Sri B.appala Swamy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PUTTUR

Present: Sri B.APPALA SWAMY,

Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.

Wednesday, the 6th day of April, 2022.

O.S. No. 59 of 2014

1. P.S.Pattammal.

2. Lakshmi.

3. Karpagam.

4. P.S.Panner Selvam.

5. P.S.Sathish Kumar.

6. Devi. …Plaintiffs.

Vs.

1. P.A.Avanakshmi Mudali.

2. P.A.Urappa Mudali. …Defendants.

This suit is came up on this day before me 28.03.2022 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri. V.M.Narendra Kumar, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri. K.Purushotham,Advocate for first defendant and 2nd defendant remained exparte and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to declare the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property more fully described in the schedule of property hereunder and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering men, agents, or any other person on behalf of defendants from interfering and disturbing in whatsoever manner with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the such schedule mentioned property and for costs.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows: Their great grand father Arjuna Mudali having self acquired property to an extent of Ac.5.54 cents and the said Arjuna Mudali having five sons namely Narasimha Mudali, Kuttiappa Mudali, Urappa Mudali, Avanakshi Mudali and

Sivagnana Mudali and the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the Siva Gnana Mudali. The said Arjuna 2

Mudali conveyed the property to his grand son Sambanda Mudali son of Narasimha Mudali and the grand son of Arjuna Mudali executed the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs father

Siva Gnana Mudali, the settlement deed was executed on 06.02.1991 vide document

No.161/1991 registered at Puttur S.R.O and thereafter the plaintiffs father is in possession of the schedule property herein after called as suit schedule property. The schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.54 cents located at Govindapallyam village accounts Dry.Sy.No.235/1E Puttur, Puttur

Mandal,Chittoor District and the said Siva Gnana Mudali also having patta in his name and he died on 18.06.2009 and thereafter the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property without any hindrances.

2.2)It is further averred in the plaint that the 2nd defendant filed an injunction suit in

OS.NO.202/2012 before Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Puttur against the 4th and 5th

plaintiffs and the suit and the same is pending and in that suit 2nd defendant colluded with the first defendant and filed vexatious suit against the 4th and 5th plaintiffs and in that suit the 2nd defendant added as a first defendant. Actually the 2nd defendant land is adjacent to the first defendant land and the first defendant unnecessarily added the 4th and 5th plaintiffs as party to the suit and the first defendant wrongly mentioned the schedule of the property and obtained an exparte order and the suit is pending for disposal. The first and 2nd defendants are planning to lay out their lands into house plots in order to develop the site they wanted some more land and hence the first and 2nd defendants were tried to encroach plaintiff’s property and the defendants all of sudden in the month of June,2013 tried to encroach the plaintiffs property and that with the help of local people prevented the same. The defendants citing the exparte order trying to develop the plots and subsequently the 4th and 5th plaintiffs sent a legal notice on 10.06.2013 to the Sub-

Registrar Office, Puttur and thereafter the defendants stopped their attempts and now the defendants are trying to encroach the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have no other remedy to file this suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants in whatsoever manner from interfering and disturbing with the plaintiffs property and the plaintiffs are having prima facie case to succeed in his suit and the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaint. Hence, the suit.

3

3) The defendant No.1 filed written statement by denying the allegations in the plaint and submitted that the suit is barred by limitation and the suit is not properly valued and sufficient court fee is not paid. The suit is bad for non-joinder, mis-joinder of proper and necessary properties and the suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The boundaries and extent mentioned in the plaint are not true and correct. One P.Arjuna Mudali has got six children viz., Narasimha Mudali,

Elumalai Mudali, Kuttiappa Mudali, Urappa Mudali (2nd defendant), Avanakshi Mudali(first defendant) and Sivagnanam Mudali and the said Siva Gnanam Mudali who is no other than the husband of first plaintiff and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6 respectively and the said Elumalai

Mudali died issue-less intestate and his wife predeceased him. The said P.Arjuna Mudali is the absolute owner of the land an extent of Ac.0.94 cents in S.No.235/7 and land an extent of Ac.3.85 cents in S.No.235/1 and land an extent of Ac.0.24 cents in S.No.235/2 and the land an extent of

Ac.0.41 cents in S.No.235/6 i.e., total extent of Ac.5.44 cents and the said P.Arjuna Mudali during his life time he has executed a registered settlement deed dated 17.02.1963 in favour of his grand son P.N.Sambandam Mudali who is the son of Narasimha Mudali and the said settlement deed was accepted and acted upon and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

3.2) The first defendant further contended that the said Sambanda Mudali executed a registered settlement deed dated 06.02.1991 in favour of his Junior paternal uncle viz., Kuttiappa

Mudali to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in S.No.235/6 and an extent of Ac.0.86 cents in S.No.235/1 and he also executed another registered settlement deed on 06.02.1991 in favour of Urappa

Mudali to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in S.No.235/6 and an extent of Ac.0.86 cents in S.No.235/1 and again he executed another registered settlement deed on 06.02.1991 in favour of Avanakshi

Mudali to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in S.No.235/6 and an extent of Ac.0.86 cents in S.No.235/1 likewise on the same day he has executed another settlement deed in favour of his youngest

Junior paternal uncle viz., Siva Gnanam Mudali (husband of first plaintiff) to an extent of A.0.08 cents in S.No.235/6, an extent of Ac.0.062 cents in A.No.235/1 and an extent of A.0.24 cents in

S.No. 235/6 and they have been in possession and enjoyment with their respective shares. The first defendant have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.86 cents in

S.No.235/1C, as per the enjoyment the revenue people subdivided total extent I,.e., Ac.3.85 cents 4 in suit survey number and they have also subdivided the said survey number 235/1 as A to E and allotted S.No.235/1C an extent of Ac.0.86 cents to this defendant and they have also issued pattadar passbook and title deed and their names also mutated in revenue records and thus this defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the survey number an extent of Ac.0.86 cents in S.No.235/1C.

3.3) The first defendant further contended that the plaintiffs are intentionally trying to occupy his land according to their whims and fans, already the defendant is enjoying the property an extent of Ac.0.54 cents in S.No.235/1E and the said fact is clearly mentioned in survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor, Puttur. The defendant is a retired school teacher aged about 76 years and he got only three daughters and they are residing with her husbands in different places and so he wants to sell away his share i.e., Ac.0.86 cents in S.No.235/1C, but the plaintiffs demanded him to sell the same in their favour for a lesser amount but he refused for the same and so they intentionally to cause much hardship and loss to him and got it filed this suit and so he is suffering much hardship about the harassment of the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant filed a suit in OS.No.202/2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Puttur against him and plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 for permanent injunction and subsequently both of them colluded together and got it filed this suit with malafide intention to secure wrongful gain. There was a mediation held between the plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 and defendants Nos.1 and 2 through village elders and the the village elders also advised to them to settlement the matter amicably and enjoy the properties in the suit survey number as per the enjoyment as on today and withdraw the case

before this Court and they have also advised not to proceed any further and again the plaintiff

filed the suit. The plaintiffs suppressed all material facts and got it filed this suit against him and 2nd defendant with a malafide intention to secure wrongful gain and that the injunction is equitable remedy who seeks equity he shall come to the court with clean hands, but the plaintiffs suppressed all material facts and got it filed the suit and so they are not entitled for any relief much less the relief of injunction. Therefore this defendant prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4) Based on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs got the plaint schedule property under gift

settlement deed?

5 (2) Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property?

(3) Whether the defendants got the property under gift settlement deed?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of plaint schedule

property?

(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction?

(6) To what relief?

5) During trial, to substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the fifth plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the defendants.

6) Heard the learned counsels for both parties.

7) Issue Nos.1,2 & 4:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs got the plaint schedule property under gift

settlement deed?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of plaint schedule

property?

Issues Nos. 1,2 & 4 are connected to each other and hence I inclined to answer issue Nos.1, 2 & 4 together. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule properties belongs to PW1 great grand father Arjuna Mudali to an extent of Ac.5.54 cents and the said

Arjuna Mudali having five sons namely Narasimha Mudali, Kuttiappa Mudali, Urappa Mudali,

Avanakshi Mudali and Sivagnana Mudali. The said Arjuna Mudali conveyed the property to his grand son Sambanda Mudali son of Narasimha Mudali and that the said grand son of Arjuna

Mudali executed the settlement deed in favour of the Siva Gnana Mudali who is none other than the father of the plaintiffs under the gift settlement deed was executed on 06.02.1991 vide document No.161/1991 registered at Puttur S.R.O and thereafter the plaintiffs father is in possession of the same and the schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.54 cents with specific boundaries situated at Govindapallyam village accounts in Sy.No.235/1E Puttur, Puttur

Mandal,Chittoor District and that the father of the plaintiff Siva Gnana Mudali also got patta in his name and he died on 18.06.2009 and thereafter the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession of the 6 suit schedule property without any hindrances. He further contended that the 2nd defendant filed an injunction suit in OS.NO.202/2012 against the 4th and 5th plaintiffs on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Puttur and in the said suit the 2nd defendant colluded with the first defendant and filed vexatious suit against the 4th and 5th plaintiffs. Actually the 2nd defendant land is adjacent to the first defendant land and the first defendant unnecessarily added the 4th and 5th plaintiffs as party to the suit in OS.No.202/2012. The first defendant also wrongly mentioned the schedule of the property and obtained an exparte order and the suit is pending for disposal. Later the 2nd defendant filed memo stating that not pressing the suit in OS.NO.202/2012 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Puttur. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are planning to lay out

their lands into house plots in order to develop the site they wanted some more land and hence the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were tried to encroach the suit schedule property and all of sudden in the month of June,2013 tried to encroach the suit schedule properties and that with the help of local people the plaintiffs prevented the same. The defendants trying to develop the plots and subsequently the plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 got issued a legal notice on 10.06.2013 to the Sub-

Registrar Office, Puttur and thereafter the defendants stopped their attempts and now the defendants are trying to encroach the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have no other remedy to file this suit against the defendants. In order to prove the case of plaintiffs, the 5th plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and he reiterated the averments in the plaint. To support the oral evidence the 5th plaintiff got marked Ex.A1 certified copy of gift settlement deed dated 06.02.1991 executed by Arjuna Mudali in favour of Siva Gnana Mudali who is none other than the husband of first plaintiff and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6 in respect of Ac.0.54 cents in

S.No.235/2 with specific boundaries and Ex.A2 the encumbrance certificate dated 15.05.2012 in respect of suit schedule property which reveals that the land an extent of Ac.0.54 cents in

S.NO.235/1 was executed gift settlement deed in favour of Siva Gnana Mudali in the year 1991.

the said land was situated within Govindapalem village accounts. Ex.A3 is original death certificate of Siva Gnana Mudali which reveals that on 18.06.2009 Siva Gnana Mudali died.

Ex.A4 is family member certificate in which all the plaintiffs shown as the legal heirs of Siva

Gnana Mudali, son of Arjun Mudali,Ex.A5 is the Mee Seva copy of 1-B namuna stands in the name of Siva Gnana Mudali, Ex.A6 is the Mee Seva copy of adangal for the pasali 1424 stands in the name of P S Pattammal s/oSiva Gnana Mudali who is the first plaintiff. Ex.A7 is pattadar pass 7 book stands in the name of first plaintiff, Ex.A8 is the revenue title deed pass book in the name of first plaintiff which reveals that the land an extent of Ac.0.62 cents stands in the name of first plaintiff for an extent of Ac 0.62 cents in survey number 235/1E and Ex.A9 is certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.202/2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Puttur where in

P.A.Urappa Mudali filed suit for injunction against P.A.Avanakshi Mudali, P.S.Panner Selvam,

P.S.Sathish Kumar and the same was withdrawn with a liberty to file fresh suit in respect of the plaint schedule property. Ex.A10 is 1-B namuna stands in the name of first plaintifffor an extent of Ac.0.62 cents and other properties and all are reveals that it is an ancestral property.

8) The defendants did not choose to examine anybody on their behalf and during cross- examination by the learned counsel for the defendants PW1 stated that his grandfather and Arjun

Mudali executed gift settlement deed dated 17.02.1963 in favour of Sambanda Mudali who is son of Narasimha Mudali and that the Sambanda Mudali executed gift settlement deed dated 06.02.1991 in favour of father of the plaintiff and other junior paternal uncles and that they got the plaint schedule properties by virtue of the gift settlement deed under Ex.A1 and that the gift settlement deed executed by his father paternal uncle and their father is in possession and enjoyment of the same and that as per the enjoyment the revenue authorities mutated the names of plaintiffs and issued pattadar passbook and title deed for the suit schedule property. The revenue authorities allotted S.No.235/1E for an extent of Ac.0.54 cents in favour of the father of plaintiffs and first defendant allotted Sy.No.235/1C for an extent of Ac.0.86 cents to 2nd defendant. PW1 admitted that the land of first defendant is situated towards west of the suit schedule property and the land of 2nd defendant is situated to the west of the land of the first defendant. The learned counsel for the defendants suggested that there are no disputes between the family of the plaintiffs and defendants. PW1 admitted that after filing the suit they filed commissioner petition for identification of property and the commissioner returned the property with an observation that as per the given boundaries he could not identify the property. Then they filed petition for amendment of the boundaries and the same is allowed. PW1 further admitted that as on the date of filing of the suit, the first defendant cleaning his land for layout and he do not know the first defendant sold away his land to real estate people as on the date of filing the suit. The defendants not disputing about the execution of gift settlement deed in favour of the 8 father of the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant remained exparte. Though the first defendant cross- examination PW1 but nothing was elicited to disprove the contention of the same and more particularly the defendants not disputing about the execution of settlement deed and also not disputing about the possession of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1, A5 to A8 and A10 clearly reveals that the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule properties. Accordingly the issue Nos. 1,2 & 4 are answered.

9) Issue No.3: (3) Whether the defendants got the property under gift settlement deed?

The contention of the defendants is that by way of written statement that P.Arjuna Mudali has got six children viz., Narasimha Mudali, Elumalai Mudali, Kuttiappa Mudali, Urappa Mudali (2nd defendant), Avanakshi Mudali(first defendant) and Sivagnanam Mudali. The said Siva

Gnanam Mudali who is no other than the husband of first plaintiff and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6 respectively and the said P.Arjuna Mudali is the absolute owner of the land an extent of Ac.0.94 cents in S.No.235/7 and land an extent of Ac.3.85 cents in S.No.235/1 and land an extent of

Ac.0.24 cents in S.No.235/2 and the land an extent of Ac.0.41 cents in S.No.235/6 i.e., total extent of Ac.5.44 cents. The said P.Arjuna Mudali during his life time he has executed a registered settlement deed dated 17.02.1963 in favour of his grand son P.N.Sambandam Mudali who is the son of Narasimha Mudali and the said settlement deed was accepted and acted upon and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same and that the said Sambanda Mudali executed a registered settlement deed dated 06.02.1991 in favour of his Junior paternal uncle viz.,

Kuttiappa Mudali to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in S.No.235/6 and an extent of Ac.0.86 cents in

S.No.235/1 and he also executed another registered settlement deed on 06.02.1991 in favour of

Urappa Mudali to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in S.No.235/6 and an extent of Ac.0.86 cents in

S.No.235/1 and again he executed another registered settlement deed on 06.02.1991 in favour of

Avanakshi Mudali to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in S.No.235/6 and an extent of Ac.0.86 cents in

S.No.235/1 likewise on the same day he has executed another settlement deed in favour of his youngest Junior paternal uncle viz., Siva Gnanam Mudali (husband of first plaintiff) to an extent of A.0.08 cents in S.No.235/6, an extent of Ac.0.062 cents in A.No.235/1 and an extent of A.0.24 9 cents in S.No. 235/6 and they have been in possession and enjoyment with their respective shares and further contended that this defendant have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of

Ac.0.86 cents in S.No.235/1C, as per the enjoyment the revenue people subdivided total extent

I,.e., Ac.3.85 cents in suit survey number and they have also subdivided the said survey number 235/1 as A to E and allotted S.No.235/1C an extent of Ac.0.86 cents to the first defendant and they have also issued pattadar passbook and title deed and their names also mutated in revenue records and thus this defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the survey number an extent of Ac.0.86 cents in S.No.235/1C. But the defendants did not choose to examine anybody on their behalf and reported no evidence on behalf of the defendants sides. Though the defendants not disputing about the possession of the plaintiffs but the defendants has to establish that they are in possession of the property. Therefore there is no proof that the defendants are in possession and they got the property under gift settlement deed. Accordingly this issue is answered.

10) Issue No.5: (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction?

As seen from the evidence of PW1 that his grandfather Arjun Mudali having self acquire property to an extent of Ac.5.54 cents and he is having five sons and he conveyed the property to his grand son Sambanda Mudali Son of Narasimha Mudali and that the grandson of Arjun

Mudali executed settlement deed in favour of Siva Gnana Mudali who is none other than the father of the plaintiffs under registered settlement deed dated 06.02.1991. Thereafter the father of the plaintiffs Siva Gnana Mudali have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and The schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.54 cents located at Govindapallyam village accounts

Dry.Sy.No.235/1E Puttur, Puttur Mandal,Chittoor District and the said Siva Gnana Mudali also having patta in his name and he died on 18.06.2009 and thereafter the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property without any hindrances. Though the defendants not disputing about the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties, the only disputing regarding the boundaries and the same was admitted by the plaintiffs. Subsequently the plaintiffs got filed amendment petition and got amended the schedule as per the orders in

IA.No.505/2016 dated 13.04.2017. As per the previous schedule the land in S.N.235/1E an extent

of AC.0.54 cents was bounded by North – Sambandam Mudalai land and Munirathinam land,

South: Bandi Dhari road, West: Munirathinam land S.No.235/2 and East- Avasnkshi Mudali 10

Landa and subsequently the boundaries were amended and new boundaries are East: Land in

S.No.235/2 and Munirathnam etc., land, West: Land of Avanakshi Mudali, North : Guttaku Poovu

Bandi Dari and South: Land of Sambandam Mudali and land of Munirathnam. During cross- examination the defendants also not disputing about the amended boundaries and also not disputing about the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. The defendants also admitted about the execution of gift settlement deed in favour of the father of the plaintiffs by Arjun Mudali and there is no dispute that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the plaint schedule property. Ex.A1 certified copy of gift settlement deed dated 06.02.1991 executed by

Arjun Mudali in favour of Siva Gnana Mudali and Ex.A5 Mee Seva copy of 1-B namuna, Ex.A6

Mee Seva copy of adangal stands in the name of first defendant which reveals that the father of the plaintiffs has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. After death of plaintiffs father, the plaintiffs are in possession of the same. For proof of the possession of the plaint schedule property Ex.A7 pattadar pass book stands in the name of plaintiffs and Ex.A10 Mee Seva copy of 1-B namuna stands in the name of the plaintiffs reveals that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Therefore the plaintiffs proved that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and as such they are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly issue No.5 is answered.

11) Issue No.6: To What Relief”

In view of issue Nos. 1 to 5 the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for.

12) In the result, the suit decreed with costs by declaring the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property and granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 6th day of April, 2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PUTTUR.

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: P.S.Sathish Kumar.:: N I L ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Exhibit DateDescription of document

A106.02.1991 :Certified copy of settlement deed executed by one Arujun Mudali in favour of Siva Gnana Mudali. A215.05.2012:Encumbrance certificate. A318.06.2009:Original death certificate of P.A.Siva Gnana. A416.08.2009:Family members certificate of P.A.Siva Gnana issued by Thasildra, Puttur. A5--:Mee Seva copy of 1-B namuna stands in the name of Siva Gnana Mudali. A6--:Mee-Seva copy of 1-B Adangal stands in the name of Siva Gnana Mudali. A7--:Pattdar passbook stands in the name of first plaintiff. A8--:Revenue title deed pass book stands in the name of first plaintiff. A914.07.2014:Certified copy of Judgment in OS.No.202/2012 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Puttur.

A1004.08.2014:Mee Seva copy of 1-B namuna stands in the name of first plaintiff.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

:: NIL ::

SCJ, PTR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PUTTUR

Present: Sri B.APPALA SWAMY,

Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.

Thursday, the 7th day of April, 2022.

O.S. No.66 of 2018

C.Kusuma.…Plaintiff.

Vs.

P.Gangi Reddy.…Defendant.

This suit is came up on this day before me 28.03.2022 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri. K.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri. G.Raja Redyy, Advocate for defendant and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed by the plaintiff for passing a preliminary decree for recovery of Rs.8,58,333/- from the defendants basing on a registered simple mortgage deed,

dated 13.04.2015 with subsequent interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till

the date of realization, failing which, mortgaged property be sold for realization of the suit amount and for costs of the suit.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:- The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 13.04.2015 for his family necessities and for education of his children and to discharge his debts and executed a registered simple mortgage deed on the same day in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant promising to repay the said amount as and when demanded by the plaintiff within three years along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff by mortgaging the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff as a security to the said debt and that she has demanded the defendant to repay the debt under the above said mortgage deed dated 13.04.2015 with interest accrued thereon , but the defendant has been postponing the same on some pretext or other. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 16.02.2018 demanding the defendant to discharge the mortgage debt and after received the notice the defendant 2 did not comply the same and under the above said circumstances the plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of equitable mortgage created by the defendant. Hence, the suit.

3) The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations in the plaint and contended that the father of the plaintiff namely Gopi Setty and the defendant are close friends and there were monetary transactions in between them from the year 2010 and the said Gopi Setty has been doing money lending business with abnormal interest at the rate of 50% per annum to the villagers as well as conducting unlicensed chits in his native village of Devalampeta and the defendant also one of the subscribers in the chits runs by the said Gopi Setty and in the course of financial transactions, he was indebted for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2015 to father of the plaintiff Gopi Setty and since this defendant was in financial crises, he had requested the aforesaid Gopi Setty to lend another Rs.1,00,000/- for his family expenses and accordingly he has lent an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.04.2015 to him. Thus the defendant was indebted an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- to Gopi Setty and for debts, the plaintiff’s father has obtained two blanked promissory notes from him and same are in his custody and that not satisfying the blanked promissory notes, he again demanded the defendant to execute a registered simple mortgage deed for the properties of him in his favour for the security of the said amount. Since the defendant was in pathetic and miserable conditions and also due to paucity of funds he could not repay the debt of Rs.2,00,000/- to Gopi Setty and hence he has executed the nominal suit document of registered simple mortgage deed in favour of his daughter who is nothing but plaintiff herein. Under this document no consideration was passed to the defendant from the plaintiff and further more there were no monitory transactions in between the plaintiff and defendant and the said registered simple mortgage deed was obtained from this defendant for the security of the aforesaid debt of Rs.2,00,000/-. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- at once to this defendant and the father of the plaintiff in known litigant and he is root cause and back bone of this litigation and he has been looking after this case on behalf of his daughter and that under these circumstances the defendant has not liability to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff and further more the plaintiff has suppressed all material facts and ground realities. The main aim of the said Gopi Setty to harass the defendant in one way or other and cause troubles to him and further more the suit is barred by limitation. Therefore the defendant prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4) Based on the pleadings, the following issues are settled:

(1) Whether the the defendant indebted to father of plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and towards security for the said debt the defendant executed nominal simple mortgage deed for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff as contended by the defendant in his written statement is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

3 (2) Whether the registered mortgage deed is not supported by consideration?

(3) Whether the plaintiff has capacity to lend the mortgage amount to the defendant?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire suit claim from the defendant?

(5) To what relief?

5) During trial, to substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 who is one of the attestor of Ex.A1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A3 on her behalf. On behalf of defendant, the defendant himself examined as

DW1 and no documents are marked on behalf of defendant.

6) Heard the learned counsels for both sides.

7) Issue Nos. 1 to 3:

(1) Whether the the defendant indebted to father of plaintiff a sum of Rs.

2,00,000/- and towards security for the said debt the defendant executed

nominal simple mortgage deed for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff as

contended by the defendant in his written statement is true, valid and

binding on the plaintiff?

(2) Whether the registered mortgage deed is not supported by

consideration?

(3) Whether the plaintiff has capacity to lend the mortgage amount to the

defendant?

The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money based on simple registered mortgage deed. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- on 13.04.2015 for his family necessities and for education of his children and to discharge the same the defendant executed a registered simple mortgage deed promising to repay the same as and when demanded by the plaintiff within three years with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff by mortgaging the schedule mentioned property as a security to the said debt. Later the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the debt under the above said mortgage deed with interest accrued thereon , but the defendant has been postponing the same on some pretext or other.

The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 16.02.2018 demanding the defendant to discharge the mortgage debt. After receiving the notice the defendant did not comply the 4 same. Under the above said circumstances the plaintiff constrained to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of money basing on equitable mortgage deed executed by defendant. I

8)In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and reiterated the plaint averments. To support the oral evidence, the plaintiff got marked Ex.A1 registered simple mortgage deed dated 13.04.2015 wherein it was clearly mentioned that towards family expenses and education of minor children the defendant borrowed amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and executed Ex.A1 registered mortgage deed by furnishing schedule land an extent of Ac.3.46 cents situated in Karvetinagaram Sub division, Devalampeta village accounts towards security by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. To support the evidence of PW1 the plaintiff got examined PW2 who is attestor of Ex.A1. PW2 stated on the same lines of PW1 regarding execution of Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed by the defendant after receiving cash consideration. In his presence and in the presence of on Balakrishna. When the defendant failed to repay the amount, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 legal notice dated 16.02.2018 for proof of sending the legal notice the plaintiff got marked Ex.A3 postal receipt. During cross-examination PW1 stated that she lend an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant under Ex.A1 and she is an income tax assessee and the amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- was shown in income tax returns. During cross examined the learned by the learned counsel for the defendant PW1 admitted that she was the member of

Saileela chit fund,after entered into chit in the year 2014, after three months she is the successful bidder in the chit and received Rs.4,00,000/- from the said chit. The learned counsel for the defendant further suggested that when he was not become successful bidder in the chit he was not received the amount from the chit fund and he has no financial capacity to lend such money of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant and she is deposing false. Inspite of grilled cross-examination nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW1 to disbelieve the transaction under Ex.A1. The learned counsel for defendant also cross-examined PW2 also and suggested that no such suit amount covered under

Ex.A1 was passed to the defendant and that Ex.A1 has given to the plaintiff for security 5 for the earlier chit which took place between father of the plaintiff and defendant and no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 and that till today there is no money transaction between the plaintiff and defendant and that he is deposing false at the instance of PW1.

8.2) By examining Pws 1 and 2 and marking Ex.A1 transaction, the plaintiff established the transaction between herself and defendant. Then the burden shifted on the defendant. The contention of the defendant is that the father of plaintiff namely Gopi

Setty and the defendant are close friends and there were monetary transactions in between them from the year 2010 and the said Gopi Setty has been doing money lending business with abnormal interest at the rate of 50% per annum to the villagers as well as conducting unlicensed chits in his native village of Devalampeta and that the defendant also one of the subscribers in the chits runs by the said Gopi Setty and that in the course of financial transactions, he was indebted for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2015 to father of the plaintiff Gopi Setty. Since this defendant was in financial crises, he had requested the aforesaid Gopi Setty to lend another Rs.1,00,000/- for his family expenses and accordingly he has lent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.04.2015 to him. Thus the defendant was indebted an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to Gopi Setty and for debts, the plaintiff’s father has obtained two blank promissory notes from the defendant and the same are in the custody of the plaintiff and that not satisfying with the blanked promissory notes and again the father of plaintiff demanded the defendant to execute a registered simple mortgage deed for the mortgage schedule properties in favour of plaintiff for the security of the said amount. Since the defendant was in pathetic and miserable conditions and also due to paucity of funds he could not repay the debt of Rs.2,00,000/- to Gopi Setty and hence he has executed the nominal suit document of registered simple mortgage deed in favour of his daughter who is none other than the plaintiff herein. Under this document no consideration was passed to the defendant from the plaintiff. Further more there were no monitory transactions in between the plaintiff and defendant and the said registered simple mortgage deed was obtained from this defendant for the security of the aforesaid debt of Rs.2,00,000/-. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at once to the 6 defendant. The father of the plaintiff in known litigant and he is root cause and back bone of this litigation and he has been looking after this case. on behalf of his daughter and that under these circumstances the defendant has not liability to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff and further more the plaintiff has suppressed Under the said circumstances the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit.

8.3) In order to substantiate the pleadings of the written statement, the defendant himself examined as DW1 and no documents are marked on his behalf and he retreated his written stayement. During cross-examination DW1 admitted that for the last 20 years he is having experience for filing the suits and prosecuting the suits and that he filed claim petition before the Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society,

Karvetinagaram for not to conduct auction of his properties which he mortgaged to the bank and that after preparation of the document and before the registration of the same, the contents of the documents are read over to him and thereafter only he signed in

Ex.A1. DW1 further admitted that Ex.A1 not disclosed the signature of Gopi Chetty who is father of the plaintiff and did he did not execute Ex.A1 in the name of Gopi Chetty and that as per the recitals of Ex.A1 he has to discharge the loan within three years from the date of execution and that he did not issue any reply notice to Ex.A2 legal notice to plaintiff and that he did not issue any legal notice to Gopi Chetty directing him to return two promissory notes which allegedly mentioned in his chief affidavit and his written statement and that he do not know whether Gopi Chetty is having license to run the chits but he is running chits. The learned counsel for the plaintiff suggested that in order to evade suit amount to plaintiff, he is deposing false and that the said Gopi Chetty is no way connected to the suit issue and that the defendant is liable to pay the entire suit amount in addition to expenses of the suit.

9)The defendant almost all admitted about the mortgage transaction. The only contention of the defendant is when the defendant got financial chit transaction with the father of the plaintiff and indebted Rs.2,00,000/- for which he obtained two blank pronotes and in addition to that on demand the defendant executed Ex.A1 registered 7 simple mortgage deed by furnishing security of the schedule mentioned property, but there is no material on record that there are financial transaction between the father of the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant indebted an amount of Rs 2,00,000/-.

to the Gopi setty. The defendant did not choose to examine any of the witnesses to prove the existing of financial transaction between himself and father of the plaintiff by name Gopi Chetty. The main contention of the defendant is that the defendant indebted an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the father of the plaintiff towards security in the said chit and the defendant executed simple mortgage deed to the plaintiff who non other the daughter of Gopi Setty, but no such evidence is available on record from the defendant side. The defendant not denied about the execution of Ex.A1 but denied about passing consideration under ExA1 thereon. No prudent man will execute any document without taking money any other fiancial transactions. Though the defendant taken several defenses but he has not adduced any evidence to disprove the evidence of PW1.

Moreover Pws 1 and 2 categorically deposed about the execution of Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed by the defendant after taking cash consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-.

Therefore the plaintiff also deposed that she is an income tax assessee and the money covered under Ex.A1 was reflected in income tax returns. Therefore there is no evidence that the defendant indebted Rs.2,00,000/- to the father of the plaintiff by name Gopi

Chetty and the said Gopi Chetty obtained pronotes and also obtained Ex.A1 towards security. The plaintiff proved about the execution of Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed by the defendant in the presence of attestor i.e., PW2 after receiving cash consideration the defendant also admitted in cross-examination that he received Ex.A2 legal notice and he did not Ggive reply notice to Ex.A2. Thus the presumption t is in favor of the plaintiff hat the defendant borrowed amounts from the plaintiff itself and when the defendant failed to repay the amount the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 legal notice to the defendant demanding him to pay the amount with accrued interest. However the presumption is rebuttable but defendant did not adduce any supported evidence to rebut the presumption. Therefore the simple mortgage deed executed by the defendant under

Ex.A1 is supported by cash consideration as mentioned in Ex.A1 and the plaintiff also being an income tax assessee admitted about the filing the income tax returns the 8 amount covered under Ex.A1 was also reflected in the income tax returns. Therefore the plaintiff has capacity to lend the mortgage amount to the defendant. Accordingly issues no 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

10) Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire suit claim from the defendant?

In view of the fining in issue Nos. 1 to 3, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the entire suit amount from the defendant as prayed for.

11) To what relief :

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, preliminary decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.8,53,333/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree on principal sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and interest thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. Time for redemption is three (3) months.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 7th day of April, 2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PUTTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: C.Kusuma.DW1:P.Gangi Reddy.

PW2: C.Thulasirami Reddy.

9

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Exhibit DateDescription of document A113.04.2015 :Registered simple mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. A216.02.2018:Office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. A3--:Postal receipt.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

– Nil –

SCJ, PTR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PUTTUR

Present: Sri B.APPALA SWAMY,

Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.

Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

O.S. No. 3 of 2021

Y.Amanulla Khan.…Plaintiff.

Vs.

K.Devika. … Defendants.

This suit is came up on this day before me 08.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri. P.N.Anbalagan, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant set exparte and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for specific performance agreement of sale to directing the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in terms of the suit agreement of sale dated 10.01.2018, failing which empowering the plaintiff to get the register sale deed through court of law and for costs of the suit.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:- The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule mentioned property as she have purchased the same on 05.06.2010 from one

V.K.Bhakthavasthalam and N.Chandra Sekhar under registered sale deed vide Doc.No.854/2010 and it was registered at SRO, Karvetinagaram and she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same by constructing RCC ground and first floor house and has been residing in it till this date. The electricity connection, Panchayath tax also stands in her name for the said house and that the defendant have offered to alienate the suit schedule mentioned property for discharge of her debts and that the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and on negotiations the sale price arrived at the rate of Rs.21,00,000/- by both the parties and on receipt of advance of

Rs.20,00,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff on 10.01.2018, she has executed an agreement of sale on the very same date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to execute the regular register sale deed on or before 07.01.2021. The defendant have specifically mentioned a condition in the said 2 agreement that she raised a loan over the agreement schedule mentioned property in Life

Insurance Corporation, Tirupati and have been regularly paying equated monthly installments for repayment and that she would be closed the said loan on or before 07.01.2021 and immediately on receipt of remaining sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, the defendant have to come and execute regular register sale deed in the name of plaintiff or his ordered person on or

before the said date.

2.2) It is further averred in the plaint that since first week of December,2020 the plaintiff has been caution the defendant about expiry date of agreement and later days seriously demanded her to get regular lase deed, but she have postponed to perform her part of contract and that violated its terms and hence the time is essence of contract. Though the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the defendant has deliberately failed to perform her part of contract and that it is her bounded duty to execute regular sale deed in accordance of agreement of sale dated 10.01.2018 and hence the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 24.12.2020 calling her to perform her side part of contract and though the defendant received the said legal notice, she utterly failed neither to perform her part of contract nor issue reply to the same and that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract. The defendant has committed breach of contract and the defendant is liable to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property as per terms of contract. Hence the suit.

3) Though several adjournments were given to defendant for her appearance, but the defendant failed to appear before the Court to contest the suit and the defendant called absent and set exparte.

4) During trial, to substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the first plaintiff himself gave examined as PW1 and also got examined one of the attestor of Ex.A1 as PW. 2 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A4 on his behalf.

5) Now, the point for determination is:

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for ?”

6) Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material.

3

7) Point: To substantial the case of the plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff himself examined as

PW1 and also examined the 2nd attestors of Ex.A1 as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. PW1 reiterated the plaint averments and deposed that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule mentioned property as she have purchased the same on 05.06.2010 from one

V.K.Bhakthavasthalam and N.Chandra Sekhar under registered sale deed vide Doc.No.854/2010 and it was registered at SRO, Karvetinagaram and she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same by constructing RCC ground and first floor house and has been residing in it till this date. The electricity connection, Panchayath tax also stands in her name for the said house and that the defendant have offered to alienate the suit schedule mentioned property for discharge of her debts and that PW1 agreed to purchase the same and on negotiations the sale price arrived at the rate of Rs.21,00,000/- by both the parties and on receipt of advance of Rs.20,00,000/- by the defendant from him on 10.01.2018, she has executed an agreement of sale on the very same date

I..e., on 10.01.2018 under Ex.A1 in his favour agreeing to execute the regular register sale deed on or before 07.01.2021. The defendant have specifically mentioned a condition in the said agreement that she raised a loan over the agreement schedule mentioned property in Life

Insurance Corporation, Tirupati and have been regularly paying equated monthly installments for repayment and that she would be closed the said loan on or before 07.01.2021 and immediately on receipt of remaining sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from him, the defendant have to come and execute regular register sale deed in his name or his ordered person on or before the said date.

7.2) PW1 further deposed that since first week of December,2020 he has been caution the defendant about expiry date of agreement and later days seriously demanded her to get regular lase deed, but she have postponed to perform her part of contract and that violated its terms and hence the time is essence of contract and that though he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the defendant has deliberately failed to perform her part of contract and that it is her bounded duty to execute regular sale deed in accordance of agreement of sale dated 10.01.2018 and hence he got issued a legal notice dated 24.12.2020 under Ex.A2 calling her to perform her side part of contract and though the defendant received the said legal notice, she utterly failed neither to perform her part of contract nor issue reply to the same and that he filed the suit for specific performance of contract. The defendant has committed breach of contract and 4 the defendant is liable to execute a regular sale deed in his favour of the suit schedule property as per terms of contract. PW1 further submitted that according to the contract based on the suit agreement, he has to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- tot he defendant towards balance sale consideration and since the defendant not turned over to this Court, he has transferred a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- from his Indian Bank Account, Karvetinagaram Branch to the account of the defendant i.e., S.B. A/c.No.11123117362, State Bank of India, Karvetingaram Branch on 23.03.2022 through NEFT transaction under Ex.A4 and the NEFT charge is Rs.6/- and therefore the entire sale consideration has been paid to the defendant and that the defendant shall execute the regular registered sale deed in accordance of suit agreement.

8) To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined PW2 who is one of the attestor of Ex.A1 and he also deposed on the same lines as that of PW1 and deposed that the plaintiff and defendant have agreed the terms and conditions mentioned the said agreement of sale dated 10.01.2018 and that both should govern and honour the same and while executiono f suit agreement of sale, one P.Jayadev was signed as first attestor and he signed as second attestor in the same and they are the witness for the said contract entered by the plaintiff and defendant

Hence, the evidence of PW1 is un-challenged as the defendant remained exparte. Therefore the evidence of PW1 coupled with the evidence of PW 2 and Exs.A1 to A4 clearly proved that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed. Accordingly the point is answered.

9) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of agreement of sale dated 10.01.2018 within three months from the date of this Judgment and decree, failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to get the same through process of law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PUTTUR.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 : Y.Amanulla Khan.::Exparte::

PW2 : K.Munirathnam.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Exhibit DateDescription of document A110.01.2018 :Original unregistered agreement of sale executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit property. A224.12.2020:Office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. A3--:Postal acknowledgment. A423.03.2022:NEFT receipt for Rs.1,00,006/- transferred by plaintiff to the account of defendant.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

– Nil –

SCJ, PTR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PUTTUR

Present: Sri B.Appala Swamy

Senior Civil Judge.

Friday, the First (01st ) day of April, 2022 Two thousand Twenty Two

O.S. No.92/2015

Between:

T.M.Ellappan ….Plaintiff. And:

1. P.Nageswara Rao (died)

2. P.Munemma

3. P.Kiran Kumar

4. P.Preethi ….Defendants.

Suit is filed for directing the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff and execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 15.02.2012 in respect of the suit schedule property and deliver the possession to the plaintiff, failing which the same may be done through process of law or refund the earnest money which was given by the plaintiff to defendant under agreement of sale and other payments date of realization and for costs.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri

K.Purushotham, Advocate for the Plaintiff; and Sri B.V.Chalapathi, Advocate for

Defendant 1 to 3; and Defendant 4 remained exparte; and upon hearing, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

IA.No.378/2021 under Or.6 R.17 CPC is allowed. For carrying out amendment

and for filing of neat copy of plaint. In mean while plaintiff and D1 to D3 and learned counsels for both parties filed memo stating that the matter was settled out of the court.

Hence, the suit is dismissed as not pressed. Memo is recorded.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of April, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Senior Civil Judge,

Puttur.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PUTTUR

Present: Sri B.Appala Swamy

Senior Civil Judge.

Tuesday, the Twelveth (12th ) day of April, 2022 Two thousand Twenty Two

O.S. No.128/2015

Between:

M.Mohan ….Plaintiff. And:

1. K.Babu

2. K.Vijaya ….Defendants.

Suit is filed for recovery of .1,68,650/- being the principal of .1,00,000/- and₹₹ interest of .68,650/- on “A” ₹promissory note dated 10.11.2012 together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and for costs.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri

B.Raveendra, Advocate for the Plaintiff; and Sri C.Anandaiah, Advocate for Defendant; and upon hearing, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, the learned counsel for plaintiff and defendant called present. Plaintiff filed memo for not pressing the suit stating that the matter is settled out of court.

Hence, suit is dismissed as not pressed. Memo is recorded.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of April, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Senior Civil Judge,

Puttur.