 16 -
the cross-examination that the plaintif and the defendant, who are parties to ExB3 did not sign in ExB3. He further admitted in the cross- examination that himself and the defendant and the scribe of Ex.B3 by name Vijaya Bhaskar are colleagues. Hence, the evidence of D.W.2 is not convincing.
36.D.W.3 C.Vijaya Bhaskar who who is working as
Development Officer, L.I.C. stated in his chief-examination affidavit that on 04-07-2010, he went to the house of the defendant situated at
Rayal Nagar, Tirupati and came to know that the plaintif and her parents came to his house to take back the house hold articles as both parties came to the conclusion that they wish to live separately and that he tried to convince them, but they did not listen his words and they shifted the household articles into a mini-lorry and that after receiving the household articles a consent agreement(Oppudala
Patram) was executed by both parties and that both parties instructed him to scribe the consent agreement and that the parents of the plaintif signed in the consent agreement. But, he admitted in the cross-examination that he did not sign in Ex.B3 as a scribe. He further stated in the cross- examination that Oppudala Patram was scribed on two bond papers and two white papers but, in fact, it was scribed on one bond paper and one white paper. He further admitted that the plaintif and the defendant did not sign in Ex.B3. He further admitted that he cannot tell the details of the household article taken away by the father of the plaintif from the house of the defendant. He further
OS No.263 of 2012 - 17 -
admitted that himself and the defendant are working together for the last 10 years. Hence, the evidence of D.W.3 is not convincing.
37.P.W.1 stated in the cross-examination that the weight of the long chain is 6 sovereigns, the weight of the plain necklace and ear rings is 3 sovereigns, the weight of red stones necklace and ear rings is 3 sovereigns, the weight of the bangles is 6 sovereigns and the weight of the single bangle is 2 sovereigns, the weight of black beads is 3 sovereigns, the weight of the sarudu is 3 sovereigns, the weight of 3 ear rings and finger rings is 2 sovereigns, and that she has three sets of ear rings. If we add all the weights of the above said articles, the net weight comes to 30 sovereigns. Hence, it is probable that the father of the plaintif might have presented 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the plaintif at the time of marriage. P.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that in the year 2012, the cost of one gram of gold was Rs.1800/- to Rs.2,000/- and the cost of silver articles and household articles. As per the evidence of P.W.1, her parents presented 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her which comes to 240 grams (30x8= 240). The cost of one gram gold was Rs.1800/-. The total cost of the gold ornaments comes to (240x 1800) = Rs.4,32,000/- and silver articles is Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, the total amount payable by the defendant to the plaintif comes to Rs.6,32,000/-. Hence, I hold that the plaintif is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.6,32,000/- from the defendant. Hence, the issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintif accordingly.
OS No.263 of 2012 - 18 -
38.Issue No.3:-
TO WHAT RELIEF?
In the result, this suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintif with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of
Rs.6,32,000/- with subsequent interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. The claim of the plaintif for return of dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is dismissed.
Typed on my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of January,
2019.
VI Additional District Judge, Nellore.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
for Plaintiff:
PW.1: Maddineni @ Chirumamilla Aruna Kumari, plaintif
P.W.2: Maddineni Ramalingeswara Rao
P.W.3: Nandigam Jagadeesh Varma for Defendant:
DW.1: Chirumamilla Ramesh, defendant. D.W.2 : J. Subrahmanyam D.W.3 : C. Vijaya Bhaskar
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A1Marriage card Ex.A2Marriage photo Ex.A3Certified copy of petition in FCOP No.189/2012
OS No.263 of 2012 - 19 -
Ex.A4Certified copy of petition in FCOP No.246/2012 Ex.A5Served copy of the petition in GOP No.248/2012 Ex.A6Office copy of legal notice dated 18.6.2012 Ex.A7Postal receipt Ex.A8Postal acknowledgment Ex.A9Reply notice dated 26.6.2012
For Defendants:
Ex.B1Certified copy of F.I.R. along with complaint in CC No.252/2014 on the file of the learned I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kavali Ex.B2Certified copy of the complaint filed by the tenant in CC No.63/2013 on the file of the learned V Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Tirupathi Ex.B3Consent agreement executed by the parents of the plaintif (marked subject to objection) Ex.B4Office copy of the legal notice dated 9.8.2010 issued to the plaintif Ex.B5Reply notice of the plaintif dated 16.8.2010 Ex.B6Reply notice dated 26.6.21012 issued by the defendant to the plaintif dated 18.6.2012 Ex.B7Bunch of photos( five in number)
Sd/- A. Solomon
VI A.D.J.
//True copy//