Smt. B. Gayathri

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

AT VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SMT. B.GAYATHRI II Addl. Senior Civil Judge Thursday, this the 10thday of September, 2015. ORIGINAL SUIT NO.426 OF 2004.

BETWEEN

Parepalli Venkata Rao. ..Plaintif AND

1. Parepalli Venkateswara Rao

2. Parepalli Panduranga Rao

3. Parepalli Murali Nath..Defendants

4. Malladi Sitaramanjaneyulu

This suit coming on 2-9-2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.S.Satyanarayana Murthy, advocate for plaintif and of Sri K.V.eera Bhadra Prasad, advocate for 2 nd defendant and of Sri M.Ramanadh, advocate for 3rddefendant and 4thdefendant died and the 1stdefendant having been called absent and set exparte and upon the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:J U D G M E N T:

1. The suit is filed for partition of plaint A, B , C and D schedule properties and to allot one such share to the plaintif and for directing the 3rddefendant and 4thdefendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the A schedule property and directing the 3rddefendant to deposit damages as

Rs.1,500/- p.m. and the 4thdefendant to deposit rent at Rs.1,200/- p.m. to the costs of these proceedings and for directing the 2nddefendant to cause production of C schedule movables so as to get them partitioned and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintif and defendants 1 to 3 are the sons, Smt.Anjana Devi and Surya Kumari are the daughters of ate

Parepalli Radhakrishna Murthy and Venkata Subbamma. It is the case of the plaintif that the ancestral property in Attota Village, Tenali Taluk was sold away by P.Radhakrishna Murthy and purchased lands at Chittoor Village, near

Challapalli and thus, they are having joint family property which is ancestral property. It is the version of the plaintif that the said Radhakrishna Murthy performed the marriages of his daughters in the year 1960 and 1973 by giving sufficient amounts by him and also by the plaintif and 1stdefendant. It is the version of the plaintif that subsequently also the father of the plaintif and the 1stdefendant looked after the financial necessities of the daughters. It is stated that out of the income over the ancestral properties, the plaintif, 1stdefendant and their father purchased plaint A and B schedule properties in the year, 1977 and built pucca building consisting of ground floor in the plaint 'A' properties consisting of two portions A and B and Municipal taxes were also being paid. It is stated that as 3rddefendant expressed his desire to separate from the joint family, he was giving sufficient amount for his business towards his share from the ancestral properties and after receiving his share by way of cash, he executed a letter, dt.1-10-1974.

3. It is stated that while working, the plaintif's father purchased F.D.Rs of diferent banks and they also having gold and silver articles as described in the plaint 'C' schedule property. It is stated that subsequent to the death of plaintif's parents, the 3rddefendant illegally occupied the plaint 'A' schedule property, though he has no right. Subsequently at the advise of elders, the 3rd defendant did not vacate the plaint 'A' schedule property. The 2nddefendant took away the plaint 'C' schedule properties i.e., gold and silver articles and furniture. It is stated that the plaintif's father during his life period, allotted the shares in the diferent FDRs by nominating them as co-depositors. It is the version of the plaintif that even though he requested the defendants 1 and 2 for partition of the plaint A and B schedule properties into three equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintif by partitioning the plaint A,

B and C properties. Hence, the Plaint.

4. 1stdefendant remained exparte. 2nddefendant filed Written Statement admitting the relationship and contended that the allegation that he took the plaint C schedule properties is incorrect and he has no objection for the reliefs in respect of the A and B schedule properties.

5.3rd defendant filed Written Statement denying the allegations made in the plaint stating that he got absolute right and title over the plaint A schedule property as per the Will executed by his father. It his version that he has no objection to partition the other schedule properties.

6. 4th defendant filed Written Statement stating that the schedule property was let-out to him by late Radhakrsihna Murthy during his life period on monthly rent of Rs.900/- per month and he has been paying the rent regularly to him during his life period and thereafter, he is paying the rents to 3rddefendant as the deceased Radhakrishna Murthy instructed him to pay the rents to the 3rddefendant.

7.Basing upon the above pleadings, the following Issues have been settled for trial:

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled for partition of ABC schedule properties into 3 equal shares and for allotment of one such share?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property from D3, D4?

3)Whether the plaintif is entitled for damages from D3 as prayed for?

4)Whether the Will pleaded by D3 in para 9 of his Written Statement in respect of item No.1 of the plaint A schedule property is true, valid and binding on the plaintif and other defendants?

5)To what relief?

Additional Issues:-

1)Whether D3 is entitled for share in plaint 'D' schedule property?

2)Whether the Court fee paid with regard to 'D' schedule property is true and correct?

8.During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and got marked

Exs.A1 to A6 on behalf of the plaintif side. DWs 1 to 10 are examined and Exs.B1 to B28 are marked on behalf of the defendants' side. Exs.C1 to C6 are marked through Commissioner. Ex.X1 marked.

9.Heard both-sides.

10. Issue Nos.1, 2, 4 and Addl. Issue No.1:- 1)Whether the plaintif is entitled for partition of ABC schedule properties into 3 equal shares and for allotment of one such share?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property from D3, D4?

3)Whether the Will pleaded by D3 in para 9 of his Written Statement in respect of item No.1 of the plaint A schedule property is true, valid and binding on the plaintif and other defendants?

Additional Issue No.1:-

Whether D3 is entitled for share in plaint 'D' schedule property?

To prove the case of the plaintif, he got examined himself as PW1 and filed his chief-examination affidavit stating that himself and defendants 1 to 3 are the sons, Smt.Anjana Devi and Surya Kumari are the daughters of late Parepalli Radhakrishna Murthy and Venkata

Subbamma. It is the case of the plaintif that the ancestral property in

Attota Village, Tenali Taluk was sold away by P.Radhakrishna Murthy and purchased lands at Chittoor Village, near Challapalli and thus, they are having joint family property which is ancestral property. It is the version of the plaintif that the said Radhakrishna Murthy performed the marriages of his daughters in the year 1960 and 1973 by giving sufficient amounts by him and also by the plaintif and 1stdefendant. It is the version of the plaintif that subsequently also the father of the plaintif and the 1stdefendant looked after the financial necessities of the daughters. It is his version that out of the income over the ancestral properties, the plaintif, 1stdefendant and their father purchased plaint A and B schedule properties in the year, 1977 and built pucca building consisting of ground floor in the plaint 'A' properties consisting of two portions A and B and

Municipal taxes were also being paid. It is stated that as 3rddefendant expressed his desire to separate from the joint family, he was giving sufficient amount for his business towards his share from the ancestral properties and after receiving his share by way of cash, he executed a letter, dt.1-10-1974. It is stated that while working, the plaintif's father purchased F.D.Rs of diferent banks and they also having gold and silver articles as described in the plaint 'C' schedule property. It is stated that subsequent to the death of plaintif's parents, the 3rddefendant illegally occupied the plaint 'A' schedule property, though he has no right.

Subsequently at the advise of elders, the 3rddefendant did not vacate the plaint 'A' schedule property. The 2nddefendant took away the plaint 'C' schedule properties i.e., gold and silver articles and furniture. It is stated that the plaintif's father during his life period, allotted the shares in the diferent FDRs by nominating them as co-depositors. It is the version of the plaintif that even though he requested the defendants 1 and 2 for partition of the plaint A and B schedule properties into three equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintif by partitioning the plaint A, B and C properties. To prove his version, he filed Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 – 16-4-2004, Valuation Certificate, Ex.A2 – 17-4-2004, Valuation

Certificate, Ex.A3 – 1-10-74, release letter, Ex.A4 – 7-4-77, Sale deed,

Ex.A5 – 5-11-77, C.C. of sale deed, Ex.A6 – 6-12-2003, Photostat copy of

Death Certificate.

11.The Advocate-Commissioner who visited the suit schedule property to note down the physical features was examined as PW2 and he filed his report Ex.C1 stating that the plaint 'A' schedule property is a building consisting of two portions.

12.The 2nddefendant was examined as DW1 and filed his chief- evidence affidavit stating that their parents performed the marriages of their sisters and subsequent to the death of their father, the plaintif and 1st defendant had distributed the properties including the bank deposits and the original list is with the plaintif only.

13.The 3rddefendant was examined as DW2 and filed his chief- evidence affidavit stating that their father late Radhakrishna Murthy gave about Rs.1,00,000/- to each son by way of fixed deposits including the plaintif and also executed a Will in his favour regarding Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same by virtue of the said Will. To prove his version, he filed Exs.B15 to

B19. Ex.B15 – 11-6-79, Will, Ex.B16 – 6-12-2003 Publication,

Ex.B17 – Letter, Ex.B18 – 25-2-2004, Reply notice, Ex.B19 – 16-4-2004,

Reply notice.

14.DWs 3 and 4 deposed that they acted as attestors of Ex.B15 Will, which was executed by the father of the plaintif.

15.DW5, who is 1defendant in the present suit and the elder son of late Radhakrishna Murthy deposed that the deceased Radhakrishna

Murthy deposited the amounts by showing his wife as Nominee and the said amount was distributed among all the members expenses incurred by them, after the obsequies of their father. He stated that 3rddefendant was in possession of gold ornaments which was possessed by their parents as they were with him by the date of death of their father.

16.The wife of 1stdefendant was examined as DW6 and she deposed that his father-in-law late Radhakrishna Murthy mentioned her name as nominee in the FDRs which were realised by her after his death and distributed the same among the plaintif and D1 to D3 by way of cheques.

17.DW7/Andhra Bank Manager, deposed that three FDRs were withdrawn by the wife of 1stdefendant as per their Bank statement.

18.DW8/UCO Bank Manager deposed that the FDR bearing No.235/120447 for Rs.1,10,381/- stands in the name of D3 and P.V.Subbamma as nominees and after the maturity of the said FDR, the amount was given to D3 by way of bankers cheque.

19.DW9/P.R.O., in Postal Department deposed that application for purchase of

Kisan Vikas Patra Sl.No.1124 was in the name of Smt.P.V.Subbamma, W/o

Radha Krishna Murthy.

20. DW10/3rdparty filed his chief evidence affidavit stating that he obtained registered sale deed from the father of the plaintif and D1 to D3 in respect of the agricultural land at S.N.Gollapalem, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna

District, which is adjacent to his lands.

21.PW1 during his cross-examination deposed that he has not filed any document to show that he financially supported his sisters. He admitted that he mentioned in the plaint that himself, his father, D1 and D2 purchased the properties, but the document was obtained in the name of their father only and there is no document in the name of himself and his brother jointly.

He further deposed that he has not filed any document to show that they have constructed the building in Ex.A4 property and also not filed any document to show that they enjoy the property covered under Exs.A4 and A5 properties.

22. PW1 further deposed that he has not filed any document to show his father was in possession of C Schedule property and he has not filed any receipts and particulars of C schedule property. He admitted that Ex.B1 is the letter written by his deceased father to 2nddefendant. He further admitted his writings on the xerox-copies shown to him. He deposed that the original of the said document was not with him. He deposed that he has written the said document as instructed by their father. He further admitted that Exs.B2 to B4 are the letters written by his father to the 2nddefendant. He deposed that he cannot file any document to show that their family have got properties at

Attota Village. He admitted that his father worked as Archaka at

Machilipatnam for about 50 years. He deposed that he do not remember whether UCO Bank FDRs given to him and he also do not remember whether any amount was given to him and quantum of amount was given to him. He deposed that he do not remember whether he mentioned in chief-affidavit that the wife of D1 shown as nominee in the FDRs of his father. He deposed that he do not remember after death of his father, all the said FDRs were encashed by the wife of 1stdefendant and they were distributed equally among their brothers. He further deposed that he did not include in the plaint schedule property for the partition of Rs.65,000/- which was mentioned by him in his chief evidence affidavit. He deposed that 3rddefendant purchased properties in the year 1975 and 1977 in his name from out of the amounts received from the joint family income and as such, he executed linquishment deed under Ex.A3. He deposed that except Ex.A3, there is no other documentary evidence to show that D3 executed amounts from the joint family property. He deposed that he do not remember distribution of gold at the instance of his father and who got what quantum of gold. He deposed that he cannot identify the photos shown to him which were filed before Advocate Commissioner at the time of his inspection of the plaint schedule property. He deposed that the width of the lane of plaint A schedule property is about 12 Feet and all the houses in the lane are thatched houses without leaving the vacant site around the house and that if any person wants to make a construction in that lane, he has to use the said lane for laying the cement and other materials. He denied for the suggestion that plaint A schedule property is bequeathed to the 3rddefendant by his father under a Will.

23.The 2nddefendant who was examined as DW1 during his cross-examination deposed that he has no knowledge that 3rddefendant executed elinquishment deed in favour of plaintif and 1stdefendant regarding the plaint schedule properties. He further deposed that the version of the plaintif that he gave amounts to their parents and sisters is not correct. He further deposed that the plaintif and 1stdefendant distributed some FDRs and some gold jewelery belongs to their parents among their brothers after the death of their parents. He deposed that the letter shown to me is in the writings of their father only. He deposed that he has not given any amount to his father for construction of the building in the plaint schedule property. He deposed that the gold articles and other properties were partitioned in the presence of their father and his father wrote letter to him with regard to the said partition.

24. DW5 who is the elder brother of the plaintif admitted that with regard to the letters written by himself and his father under Exs.B20 and B17. He admitted that his father stated in E.xB17 letter which was written to him that he was distributed the cash at his wish only. He deposed that he do not remember whether the FDR amounts were distributed equally among their brothers. He further deposed that he do not remember whether his father given Rs.1,00,000/- each to himself and D3. He denied for the suggestion that they have obtained the release deed from D3 by force. But he admitted his signature on Ex.A3 as attestor.

25. From the admissions made by PWs 1, 2 and DW5, who is 1stdefendant, it is clear that late Radhakrishna Murthy distributed the amounts of the FDRs during his life period and also settled his other properties by execution of Will and he also sold away some properties by executing registered sale deeds in favour of others. Plaintif himself admitted that he has not shown his sisters as parties to the present suit. But it is the only version of the plaintif that they were given sufficient amounts at the time of marriages and after marriages. But in view of the Hindu Succession Act(Central Act amended), the daughters were also to be shown as parties to the present suit. Therefore the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

26. From the evidence of the witnesses, it is also clear that there was an amount of Rs.84,104/- in Andhra Bank Savings Bank Account pertaining to the deceased Radhakrishna Murthy and there is also anothe fixed deposit in the post office and the said amounts were not included in the suit schedule.

Hence, present suit for partial partition is not maintainable. Further by perusing Ex.B15 Will, which was executed by the deceased late Radhakrishna

Murthy, the 3rddefendant who is in occupation of the plaint A schedule is only having right over the same. Further the plaintif did not produce any document to show that the schedule properties were purchased by their father out of the income over the ancestral properties. Hence, these Issues are settled in favour of the defendants and aginst the plaintif.

27. Issue No.3:-

Whether the plaintif is entitled for damages from D3 as prayed for?

As Issue Nos.1 to 3 are settled against the plaintif, the plaintif is not entitled for the damages as prayed.

28. Additional Issue No.2:-

Whether the Court fee paid with regard to 'D' schedule property is true and correct?

As the plaintif is not in possession of the plaint schedule properties, the Court Fee paid by the plaintif is not correct. Hence, this

Issue is settled against the plaintif.

29. Issue No.5:-

To what relief?

In the result, the suit is dismissed, without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10thday of

September, 2015.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

1 to 8 are amended as per orders in I.A.No.80/16, dt.08.02.2016.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1:P.Venkata Rao P.W.2:B.Ashok Kumar FOR DEFENDANTS: D.W.1: P.Pandu Ranga Rao D.W.2: P.Murali Nadh D.W.3: M.Vidya Sagar D.W.4: Abdul Nabi D.W.5: P.Venkateswara Rao D.W.6: P.Rama Ratnam D.W.7: P.Rama Krishna D.W.8: M.Rama Mohana Rao D.W.9: K.Venkatappaiah D.W.10:A.Naga Raju

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-116-4-2004Valuation Certificate

Ex.A-217-4-2004Valuation Certificate

Ex.A-31-10-1974Released letter

Ex.A-47-4-1977Sale deed

Ex.A-66-12-2003Photostat copy of death certificate

Ex.A-7--Returned cover

FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1 : 27-12-2002 : Letter Ex.B2 : 26-9-2002 : Letter Ex.B3 : 17-7-2000 : Letter Ex.B4 : 7-7-2000 : Letter Ex.B5 : 12-7-1985 : Letter Ex.B6 : 15-2-1989 : Money Order Acknowledgement Ex.B7 : 9-3-1989 : Money Order Acknowledgement Ex.B8 : 12-4-1989 : Money Order Acknowledgement Ex.B9 : 10-6-1989 : Money Order Acknowledgement Ex.B10 : 31-7-1989 : Money Order Acknowledgement Ex.B11 : 26-8-1997 : Receipt Ex.B12 : 10-12-1997 : Letter Ex.B13 : 6-11-1999 : Money Order Acknowledgement Ex.B14 :22-12-1984 : Letter Ex.B15:11-6-79 : Will Ex.B16 :6-12-2003 : Publication

Ex.B17: -- : Letter Ex.B18: 25-2-2004 : Reply notice Ex.B19: 16-4-2004 : Reply notice Ex.B20: 21-7-2001: Letter(Post card) Ex.B21: -- : Xerox-copy of legal notice Ex.B22:25-5-1989 : C.C. of sale deed Ex.B23:25-5-1989 : C.C. of sale deed Ex.B24:4-9-1981 : C.C. of sale deed Ex.B25: -- : Legal notice Ex.B26:26-6-2000 : Xerox-copy of partition paper Ex.B27:17-4-1994 : Xerox-copy of partition paper Ex.B28: -- : Xerox-copy of partition paper Ex.C1 : 29-9-2006 : Commissioner Report Ex.C2 : -- : Statement of Account Ex.C3 : -- : Statement of Account Ex.C4 : 30-6-2000 : Xerox-copy of letter Ex.C5 : 5-7-2000 : Xerox-copy of FDR Ex.C6 : 10-10-2000 : Xerox-copy of Cheque Ex.X1 : 29-4-1994 : Xerox-copy of Form of Application purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra.

II A.S.C.J, VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

AT VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SMT. B.GAYATHRI II Addl. Senior Civil Judge Thursday, this the 10thday of September, 2015. ORIGINAL SUIT NO.426 OF 2004.

BETWEEN

Parepalli Venkata Rao. ..Plaintif AND

1. Parepalli Venkateswara Rao

2. Parepalli Panduranga Rao

3. Parepalli Murali Nath..Defendants

4. Malladi Sitaramanjaneyulu

This suit coming on 2-9-2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.S.Satyanarayana Murthy, advocate for plaintif and of Sri K.V.eera Bhadra Prasad, advocate for 2 nd defendant and of Sri M.Ramanadh, advocate for 3rddefendant and 4thdefendant died and the 1stdefendant having been called absent and set exparte and upon the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:J U D G M E N T:

1. The suit is filed for partition of plaint A, B , C and D schedule properties and to allot one such share to the plaintif and for directing the 3rddefendant and 4thdefendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the A schedule property and directing the 3rddefendant to deposit damages as

Rs.1,500/- p.m. and the 4thdefendant to deposit rent at Rs.1,200/- p.m. to the costs of these proceedings and for directing the 2nddefendant to cause production of C schedule movables so as to get them partitioned and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintif and defendants 1 to 3 are the sons, Smt.Anjana Devi and Surya Kumari are the daughters of ate

Parepalli Radhakrishna Murthy and Venkata Subbamma. It is the case of the plaintif that the ancestral property in Attota Village, Tenali Taluk was sold away by P.Radhakrishna Murthy and purchased lands at Chittoor Village, near

Challapalli and thus, they are having joint family property which is ancestral property. It is the version of the plaintif that the said Radhakrishna Murthy performed the marriages of his daughters in the year 1960 and 1973 by giving sufficient amounts by him and also by the plaintif and 1stdefendant. It is the version of the plaintif that subsequently also the father of the plaintif and the 1stdefendant looked after the financial necessities of the daughters. It is stated that out of the income over the ancestral properties, the plaintif, 1stdefendant and their father purchased plaint A and B schedule properties in the year, 1977 and built pucca building consisting of ground floor in the plaint 'A' properties consisting of two portions A and B and Municipal taxes were also being paid. It is stated that as 3rddefendant expressed his desire to separate from the joint family, he was giving sufficient amount for his business towards his share from the ancestral properties and after receiving his share by way of cash, he executed a letter, dt.1-10-1974.

3. It is stated that while working, the plaintif's father purchased F.D.Rs of diferent banks and they also having gold and silver articles as described in the plaint 'C' schedule property. It is stated that subsequent to the death of plaintif's parents, the 3rddefendant illegally occupied the plaint 'A' schedule property, though he has no right. Subsequently at the advise of elders, the 3rd defendant did not vacate the plaint 'A' schedule property. The 2nddefendant took away the plaint 'C' schedule properties i.e., gold and silver articles and furniture. It is stated that the plaintif's father during his life period, allotted the shares in the diferent FDRs by nominating them as co-depositors. It is the version of the plaintif that even though he requested the defendants 1 and 2 for partition of the plaint A and B schedule properties into three equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintif by partitioning the plaint A,

B and C properties. Hence, the Plaint.

4. 1stdefendant remained exparte. 2nddefendant filed Written Statement admitting the relationship and contended that the allegation that he took the plaint C schedule properties is incorrect and he has no objection for the reliefs in respect of the A and B schedule properties.

5.3rd defendant filed Written Statement denying the allegations made in the plaint stating that he got absolute right and title over the plaint A schedule property as per the Will executed by his father. It his version that he has no objection to partition the other schedule properties.

6. 4th defendant filed Written Statement stating that the schedule property was let-out to him by late Radhakrsihna Murthy during his life period on monthly rent of Rs.900/- per month and he has been paying the rent regularly to him during his life period and thereafter, he is paying the rents to 3rddefendant as the deceased Radhakrishna Murthy instructed him to pay the rents to the 3rddefendant.

7.Basing upon the above pleadings, the following Issues have been settled for trial:

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled for partition of ABC schedule properties into 3 equal shares and for allotment of one such share?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property from D3, D4?

3)Whether the plaintif is entitled for damages from D3 as prayed for?

4)Whether the Will pleaded by D3 in para 9 of his Written Statement in respect of item No.1 of the plaint A schedule property is true, valid and binding on the plaintif and other defendants?

5)To what relief?

Additional Issues:-

1)Whether D3 is entitled for share in plaint 'D' schedule property?

2)Whether the Court fee paid with regard to 'D' schedule property is true and correct?

8.During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and got marked

Exs.A1 to A6 on behalf of the plaintif side. DWs 1 to 10 are examined and Exs.B1 to B28 are marked on behalf of the defendants' side. Exs.C1 to C6 are marked through Commissioner. Ex.X1 marked.

9.Heard both-sides.

10. Issue Nos.1, 2, 4 and Addl. Issue No.1:- 1)Whether the plaintif is entitled for partition of ABC schedule properties into 3 equal shares and for allotment of one such share?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property from D3, D4?

3)Whether the Will pleaded by D3 in para 9 of his Written Statement in respect of item No.1 of the plaint A schedule property is true, valid and binding on the plaintif and other defendants?

Additional Issue No.1:-

Whether D3 is entitled for share in plaint 'D' schedule property?

To prove the case of the plaintif, he got examined himself as PW1 and filed his chief-examination affidavit stating that himself and defendants 1 to 3 are the sons, Smt.Anjana Devi and Surya Kumari are the daughters of late Parepalli Radhakrishna Murthy and Venkata

Subbamma. It is the case of the plaintif that the ancestral property in

Attota Village, Tenali Taluk was sold away by P.Radhakrishna Murthy and purchased lands at Chittoor Village, near Challapalli and thus, they are having joint family property which is ancestral property. It is the version of the plaintif that the said Radhakrishna Murthy performed the marriages of his daughters in the year 1960 and 1973 by giving sufficient amounts by him and also by the plaintif and 1stdefendant. It is the version of the plaintif that subsequently also the father of the plaintif and the 1stdefendant looked after the financial necessities of the daughters. It is his version that out of the income over the ancestral properties, the plaintif, 1stdefendant and their father purchased plaint A and B schedule properties in the year, 1977 and built pucca building consisting of ground floor in the plaint 'A' properties consisting of two portions A and B and

Municipal taxes were also being paid. It is stated that as 3rddefendant expressed his desire to separate from the joint family, he was giving sufficient amount for his business towards his share from the ancestral properties and after receiving his share by way of cash, he executed a letter, dt.1-10-1974. It is stated that while working, the plaintif's father purchased F.D.Rs of diferent banks and they also having gold and silver articles as described in the plaint 'C' schedule property. It is stated that subsequent to the death of plaintif's parents, the 3rddefendant illegally occupied the plaint 'A' schedule property, though he has no right.

Subsequently at the advise of elders, the 3rddefendant did not vacate the plaint 'A' schedule property. The 2nddefendant took away the plaint 'C' schedule properties i.e., gold and silver articles and furniture. It is stated that the plaintif's father during his life period, allotted the shares in the diferent FDRs by nominating them as co-depositors. It is the version of the plaintif that even though he requested the defendants 1 and 2 for partition of the plaint A and B schedule properties into three equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintif by partitioning the plaint A, B and C properties. To prove his version, he filed Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 – 16-4-2004, Valuation Certificate, Ex.A2 – 17-4-2004, Valuation

Certificate, Ex.A3 – 1-10-74, release letter, Ex.A4 – 7-4-77, Sale deed,

Ex.A5 – 5-11-77, C.C. of sale deed, Ex.A6 – 6-12-2003, Photostat copy of

Death Certificate.

11.The Advocate-Commissioner who visited the suit schedule property to note down the physical features was examined as PW2 and he filed his report Ex.C1 stating that the plaint 'A' schedule property is a building consisting of two portions.

12.The 2nddefendant was examined as DW1 and filed his chief- evidence affidavit stating that their parents performed the marriages of their sisters and subsequent to the death of their father, the plaintif and 1st defendant had distributed the properties including the bank deposits and the original list is with the plaintif only.

13.The 3rddefendant was examined as DW2 and filed his chief- evidence affidavit stating that their father late Radhakrishna Murthy gave about Rs.1,00,000/- to each son by way of fixed deposits including the plaintif and also executed a Will in his favour regarding Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same by virtue of the said Will. To prove his version, he filed Exs.B15 to

B19. Ex.B15 – 11-6-79, Will, Ex.B16 – 6-12-2003 Publication,

Ex.B17 – Letter, Ex.B18 – 25-2-2004, Reply notice, Ex.B19 – 16-4-2004,

Reply notice.

14.DWs 3 and 4 deposed that they acted as attestors of Ex.B15 Will, which was executed by the father of the plaintif.

15.DW5, who is 1defendant in the present suit and the elder son of late Radhakrishna Murthy deposed that the deceased Radhakrishna

Murthy deposited the amounts by showing his wife as Nominee and the said amount was distributed among all the members expenses incurred by them, after the obsequies of their father. He stated that 3rddefendant was in possession of gold ornaments which was possessed by their parents as they were with him by the date of death of their father.

16.The wife of 1stdefendant was examined as DW6 and she deposed that his father-in-law late Radhakrishna Murthy mentioned her name as nominee in the FDRs which were realised by her after his death and distributed the same among the plaintif and D1 to D3 by way of cheques.

17.DW7/Andhra Bank Manager, deposed that three FDRs were withdrawn by the wife of 1stdefendant as per their Bank statement.

18.DW8/UCO Bank Manager deposed that the FDR bearing No.235/120447 for Rs.1,10,381/- stands in the name of D3 and P.V.Subbamma as nominees and after the maturity of the said FDR, the amount was given to D3 by way of bankers cheque.

19.DW9/P.R.O., in Postal Department deposed that application for purchase of

Kisan Vikas Patra Sl.No.1124 was in the name of Smt.P.V.Subbamma, W/o

Radha Krishna Murthy.

20. DW10/3rdparty filed his chief evidence affidavit stating that he obtained registered sale deed from the father of the plaintif and D1 to D3 in respect of the agricultural land at S.N.Gollapalem, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna

District, which is adjacent to his lands.

21.PW1 during his cross-examination deposed that he has not filed any document to show that he financially supported his sisters. He admitted that he mentioned in the plaint that himself, his father, D1 and D2 purchased the properties, but the document was obtained in the name of their father only and there is no document in the name of himself and his brother jointly.

He further deposed that he has not filed any document to show that they have constructed the building in Ex.A4 property and also not filed any document to show that they enjoy the property covered under Exs.A4 and A5 properties.

22. PW1 further deposed that he has not filed any document to show his father was in possession of C Schedule property and he has not filed any receipts and particulars of C schedule property. He admitted that Ex.B1 is the letter written by his deceased father to 2nddefendant. He further admitted his writings on the xerox-copies shown to him. He deposed that the original of the said document was not with him. He deposed that he has written the said document as instructed by their father. He further admitted that Exs.B2 to B4 are the letters written by his father to the 2nddefendant. He deposed that he cannot file any document to show that their family have got properties at

Attota Village. He admitted that his father worked as Archaka at

Machilipatnam for about 50 years. He deposed that he do not remember whether UCO Bank FDRs given to him and he also do not remember whether any amount was given to him and quantum of amount was given to him. He deposed that he do not remember whether he mentioned in chief-affidavit that the wife of D1 shown as nominee in the FDRs of his father. He deposed that he do not remember after death of his father, all the said FDRs were encashed by the wife of 1stdefendant and they were distributed equally among their brothers. He further deposed that he did not include in the plaint schedule property for the partition of Rs.65,000/- which was mentioned by him in his chief evidence affidavit. He deposed that 3rddefendant purchased properties in the year 1975 and 1977 in his name from out of the amounts received from the joint family income and as such, he executed linquishment deed under Ex.A3. He deposed that except Ex.A3, there is no other documentary evidence to show that D3 executed amounts from the joint family property. He deposed that he do not remember distribution of gold at the instance of his father and who got what quantum of gold. He deposed that he cannot identify the photos shown to him which were filed before Advocate Commissioner at the time of his inspection of the plaint schedule property. He deposed that the width of the lane of plaint A schedule property is about 12 Feet and all the houses in the lane are thatched houses without leaving the vacant site around the house and that if any person wants to make a construction in that lane, he has to use the said lane for laying the cement and other materials. He denied for the suggestion that plaint A schedule property is bequeathed to the 3rddefendant by his father under a Will.

23.The 2nddefendant who was examined as DW1 during his cross-examination deposed that he has no knowledge that 3rddefendant executed elinquishment deed in favour of plaintif and 1stdefendant regarding the plaint schedule properties. He further deposed that the version of the plaintif that he gave amounts to their parents and sisters is not correct. He further deposed that the plaintif and 1stdefendant distributed some FDRs and some gold jewelery belongs to their parents among their brothers after the death of their parents. He deposed that the letter shown to me is in the writings of their father only. He deposed that he has not given any amount to his father for construction of the building in the plaint schedule property. He deposed that the gold articles and other properties were partitioned in the presence of their father and his father wrote letter to him with regard to the said partition.

24. DW5 who is the elder brother of the plaintif admitted that with regard to the letters written by himself and his father under Exs.B20 and B17. He admitted that his father stated in E.xB17 letter which was written to him that he was distributed the cash at his wish only. He deposed that he do not remember whether the FDR amounts were distributed equally among their brothers. He further deposed that he do not remember whether his father given Rs.1,00,000/- each to himself and D3. He denied for the suggestion that they have obtained the release deed from D3 by force. But he admitted his signature on Ex.A3 as attestor.

25. From the admissions made by PWs 1, 2 and DW5, who is 1stdefendant, it is clear that late Radhakrishna Murthy distributed the amounts of the FDRs during his life period and also settled his other properties by execution of Will and he also sold away some properties by executing registered sale deeds in favour of others. Plaintif himself admitted that he has not shown his sisters as parties to the present suit. But it is the only version of the plaintif that they were given sufficient amounts at the time of marriages and after marriages. But in view of the Hindu Succession Act(Central Act amended), the daughters were also to be shown as parties to the present suit. Therefore the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

26. From the evidence of the witnesses, it is also clear that there was an amount of Rs.84,104/- in Andhra Bank Savings Bank Account pertaining to the deceased Radhakrishna Murthy and there is also anothe fixed deposit in the post office and the said amounts were not included in the suit schedule.

Hence, present suit for partial partition is not maintainable. Further by perusing Ex.B15 Will, which was executed by the deceased late Radhakrishna

Murthy, the 3rddefendant who is in occupation of the plaint A schedule is only having right over the same. Further the plaintif did not produce any document to show that the schedule properties were purchased by their father out of the income over the ancestral properties. Hence, these Issues are settled in favour of the defendants and aginst the plaintif.

27. Issue No.3:-

Whether the plaintif is entitled for damages from D3 as prayed for?

As Issue Nos.1 to 3 are settled against the plaintif, the plaintif is not entitled for the damages as prayed.

28. Additional Issue No.2:-

Whether the Court fee paid with regard to 'D' schedule property is true and correct?

As the plaintif is not in possession of the plaint schedule properties, the Court Fee paid by the plaintif is not correct. Hence, this

Issue is settled against the plaintif.

29. Issue No.5:-

To what relief?

In the result, the suit is dismissed, without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10thday of

September, 2015.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

1 to 8 are amended as per orders in I.A.No.80/16, dt.08.02.2016.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1:P.Venkata Rao P.W.2:B.Ashok Kumar FOR DEFENDANTS: D.W.1: P.Pandu Ranga Rao D.W.2: P.Murali Nadh D.W.3: M.Vidya Sagar D.W.4: Abdul Nabi D.W.5: P.Venkateswara Rao D.W.6: P.Rama Ratnam D.W.7: P.Rama Krishna D.W.8: M.Rama Mohana Rao D.W.9: K.Venkatappaiah D.W.10:A.Naga Raju

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-116-4-2004Valuation Certificate

Ex.A-217-4-2004Valuation Certificate

Ex.A-31-10-1974Released letter

Ex.A-47-4-1977Sale deed

Ex.A-66-12-2003Photostat copy of death certificate

Ex.A-7--Returned cover

FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1 : 27-12-2002 : Letter Ex.B2 : 26-9-2002 : Letter Ex.B3 : 17-7-2000 : Letter Ex.B4 : 7-7-2000 : Letter Ex.B5 : 12-7-1985 : Letter Ex.B6 : 15-2-1989 : Money Order Acknowledgement Ex.B7 : 9-3-1989 : Money Order Acknowledgement Ex.B8 : 12-4-1989 : Money Order Acknowledgement Ex.B9 : 10-6-1989 : Money Order Acknowledgement Ex.B10 : 31-7-1989 : Money Order Acknowledgement Ex.B11 : 26-8-1997 : Receipt Ex.B12 : 10-12-1997 : Letter Ex.B13 : 6-11-1999 : Money Order Acknowledgement Ex.B14 :22-12-1984 : Letter Ex.B15:11-6-79 : Will Ex.B16 :6-12-2003 : Publication

Ex.B17: -- : Letter Ex.B18: 25-2-2004 : Reply notice Ex.B19: 16-4-2004 : Reply notice Ex.B20: 21-7-2001: Letter(Post card) Ex.B21: -- : Xerox-copy of legal notice Ex.B22:25-5-1989 : C.C. of sale deed Ex.B23:25-5-1989 : C.C. of sale deed Ex.B24:4-9-1981 : C.C. of sale deed Ex.B25: -- : Legal notice Ex.B26:26-6-2000 : Xerox-copy of partition paper Ex.B27:17-4-1994 : Xerox-copy of partition paper Ex.B28: -- : Xerox-copy of partition paper Ex.C1 : 29-9-2006 : Commissioner Report Ex.C2 : -- : Statement of Account Ex.C3 : -- : Statement of Account Ex.C4 : 30-6-2000 : Xerox-copy of letter Ex.C5 : 5-7-2000 : Xerox-copy of FDR Ex.C6 : 10-10-2000 : Xerox-copy of Cheque Ex.X1 : 29-4-1994 : Xerox-copy of Form of Application purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra.

II A.S.C.J, VJA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: Smt. B. GAYATHRI, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 17th day of February, 2016

I.P.NO.57/2013

BETWEEN:

Pemmasani Bhavani Prasad … Petitioner

And

1. Nannapaneni Naga Malleswari 2.Maddali Lakshmi …Respondents

The petition coming on 12-2-2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Subba Rao, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri P.N.Pavan Kumar, advocate for respondents and upon the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

1)This Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 of Provincial

Insolvency Act prays to adjudicate the 1st respondent as an insolvent and to set-aside the regd. Sale deed executed by R1 and for costs.

2)The brief averments of the petition are that on 25-6-2012 the 1st respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the petitioner and executed promissory note in favour of the petitioner and failed to discharge the debt due to the petitioner and the petitioner came to know that in order to evade the debt the 1st respondent in collusion with 2nd respondent created a registered sale deed vide document No.5101/2013 on 2 26-6-2013 relating to the flat No.124 in the 2nd floor of the apartment constructed in the name and style of J.D.Towers, situated in R.S.No.184, 185/4, 185/5, 188 to an extent of an undivided and unspecified joint share of 25 sq. yds., out of total extent of 2219 sq, yds., and the said sale deed document is not valid according to Law and the petitioner constrained to file this petition. Hence, the petition.

3) The 2nd respondent set exparte. The respondent No.1 filed Counter denying the allegations made in the plaint and stated that the 1st respondent’s husband did transport business and he sustained loss and indebted so many creditors and issued empty signed promissory note in favour of the creditors and sold out the building and discharged all debts in the presence of the elders and the petitioner stated that the petitioner is no other than the stooge of one of the creditors by name D.Raja Babu, who had taken huge amount of Rs.2,10,000/- from the 1st respondent towards full and final satisfaction of the debt due, but with an evil intention filed a false suit as well as the creditor insolvent petition in

I.P.57/2013 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for wrongful gain and the petitioner did not serve any demand notice and filed I.A. for conditional attachment of the schedule property, and the petition is infructuous as the attached property is not in possession and custody of the 1st respondent, which was already alienated by way of registered sale deed, dt.26-6-2013, bearing Doc.No.5101/2013 to one Sri

Maddi Lakshmi, who is 2nd respondent and the said I.P. is not maintainable and prayed that the petition may be dismissed with costs.

4) Now, the Point for consideration is:

3 “Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of adjudicating the 1st respondent as an insolvent and to set-aside the regd. Sale deed executed by R1 as prayed for?”

5)Point:- “Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of adjudicating the 1st respondent as an insolvent and to set-aside the regd. Sale deed executed by Respondent No.1 as prayed for?”

It is the version of the petitioner by examining himself as PW1 that on 25-6-2012, the 1st respondent borrowed any amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from him by executing a demand promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., and thereafter failed to discharge the debt due by him under the said promissory note. It is the version of the petitioner that with a view to avoid the payment of the debt due by him, the 1st respondent registered a sale deed, dt.26-6-2013 in favour of the 2nd respondent and therefore it is necessary to declare the 1st respondent as insolvent and to set-aside the sale deed executed by him in favour of the 2nd respondent.

6)It is the version of the respondent No.1 by examining himself as

RW1 that she never borrowed an amount from the petitioner herein under the alleged promissory note and that the alleged promissory note was fabricated by the petitioner by misutilising the blank promissory note obtained from the creditors of herself of her husband. It is the version of the 1st respondent that the property covered under Ex.A2 sale deed was not in her possession which was already alienated to Respondent No.2 by way of registered sale deed, dt.26-6-2013.

It is also the version of RW2, who is the husband of 1st respondent 7) 4 that they sold away the schedule property to the 2nd respondent and that the alleged promissory note was never executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner by taking consideration under the same and the same is fabricated by the petitioner.

PW1 during his cross-examination admitted that the 1st respondent 8) executed sale deed in favour of 2nd respondent and immediately he has not issued any notice to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. He deposed that even prior to filing of the present insolvency petition also he did not issue any notice.

9)From the evidence of petitioner and by perusing the documents filed by the petitioner, it is to be seen that even before filing of the present insolvency petition itself, the 1st respondent already sold away the schedule property to the 2nd respondent under registered sale deed and the petitioner has not issued any legal notice either to the 1st respondent or to the 2nd respondent. Further it is not the version of the petitioner that he obtained decree in his favour against the 1st respondent and the alleged debt due under Ex.A1 promissory note was adjudicated by the date of filing of the present Insolvency Petition or till date. Further the petitioner also did not file any document showing the particulars of the creditors of the 1st respondent and with regard to the other debts incurred by the 1st respondent. There is no documentary proof for other creditors list.

Therefore, in view of the citation “ A.I.R.1958 page 528 Ram Narayana

Lal Vs.Abdul Kalam” wherein it was observed at paragraphs 9 & 10 that the petitioner shall furnish the amount and particulars of claims, the petitioner has not complied the provisions u/s.13(1)(d) of the Act. The 5 petitioner not yet obtained decree for recovery of money basing on the alleged promissory note debt. It was observed at Para No.6 in the decision reported in “ 2010(3) ALD 721 in Gunapati Radha Krishna

Reddy v. Cheemala Venkata Ramana and others” that - “The I.P. filed by a creditor under Section 9 of the Act, however, stands on a different footing. Before he invokes the jurisdiction of the insolvency Court, there must exist the adjudication of the debt or debts, vis-a-vis the proposed insolvent in his favour. That can be in the form of the decree passed by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction or an unequivocal declaration on the part of the proposed insolvent, before the proceedings are instituted. To put it differently, a creditor cannot institute proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, in the absence of any adjudication, as to the debts, or unequivocal admission thereof, by a person proposed to be declared as insolvent.”

Hence, inthe present petition also, as the petitioner not yet obtained any decree and the petitioner did not file any document showing the particulars of the creditors of the 1st respondent and with regard to the other debts incurred by the 1st respondent and as the 1st respondent already sold away the schedule property, and the petitioner not yet obtained any decree for recovery of the debt amount, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for and the present I.P. filed by him is not maintainable. Hence, this Point is answered accordingly against the petitioner.

10)In the result, petition is dismissed, without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of February, 2016.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioner:-

PW1: P.Bhavani Prasad

Respondents:-

RW1 : N.Naga Malleswari

RW 2: N.Anjaneyulu

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Petitioner:-

Ex.A1: 25-6-2012, C.C. of promissory note

Ex.A2 : 26-6-2013, C.C. of sale deed

Ex.A3 : 8-7-2013 , C.C. of plaint in O.S.852/13

Respondents:- -Nil-

II A.S.C.J, VJA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SRI S.RAMANAIAH, LL.M., II Addl., Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada

Tuesday, this the 23rd day of February, 2016

Original Suit No.692/2015

BETWEEN:

M/s.J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai,

rep. by its Mandate Holder Mr.Vemula Sai Giridhar...Plaintiff

AND

Valevelu Rajendra Babu ..Defendant

The suit coming on 12-2-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent and set exparte; and upon perusing all the material papers on record, this Court delivered the following:

:J U D G M E N T :

1.The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,46,636/- being the principal and interest due by the defendant to the plaintiff towards khata dealings carried in between the parties from 8-4-2011 to 29-6-2012 and interest is claimed on Rs.4,84,987/- as per khata copy, from 29-6-2012 to 27-6-2015 at 18% p.a. with subsequent interest at 18% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record. The suit filed for recovery of amount basing on khata. As per the affidavit of

PW1, the defendant used to purchase chemicals and pharmaceuticals on credit from the plaintiff on 8-4-2011 and thereby opened an account 2 (Khata) in the book of accounts of the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to supply material to the defendant as per the order placed by the defendant and the defendant used to make part-payments towards khata debt and as per the ledger of the plaintiff, the defendant owes an amount of

Rs.4,84,987/- to the plaintiff firm as on 29-6-2012 for the goods supplied by the plaintiff firm and the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.033466 drawn on The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Guntur, for Rs.4,84,987/- towards part-payment of khata debt on 29-6-2012 and when the plaintiff presented the said cheque for collection on 2-7-2012 with its banker IDBI

Bank Ltd., Vijayawada and the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” and thereupon the defendant had requested the plaintiff to present the cheque for collection once again on 10-8-2012 and the plaintiff again presented the said cheque for collection on 10-8-2012 and it was also returned dishonoured on the same reason, dt.10-8-2012 and thereupon the plaintiff got issued statutory notice, dt.17-8-2012 by Registered Post through his advocate and the defendant received the notice and kept quiet. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant was set exparte. The evidence of PW1 remained unchallaenged. To prove its version, the plaintiff filed documents Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 – dt.12-2-2015, Account copy, Ex.A2 – dt.29-6-2012, cheque bearing No.033466 for Rs.4,84,987/- Ex.A3 – dt.2-7-2012, cheque return memo, Ex.A4 – dt.10-8-2012, cheque return memo,

Ex.A5 – dt.17-8-2012, O/c of legal notice, Ex.A6 – dt.17-8-2012, Regd.

Post receipts(2 Nos.), Ex.A7 – Acknowledgement cards(2 Nos.). PW1 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A7. The suit claim is proved. Hence, the suit is decreed with costs.

4.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.7,46,636/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realisation on Rs.4,84,987/-.

Typed to my dictation to Personal Asst., corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 23rd day of February, 2016.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1: Vemula Sai Giridhar

FOR DEFENDANT: -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 – dt.12-2-2015, Account copy Ex.A2 – dt.29-6-2012, cheque bearing No.033466 for Rs.4,84,987/- Ex.A3 – dt.2-7-2012, cheque return memo Ex.A4 – dt.10-8-2012, cheque return memo Ex.A5 – dt.17-8-2012, O/c of legal notice Ex.A6 – dt.17-8-2012, Regd. Post receipts(2 Nos.) Ex.A7 – Acknowledgement cards(2 Nos.)

FOR DEFENDANT: -Nil-

II A.S.C.J, VJA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: Smt.B.GAYATHRI,

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge.

Friday, this the 12th day of February, 2016.

I.P.NO.75/2014

Between:

Inampudi Venkata Siva Prasad .. Petitioner

And

1. Kota Ramakrishna

2. Jinca Chakradhar

3. Gade Srinivasa Rao .. Respondents

This petition coming on 5-2-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Vivekananda Murthy, advocate for Petitioner and the Respondents having been called absent and set exparte and upon perusing all the material papers on record, this Court delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

1. The petition is filed by the petitioner u/s.10 of Provincial

Insolvency Act prays the Court to adjudicate the petitioner as an insolvent and for costs.

2

2.The petitioner filed his chief examination affidavit and stated that the petitioner previously done business in scrap and Liquor under the name and style of Bhavani Wines at Vijayawada and sustained heavy loss and in his business and the Income-Tax Department, Vijayawada without verifying Day books, statement of bank accounts, issued notices for payment of fine for heavy amounts and for discharging the previous debts, he borrowed several amounts from the creditors/respondents and indebted to respondents 1 to 3 for Rs.7,00,000/- and he gave several blank promissory notes by only signing on them and as the respondents made his life is miserable and deplorable, hence the Petition.

3.Respondent Nos.1 to 3 set exparte.

4.Heard for petitioner.

5. Now, the Point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of declaring him

as an insolvent?”

6. PW1 was examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the petitioner side. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on respondents' side.

7. Heard.

3

8. Point No.1:-

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of declaring him

as an insolvent?”

As per the version of the petitioner, he previously done business in scrap and Liquor under the name and style of Bhavani Wines at

Vijayawada and sustained heavy loss and in his business and the Income-

Tax Department, Vijayawada without verifying Day books, statement of bank accounts, issued notices for payment of fine for heavy amounts and for discharging the previous debts, he borrowed several amounts from the creditors/respondents and indebted to respondents 1 to 3 for Rs.7,00,000/- and he gave several blank promissory notes by only signing on them and he could not discharge the said debts due to heavy loss in his business, the respondents are threatening him for the debts due by him.

9. By perusing the record, it is to be seen that it is the version of the petitioner that he sustained heavy loss in his business, for which he had not filed any proof regarding the loss of his business. The petitioner simply mentioned the names of the respondents against the amounts without mentioning the dates of transactions. The petitioner simply filed petition without any documentary evidence. Therefore, the citation shown in A.I.R.1958 page 528 Ram Narayana Lal Vs.Abdul Kalam, paragraphs 9 & 10 is applicable to the present petition that the petitioner shall furnish in his petition the particulars of debts. Thus the petitioner 4 has not complied the provisions u/s.13(1)(d) of the Act. In view of my foregoing observations, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief.

Hence, the Point is answered accordingly.

10.In the result the petition is dismissed, without costs.

Typed to my dictation to Personal Asst., corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of February, 2016.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

P.W.1 : Inampudi Venkata Siva Prasad

FOR RESPONDENTS:

-None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER :

-Nil-

FOR RESPONDENTS:

-Nil-

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.