Smt. B. Sadhana

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SMT. BOLLEPALLY SADHANA,

XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THIS THE 21stDAY OF APRIL, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 2931 OF 2022

Between:

TUMMALA YADAGIRI, S/o. Late T. Sathaiah, aged 67 years, Occ: Retired Government Servant, R/o. 17-8- 454/1, Yakatpura, Hyderabad. … PLAINTIFF

A N D

1.THE BRANCH MANAGER, Central Bank of India, Rein Bazar Branch, Hyderabad.

2.T. LAXMI BAI, D/o. Late T. Sathaiah, aged 69 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o. 13-4-226, Sagar Veedhi, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad – 500067, T.S.

3.T. MANOHARA @ K. MANORAMA, D/o Late Sathaiah, Aged 65 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 3- 13-94/10,SrinivasaPuramColony, Ramanthapuram, Hyderabad.

4.T. VAZRA @ T. VAJRA, D/o Late T. Sathaiah, aged 62 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o. 2-3-153, Madhav Nagar, Sanga Reddy – 502001, T.S.

5.T. PRAKASH, S/o. Late T. Sathaiah, aged 60 years Occ : Retired Government Servant, R/o. 13-

2

OS. NO. 2931 OF 2022

4-226, Sagar Veedhi, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad – 500067, T.S.

6.T. DURGA MALA, D/o. Late Sathaiah, aged 56 years, Occ : Private Service, R/o. 12-2-717/1/B, Plot No. G-101, Sapthagiri Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad – 500028, T.S. … DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming before me on 11-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Chayanam Ravindranath, counsel for the plaintiff and Sri K. Ranga Rao, counsel for the defendant No.1, defendant No.2 remained exparte, Sri V. Jagannath Rao, counsel for defendant No. 3 & 6, Sri G. Radha Krishna, counsel for

Defendants No. 4 & 5 and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.

1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) from the defendant No.1, along with interest.

2. Brief averments of the plaint :-

It is submitted that, on 18-11-2008 the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 8’s father T. Sathaiah and Mother T.

XXII JCJ, CCC, HYD

3

OS. NO. 2931 OF 2022

Buchamma jointly deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- as Term deposit vide

Receipt No. 794838 for Maturity value of Rs. 1,00,000/- and another Term deposit vide Receipt No. 794839 for maturity value of Rs. 50,000/- in the Defendant No.1 bank i.e., Central bank of

India. It is submitted that Plaintiff’s father died on 27th June, 2005 and his mother died on 20th November, 2009. It is submitted that plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 6 are the children of deceased T.

Sathaiah and T. Buchamma. The plaintiff sent legal notices to all the defendants No. 2 to 6 to join together to get the term deposit amount since they are not in talking terms after the death of their father.

It is submitted that Defendant No.1 took the said Term

Deposit receipts and dragging the matter in returning the said amounts, as such plaintiff left with no other alternative except to file the present suit for recovery of amount from Defendant No.1.

3. Written Statement filed by Defendant No. 1 :

The defendant No.1 admits that Smt. T. Buchamma and Sri

T. Sathaiah have deposited jointly with their bank, it is further

XXII JCJ, CCC, HYD

4

OS. NO. 2931 OF 2022

submitted that the defendant No.1 does not know the said depositors i.e T. Sathaiah and Smt. T. Buchamma have died on 27.06.2005 and 20.11.2009.

The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff herein approached this defendant No.1 bank and demanded to pay the deposited amounts of his parents to him and submitted the legal heir certificate issued by the revenue authorities, but as per the legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Authorities vide Lr.No.B/1855/2005 dt.13.09.2005 it is clear that the plaintiff herein i.e., Sri Tummala Yadagiri is not only the legal heir of Late

Sri T. Sathaiah S/o. Rajaram, but there were other members (i.e.,

Wife and Children of Late Sri T. Sathaiah) shown as legal heirs, further it is specifically mentioned in the said certificate that the said certificate is issued only to draw the pension benefits of the deceased i.e., Sri T. Sathaiah and not for any other purpose, as such this defendant bank expressed their inability to pay the amounts of the deceased persons to the plaintiff only, further it is submitted that all the legal heirs of deceased persons are entitled to their respective shares, hence this defendant No.1 bank asked

XXII JCJ, CCC, HYD

5

OS. NO. 2931 OF 2022

the plaintiff to produce specific orders /directions from the concerned court regarding the shares and entitlement of quantum of amount individually by all the legal heirs.

4. Summons to defendant No.2 were issued through paper publication in Nava telangana Telugu News paper. Proof of publication filed. Defendant No.2 called absent without representation. Hence, she was set exparte on 20-02-2024.

5. Written Statement filed by Defendant No. 4 & 5 :

It is admitted that, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 to 6 are legal heirs of Late T. Buchamma (Mother) and T. Sattaiah (father) and it is submitted that on 18-11-2008, their Mother and father have jointly deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- vide Receipt

No. 794838 for Maturity Value of Rs. 1,00,000/- and another term deposit vide Receipt No. 794839 for Rs. 50,000/- for Maturity value of Rs. 50,000/- later on the father of Plaintiff and

Defendants No. 2 to 6 have died on 27-06-2005 and mother died on 28-09-2009.

It is submitted that, both the Defendants No. 4 and 5 came

XXII JCJ, CCC, HYD

6

OS. NO. 2931 OF 2022

to know about the fixed deposit after the receiving the suit summons. It is submitted that Defendants No. 4 and 5 have no objection for the issuance of the fixed deposit by the Defendant

No. 1 i.e., Central Bank of India, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad Branch in favour of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 2 to 6 in equal shares.

It is further submitted that, Late T. Buchamma and T.

Sattaiah both are died intestate and except the Plaintiff and

Defendants No. 2 to 6, there are no other legal heirs of the deceased Late T. Buchamma and T. Sattaiah. It is further submitted that Late T. Buchamma and T. Sattaiah have acquired land in Sy. No. 119 and 120 situated at Islapur Village, Patancheru

Mandal and also land in Sy. No. 138 situated at Chawni Nude Ali

Baig, Yakutpura, Hyderabad and the Plaintiff and the Defendants

No. 2 to 6 are supposed to get equal share in the said lands.

It is therefore prayed this Hon'ble Court to pass judgment and decree as prayed by the Plaintiff in the interest of justice.

s

6. Written Statement filed by Defendant No. 6 :

Defendant No. 6 submits that she came to know about the

XXII JCJ, CCC, HYD

7

OS. NO. 2931 OF 2022

fixed deposits only after filing the present case by the plaintiff. It is further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the details of legal heirs of late Sri T. Sathaiah and T.Buchamma. The defendant No.6 has no objection for the issuance of the fixed deposits by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 6 in equal shares.

It is further submitted that the legal heirs of Late T. Sathaiah and T. Buchamma are also fighting against the Government for the land admeasuring 55 acres in Sy. No. 119 and 120 of Islapur

Village, Patancheru Mandal and also submits that these legal heirs have also got equal shares in the land in Sy. No. 138 situated at

Chawni Nude Ali Baig, Yakutpura, Hyderabad vide Orders in OS.

No. 393 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad. Therefore it is prayed to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants No. 2 to 6 equally with regard to the fixed deposits with accrued interests.

7.The Defendant No. 3 has filed an adoption memo to adopt the written statement of Defendant No. 6.

8. Basing on the pleadings the following issues were framed for

XXII JCJ, CCC, HYD

8

OS. NO. 2931 OF 2022

conducting trail.

1. Whether the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 to 6 are entitled to Recover the Suit claim from the Defendant

No.1 as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

9.During trial of the suit, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6. On behalf of all the defendants, defendant No.5 was examined as DW1 and Ex. B1 was marked.

10. After the conclusion of trial, both the learned counsel submitted arguments. Plaintiff counsel also filed written submissions.

11. ANSWER TO ISSUE NO.1: The plaintiff, who got him self examined as PW.1, in his evidence deposed that defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are his brothers and sisters. Their parents had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, vide receipt No.794838 and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide receipt No.794839 in defendant No. 1's bank during their lifetime. Their father was died on 27-06-2005 and their mother was died on 20-11-2009. As legal heirs, the plaintiff

XXII JCJ, CCC, HYD

9

OS. NO. 2931 OF 2022

and defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are entitled to receive the deposited amount along with accrued interest, but defendant No. 1 i.e

Central Bank of India has refused to release the term deposits and as such plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant No.1.

12. Ex.A.1 is the Certified copy of Death Certificate of T.

Buchamma, which shows mother of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 6 was died on 20-11-2009. EX.A.2 is the Certified copy of Death

Certificate of T. Sathaiah, which shows father of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 6 was died on 27-06-2005. EX.A3 is the Office

Copy of Legal Notice, on perusal of it appears that before filing the present suit, legal notice was issued to defendant No.1 to release the suit claim. EX.A4 is the Certificate (Police not traced of

FDRs of Late T. Sathaiah and T. Buchamma, dated 30-11-2021).

EX.A5 is the Xerox copy of TDR No. 794838. EX. A6 is the Xerox copy of TDR No. 794839. EX. A5 and A6 are taken on record as per orders passed in IA. 156/25 and marked as Secondary Evidence.

From the reading of EX.A4, A5 and A6, it appears that on 18-11- 2004, parents of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 6 have deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No. F 794838

XXII JCJ, CCC, HYD

10

OS. NO. 2931 OF 2022

and Rs. 50,000/- vide receipt No. F 794839 with defendant No.1 and plaintiff lost the original fixed deposit receipts. Despite requesting the police of Rein Bazar to locate them, they were unable to trace the originals of Ex. A5 and A6, even after considerable efforts.

13. Defendant No.5 examined himself as Dw1 and got marked

EX.B1. EX.B1 are the Original Pan cards of D3 to D6, all the Pan cards establish that T. Sathaiah is the father of D3 to D6.

14.The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 6 collectively argued that they are the legal heirs of T. Sathaiah and T. Buchamma, who had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- with

Defendant No. 1 bank during their lifetime. Being the legal heirs they are entitled to receive the same. After their demise, plaintiff approached the D1 to receive the deposited amounts, but

Defendant No. 1 bank has refused to release the same infavour of plaintiff.

15.Defendant No. 1 argued that the parents of the plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 deposited the amount in their bank.

However, their only grievance is plaintiff approached them alone

XXII JCJ, CCC, HYD

11

OS. NO. 2931 OF 2022

to claim the deposited amount without involving the other legal heirs of T. Sathaiah and T. Buchamma. D1 argued that all legal heirs are entitled to receive their respective shares.

16. Upon hearing the arguments submitted by the learned counsels of both sides and upon perusal of averments of plaint and written statements, oral and documentary evidence of PW1 and DW1, I found that the plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are brother and sisters, whose parents deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- vide receipt No. F 794838 and Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No. F 794839 in

Defendant No. 1’s bank. Since both parents died intestate and Ex.

A5 and A6 do not mention a nominee, all legal heirs i.e plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are entitled to receive the deposited amount i.e Rs. 1,00,000/-, vide receipt No.794838 and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide receipt No.794839, equally along with accrued interest.

17.ANSWER TO ISSUE No. 2:

In view of my findings on Issue No 1, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed. Since the plaintiff and defendant No.2 to 6 are equally entitled to receive the deposited amount by their

XXII JCJ, CCC, HYD

12

OS. NO. 2931 OF 2022

parents under Ex.A5 and EX.A6, Defendant No. 1 is directed to pay the said amount along with accrued interest to the plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 in equal shares. Accordingly, the suit is decreed, but in the circumstances, without costs.

18. IN THE RESULT, suit of plaintiff is decreed without costs.

Defendant No.1 is directed to pay the deposited amount of Rs.

1,00,000/-, vide receipt No. F 794838 and an amount of Rs.

50,000/- vide receipt No. F 794839to the plaintiff and Defendant

Nos. 2 to 6 in equal shares, along with accrued interest.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 21 st day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW1 Sri. Tummala YadagiriDW1 Sri. T. Prakash

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Certified copy of Death Certificate of T. Buchamma.

XXII JCJ, CCC, HYD

13

OS. NO. 2931 OF 2022

Ex.A2Certified copy of Death Certificate of T. Sathaiah.

Ex.A3Office Copy of Legal Notice.

Ex.A4Certificate (Police not traced of FDRS of Late T. Sathaiah and T. Buchamma, dated 30-11-2021).

Ex.A5Xerox copy of TDR No. 794838 (taken on record as per orders passed in IA. 156/25 and marked as Secondary Evidence)

Ex.A6Xerox copy of TDR No. 794839. (taken on record as per orders passed in IA. 156/25 and marked as Secondary Evidence)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1 Original Pan Cards of D3 to D6

Sd/-

XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

XXII JCJ, CCC, HYD

O.S. No. 2350 of 2014 I.A. No. 169 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt. BOLLEPALLY SADHANA,

XXII Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Friday, this the 10th day of March, 2023

Interlocutory Application No. 169 of 2021

In

Original Suit No. 2350 of 2014

Between:

1. Katuri Hari Hara Rao, S/o. Katuri Subba Rao, (Died Per Lrs)

2. Katuri Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Katuri Hari Hara Rao, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Household

3. Katuri Jagadesh Babu, S/o. Late Ka- turi Hari Hara Rao, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business.

4. Ungarala Padmaja, D/o. Late. Katuri Hari Hara Rao, aged about 38 years, Occ: Household.

5. Katuri Suresh, S/o. Late. Katuri Hari Hara Rao, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business.

6. Chatla Suma, D/o. Late Katuri Hari Hara Rao, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Household.

All R/o. Flat No. 405, Lakshmi Durga Apartments, KK Raju Green City, Eluru Mandalam, Eluru, West Godavari Dis- trict, Andhar Pradesh - 534001

.....Petitioners

AND

1. G. Ram Chandar Rao, S/o. Late G.J. Surya- narayana, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Propri- etor, M/s. Gandham Associates, R/o: H.No. 10-

2

O.S. No. 2350 of 2014 I.A. No.169 of 2021

3-7, Pall-mall Court, East Maredpally, Secun- derabad.

2. Dr.G. Aruna Raja Kumari, W/o.Late. Velangi Vijay Kumar, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Gov- ernment Doctor, R/o. H.No. 10-3-7, Pall-mall Court, East Maredpally, Secunderabad.

... Respondent/Defendants

This Petition is coming before me on 2.02.2023 for final hearing in the pres- ence of Sri P. Chandra Shekar, Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri N. Raga- van, Counsel for the Respondent and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following: -

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Order 22 rule 2 & 3 read with Section 151 of

Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’) with a prayer to bring on record the petitioner No.2 to 6 on record as plaintiff No.2 to 6 in O.S.No. 2350 of 2014 being the Lrs of the deceased sole plaintiff and pass such other order or or- ders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and the circumstances of the case.

2. Brief averments of the application:- The petitioner No.1 is the abso- lute owner and possessor of the entire residential flat bearing No. G1 situated on the ground floor of the building known as Annapurna Mansion. On 18.07.2006 the Petitioner No.1 had purchased the same under registered sale deed doc. No. 2798 of 2006 on the file of the district registrar of Hyderabad from Late. Katuri Venkateswara Rao. The petitioner No.1 filed the present suit seeking for permanent injunction of suit schedule property and when the suit was coming for cross examination of Petitioner No.1, he died on 03.05.2021, the Petitioner No.1 had died and leaving behind him, Petitioner No. 2 to 6 as the legal heirs i.e., petitioner No.2 is the wife of the deceased person, Peti- tioner No. 3 and 5 are the sons and Petitioner No. 4 and 6 are the daughters of the Petitioner No.1. Therefore, it is necessary to bring on record petitioner No.

2 to 6 in the suit O.S.No. 2350 of 2014 being Lrs of the deceased sole plaintiff.

3

O.S. No. 2350 of 2014 I.A. No.169 of 2021

On the other the respondent filed the counter:-

3. Brief averments of the counter:- The Respondent No. 1 herein De- fendant No.1 in the main suit. Respondent No.1 denied that Late Sri Katuri

Hari Hara Rao is the owner of the residential Flat bearing No.G1. The sale deed was not executed by Sri Katuri Venkateswara Rao nor by Respondent

No.1 nor by any valid or subsisting GPA holder. On 16.11.2009, the Sri Katuri

Venkateswara Rao passed away and he was hale and healthy in the year 2006 when the false sale deed was got into existence existing by Sri. G. Jagan

Mohan borrowing the name of petitioner No.1. The virtue of subsequent events and decree passed by Hon’ble II Addl Chief Judge in O.S.No. 372 of 2003,

dated 08.03.2007 and taking into account other factors and WILL executed

by Sri Katuri Venkateshwara Rao in favour of respondent No.1. Even the 40% share initially allotted to Sri Katuri Venkateshwara Rao was vested in respon- dent No.1. There was an injunction order dated 14.10.2004, passed by II Addl

Chief Judge Court, against Sri Katuri Venkateshwara Rao in I.A.No. 2816 of 2013 in O.S.No. 372 of 2003 in respect of suit schedule property. The property has not been sold by anybody. Thus, the property could not have been sold by any body.

It was also published in news paper to the public notice not to purchase any flats in the above said property. There is no valid title to the petitioner over suit schedule property. The Petitioner was not possession of suit schedule property and he was not resident of Hyderabad. The death certificate of the

Petitioners itself shows that the petitioner No.1 is resident of Krishna District.

The respondent No.1 is not aware about the relation between Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No. 2 to 6 and are put to strict proof of the same. The petition- ers herein filed legal heirs certificate issued by the concerned Hon’ble Court to prove that they are the only Legal heirs of the deceased person. The peti- tioner herein filed the petition only to harass the respondent No.1 and to grab the suit schedule property.

4.Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. Now the point for consideration is :

4

O.S. No. 2350 of 2014 I.A. No.169 of 2021

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as

prayed for?

6. Answer to Point:- It is the case of the petitioner that, the plaintiff in main suit is the father of petitioner No.3 to 6 and husband of petitioner No.2.

The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property and when it is coming for cross examination of PW1, he died on 3-5-2021 leaving behind him Petitioner No. 2 to 6 as his legal heir. It is therefore just and necessary to bring the petitioner No. 2 to 6 on record as plaintiff No. 2 to 6 in the main suit.

7.It is the case of the respondent that, the Plaintiff No. 1 is not the owner of suit schedule property and who was not in possession over suit schedule property and the sale deed was not executed by respondent nor any valid per- son and false sale deed was got into existence by Sri Jagan Mohan borrowing the name of Sri Katuri Hari Hara Rao non other than plaintiff No.1 and the suit schedule property has not been sold by anybody and also published in news- paper not to purchase any flats from Annapurna Mansion Bearing No: 10-2- 289/36, Shantinagar, Masab Tank. As such the first petitioner had no title over suit schedule property. The death certificate filed by the petitioner itself shows that Petitioner No.1 is the resident of Krishna District. The petitioner failed to file the legal heir certificate to prove that they are the legal heirs of Plaintiff

No.1.

8.Order 22 Rule 2 & 3 lays down the procedure in case one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff dies.

9.It lays down that where plaintiff dies, and the right to sue survives, the court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representa- tive of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with suit.

Therefore from the plain reading of order 22, Rule 2 & 3 cpc, clearly shows that the legal representations of the deceased plaintiff shall be made a party to suit.

5

O.S. No. 2350 of 2014 I.A. No.169 of 2021

10.Upon hearing submissions and upon persuing the record I found that

Plaintiff No.1 died on 3-5-2021 and family member certificate shows that the petitioner No.2 is the wife and Petitioner No. 3 to 6 are the sons and daughters of plaintiff. It is sufficient to bring the Lrs on record for proper adjudication of the suit. Whether the plaintiff is the owner or not and remaining things will be decided at the time of trial by adducing evidence on both sides.

11.In the present petition, the plaintiff passed away on 3.05.2021 and the petitioner No. 2 to 6 being the legal heirs of plaintiff shall be brought on records plaintiff No. 2 to 6.

In the result, this petition is allowed without cost.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 10th day of March, 2023.

XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court: Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

Petitioner/Plaintiff Respondents/Defendents

NILNIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

NIL

XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court: Hyderabad.

6

O.S. No. 2350 of 2014 I.A. No.169 of 2021

O.S. No. 1566 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT,

HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt. B.Sadhana,

XXII Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Thursday, this the 8th day of September, 2022

Original Suit No. 1566 of 2021

Between:

M/s. CANARA BANK, a nationalized bank constituted and functioning under the provisions of banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act V of 1970 with its head ofce situated 112, Jayachamarajender Rao, Bangalore – 560002 and branch among other places at JublieeHillsbranch,Hyderabad represented by its Senior Manager and GPA holder Shri N. Ranjit Naik, aged : 38 years, resident of Hyderabad.

… Plaintif

A N D

Shri Boompeli Alwal Reddy, S/o. Sri Bala Kista Reddy, age : Major, Occ. Business, H.No.8-6-73,MadhudanColony, Padmashalipuram, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy district.

… Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 30.08.2022 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri T.Nagender, counsel for the plaintif and the defendant was set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is fled for recovery of Rs.3,10,501.15 (rupees three Lakhs ten thousand fve hundred one and ffteen paisa only) with further interest thereon @ 12.25% per cent per annum compounded monthly from 01.12.2020 the date of suit till the date of full and fnal realization.

XXII JCJ, Hyderabad City Civil Court, Hyderabad

2 O.S. No. 1566 of 2021

2. Brief averments of the plaint:- Defendant approached the plaintif bank for loan facility of Rs.5,70,000/- (rupees fve lakhs seventy thousand only) for purchase of brand new four wheeler vehicle and submitted loan application on 25.3.2015 after scrutiny of loan application, plaintif bank sanctioned loan on 26.03.2015 against hypothecation of brand new four wheeler vehicle and defendant availed loan facility on 26.03.2015 for

Rs.5,70,000/- in 84 equated monthly installment of Rs.9,911/- commencing from 30.06.2015 and agreed to repay the same with interest. Defendant executed receipt on 26.3.2015, composite hypothecation agreement on 26.3.2015 and under the agreement defendant agreed to repay the loan facility but he did not maintain the account as per the terms and conditions and inspite of repeated requests and demands by the plaintif bank to regularize the account, defendant have committed default in discharge of the debt so the plaintif bank got issued legal notice to the defendant no.

21.12.2020 directing him to liquidate the entire balance outstanding in loan account within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The defendant failed to pay loan amount and he is due of Rs.3,10,501.15 paisa (rupees three Lakhs ten thousand fve hundred and one and ffteen paisa only) including interest. Despite issuance of legal notice on 21.12.2020, the defendant failed to repay the due amount.

3. Though summons was served against defendant, defendant did not choose to appear and contest the case. Hence, defendant was set ex- parte.

XXII JCJ, Hyderabad City Civil Court, Hyderabad

3 O.S. No. 1566 of 2021

4. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif. Perused the documents.

5. Now the points for determination are :-

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery Rs.3,10,501.15 (rupees three Lakhs ten thousand fve hundred one and ffteen paisa only) with further interest thereon @ 12.25% per cent per annum compounded monthly from 01.12.2020 the date of suit till the date of full and fnal realization as prayed?

2. To what relief ?

6. Point :- It is the specifc case of plaintif bank that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- (rupees fve lakhs seventy thousand only) from the plaintif bank for purchase of brand new four wheeler vehicle. Accordingly loan amount was sanctioned by the plaintif bank, the defendant availed loan facility and defendant acknowledge the receipt of said loan amount. The defendant agreed to repay the said loan amount of Rs.5,70,000/- in 84 equated monthly installment of Rs.9,911/- commencing from 30.06.2015 and agreed to repay the same with interest. Defendant failed to pay loan amount and he is due of Rs.3,10,501.15 paisa (rupees three Lakhs ten thousand fve hundred and one and ffteen paisa only) including interest and despite issuance of legal notice on 21.12.2020, the defendant failed to repay the due amount.

6.1After registration of suit, summons served on sole defendant but he failed appear before this Court and no one represented on his behalf. Hence he was set exparte. However the plaintif bank has to

XXII JCJ, Hyderabad City Civil Court, Hyderabad

4 O.S. No. 1566 of 2021

prove its case on its own not dependent on the weakness of defendant.

Inorder to prove the claim, the authorized signatory of the plaintif bank got himself examined as PW1 in his chief afdavit, reiterated the plaint averments and got marked the documents Exs.A1 to Ex.A6.

6.2Ex.A1 is original application form dated 25.03.2015, Ex.A2 is original receipt dated 26.3.2015, Ex.A3 is composite hypothecation agreement dated 26.3.2015, Ex.A4 is ofce copy of legal notice dated 21.12.2020, Ex.A5 is original statement of account from 01.1.2015 to 16.12.2020 along with original certifcate under section 2 2(A) of the

Banker’s Book of Evidence Act, 1891 (as amended) and Ex.A6 is notarized general power of attorney dated 14.8.2018.

6.3A perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, clinchingly proves that on 25.03.2015, defendant made an application for loan facility and on 26.3.2015 the defendant obtained Rs.5,70,000/- (rupees fve lakhs seventy thousand only) from the plaintif bank, agreeing to repay the same with interest.

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 contains the signature of defendant, at present defendant did not turn up to disprove that Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 do not contains his signature and he has not executed the same further defendant did not turn up to prove that he has not availed any loan facility. In the absence of such pleading this Court opines that Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are executed by defendant for availing loan facility. A perusal of the documents of plaintif bank Ex.A4 clinchingly proves that the plaintif bank got issued

XXII JCJ, Hyderabad City Civil Court, Hyderabad

5 O.S. No. 1566 of 2021

legal notice to the defendant to repay the loan amount with interest, the same was served on defendant. Ex.A5 establishes the outstanding amount due by the defendant to plaintif bank as on the date of fling of suit. Thus the evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 clinchingly proves that the defendant has availed vehicle loan of Rs.5,70,000/- (rupees fve lakhs seventy thousand only) from the plaintif bank and he failed to repay the same with interest even though the legal notice was got issued by the plaintif bank. Thus the evidence of PW1 coupled with

Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 clinchingly proves that the defendant has availed loan of

Rs.5,70,000/- (rupees fve lakhs seventy thousand only) from the plaintif bank and he failed to repay the same with interest even though the legal notice was got issued by the plaintif bank.

6.4Further the testimony of PW1, both oral and documentary evidence remained unrebutted. In the absence of any contra evidence produced on behalf of the defendant and in view of the evidence of PW1, coupled with Exs.A1 to Ex.A6 which is found to be reliable and convincing the plaintif bank is entitled to the suit claim, accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintif bank.

7.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.3,10,501.15 paisa (rupees three Lakhs ten thousand fve hundred and one and ffteen paisa only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.3,10,501.15 paisa (rupees three Lakhs

XXII JCJ, Hyderabad City Civil Court, Hyderabad

6 O.S. No. 1566 of 2021

ten thousand fve hundred and one and ffteen paisa only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 08th day of September, 2022.

XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW1 Sri N.Ranjit Naik- Nil -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

Ex.A1Original loan application dated- Nil - 25.03.2015.

Ex.A2Original receipt dated 26.03.2015.

Ex.A3Original composite hypothecation agreement dated 26.3.2015. Ex.A4Ofce copy of legal notice dated 21.12.2020. Ex.A5Original statement of account from 1.1.2015 to 16.12.2020 along with original certifcate u/s.2 2(A) of the Banker’s Book of Evidence Act, 1891 (as amended) EX.A6Notarized general power of attorney

dated 14.8.2018.

Sd/-

Smt.B.Sadhana XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

XXII JCJ, Hyderabad City Civil Court, Hyderabad

O.S. No. 1564 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt. B.Sadhana,

XXII Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Thursday, this the 8th day of September, 2022

Original Suit No. 1564 of 2021

Between:

M/s. CANARA BANK, a nationalized bank constituted and functioning under the provisions of banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act V of 1970 with its head office situated 112, Jayachamarajender Rao, Bangalore – 560002 and branch among other places at DPDO MASAB Tank, branch, Hyderabad represented by its branch manager Smt. K.Lakshmi, W/o. Sri Narendra Reddy, aged : 31 years, resident of Hyderabad.

… Plaintiff

A N D

Shri Mohammed Moin, S/o. Sri Mohd. Sardar, Age : Major, Occ. Business, H.No. 12-1-486/A/126/D/1, Kishan Nagar, Jhirra, Hyderabad – 500028.

… Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 30.08.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Nagender, counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant was set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,46,143.07 paisa (rupees two

Lakhs forty six thousand one hundred forty three and seven paisa only) with further interest thereon @ 11.65% per cent per annum compounded

XXII JCJ, Hyderabad City Civil Court, Hyderabad

2 O.S. No. 1564 of 2021

monthly from 01.12.2020 the date of suit till the date of realization.

2. Brief averments of the plaint:- Defendant approached the plaintiff bank for loan facility of Rs.2,90,000/- (rupees two lakhs ninty thousand only) for business development and submitted loan application on 09.10.2018, after scrutiny of loan application, plaintiff bank sanctioned loan on 9.10.2018 against hypothecation of stocks and defendant availed loan facility on 9.10.2018 for Rs.2,90,000/- in 60 equated monthly installment of Rs.6,225/- commencing from 30.11.2018 along with interest @10.05% per month and agreed to repay the same with interest. Defendant availed the loan facility after accepting the terms and conditions and executed receipt, composite hypothecation agreement for a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- on 9.10.2018.

3.As per terms of agreement defendant did not maintain the account regularly and committed default in repayment of loan amount. Inspite of repeated requests and demands by plaintiffs bank he failed to regularize the account and he is due of Rs.2,46,143.07 paisa (rupees two Lakhs forty six thousand one hundred and forty three and seven paisa only) including interest. Despite issuance of legal notice on 19.12.2020, the defendant failed to repay the due amount.

4. Though publication was issued against defendant, defendant did not choose to appear and contest the case. Hence, defendant was set exparte.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the documents.

XXII JCJ, Hyderabad City Civil Court, Hyderabad

3 O.S. No. 1564 of 2021

5. Now the points for determination are :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery Rs.2,46,143.07 paisa (rupees two Lakhs forty six thousand one hundred and forty three and seven paisa only) with further interest thereon @ 11.65% per cent per annum compounded monthly from 01.12.2020 the date of suit till the date of realization as prayed?

2. To what relief ?

6. Point :- It is the specific case of plaintiff bank that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- (rupees two lakhs ninty thousand only) from the plaintiff bank for business development.

Accordingly loan amount was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank, the defendant availed loan facility and defendant acknowledge the receipt of said loan amount. The defendant agreed to repay the said loan amount of Rs.2,90,000/- in 60 equated monthly installment of Rs.6,225/- commencing from 30.11.2018 and agreed to repay the same with interest. Defendant failed to pay loan amount and he is due of

Rs.2,46,143.07 (rupees two Lakhs forty six thousand one hundred and forty three and seven paisa only) including interest and despite issuance of legal notice on 19.12.2020, the defendant failed to repay the due amount.

6.1Inspite of issuance of paper publication against defendant he failed to appear before the counsel so he was set exparte. However the plaintiff bank has to prove its case on its own not dependent on the weakness of defendant.Inorder to prove the claim, the authorized

XXII JCJ, Hyderabad City Civil Court, Hyderabad

4 O.S. No. 1564 of 2021

signatory of the plaintiff bank got himself examined as PW1 in her chief affidavit, reiterated the plaint averments and got marked the documents

Exs.A1 to Ex.A7.

6.2Ex.A1 is original loan application form dated 09.10.2018, Ex.A2 is original letter of sanction dated 09.10.2018, Ex.A3 is original receipt dated 09.10.2018, Ex.A4 is original composite hypothecation agreement dated 11.10.2018, Ex.A5 office copy of legal notice dated 19.12.2020, Ex.A6 statement of account from dated 01.01.2020 to 17.12.2020 along with original certificate u/s. 2 2(A) of the Banker’s Book of Evidence Act, 1891 (as amended) and Ex.A7 is original authorization letter dated 30.8.2022.

6.3A perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, clinchingly proves that on 9.10.2018, the defendant obtained Rs.2,90,000/- (rupees two lakhs ninty thousand only) from the plaintiff bank, agreeing to repay the same with interest.

Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 contains the signature of defendant, at present defendant did not turn up to disprove that Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 do not contains his signature and he has not executed the same further defendant did not turn up to prove that he has not availed any loan facility. In the absence of such pleading this Court opines that Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are executed by defendant for availing loan facility. A perusal of the documents of plaintif bank Ex.A5 clinchingly proves that the plaintif bank got issued legal notice to the defendant to repay the loan amount with interest, the same was served on defendant. Ex.A6 establishes the outstanding amount due by the defendant

XXII JCJ, Hyderabad City Civil Court, Hyderabad

5 O.S. No. 1564 of 2021

to plaintif bank as on the date of fling of suit. Thus the evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 clinchingly proves that the defendant has availed loan of Rs.2,90,000/- (rupees two lakhs ninty thousand only) from the plaintif bank and he failed to repay the same with interest even though the legal notice was got issued by the plaintif bank. Thus the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 clinchingly proves that the defendant has availed loan of Rs.2,90,000/- (rupees two lakhs ninty thousand only) from the plaintiff bank and he failed to repay the same with interest even though the legal notice was got issued by the plaintiff bank.

6.4Further the testimony of PW1, both oral and documentary evidence remained unrebutted. In the absence of any contra evidence produced on behalf of the defendant and in view of the evidence of PW1, coupled with

Exs.A1 to Ex.A7 which is found to be reliable and convincing the plaintiff bank is entitled to the suit claim, accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank.

7.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.2,46,143.07 paisa (rupees two Lakhs forty six thousand one hundred and forty three and seven paisa only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.2,46,143.07 paisa (rupees two Lakhs forty six thousand one hundred and forty three and seven paisa only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

XXII JCJ, Hyderabad City Civil Court, Hyderabad

6 O.S. No. 1564 of 2021

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of September, 2022.

XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW1 Ms.B.Vanaja- Nil -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

Ex.A1Original loan application form dated- Nil - 9.10.2018

Ex.A2Original letter of sanction dated 09.10.2018

Ex.A3Original receipt dated 09.10.2018. Ex.A4Originalcompositehypothecation agreement dated 11.10.2018.

Ex.A5Office copy of legal notice dated 19.12.2020. EX.A6Original statement of account from 01.01.2020 to 17.12.2020 along with original certiicate under section 2 2(A) of the Banker’s Book of Evidence act, 1891

Ex.A7Original authorization letter dated 30.8.2022.

Sd/-

Smt.B.Sadhana XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

XXII JCJ, Hyderabad City Civil Court, Hyderabad

IN THE COURT OF THE IV JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

Present: SMT. BOLLEPALLY SADHANA,

XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC IV JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THIS THE 24th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 2533 OF 2024

Between:

UNION BANK OF INDIA, (A Govt of India undertaking) (Formerly) Andhra Bank, Credit Card Division, Koti, Hyderabad, Rep. By its Sr. Manager & Authorized Officer, Mr. Ch. V. Gopal Reddy, S/o. Mr. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, aged about 35 years, R/o. Hyderabad. … PLAINTIFF

A N D

SRI K. KALYAN KUMAR, S/o. Rama Murthy. K, Aged 40 years, Occ: Employee, R/o.H.No. 8-3- 228/678/1496P, Ground Floor, SHOA1B Residency, Sriram Nagar Yousuf Guda, Hyderabad – 500045. … DEFENDANT

This suit is coming before me on 04-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Bhagyaraju, counsel for the plaintiff and defendant was set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

2 OS. NO. 2533 OF 2024

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery ofRs. 99,432.32 ps/- (Rupees

Ninety Nine Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two and Thirty Two

Paise only) together with interest @ 2.95 % per month compounded monthly from date of the suit till realization.

2. Brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

On 23-11-2005, the defendant has approached the plaintiff bank and requested to issue credit card and submitted an application agreeing to the terms and conditions. The Plaintiff bank after completing necessary formalities issued bank credit card bearing No. 4373-xxxx-xxxx-5003 (CUST ID. 10319745) to the defendant. The plaintiff submits that the defendant utilized the said credit card facility from time to time and the said charges were debited to the defendant’s card account which was duly maintained by the plaintiff bank states that the monthly bills were issued to the defendant showing the amount debited and credited to defendant’s account with a request for payment of the amount due as per the bills.

IV JCJ, CCC, HYD

3 OS. NO. 2533 OF 2024

The defendant defaulted in repayment of the utilized amount from the credit card. The plaintiff states that as per the terms & conditions of issue of credit card, the defendant is liable to pay towards service charges at 2.95% p.m. on the outstanding balance and the same will be debited to the defendant’s account.

The plaintiff bank several times demanded the defendant to pay the amount, but the defendant failed to pay the amount due.

Hence the suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 99,432.32 ps/- (Rupees

Ninety Nine Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two and Thirty Two paise only) along with interest @ 2.95% from the date of suit till the date of realization till realization.

4.Despite service of summons, the sole defendant did not choose to appear and contest the case. Hence, the defendant was set exparte.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the documents.

6. Now the points for determination are :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery Rs.

IV JCJ, CCC, HYD

4 OS. NO. 2533 OF 2024 99,432.32 ps/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand Four

Hundred Thirty Two and Thirty Two Paise only) with interest @ 2.95% percent per month from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization from the defendants as prayed ?

2. To what relief ?

7. Point : The suit is filed for recovery of money by the plaintiff bank on the basis of credit card transactions. The plaintiff’s case is that on the basis of the application of the defendant, itsanctioned credit card No. 4373-xxxx-xxxx-5003 (CUST ID. 10319745) in the name of the defendant and issued credit card in his favour.

According to plaintiff, the defendant while utilizing the said credit card facility was not prompt in making payments and the payments made by him were not matched with the outstanding amount. The defendant failed to pay the remaining outstanding amount. In those circumstances, the plaintiff bank filed the present suit against the defendant.

Though the defendants did not appear before the court to contest the case, the plaintiff bank has to prove its case on its own

IV JCJ, CCC, HYD

5 OS. NO. 2533 OF 2024 not dependent on the weakness of defendants. In order to prove the claim, GPA holder of plaintiff bank got himself examined as

Pw1, in his chief affidavit reiterated the plaint averments and got marked the documents Ex A1 to A4.

7.1It is evident from the Court records that the plaintiff filed petition (I.A. No. 247 of 2025) seeking to mark the photocopy of the application as Secondary Evidence, citing the original’s loss due to the merger of the bank. This Court granted the petition, permitting the photocopy to be admitted as secondary evidence.

Thereafter, the photocopy of the application was duly marked and entered into evidence as exhibit, pursuant to the provisions governing secondary evidence.

8.Ex.A1 is the Photostat copy of Credit Card Application,

dated 23-11-2005 (taken on record as Secondary evidence as per

the orders passed in IA 247 of 2025), Ex.A2 Certified extract of

Statement of account, dated: 25-12-2023. Ex.A3 is the

Authorization Letter dated 30-07-2024, Ex.A4 Gazette Notification,

dated 04-03-2020.

IV JCJ, CCC, HYD

6 OS. NO. 2533 OF 2024

9.The authorization issued by the plaintiff bank in favour of

PW-1 is marked as Ex.A3. In support of the said oral evidence of

PW-1, the plaintiff bank produced some more documents. Ex.A1 is the Photostat copy of Credit Card Application, dated dated 23-11- 2005. The reverse side of Ex.A1 contained all the terms and conditions of the membership of the applicant. Ex.A1 application is duly signed by applicant i.e., defendant. Ex.A2 is the statement of account pertaining to credit card No.4373-xxxx-xxxx-5003 (CUST

ID. 10319745) which stood in the name of the defendant. Ex.A2 statement of account contained all the transactions right from the date on which the credit card was issued by the plaintiff bank upto 25-12-2023 i.e., prior to the date of filing of the suit in this court.

Ex.A2 contained the debit and credit entries from the beginning upto the date on which the defendant made last payment to the plaintiff bank. Since the defendant did not make any payment, the plaintiff bank levied service charges and other charges as per the terms and conditions, and filed this suit for Rs. 99,432.32 ps/-. The documents which are filed on behalf of the plaintiff referred to supra, especially Ex.A2 statement of account, therefore clearly supports the case of the plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the Gazette

IV JCJ, CCC, HYD

7 OS. NO. 2533 OF 2024

Notification, which shows that the Andhra Bank of India got amalgamated into Union Bank of India, w.e.f. 01.04.2020. Since the defendant did not choose to contest the suit, the above oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiff remained unrebutted.

The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled for a decree for the suit amount. Point is answered accordingly.

10.IN THE RESULT, the suit is hereby decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 99,432.32 ps/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two and

Thirty Two paise only) together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the the date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC IV JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

IV JCJ, CCC, HYD

8 OS. NO. 2533 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW1 Ms. Clara James- Nil -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Photostat copy of Credit Card Application dated: 23-11- 2005 (taken on record as Secondary evidence as per the orders passed in IA. 247 of 2025)

Ex.A2Certified copy of Statement of Account, dated 25-12- 2023.

Ex.A3Original Authorization Letter dated 30-07-2024,

Ex.A4Xerox Copy of Gazette Notification, dated 04-03-2020.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

DEFENDANT

- Nil -

Sd/-

XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC IV JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

IV JCJ, CCC, HYD