Smt. A. Sunitha Rani

Page No. 1 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair //

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(SENIOR DIVISION) AT TIRUPATI

Present: Smt A.Sunitha rani,

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati.

Monday, this the 20th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.382 of 2018

Between:-

K.Harisha, w/o A.Rajiv, Hindu, aged about 33 years, Software Engineer, R/at 16, Viceroy Emarold, P.H.Haralur Road, Opp.S.J.R.Redwood, Amablipura, Bangalore-560 102, Karnataka, rep by her Agent/father K.Nagi Reddy, S/o K.Pulla Reddy, Hindu, aged about 73 years, Retired Professor, R/at D.No.24-11-52, Post Office Street, SV Nagar, Tirupati. . . . Plaintiff.

And

[1]Yellamraju Subrahmanyam, S/o Y.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Telephone Supervisor, O/o General Manager, BSNL, Tirupati, R/at D.No. 4-16, Padmavathipuram, Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati [2]The Executive Officer, Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat, Tiruchanur. . . . Defendants. -o0o-

Page No. 2 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair //

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri A.Mohan, Learned counsel for plaintiff and of Sri B.K.Ramesh, learned counsel for defendant no.2; and none on behalf of defendant no.1 as he was remained exparte; and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and 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 suit filed U/sec.26 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C, by the plaintiff, seeking the reliefs (i) to declare the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property; (ii) direct the defendant to deliver the possession of suit schedule property; (iii) to direct the defendant no.2 to remove the road laid in the part of the plaint schedule property by way of mandatory injunction and (iv) to award costs.

[2] Pleading of plaintiff:- The father of plaintiff being a GPA holder represent the matter on behalf of plaintiff. His daughter i.e., plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from one C.Sarala for valid consideration of Rs.10,56,000/- on 17-05-2017 vide doc.no.

2043/2017. The property which is situated in Sy.Nos.434/2 and 434/3 belongs to one A.Narasimhulu Naidu and others of Tiruchanur village,

Chandragiri. The said A.Narasimhulu Naidu sold the property situated in Sy.no.434/2 to one Gudi Ramachandra Naidu under a registered sale deed dt. 16-06-1983 vide doc.no. 3517/1983 for a valid consideration of Rs.20,000/-. Inturn, he sold the same to one

G.Jayanna under registered sale deed dt.16.06.1983 vide doc.no.

Page No. 3 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair // 3515/1983 for valid consideration of Rs.26,000/-. Subsequently, the said G.Ramachandra Naidu and G.Jayanna sold the property covered under the sale deeds No.3515/1983 and 3517/1983, dt. 16.06.1983 to one M.Ramachandra Raju on 15.05.1987 vide doc.no.3548/1987 and 3549/1987 for valid consideration Rs.40,000/- each and put him in possession. One G.Akkamma who is the wife of G.Ramanaiah Naidu sold the land situated in sy.no.434/3 to an extent of Ac.1.00 cent to the said G.Ramachandra Raju through a registered sale deed dated 21-08-1987 vide doc.no. 3550/1987 for a valid consideration of

Rs.40,000/- and put him in possession of the property. Similarly, the said G.Ramachandra Naidu also sold the land situated in sy.no. 434/2 in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents to the said M.Ramachandra Raju on 21.08.1987 for valid consideration of Rs.40,000/- vide registered sale deed No.3551/1987 and put him in possession of the property with full rights.

[2.1] Further, the said M.Ramachandra Raju laid an unapproved layout in the property under the said registered sale deeds and sold the property as house sites to various individuals. The vendor of plaintiff purchased the schedule house plot bearing No.74-A from the said M.Ramachandra Raju on 19.02.2007 for valid consideration and took possession of the property and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Subsequently, the plaintiff purchased the said property from C.Sarala on 17.05.2017 for valid consideration of

Rs.10,56,000/- under registered sale deed No.2043/2017 and took possession and enjoying since then. While so, defendant No.2 without any intimation or required statutory proceedings had illegally trespassed into part of schedule property and laid road in between the

Page No. 4 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair // plot leaving vacant strip of site and that she approached the

Panchayat Officials and enquired about the illegal act and questioned as to how the road has been laid in part of the plot without any right but the officials did not give any reply and made her to wander around them many times since two months and that she gave written objections/notice dated 20.07.2018 to the illegal act of laying road in her site and intimated that she will initiate legal proceedings by filing a suit for the legal remedy. On enquiry, she came to know that the defendant No.1 who purchased a house plot in triangular shape on the northern side of the schedule plot from the original owner who laid the layout, with a malafide intention gained over and influenced the officials of the Panchayat and made them to lay a road on the southern side of his plot to make the plot as a corner plot having access on both west and southern side. Hence the suit.

[3] Pleading of written statement of defendant no.2:- As stated supra, defendant No.1 remained Exparte and defendant no.2 entered contest and filed written statement denying the material allegations mentioned in the plaint. It is the version of defendant no.2 that, there was existing road from Vemanachary house to others houses in

Sivagiri Nagar of Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat and as the road was only gravel road formed so many years back and it was uneven and has become trouble to some of the residents of the street especially during the rains and that they submitted representation on 14.08.2017, 13.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 to lay cement road on the existing gravel road to avoid accidents to old aged persons, ladies and school going children. Thereby the matter was discussed in Gram Panchayat meeting which was held on 13-12-2017 and the Gram Panchayat

Page No. 5 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair // made resolution No.32(64) and 32(65) for consideration of C.C road on the existing gravel road. The engineering authorities prepared estimations as per Grama Panchayat resolution and the work was completed on 28.02.2018. The Gram Panchayat works for public interest and not for any individual muchless with the defendant no.1 as alleged in the plaint. Hence, the suit is not maintainable in law, and the above suit ought not to have been numbered, as the same is in total derogation of sec.138-A of Gram Panchayat Act, and for all these reasons and grounds, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

[4] Issues:- Basing on the rival pleadings of the parties one of my learned predecessor in office framed the following issues for trial;

1. “ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property.?”

2. “ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory

injunction against defendant no.2, as prayed for.?

3. “ To what relief.?” [5.] After framing of issues, both the parties let in their respective evidence. The evidence of D.W.1 was eschewed, as inspite of passing conditional order, DW.1 did not turn up to court to depose evidence.

[6] Heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties to the lis.

Page No. 6 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair // [7] EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- At the event of trial, the GPA holder of plaintiff, got examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined one A.Thima Reddy, who is third party to the suit proceedings as

P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.11 and those are Ex.A.1 is original power of attorney dt. 25-08-2018, Ex.A.2 is C.C of sale deed dated 16-06-1983 vide doc.no. 3517/1983, Ex.A.3 is C.C. of sale deed dated 16-06-1983 vide doc.no.3515/1983, Ex.A.4 is original copy of sale deed dated 19-02-2007 vide doc.no.1087/2007, Ex.A.5 is original rectification deed vide doc.no. 2033/2017, Ex.A.6 is original sale deed

dated 17-05-2017 in favour of plaintiff vide doc.no. 2043/2017, Ex.A.7

is office copy of notice dated 20-07-2018, Ex.A.8 is C.C. of sale deed bearing No.3548/1989 along with typed copy, Ex.A.9 is C.C. of sale deed vide doc.no.3549/1989 along with typed copy, Ex.A.10 is C.C. of sale deed vide doc.no.3550/1989 along with typed copy and Ex.A.11 is C.C. of sale deed vide doc.no. 3551/1989 along with typed copy.

[7-1.] On the other hand, on behalf of 2nd defendant, initially, one

R.Madhuri, who is the then Panchayat Secretary of Tiruchanur has filed chief affidavit and failed to appear before this Court for deposing evidence, hence, her evidence was eschewed by this Court by docket order dated 28-08-2025. The present panchayat secretary by name

P.N.Mani was examined as D.W.2 and got marked Ex.B1 and Ex.B.2 documents and those are Ex.B.1 is ten photographs along with pen drive and Ex.B.2 is attested copy of resolution dt. 13-12-2017.

[8.] To prove the case of plaintiff, as stated supra, the GPA holder of Plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the averments in plaint and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.11 documents.

Page No. 7 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair //

P.W. 2, who is the third party to the suit also supported the version of

P.W.1, but the defendant failed to cross examine the plaintiff witnesses.

[8.1.] On the other hand, as stated supra, one R.Madhuri who is the then Panchayat Secretary was examined in chief as D.W.1, and when the matter is coming for marking of documents and cross examination, DW.1 did not turn up inspite of passing conditional order, hence, the evidence of DW.1 was eschewed by docket order dated 28-08-2025.

[8.2.] On behalf of defendant no.2, the present panchayat secretary was examined as D.W.2 and he reiterated the averments in written statement and got marked Exs.B.1 & B.2. The relevant material aspects of cross-examination of D.W.2 are as follows;  D.W.2 denied the suggestion that panchayat laid a road in the private property in a hasty manner and that Exs.B.1 and B.2 were created for the purpose of this suit.

[9.] ISSUE No.1 & 2:- The issued 1 & 2 are inter related, and that this court intends to discuss these two issues under one head.

[10.] The object of every judicial enquiry or trial is to create a belief in the mind of the court as to the existence or non-existence of certain facts on which rights or liabilities of the parties and the decision of the case depends. With regard to standard of proof to be applied in

Page No. 8 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair // civil cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a landmark decision decided in between ‘Dr N.G. Dastane Vs Mrs S. Dastane’ reported in ‘1975(2) S.C.C 326’ pleased to held that; “The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he links that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies.” [11.] The plaintiffs mainly seeking for three reliefs viz., declaration, recovery of possession and Mandatory injunction. In specific, the plaintiff is praying to declare the plaintiff as absolute title holder of the plaint property, and for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction to direct the defendant no.2 to remove the road laid in the part of the plaint schedule property.

Page No. 9 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair // [12.] Here at this stage we will see what is declaration. The jurisdiction of courts to grant a declaratory decree is salutary. The utility and importance of the remedy of declaratory suits are manifest, for its object is to prevent future litigation by removing existing cause of controversy. Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provides for declaratory decrees under Section 34 of the Act and it is providing that; Discretion of court as to declaration of s tatus or right; “Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief.” [13.] Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, contemplates certain conditions which are to be fulfilled by plaintiff. In order to obtain the relief of declaration the plaintiff must establish that he is entitled; (i) to a legal character, (ii) to a right as to property, (iii) that the defendant has denied or is interested to deny his title to such character or right, and (iv) he has sought all reliefs in the suit.

[14.] The plaintiff has to prove that the defendants have denied or interested in denying to the character or title of the plaintiff. There must be some present danger or detriment to her interest so that a declaration is necessary to safeguard her right and clear the mist. The denial must be communicated to the plaintiff in order to give her cause

Page No. 10 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair // of action. In declaratory suits, plaintiff's task is not completed once she proves that she is entitled to the legal character or right to property, but it is also for her to convince the court that the defendant has denied or interested to deny that legal character or right of the plaintiff, then only she can succeed in obtaining the declaration sought.

[15.] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision decided in between ‘Union of India & O hers Vs Vasavi Co - operative Hous ing

Society ’ reported in ‘AIR 2014 SC 937’ pleased to held that; “it is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.” [16.] In addition to declaration of title, the plaintiffis also claiming grant of mandatory injunction and recovery possession. Now we will see whether the plaintiff proved her case by adducing cogent evidence.

[17.] Issue No.1: Issue No.1 framed is ‘Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property?’.

[17.1] The burden of proving this issue squarely lies upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims title over the suit schedule property under

Ex.A.6 / registered sale deed dated 17.05.2017, and has attempted to trace her title through a series of antecedent sale transactions marked

Page No. 11 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair // under Exs.A.2 to A.11. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendants have encroached upon a portion of her property and laid a road therein without any authority.

[17.2] Though the plaintiff has filed several registered documents to show the flow of title, a careful scrutiny of the same reveals that the plaintiff has not produced any approved layout plan, survey sketch, or any authenticated document to precisely identify the suit schedule property on ground vis-à-vis the alleged encroached portion.

[17.3.] It is a settled principle of law that in a suit for declaration of title coupled with recovery of possession, the plaintiff must not only prove title but also establish the identity and exact location of the property. In the present case, except the recitals in the sale deeds, no cogent evidence such as a surveyor’s report or commissioner’s report is placed before the Court to clearly demarcate the suit property and to show that the road in question falls within the boundaries of the plaintiff’s land.

[17.4] Further, the evidence of P.W.1, who is only a GPA holder, is largely based on the documents and does not convincingly establish actual possession of the plaintiff over the disputed portion at any point of time. The independent witness examined as P.W.2 also does not speak with clarity regarding the exact encroachment or the boundaries.

[18.] On the other hand, defendant No.2 has taken a consistent stand that there existed a road in the locality for several years, which

Page No. 12 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair // was being used by the residents, and that the Gram Panchayat, pursuant to representations from the public and resolution dated 13.12.2017 (Ex.B.2), has only laid a cement road over the already existing gravel road. The photographs produced under Ex.B.1 probabilise the existence of a road being used by the public. Though the evidence of D.W.1 was eschewed, the testimony of D.W.2 coupled with documentary evidence lends support to the version of defendant

No.2.

[18.1] Significantly, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to get the suit property measured through a competent authority or by appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to substantiate her allegation that the road has been laid within her property. In absence of such crucial evidence, the plea of encroachment remains unsubstantiated.

[18.2] Moreover, when the defendant no.2 asserts existence of a public road from prior point of time, the burden shifts on the plaintiff to establish that the same forms part of her private property. The plaintiff has failed to discharge such burden.

[18.3] The another important point to be noted here is that, whether non examination of plaintiff is fatal to the case? Though the suit is instituted through a GPA holder, the law is well settled in ‘Janki

Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd.’ that a power of attorney holder can depose only with regard to facts within his personal knowledge and cannot depose in place of the principal on matters which are exclusively within the knowledge of the plaintiff. In the

Page No. 13 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair // present case, the relief sought is one of declaration of title, which necessarily requires proof of foundational facts relating to title, possession, and other personal assertions of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has not stepped into the witness box to substantiate her case, and no satisfactory explanation is offered for such non- examination. The GPA holder, though examined, cannot speak to all material aspects of the case, particularly those within the exclusive knowledge of the plaintiff. Hence, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the plaintiff under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. In the absence of cogent and satisfactory evidence from the plaintiff herself, this Court is of the considered view. that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon her.

[18.4] In view of the above deficiencies, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove her exclusive title over the disputed portion and also failed to establish unlawful dispossession by the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title or recovery of possession. Issue No.1 is answered against to the plaintiff.

[19] Issue No.2: Issue No.2 framed is ‘Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction against defendant No.2, as prayed for?’ The relief of mandatory injunction is consequential in nature and can be granted only when the plaintiff establishes a clear legal right and its violation.

In the present case, as discussed under Issue No.1, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the road in question has been laid in her

Page No. 14 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair // property. Further, the material on record indicates that the road was laid by the Gram Panchayat pursuant to a resolution and for the benefit of the public at large. When the existence of a road is shown to be in public use and its exact location vis-à-vis the plaintiff’s property is not established, this Court cannot grant a relief directing removal of such road, as it would affect public interest. Additionally, the contention raised by the defendant no.2 regarding maintainability of the suit in view of statutory provisions governing acts of the Gram Panchayat also gains significance, particularly when the act complained of relates to execution of public works pursuant to a resolution. Therefore, in absence of clear proof of encroachment and in view of the public nature of the work, the plaintiff is not entitled for mandatory injunction.

Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

[20] Issue No.3: Issue No.3 framed is ‘To what relief?’

In view of the findings recorded on Issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for.

[21.] In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the stenographer, and the Judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 20th day of April, 2026, under the hand and seal of this court.

(Sd/-Smt.A.Sunitha rani)

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Tirupati.

Page No. 15 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair //

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For plaintiff:

P.W.1: K.Nagi Reddy P.W.2: A.Thima Reddy.

For defendant no.1:

- Exparte-

For defendant no.2:

D.W.1: R.Madhuri (Eschewed) D.W.2: P.N.Mani

Documents marked:

For plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : Original power of attorney dt. 25-08-2018.

Ex.A.2: Certified copy of sale deed dt.16-06-1983 vide doc.no. 3517/1983.

Ex.A.3: Certified copy of sale deed dt. 16-06-1983 vide doc.no.3515/1983.

Ex.A.4 : Original copy of sale deed dt. 19-02-2007 vide doc.no. 1087/2007.

Ex.A.5: Original rectification deed vide doc.no. 2033/2017.

Ex.A.6: Original sale deed dt. 17-05-2017 in favour of plaintiff vide doc.no.2043/2017.

Ex.A.7: Office copy of notice dt. 20-07-2018.

Ex.A.8: Certified copy of sale deed bearing No.3548/1989 along with typed copy.

Page No. 16 (O.S.No.382/2018) // Fair //

Ex.A.9: Certified copy of sale deed vide doc.no.3549/1989 along with typed copy.

Ex.A.10: Certified copy of sale deed vide doc.no.3550/1989 along with typed copy.

Ex.A.11: Certified copy of sale deed vide doc.no. 3551/1989 along with typed copy.

For defendant No.1:

-Nil-

For defendant No.2:

Ex.B.1 : Ten photographs along with pen drive.

Ex.B.2 : Attested copy of resolution dated 13-12-2017.

(Id/-A.S.R) Addl.C.J (Sr.D), TPT.

Page No. 1 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair //

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(SENIOR DIVISION) AT TIRUPATI

Present: Smt A. Sunitha Rani,

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Tirupati.

Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2026

I.P. No.44/2024

Between:-

Kotakonda Sundara Ramaiah, S/o late K.Subbaiah, Hindu, aged about 53 years, R/at D.No.22-172, Akkagarla Colony, Old Pet, Chandragiri Town and Mandal, Tirupati District. . . .Petitioner.

And

(1) C.Lakshmaiah, S/o C.Venkat Reddy, Hindu, aged about 44 years Finance business, R/at D.No.1282, Kota, Chandragiri Post & Mandal, Tirupati District.

(2) K.Kodandaiah, S/o late K.Venkataswamy, Hindu, aged about 49 years, R/at D.No.8-122, Akuthota Veedhi, New Pet, Chandragiri Town & Post & Mandal, Tirupati District.

(3) K.Venkatesu, S/o late Gangaiah, Hindu, aged about 60 years, business, R/at D.No.13-56, P.N.Palli, Chandragiri Post and Mandal, Tirupati District.

(4) D.Munemma,, W/o D.Bhaskar, Hindu, aged about 63 years, Housewife, R/at D.No.22-206, A.K.Colony, Chandragiri Post & Mandal Tirupati District.

(5) K.Lakshman Kumar, S/o K.Ramachandraiah, Hindu, aged about 34 years, business, R/at D.NO.11-67/1, Pulavani Gunta, Thimminaidupalem, Tirupati town & Mandal & District. . . . Respondents 1 to 5. -o0o-

Page No. 2 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair //

This insolvency petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Ch.M.S.Raju, Learned counsel for petitioner, and none on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 as the respondents remained exparte, and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

O R D E R

[1] This is a petition filed under section 10 of Provincial

Insolvency Act, 1920, (Hereinafter will be referred as ‘the Act’ for brevity), by the sole petitioner against creditor/ respondents 1 to 5, seeking the reliefs; (i) to adjudicate and declare the petitioner as an insolvent, and (ii) such other reliefs which are deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

[2] The brief averments of petition are like this; The the petitioner worked as a mason and used to supply labour and also supply centering material to builders and earn lively hood, in that way the respondents 1 to 5 are acquaintance with the petitioner for more than fifteen years. The petitioner started business to supply building material, way back in the year 2011 itself and for developing the business the petitioner used to borrow money from the respondent 1 to 5 and used to pay interest regularly when the business run successfully all these years. The petitioner used to execute the orders from customers in time to the satisfaction of the customers, petitioner has got very good reputation in his business. To develop business, the petitioner used to borrow amounts from the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and that the respondent no.1 to 4 obtained empty promissory notes

Page No. 3 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair // from the petitioner towards security purpose at the time of borrowal of money from them. The petitioner used to pay interest at the rate of 36% per annum to the respondents regularly every year. While things stood thus, the respondent no.1 got filed O.S.No.370/2023 against the petitioner on the file of III Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati and taking advantage of custody of one of the demand promissory note and obtained exparte decree behind the back of petitioner. While so, the petitioner suffered paralysis and taking treatment in SVRRGG

Hospital, Tirupati and due to his health issues the petitioner could not concentrate on his business and the petitioner sustained huge loss in the business and as such he could not repay the debt due to the respondents. Thereby the respondents 1 to 5 started harassing and subjecting the petitioner to humiliation and hardship by all possible ways and means. Inspite of having knowledge about the financial crisis of the petitioner, the respondents are threatening him with dire consequences. The petitioner has no movable or immovable properties of his own, except the B schedule property. There are no chances to to repay the debts to the respondents in near future.

Hence, the petitioner constrained to file the present petition. Hence,

Insolvency petition.

[3] Respondents 1 to 5 were remained exparte.

[4] At the event of enquiry, the petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1, and got marked Ex.P1 to P.3 and those are Ex.P.1 is served copy of notice in E.P.No.64/2024 on the file of III Addl.Civil

Judge(Jr.Div) court, Tirupati, Ex.P.2 is served copy of petition in

EP.No.64/2024 on the file of III Addl.Civil Judge(Jr.Div) court,Tirupati

Page No. 4 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair // and Ex.P.3 is served copy of notice in E.P.No.39/2020 on the file of I

Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) court, Tirupati. In addition to that, to prove his case, the petitioner also got examined one B.Sudhakar as P.W.2 on his behalf.

[5] Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

[6] Now, the points that arises for determination are that;

1. “ Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief to be adjudicated as an insolvent?”.

2. “ To what relief.?” [7] POINT No.1:- The point no.1 framed is ‘Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief to be adjudicated as an insolvent.?’.

Through the present petition the petitioner mainly seeking the relief to adjudicate and declare him as an insolvent.

[7-A] The petitioner herein filed petition under section 10 of the

Act alleging inter alia that he is debtor and is indebted to the persons mentioned in schedule–A. He has properties mentioned in schedule–

B. As per schedule-A the liabilities of petitioner is Rs.11,00,000/-, and in schedule–B the petitioner had shown value of properties worth about Rs.400/-. According to petitioner, he is unable to discharge the debts, and he wanted himself to be adjudicated as an insolvent.

[7-B] In his chief affidavit the petitioner himself got examined as

P.W.1 and he reiterated the version in petition. P.W.2 also reiterated

Page No. 5 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair // the version of P.W.1. Since the respondents remained exparte, the version claimed by petitioner remains unchallenged. However, irrespective of the fact whether the respondents contested or not it is

for the petitioner to prove his case before the court. The Hon’ble

Supreme court in a decision decided in between ‘Lakshmi Ram

Bhuyan Vs Hari Prasad Bhuyan’ reported in ‘2003(1) S.C.C 197’ pleased to held that; “According to Order XX of C.P.C, no suit/order can be decreed as a matter of course, and every judgment/order has to be on merits. Even if the suit/order proceeds exparte under Order

IX Rule 6 of C.P.C, the necessity of proof by the plaintiff/petitioner of its case cannot be dispensed with.” [7-C] Thus, it is clear whether or not the respondents appears to face the enquiry, the court has to render its order on merits, taking note of the facts and circumstances of each case. The respondent, as a matter of choice and to his/her benefit/harm, can refuse to participate in a court proceedings whereby the petitioner has sued his for claims asseverated in the petition. The C.P.C does not define either an exparte order or an exparte decree, and it refers only to a order and a decree. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to prove his case by leading necessary and cogent evidence, as required.

[7-D] In the light of above settled principles we will examine whether the petitioner proved his case with cogent and reliable evidence. Section 10 of the Act, enables a debtors to file an application to get themselves adjudicated as an insolvents. It says that if the debt due exceeds five hundred rupees, or if he is under arrest or imprisonment in execution of the decree of any court for the payment

Page No. 6 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair // of money, or an order of attachment in execution of such a decree has been made, and is subsisting, against their property, they can present an application for insolvency. Section 13 of the Act deals with the contents of the petition. There, it is provided that there must be a statement that he is unable to pay their debts and also other particulars. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act further says that they must declare them willingness to place at the disposal of the court all their property, say in so far as it includes such particulars (not being his books of accounts) as are exempted by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or by any other enactment for the time being in force from liability to attachment and sale in execution of decree. Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act imposes upon the court to examine that; “the court shall also examine the debtor, if he is present, as to his conduct, dealings and property in the presence of such creditors as appear at the hearing, and the creditors shall have the right to question the debtor thereon”.

[7-E] The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in the decision decided in between ‘Bonagiri Yallalu Vs

Nagalavaram Chenchu Subbaiah’ reported in ‘1972(1) Andhra 253 to 255’ while dealing with the aspect of debtor insolvency petition pleased to consider sections 10 and 24 of the Act and held that; “Section 10 makes it abundantly clear that a debtor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition unless it is proved that she is unable to pay his debts. It is therefore an essential pre-requisite for debtor-petitioner to get an order of adjudication to satisfactorily establish that she is unable to pay his debts. That requirement of

Section 10 therefore has to be necessarily satisfied by the debtor.

Page No. 7 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair //

What all the proviso to Section 24 (1) (a) says is that the debtor- petitioner shall be required to furnish only such proof as to satisfy the

Court that there are prima facie grounds for believing that he is unable to pay his debts. It vests discretion with the Court. Unless the Court is satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for believing that a debtor petitioner, for the purpose of proving his inability to pay his debts, has furnished prima facie proof, the Court shall not be bound to hear any further evidence thereon. That proviso relates to the procedure at the hearing and does not absolve in any manner the debtor-petitioner from the obligation of proving that he is unable to pay him debts as is required under Section 10 (1) of the Act.” [7-F] Herein this case the petitioner is contending that he did business and sustained loss and now he is not doing any work, and that he has no source of income. It is also contending by the petitioner that now he is unable to discharge the debts to the respondents.

Petitioner specifically contending that his assets are less than his liabilities. The petitioner had shown his debts in schedule–A. In schedule–A, the petitioner had shown the name of respondents, the amount liable to be paid to respondents, and the petitioner also shown the nature of debt to respondents, and according to it for the respondents the nature of debts are under promissory notes. The items shown in schedule –B are Two Phants, Two Shirts and Two lungis, which are essential items and that they are non-attachable in nature and according to the petitioner virtually he had no assets or property.

Page No. 8 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair // [7-G] The petitioner though mentioned his liability to each respondents, they did not choose to mention the dates of all alleged transactions, on which the liability arose, between the parties. Further, it is not clear as from the pleading and evidence of petitioner that whether the amounts shown in schedule–A is principal amount or does it includes interest also. There is no averment in the petition that all the liabilities shown in schedule–A are not time barred. As there is no such averment in the petition and as the petitioner failed to mention the dates, it is difficult to come to a conclusion at this point of time to ascertain whether all those liabilities shown in schedule–A are time barred or not.

[7-H] When the petitioner did business, certainly he would has maintained accounts of business. But he did not placed any such accounts before the court for perusal and to believe prima facie that the petitioner indebted for that business purpose and also that he sustained loss in that business. Before concluding discussion on this point it is appropriate to see the decisions of Hon’ble Constitutional

Courts on this aspect.

[7-I] The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a decision decided in between ‘Dandamudi Chakradara rao Vs Pidikiti Koteswara rao and another’ reported in ‘1996(3) A.L.T 34’ pleased to held that; “Adjudicating a person as an insolvent in insolvency proceedings is a serious act and before adjudicating a person as insolvent and making such adjudication the court has to satisfy that all the requirements for adjudication are established very convincingly and beyond reasonable doubt. There must be proof of debtor’s liability to pay the debts for presenting insolvency petition.”

Page No. 9 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair // [7-J] The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in another decision decided in between ‘Sivarama rao Vs Suresh Trading Co.’ reported in ‘1977 A.L.T 54 (NRC)’ pleased to held that; “A person cannot be adjudicated an insolvent merely because his assets are less than his liabilities. Where the debtor omits to furnish particulars of his assets in his petition seeking adjudication as insolvent, the rejection of petition in such circumstances was held to be legal.” [7-K] Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Patna in a decision decided in between ‘Ram narain Lal Vs Abdul Kalam and others’ reported in ‘A.I.R 1958 Pat 528’ pleased to held that; “To answer this question it is necessary to read Section 13 and 24 of the Act. Section 13(1)(d) provides that every insolvency petition presented by a debtor shall contain the amount and particulars of all pecuniary claims against him, together with the names and residences of his creditors so far as they are known to, or can by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence be ascertained by him. In the present case, the debtor simply mentioned names of two persons in whose favour the alleged hand notes had been executed by the debtor for different items. The debtor did not mention in his application the dates of two hand notes from which it could be inferred whether these were subsisting loans.

The question, therefore, is, if this mentioning only of the names of the creditors and amount of loans is sufficient compliance with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. In my opinion, it is not. In order to determine whether the loans taken on the basis of the two hand notes were subsisting or not, or, when they would be barred by limitation, it was necessary to mention further the dates of the hand notes in order to enable the court to find out whether these two hand notes really

Page No. 10 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair // existed either in fact or in law. In my opinion, the insolvency petition presented by the debtor did not, therefore, comply with the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.” [7-L] The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in a decision decided in between ‘P. Thangaraju Pillai Vs Periasway Pillai and others’ reported in ‘1982 (1) Mad LJ 274’ pleased to held that; “the provisions of

Section 10 of the Act read in conjunction with the proviso to Section 24(1)(a) may be said to steer a middle course in the matter of inquiry, into an insolvency petition. On the one hand, the clear intendant of the legislature is that the debtor cannot have an order of adjudication for the mere asking. On the other hand, it is not within the contemplation of the Act that the Court should be engaged in a full-fledged or all-out inquiry on the debtor's petition before rendering its finding, one way or the other, whether the petition should be allowed or rejected. In between the two possible extremities of trial, what the Act provides for is the conduct of as prima facie inquiry so that the Court may be satisfied that the debtor is unable to pay his debts. The proviso, in terms, rules out any insistence by the Court on the debtor furnishing any proof beyond that which can be regarded as prima facie proof.

The proviso further provides, in a negative fashion, that the Court shall not be bound to hear any further evidence if it is satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for believing the evidence of the petitioner.” [7-M] The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in a decision decided in between ‘Kumarathal Vs Bala Subramania Gounder’ reported in ‘A.I.R 1996 Mad 277’ pleased to held that; “Now let us consider how far the first respondent has proved a prima-facie case. In respect of the

Page No. 11 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair // liability scheduled as ‘A’ in the petition, as against the second respondent, it is only stated as three promissory notes for Rs.50,000/-.

The details of the promissory notes are not given. The dates on which the liabilities were incurred are not stated, and whether, in fact, those liabilities are subsisting is also not clear. Even when P.W.1 was examined, he did not speak anything about the debt due to the second respondent, except for the statement that the debt due to the second respondent is on the basis of three promissory notes. In cross- examination also, he was not in a position to explain the details of those promissory notes. No attempt was also made by the first respondent herein to get them proved either through the second respondent or by taking steps for production of those documents.

Even to prove the debt, there is no legal evidence before court. Only if there is some legal evidence, the court can come to the conclusion whether the first respondent herein has prima facie proved his right to get adjudicated as an insolvent. This court is well aware at the initial stage we are not concerned about the nature of the transaction, whether it is sham or nominal, and whether the debt is subsisting. But, initially, there must be atleast evidence to prove that there is a debt due to the second respondent, by the first respondent. In the main petition, it is said that the petitioner has borrowed heavily from outside.

If there are various debts, they would have been made mention of in the petition itself. So, the allegation that the first respondent herein had to borrow heavily from outside is also a statement without any basis. Mere repetition of the wordings of the section both in the petition and in the evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient. There must be something more for the satisfaction of the court to arrive at a finding that there is a debt and the applicant is not a position to discharge the

Page No. 12 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair // same. It is for the first respondent to prove that he is entitled to present a petition under section 10(1) of the Act.” [7-N] The above decisions of Hon’ble Constitutional Courts are squarely applicable to the case on hand, and throwing light upon us to understand what are the factors to be considered while deciding a petition under section 10 of the Act. Herein this petition also the petitioner though averred and shown in schedule-A that he was indebted to the respondents, when coming to evidence he is not in a position to give the details of promissory notes and other transactions.

The dates on which all those liabilities of Respondents nos. 1 to 5 arose are also not stated, and thereby failed to adduce prima facie evidence as to existence of debts.

[7-O] In view of the discussion undertaken herein before, the material on record demonstrating the facts that the petitioner failed to submit proper details and particulars to believe their version that he did business and sustained loss in that business, and now unable to pay the debts. As stated earlier, apart from the repetition of the wordings in the section, there must be some piece of acceptable evidence to arrive at a primafacie conclusion. That evidence is totally lacking in this case. It is not a question of believing or not believing the petitioner. The question is, whether there is at least some material on the basis of which the court can arrive at such a finding. In view thereof, this court holds that the petitioner has not proved his eligibility to present a petition, and there is total lack of evidence to arrive at a primafacie conclusion that he is entitled to be adjudicated as an insolvent. The point no.1 is decided in negative.

Page No. 13 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair // [8] POINT No.2:- The point no.2 framed by this court is ‘to what relief.?’. In view of the specific fact that the point no.1 is decided in negative, this court holds that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed. The point no.2 is decided accordingly.

[9] In the result, insolvency petition is dismissed. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the stenographer, and corrected by me. The order is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, on this the 16 th day of April, 2026, under the hand and seal of this court.

(Smt.A.Sunitha rani) Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:-

For petitioner:

P.W.1: K.Sundararamaiah. P.W.2: B.Sudhakar.

For respondents:

-Exparte- Documents marked:-

For petitioner:

Ex.P.1 - Served copy of notice in E.P.No.64/2024 on the file of III Addl.Civil Judge(Jr.Div), Tirupati.

Ex.P.2 - Served copy of petition in EP.No.64/2024 on the file of III Addl.Civil Judge(Jr.Div), Tirupati.

Ex.P.3 - Served copy of notice in E.P.No.39/2020 on the file of I Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Tirupati.

Page No. 14 of 14 (I.P. No.44/2024) // Fair //

For respondents:

-Nil- (Id/-A.S.R) Addl.C.J (Sr.D), Tirupati.

O.S.No. 12 of 2026 1 // Fair //

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(SENIOR DIVISION) :: TIRUPATI.

Present:- Smt. A.SUNITHA RANI,

Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division),

Tirupati.

Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.12 of 2026

Between:-

M.Chandrasekhar, S/o M.Muniramaiah, Hindu, aged about 35 years,, Business, R/at D.No.3-38, Mitta Street, Tiruchanur, Tirupati Rural Mandal.

... Plaintiff.

And

K.Vijay Kumar, S/o K.Krishnam Raju, Hindu, aged about 55 years, cultivation, busienss, O.B.R.Kandriga, S.V.Puram Mandal, Tirupati District.

... Defendant.

*****

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Ganesh Naidu, Learned Advocate for plaintiff, and none on behalf of the defendant as he was remained exparte; and upon perusing the material on record, and upon hearing arguments of plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O.S.No. 12 of 2026 2 // Fair //

J U D G M E N T

[1]This is a suit filed under Section 26 of Code of

Civil Procedure by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of contract, directing the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 15-03-2023 after receiving balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and also direct the defendant to deliver the plaint schedule property, if the defendant failed to do so, the same may be done through process of law and to award costs of the suit.

[2.] The brief averments of the plaint are like this:-

(a)The defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and offered to sell the same to plaintiff, inturn the plaintiff accepted and after negotiations, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property for

Rs.45,00,000/- and defendant executed agreement of sale on the same day i.e., 15-03-2023 in favour of plaintiff for

Rs.45,00,000/- and received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards advance and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 14-09-2023.

Subsequently, the defendant received a sum of

Rs.19,00,000/- on 20-10-2024 and made an endorsement on the back side of agreement of sale. Since then the plaintiff always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendant has been postponing on some

O.S.No. 12 of 2026 3 // Fair //

pretext to other and that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 21-11-2025, but the same was returned. Hence, the suit.

[3.] Notice served to defendant and failed to appear

before this Court and that he was set exparte to the suit

proceedings.

[4.] To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A.4 and also examined one of the attestor of Ex.A1 as

P.W.2.

[5.] Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

[6.] Now the points that arises for determination are that;

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific

performance of agreement of sale dated 15-03-2023

in respect of suit schedule property.?” “2. To what relief.?” [7.] EVIDENCE ON RECORD:

The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.4. Those are Ex.A.1 is agreement of sale dated 15-03-2023, Ex.A.2 is payment endorsement for

Rs.19,00,000/- on the backside of the agreement dated 20-10-2024, Ex.A.3 is office copy fo legal notice dated 21-11-2025 and Ex.A.4 is online postal track consignment.

O.S.No. 12 of 2026 4 // Fair //

[8.] POINT NO.1:-The point no.1 framed is “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15-03-2023 in respect of suit schedule property.?”

The plaintiff is seeking the relief of specific performance of Ex.A.1/agreement of sale dated 15-03-2023 in respect of suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to him for a total sale consideration of

Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees forty Five lakhs only) and executed

Ex.A1-agreement of sale in his favour on 15-03-2023 by receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only). It is also the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff paid and amount of

Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only) on 20-10-2024 and defendant received the same and endorsed on the backside of agreement of sale dated 15-03-2023, and agreed to execute regular registered sale deed after receiving balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, thereafter plaintiff approached the defendant and requested him to perform his part of contract, but the defendant failed to perform his part of contract and postponing the same on some ground or other.

[9.] To support his contentions, the plaintiff also got examined the one of the attestor of Ex.A.1 as P.W.2, who supported the case of plaintiff/P.W.1 in all aspects.

O.S.No. 12 of 2026 5 // Fair //

[10.] The defendant did not choose to contest the suit proceedings, and as such he was set exparte. Since the defendant is set exparte, the version claimed by plaintiff remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. The documents relied by the plaintiff is showing the agreement in between the plaintiff and defendant for suit schedule property. The conduct of defendant in not contesting the matter suggesting that he has no point to say regarding the averments of the plaint. The plaintiff with his oral and documentary evidence has proved his case against the defendant, and as such the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed and the point no.1 is decided in affirmative.

[11.] POINT NO.2:- The point no. 2 framed is- “ To what relief.?”

In view of the specific fact that the point no.1 is decided in affirmative, this Court held that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed. The point no. 2 is decided accordingly.

[12.] In the result, the suit is decreed against the defendant with costs and the defendant is hereby directed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of agreement of sale dated 15-03-2023 in respect of suit schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) from the plaintiff within three (03)

O.S.No. 12 of 2026 6 // Fair //

months from the date of this judgment. In case of failure of defendant to receive the balance sale consideration, the plaintiff is at liberty to take recourse through the process of law including depositing of balance sale consideration to the credit of suit account.

Directly typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16 th day of April,2026.

(Smt.A.Sunitha rani)

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

TIRUPATI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: P.W-1 : M.Chandrasekhar P.W-2 : K.Muni Bhaskar

DEFENDANT: -Exparte-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 - Agreement of sale dated 15-03-2023.

Ex.A.2 - Payment endorsement for Rs.19,00,000/- on the backside of the agreement dated 20-10-2024.

Ex.A.3 - Office copy fo legal notice dated 21-11-2025

Ex.A.4 - Online postal track consignment.

DEFENDANT: - Nil - (Id/-A.S.R) A.C.J (Sr.D) TPT.

1 Of 3// Fair //

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(SENIOR DIVISION) AT TIRUPATI.

Present: Smt.A.Sunitha Rani,

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati.

Monday, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

O.S.No.52/2021

Between:-

Yedlapuri Babu @ Munikrishnaiah, S/o late Y.Jayaramaiah, Hindu, aged about 51 years, cultivation, R/at D.No.16-72, Reddiveedhi, Chandragiri Town and Mandal, Chittoor District. . . . Plaintiff.

And

1. Engalathuru Kalavathi, W/o Subramanyam, Hindu, aged about 60 years, housewife, R/at Kavammagudi Veedhi, Karvetinagaram Road, Puttur Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. Y.Subramanyam, S/o late Y.Jayaramaiah, Hindu, aged about 49 years, cultivation

3. Y.Rekha, w/o late Y.Sekhar Babu, Hindu, aged about 35 years,

4. Y.Theja(minor), D/o late Y.Sekhar Babu, aged about 12 years, rep by her mother/natural guardian Y.Rekha.

5. Y.Hema (minor), D/o late Y.Sekhar Babu, aged about 10 years, rep by her mother/natural guardian Y.Rekha,

6. Y.Hari Babu, S/o late Y.Jayaramaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years, retired BSF

Defendants 2 to 6 residing at Reddiveedhi, Chandragiri Town and Mandal, Chittoor District. . . . Defendants.

-o0o-

This is a suit filed U/sec. 26 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C, by 2 Of 3// Fair // the plaintiff against the defendants for partition of plaint schedule property into three equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff, one such share allotted to defendants 3 to 5 equally and remaining one such share allotted to the 6th defendant and put into separate possession of one such share of the plaintiff by taking into consideration good and bad qualities by metes and bounds failing which the plaintiff entitled the same through due process of law and for costs.

This suit came before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhupal Naidu, learned counsel for plaintiff and of Sri Modi Sanjeevi, learned counsel for defendants 1 and 6 and none on behalf of the defendants 2 to 5 as they were remained exparte; and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following;

DOCKET ORDER

[1]Plaintiff called absent. The matter is coming for trial. The matter is passed over at call work and again called at 01.00 p.m., but none represented on behalf of the plaintiff. It is appearing that the plaintiff might have lost interest over the litigation. Whatever may be the reason, if the case is posted for trial, it is the duty of the party to represent the difficulty for his non appearance before this Court. The plaintiff failed to do so. The material on record and the conduct of plaintiff making him disentitle for another opportunity. As this is five years old case, this Court is constrained to pass adverse orders.

[2]Hence, the suit is dismissed for default. No costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13 th day of April, 2026.

(Sd/-Smt.A.Sunitha rani)

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence -Nil on either side- 3 Of 3// Fair // (Id/-A.S.R) Addl.C.J (Sr.D),

TPT.

1 Of 3 // Fair //

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(SENIOR DIVISION) AT TIRUPATI.

Present: Smt.A.Sunitha Rani,

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Tirupati.

Monday, this the 20th day of April, 2026.

E.P.No.95 of 2012

in

O.S.No.630/2009

Between:-

Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited, Tirupati Branch, represented by its Manager/Foreman K.Madan Mohan, S/o Malyadri Naidu, aged about 40 years, residing at Tirupati. . . . Decree- Holder.

And

1. Gudipalli Haritha, W/o P.Subramanyam Reddy, aged about 27 years, Hindu, Plot No 2, Srinagar Colony, R. C. Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

2. Chinthaginjala Sreeram, S/o C.Thimmalah, aged about 34 years, Hindu, D.No.20-5-42/7, S.G.Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

3. Maddipatta Nagaraja Naidu, S/o M.Chandralah Naidu, aged about 31 years, Hindu, Plot No.43, New Balaji Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

4. Kutala Sudhakar, S/o K.Siddalah, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Flat No.405, V.N.R. Plaza, Kennedy Nagar, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

5. Marlu Giribabu, s/o M. Balalah, aged about 35 years, Hindu, D.No.6-12-23, K.B.Layout, Tirupati, Chittoor District. Now Plot No.205, D. No.6-17-12AZ, IT Floor, Suja Residency, Press Guild Colony, near K.B.Layout. Tirucatt. Chittoor District, 2 Of 3 // Fair //

6. Posam Subramanyain Reddy, s/o P.Ranga Reddy, aged about to ans Plat No. 2. Srinagar Colony, R. C. Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District,

7. Mannidi Subramanyam Naidu, s/o M.Gangama Naidu, aged about 49 years, Hindu, D.No.19-9-6B, Kennedy Nagar, Old Tiruchanur Roaca, Chittoor District. . . . Judgment debtors. -o0o-

This is an execution application filed under Order XXI rules-64 & 66 of C.P.C., against J.Dr no.4 with a prayer to order for sale of the already attached schedule mentioned property of J.Dr no.4 under order XXI, Rule -64 and 66 of C.P.C. for realization of E.P amount with further interest and to award costs. The D.Hr. did not sought any relief against J.Dr Nos. 1 to 3 & 5 to 7 and that they are only proforma parties to the present E.P., as such no notice was ordered to them.

This execution petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for D.Hr, and none on behalf of the J.Dr No.4 as he was remained exparte, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

DOCKET ORDER

The D.Hr has filed full satisfaction memo. Heard. Perused the record. Hence, E.P is terminated without costs by recording full satisfaction. The full satisfaction memo shall form part of record. The attachment of schedule property of J.Dr No.4 is hereby raised.

Intimate to concerned.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20 th day of April,

2026.

(Sd/-Smt.A.Sunitha rani)

Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Division),

Tirupati.

3 Of 3 // Fair //

Appendix of Evidence -Nil on either side- (Id/-A.S.R) Addl.C.J(Sr.D), TPT.