Sri B.kiran Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION): ATMAKUR,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

File No: Original Suit No.101 of 2017

Judgment of : Sri. B.Kiran Kumar, Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Atmakur

Instituted on: 30-08-2017

Parties: Intha Vengala Reddy S/o.Subba Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 56 Years, Cultivation, residing at Madapalli Village, Chejarla

Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ... Plaintiff

Versus

Korsipati Gopal Reddy S/o.Narapa Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 36 Years, residing at Rajupalem Village, Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR

Nellore District. ... Defendant

Date of hearing: 07-04-2022

Delivered on: 07-04-2022

Representation

The counsel for : Sri.S.Mahadeva Reddy plaintiff

The Counsel for : Sri. K.V.Sesha Reddy defendant

This suit is coming today for final hearing before me and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth deliver the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,21,424/- being the principal and interest due under two promissory notes executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 07-10-2016 & 06-11-2016 respectively and for costs of the suit.

2.The plaint averments in nutshell as follows :

That the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 07-10-2016 & 06-11-2016 and executed two separate promissory notes each for

Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff promising to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum repayable on demand. Subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the same in spite of repeated oral demands made for the same and also lawyer’s notice 2/5 OS No.101 of 2017

dated 14-08-2017 which was received by him. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to

instituted the present suit for recovery of amount.

3.The defendant filed written statement. The defendant denied all the allegations made in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted herein to be true and put the plaintiff strict proof of the same. The defendant pleaded that he did not borrow any amount under the suit promissory notes 1 and 2 and those are either forged or obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation and the plaintiff originally belonged to

Rajupalem and he left the village 15 years back. The plaintiff is having some land in the village and he used to come to the village now and then. In that connection the defendant borrowed some amounts in the year 2011 and repay the same in time. The plaintiff used to remove the stamps on discharged promissory notes and kept him and the plaintiff asked the defendant to purchase his land for which the defendant refused due to bore grudge the plaintiff created the suit promissory notes to pressure him to come his terms either by forgery or taking advantage of having discharged promissory notes with him and filed the suit to have wrongful gain to him and to cause wrongful loss to the defendant. There is no cause of action for the suit and alleged cause of action is not maintainable under law and the suit is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice.

4.Based on the above pleadings the following issues are framed: Issues :

(i) Whether the suit promissory note dated 07-10-2016 is true, valid and executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

5. For the sake of convenience recast the issues :

(i) Whether the suit promissory note dated 07-10-2016 & 06-11-2016 are true, valid and executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff?

3/5 OS No.101 of 2017

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff is examined himself as Pw1 and exhibited

Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents on his behalf and the scribe and attestors of Ex.A1 & A2 promissory notes examined as Pw2 to Pw4. On the other hand, the defendant did not enter into witness box to give evidence on his behalf and no documents are exhibited.

7.Perused material on record and heard both sides.

Issue No.1 & 2 :

8.The plaintiff is examined as Pw1 by way of filing of chief examination affidavit and testified that on 07-10-2016 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and again on 06-11-2016 the defendant also borrowed another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from Pw1 duly executed two promissory notes i.e. Ex.A1 and A2 agreeing to repay with interest at the rate of 18% per annum to Pw1 or his order on demand but in spite of legal notice

dated 14-08-2017 i.e. Ex.A3 the defendant did not choose to repay the debt under Ex.A1

and A2. Both Ex.A1 and A2 are scribed by Pw2 and attested by Pw3 and Pw4 at the time of transaction as it is the evidence of Pw1 to Pw4 who corroborated altogether in toto.

In the cross examination of Pw1, it is elicited that the defendant is relative of Pw1 and transaction both Ex.A1 and A2 took place in Madapalli Village. Pw2 who scribed Ex.A1 and A2 documents denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 and A2 are forged and fabricated for the purpose of wrongful gain.

9.Pw2 categorically deposed in his chief examination that he scribed both Ex.A1 and A2. Pw3 and Pw4 deposed that they attested Ex.A1 and A2 scribed by Pw2 and the defendant received consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- each on two different dates i.e. on the dates of execution of Ex.A1 and A2 agreeing to repay the same at the rate of 18% per annum. In the cross examination of Pw3, nothing is elicited in favour of defendant 4/5 OS No.101 of 2017 except denying the execution of Ex.A1 and A2 by the defendant as well as cross examination of Pw4 also revealed that he knew Pw1 since his childhood and as per the cross examination the defendant is none other than relative of Pw1. Thus, the transaction under Ex.A1 and A2 coupled with direct oral testimonies of Pw1 to Pw4 is proved that the defendant executed Ex.A1 and A2 by receiving consideration of

Rs.1,00,000/- under each promissory note and did not choose to repay in spite of demands through legal notice i.e. Ex.A3 by Pw1.

10.The defendant did not enter into witness box to adduce any kind of evidence hence an adverse inference can be drawn. There is no other evidence on record to disprove the testimony of Pw1 to Pw4. The evidence of Pw1 to Pw4 coupled with Ex.A1 to

A5 documents is cogent and convincing and it is established and proved that the defendant executed Ex.A1 & A2 promissory notes and received Rs.1,00,000/- under each promissory note from Pw1 scribed by Pw2 and attested by Pw3 and Pw4.

11.In view of foregoing discussion, it is held that the plaintiff has discharged initial burden and proved the execution of Ex.A1 & A2 by the defendant in respect of passing of consideration as per Ex.A1 & A2 suit promissory notes. Therefore, the presumption

Under Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act operates in favour of the plaintiff and the same is not rebutted by the defendant. Hence, it is held that the Ex.A1 & A2 suit pronote are true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with costs and future interest from the defendant. Accordingly, issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.3 : “To what relief?”

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.2,21,424/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs twenty one thousand four hundred and twenty four only) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of 5/5 OS No.101 of 2017 decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).

(Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-).

Partly directly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to Stenographer Grade- III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 7th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

ATMAKUR

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff:

Pw1: I.Vengal Reddy

Pw2: G.Prasad Reddy

Pw3: M.Subbarayudu

Pw4: P.Srinivasulu For Defendant:

-NONE-

Documents Marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note No.1 dated 07-10-2016.

Ex.A2: Suit promissory note No.2 dated 06-11-2016.

Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice dated 14-08-2017.

Ex.A4: Postal receipt.

Ex.A5: Postal acknowledgment For Defendant:

-NIL- Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

Civil Judge (Jr. Division)

Atmakur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ATMAKUR,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

File No: Crime No.89/2015 in CC No.194 of 2015 of Atmakur Police station

Judgment of : Sri. B.Kiran Kumar, Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

Parties: Complainant : State Rep.by Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police station.

Versus

Accused : Acholu Pappireddy @ Pappaiah S/o.Bayapareddy @ Bayanna, Aged about 27 Years, Ramaswamypalli Village of Atmakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Hearing on: 08-04-2022

Delivered on: 08-04-2022

Representation

The counsel for: Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prosecution/ Complainant

Thedefence: Sri. M.Venkateswarlu counsel for the accused

The Law: U/Sec.341, 324 IPC

The case stood over for consideration till this day. I have perused the material on record, heard both the counsels and delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.341, 324 IPC in Crime No.89/2015 of Atmakur police station.

2.The averments of final report in brief as follows :

That the Pw1 (Vaddiboina Dasaradharami Reddy) owned land an extent of

Ac.15.00 cents in Ramaswamypalli village and raising lemon garden in some extent of said land and arranging some ridges with the help of Lw3 (N.Subbarayudu) for watering to the lemon garden. On 27-05-2015 morning, Pw1 visited the lemon garden noticed that 2/5 CC No.194 of 2015 4 cattle's of the accused trespassed into his garden and destroyed the ridges arranged in the garden. On that Pw1 was coming the 4 cattle's by drive them to the house of accused and inform the matter. At about 8.00 hours, when Pw1 reached on Kothapalli path way, the accused restraining Pw1 by abusing how dare to drive his cattle and beat with stone on the behind of head on the right side and caused bleeding injury. Later, Pw1 gave a report to Lw7 (S.Sai Prasad, ASI, Atmakur police station) who registered the same as a case in Crime No.89/2015 for the offence punishable Under Sec.341, 324 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation Lw7 examined witnesses and recorded their statements, visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, arrested the accused on 05-06-2015 and sent him for judicial custody. Lw6 (Dr.P.Subhashini) who treated the

Pw1 and issued wound certificate opined that the injury is simple in nature. Thereafter, completion of investigation Lw8 (G.Venugopal Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur police station) filed charge sheet.

3.The cognizance is taken for the offence U/Sec.341, 324 IPC, in accordance with

Sec.190(b) of Cr.P.C based on the facts of police report/charge sheet submitted by Sub-

Inspector of Police, Atmakur which satisfy the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings against the accused.

4.The accused appeared and the copies of police report and other relevant documents were furnished free of cost as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. After complying Sec.207 Cr.P.C, the particulars of the offence and the charges of which he is accused is stated to him in Telugu and asked whether he pleads guilty and thereby complied Sec.239 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. I have proceeded to hear the prosecution and taken down the evidence of Pw1 and Ex.P1 is exhibited in support of the prosecution and the prosecution evidence is closed. Thereafter, the accused is examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the purpose of enabling 3/5 CC No.194 of 2015 the accused personally to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and he denied the same. The accused called for defence, but he stated that he has no defence evidence.

6.Then after, learned APP for the prosecution and defence counsel for the accused addressed their concise oral arguments in compliance with Sec.314 Cr.P.C and no memorandum of arguments is submitted on either sides. I have heard both the arguments.

7.Now the point for determination is:-

(i) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.341, 324 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

THE EVIDENTIARY FACTORS OF DETERMINATION:-

8.The testimony of Pw1(V.Dasaradharami Reddy) is that on 27-05-2015 in between 7.00 am to 8.00 am he went to Ramaswamypalli from Atmakur to visit his lemon garden and found 4 cattle in his lands and destroyed the water channels to his lemon trees and the cattle belongs to accused. Pw1 was driving the cattle to the house of accused, in the meanwhile the accused came to him by running and abused him in filthy language. The accused also beat Pw1 with stone on the back region of head resulting bleeding injury.

Immediately he went to police station and lodged compliant. Ex.P1. Police referred him to PHC, Atmakur and police examined him.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REASONS THERE OF:

9.The evidence of Pw1 is that on 27-05-2015 in between 7.00 to 8.00 am Pw1 went to his village i.e. Ramaswamipalli from Atmakur and visited lemon garden. Pw1 found 4 cattle's in his land which destroyed water channels to lemon trees and cattle's belongs to accused. That when Pw1 was driving out the cattle to the house of accused, in the meanwhile the accused came to Pw1 by running and abused him in filthy language. Pw1 4/5 CC No.194 of 2015 did not whisper the exact words used by accused allegedly used to abuse Pw1 and how and in what manner the accused used filthy language is not spoken. Pw1 further deposed that accused beat him with stone on the back region of head resulting bleeding injury and immediately Pw1 went to police station and police referred him to

PHC, Atmakur after receiving report of Pw1.

10.In the cross examination, Pw1 categorically admitted that he have land disputes with regard to path way with accused and also that the accused filed civil suit for recovery of money against Pw1 based on promissory note and thus, the enemity and differences in between Pw1 and accused is established. Lw6 i.e. medical officer who examined Pw1 and issued wound certificate is not examined to believe that Pw1 sustained head injury due to stone. Further there is no whisper in the evidence of Pw1 that Lw2 to Lw5 witnessed the occurrence and they also not examined to corroborate the testimony of Pw1. The investigating officers i.e. Lw7 and Lw8 are also not examined in spite of several adjournments granted and the prosecution did not evidence interest to secure the witnesses. Thus the injury of Pw1 caused due to stone is not established and the other eye witnesses Lw2 to Lw5 are also not examined to believe that accused beat

Pw1 with stone resulting injury. The non examination of Lw6 to Lw8 is very much fatal to the prosecution and there is corroborative evidence of Pw1. It is not to safe believe the only evidence of Pw1 to corroborating even at least the evidence of Lw6 i.e. medical officer to establish injury. Thus it is not proved that accused caused injury to Pw1 with stone and specific words of filthy language is also not spoken by Pw1 in his evidence and it is very much fatal to the prosecution case. The burden lies on the prosecution but failed to do so.

11.In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to establish and prove that accused wrongfully restrained the Pw1 and abused him in filthy language and beat with stone 5/5 CC No.194 of 2015 resulting injury and thereby prosecution miserably failed to establish that accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.341, 324 IPC.

12.For the reasons stated above, it is held that the prosecution did not establish that accused wrongfully restrained the Pw1 and abused in filthy language and sustained injuries in the hands of accused and that the charge U/Sec.341, 324 IPC is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the point is answered.

RESULT: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.341, 324 IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Partly directly typed to my dictation on computer and partly dictated to Stenographer Grade-III transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- B.Kiran kumar

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ATMAKUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution:For defence:

Pw1: V.Dasaradharami Reddy - NONE -

Documents marked

For prosecution:For defence:

Ex.P1: Complaint - NIL -

Sd/- B.Kiran kumar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Atmakur

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION): ATMAKUR,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

File No: Original Suit No.68 of 2020

Judgment of : Sri. B.Kiran Kumar, Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Atmakur

Instituted on: 04-03-2020

Parties: Plaintiff: Chittamuru Mallikarjuna Reddy S/o.Subbarami Reddy, Hindu, Business, Aged about 49 Years, residing at Atmakur Town & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Versus

Defendants:

1. Cherukuru Kowsalya W/o. Late Cherukuru Venkateswarlu

2. Cherukuru Anil S/o. Late Cherukuru Venkateswarlu

3. Cherukuru Abhilash S/o. Late Cherukuru Venkateswarlu

4. Cherukuru Anusha D/o. Late Cherukuru Venkateswarlu Aged about 59, 30, 28 and 25 Years respectively, Hindus, residing at 13th Ward, Back side of Old Andhra Bank, Near Bangalore Bakery, Atmakur Town & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Date of hearing: 08-04-2022

Delivered on: 08-04-2022

Representation

The counsel for : Sri. Sk.Nazeer plaintiff

The Counsel for : Set ex.Parte defendant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This suit is coming today for final hearing before me and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth deliver the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,71,000/- being the principal and interest due under the suit promissory note executed by deceased husband of D1 and father of D2 to

D4 in favour of the plaintiff on 10-03-2017 and for costs of the suit.

2.The plaint averments in nutshell as follows :

That the deceased husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants 2 to 4 by namely Cherukuru Venkateswarlu while he was alive borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 2/4 OS No.68 of 2020 from plaintiff on 10-03-2017 for his necessities and executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff undertaking to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. While so, the said Venkateswarlu died on 05-09-2019 intestate leaving behind defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the estate of late Venkateswarlu. After the death of said Venkateswarlu, the plaintiff demanded defendants 1 to 4 to discharge the promissory note debt but they failed to pay and that plaintiff got issued legal notice on 28-01-2020 demanding payment of defendants 1 to 4, the 2nd defendant received the notice but the other defendants managed to receive the said notices and so returned unserved. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of suit promissory note debt.

3.During the course of trial the plaintiff is examined himself as Pw1 and exhibited

Ex.A1 to A4 are marked on his behalf. On the other hand, no witnesses was examined and no exhibits are marked on behalf of the defendants since the defendants 1 to 3 are set ex.parte and the suit against D4 is dismissed for default.

4.Perused material on record and heard plaintiff’s counsel.

5. Now the Point that arise for determination are :

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled recover of Rs.1,71,000/- i.e. suit claim as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

Point No. 1: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?”

6.The plaintiff is examined as Pw1 and filed chief examination affidavit. Pw1 testified that the husband of D1 and father of D2 to D4 namely Cherukuru

Venkateswarlu while he was alive borrowed borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10-03-2017 for his necessities and duly executed Ex.A1 is promissory note agreeing to repay with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to Pw1 or his order on demand. In spite 3/4 OS No.68 of 2020 of demands made by Pw1, the said Cherukuru Venkateswarlu did not pay any portion of debt under Ex.A1 and the said Cherukuru Venkateswarlu died on 05-09-2019 intestate leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs who succeed and inherit the estate of late Cherukuru Venkateswarlu. Pw1 further testified that after the death of Cherukuru

Venkateswarlu, Pw1 demanded D1 to D4 to pay the debt under Ex.A1 but they did not choose to pay and got issued Ex.A3 legal notice to defendants but the D2 received the same and D1, D3 and D4 unserved. Therefore, Pw1 is constrained to institute the present suit for recovery of money under Ex.A1 along with interest to the tune of Rs.1,71,000/-.

7.The defendants 1 to 3 are set ex.parte and did not contest and the suit against defendant No.4 is dismissed for default. Thus, the evidence of Pw1 remained unchallenged and it is established and proved that husband of D1 and father of D2 to D4 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10-03-2017 from Pw1.

8. In view of foregoing discussion, it is held that the plaintiff has discharged initial burden and proved the execution of Ex.A1 by the husband of D1 and father of D2 to D4 in respect of passing of consideration as per Ex.A1 is suit promissory note. Therefore, the presumption under Sec.118 Negotiable Instrument Act operates in favour of the plaintiff and the same is not rebutted by the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with costs and future interest from the defendants.

Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

Point No.2:“To what relief?”

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against D1 to D3 jointly and severally to the extent of estate of deceased by name Cherukuru Venkateswarlu for Rs.1,71,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy one thousand only ) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and 4/4 OS No.68 of 2020 thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only).

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION)

ATMAKUR

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW1 : Ch.Mallikarjuna Reddy -NONE- Documents Marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Promissory note dated 10-03-2017.

Ex.A2: Office copy of the Legal Notice dated 28-01-2020.

Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment

Ex.A4: Unserved notices to D1, D3 and D4.

For Defendant: -NIL- Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

Civil Judge (Jr. Division)

Atmakur

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION): ATMAKUR,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

Dated this the 7th day of April, 2022

Present: - Sri. B.KIRAN KUMAR,

Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Atmakur

Original Suit No. 11 of 2017

Kancherla Seethamma W/o.Ramanaiah, Aged about 75 Years, Hindu, native of Chiramana Village, A.S.Peta

Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.... Plaintiff

Vs

1. Kovi Venkatarathnamma W/o.Late Vengaiah, Aged about 50 Years, Hindu, Cultivation

2. Bandi Bhagyamma W/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged about 52 Years, Hindu, Cultivation

3. Bandi Kishore S/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged about 30 Years, Hindu, Cultivation

4. Manyam Venkataramanaiah S/o.Ramanaiah, Aged about 55 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, All are residents of Chiramana Village, A.S.Peta Mandal, SPSR Nellore

District.... Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri. M.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri. M.Mallikarjuna Babu, Advocate for Defendants, and this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, and supporters from trespassing and occupying and to change the physical features of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff in what so ever manner and for costs of the suit.

2. Plaintiff called absent. Counsel again requested time. It appears plaintiff is not interested. Hence, the suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

Civil Judge, (Jr. Division),

Atmakur Appendix of Evidence, Witnesses examined. For Plaintiff: For Defendants: - NONE –

Exhibits marked. - NIL - Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

Civil Judge, (Jr. Division),

Atmakur

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION): ATMAKUR,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

Dated this the 7th day of April, 2022

Present: - Sri. B.KIRAN KUMAR,

Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Atmakur

Original Suit No. 11 of 2017

Kancherla Seethamma W/o.Ramanaiah, Aged about 75 Years, Hindu, native of Chiramana Village, A.S.Peta

Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.... Plaintiff

Vs

1. Kovi Venkatarathnamma W/o.Late Vengaiah, Aged about 50 Years, Hindu, Cultivation

2. Bandi Bhagyamma W/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged about 52 Years, Hindu, Cultivation

3. Bandi Kishore S/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged about 30... Defendants

Years, Hindu, Cultivation

4. Manyam Venkataramanaiah S/o.Ramanaiah, Aged about 55 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, All are residents of Chiramana Village, A.S.Peta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, and supporters from trespassing and occupying and to change the physical features of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff in what so ever manner and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on: 01-03-2017 Suit is valued at Rs.10,000/- CF of Rs.786/- is paid U/Sec.26 (c) of APCF & SV Act.

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri. M.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri.M.Mallikarjuna Babu, Advocate for Defendants and this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE :

(a) That the suit is dismissed for default.

(b) That there be no order as to costs.

Particulars of Costs For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

(Neither party filed memo of costs)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of April,2022.

Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

Civil Judge, (Jr. Division),

Atmakur

PLAINT SCHEDULE

SPSR Nellore District Registration – Atmakur Sub-Registation District – A.S.Peta Mandal,

Chiramana Village, Patta No.1810, S.No.928, full extent Ac.4-44 cents out of which an extent of

Ac.1-55 cents within the following boundaries :

East: Cheruvu Katta.

South: Lands of Kovi Venkata Rathnamma (1st defendant).

West: Baavi and village site.

North: Some extent village tank bund and to some extent Government land.

Civil Judge, (Jr. Division),

Atmakur

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : ATMAKUR,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

Dated this the 8th day of April, 2022

Present: - Sri B.KIRAN KUMAR,

Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Atmakur

Original Suit No: 68 of 2020

Chittamuru Mallikarjuna Reddy S/o. Subbarami Reddy, Hindu, Business, Aged about 49 Years, residing at Atmakur Town & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

... Plaintiff

Versus

1. Cherukuru Kowsalya W/o. Late Venkateswarlu

2. Cherukuru Anil S/o. Late Venkateswarlu

3. Cherukuru Abhilash S/o. Late Venkateswarlu

4. Cherukuru Anusha D/o. Late Venkateswarlu Aged about 59, 30, 28 and 25 Years respectively, Hindus, residing at 13th Ward, Back side of Old Andhra Bank, Near Bangalore Bakery, Atmakur Town & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

... Defendants

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,71,000/- being the principal and interest due under the suit promissory note executed by deceased husband of D1 and father of D2 to D4 in favour of the plaintiff on 10-03-2017 and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 04-03-2020 Suit value is at Rs.1,71,000/- CF of Rs.4226/- is paid U/Sec.20 of APCF and SV Act DECREE: This suit is coming before this court on 08-04-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Sk.Nazeer, Advocate for plaintiff and there is no representation on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 remained ex-parte, and the suit against D4 is dismissed for default, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:-

a) that the suit is decreed with costs against D1 to D3 jointly and severally to the extent of estate of deceased by name Cherukuru Venkateswarlu for Rs.1,71,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and

Seventy one thousand only ) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only).

b) that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.7478/- towards costs of the suit and the defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.NIL (Costs memo is not filed on defendant side).

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION)

ATMAKUR

Particulars of costs

For Plaintiff For Defendants

Stamp on PlaintRs.4226-00 - NIL - Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 Process 200-00 (Costs memo is not filed on Type charges 50-00 behalf of defendants) Advocate Fee 3000-00 TotalRs.7478-00

Sd/- B.Kiran Kumar

Civil Judge (Jr. Division)

Atmakur