Sri B. Sadhu Babu

Fair1 I.P.No.6/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: BAPATLA

Present: Ms.G. Vani, M.A., L.L.B.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Bapatla.

FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Thursday, this the 23rd day of November, 2023.

Insolvency Petition No.6/2015

Between: Kagita Venkateswarlu, S/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Paddy Brokerage Business, R/o Mannava Village, Ponnur Mandal,

Guntur District....Petitioner

Versus

1.Talluri Padmavathi (died)

2.Padarthi Venkata Subba Rao, S/o Chenchaiah, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Business, R/o Near Thotammatalli Temple, Main Road, Ponnur Town, Guntur District.

3. Talluri Poorna Chandra Rao, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu, aged about 62 years, Business, R/o Do.No.1-3-42, 1st Ward, Bhavanagar Colony, Ponnur Town, Guntur District.

4.Padarthi Sivanaga Mani, D/o Poorna Chandra Rao, W/o Venkata Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 32 years, House wife, R/o Do.No.1-3-42, 1st Ward, Bhavanagar Colony, Ponnur Town, Guntur District.

5.Vemula Siva Naga Lakshmi Swarupa, D/o Poorna Chandra Rao, W/o Praveen Kumar, Hindu, aged about 29 years, House-wife, R/o Do.No.16-25-32, Mannavavari Street, Near City Public School, Guntur Town and District.…Respondents

Respondents 3 to 5 are added as respondents (L.Rs. Of the deceasedd 1 st Respondent as per order passed in I.A.No.69/2019, Dt.03.01.2019)

This Insolvency petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri N. Vardhan, Learned counsel for Petitioner, and Sri M. Eresu, Learned Counsel for Respondents 2 to 5 and 1st respondent died and upon hearing the arguments of Learned counsel for petitioner and respondent, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

O R D E R

The petitioner filed the present petition Under Section 10 of the Provincial

Insolvency Act 1920 for to adjudge as insolvent.

2.The averments of the petition are as follows:

a)The petitioner, he has been doing the fertilizers and brokerage business and also run an auto on finance and become sick to ill-health. As such he has unable to do any business and sustained loss. The 1st respondent obtained the

Fair2 I.P.No.6/2015 decree against him for an amount of Rs.1,71,600/- in O.S.No.267/2011 on the file of this Hon’ble Court. The 2nd respondent also obtained a decree against him for an amount of Rs.1,64,736/- in O.S.No.268/2011 on the file of this Hon’ble Court and they are also trying to file E.Ps. For attachment of movables and to arrest the petitioner, and to send him to civil prison, with an intention to harass him. But the petitioner is not possessing any movables or immovables in his name.

b)Except movableshown in “B” schedule property i.e., 1)2 nos. Phants worth about Rs.200/-, 2)2nos. Shirts worth about Rs.200/-, 3)2 nos. Towels worth about Rs.150/-, 4)Alluminium Plate and tumbler worth about Rs.100/- and 5)2 nos.

Blankets worth about Rs.100/-. He has no other properties and he is living on the mercy of his relatives for his medicines and for his survivals. As such the liabilities exceed the asset own by him. The petitioner constrained to file this petition praying the Hon’ble Court to adjudge him as Insolvent and he undertaking to surrender the “B” schedule movable properties to the officials receiver.

c)The petitioner did not file any Insolvency petition previously and there is no malafide intention on his part. Hence except presenting the petition there is no another way.

3.On the other hand, the respondents 1 and 2 filed the detailed counter and denied all the material averments made in the petition except thus:

a)The respondents 1 and 2 obtained Decrees in O.S.No.267/2011 and

O.S.No.268/2011 respectively on merits from this Hon’ble Court against the

petitioner and basing on the above decrees, the respondents 1 and 2 filed

E.P.No.2/2015 and E.P.No.3/2015 for arrest of this petitioner and both execution

petitions are pending.

b)The present petition filed by the petitioner only to avoid the legal decreetal debts intentionally declared as a insolvency but nothing else.

c)The petitioner having a own Tractor bearing No.AP 37 AF 1484 and Truck bearing No.AP 36 B 6237 worth about Rs.3,00,000/-, and also having agricultural land Ac.1.50 cents situated at Mannava Village worth about Rs.30,00,000/- and also having a RCC ground floor and 1st floor building near Satram worth about

Fair3 I.P.No.6/2015

Rs.10,00,000/- and the petitioner is also hale and healthy person have not suferring any ill-health and also movable and immovable properties and he is only earning person in the entire family, the facts suppressed and filed the present petition.

Hence petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and 3rd respondent examined as R.W.1, both are not adduced any documentary evidence.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to adjudge as an insolvent Under

Section 10 of Provincial Insolvency Act”?

7. On perusal of the petition, affidavit and counter submission made by the both parties, it is an admitted fact that the respondents 1 and 2 obtained the decrees in

O.S.No.267/2011 and O.S.No.268/2011 respectively from this Hon’ble Court.

Subsequently, they filed the Execution Petition No.2/2015 and No.3/2015 basing on the decree and judgment in O.S.No.267/2011 and O.S.No.268/2011 respectively against the petitioner, the same are pending. At this stage, the present petition filed by the petitioner for declaring as Insolvency.

8.Now the point is whether the petitioner have no financial capacity to discharge the decreetal amount in O.S.267/2011 and O.S.268/2011 obtained by the respondents 1 and 2 from this court or not?

9.In this regard, the initial burden lies on the petitioner, so that the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1. Upon the chief affidavit of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of petition averments that he have no capacity to discharge the decreetal amount. And more over he has asset only “B” schedule property i.e., 1)2 nos. Phants worth about

Rs.200/-, 2)2nos. Shirts worth about Rs.200/-, 3)2 nos. Towels worth about Rs.150/-, 4)Alluminium Plate and tumbler worth about Rs.100/- and 5)2 nos. Blankets worth about Rs.100/-. So that he was unable to discharge the amount.

Fair4 I.P.No.6/2015

10.In this regard, he has cross-examined as R.W.1, but he has not elicited anything that he have no financial capacity and he was entitled to declare of the

Insolvent. Further contention, suffering the ill-health, If really he suferring any ill- health, he must and should file to what are the suffering health details file into the court. More over, the 3rd respondent categorically stated that he have a Tractor bearing No.AP 37 AF 1484 and Truck bearing No.AP 36 B 6237 worth about

Rs.3,00,000/-. But he was not filed the said tractor is not belongs to him. And more over, he was further deposed that he have an extent of Ac.1.50 cents of land situatedd in Mannava Village. He clearly stated that he have movable and immovable properties.

11.In this juncture, burden lies on the petitioner to establish that he have no any properties what was stated by the respondents 1 and 2 in his counter as well as the chief examination. No doubt, the respondents was not filed any single scrap of paper, but it was the duty of the petitioner to establish the said properties not belongs to the petitioner. And more over, what are the properties shown in “B” schedule is not believed by this court, because even any person i.e., previously he was doing business that person only having “B” schedule properties, it is really believable, so is doubt created in the mind of the court. So the petitioner did not discharged his burden. Though the respondents adduced the evidence by way of filing the chief affidavit.

12.As per the chief affidavit of R.W.1, the P.W.1 doing the Fertilizer business and

Brokerage business and also run an auto on finance. The said fact was admitted by the petitioner in his cross-examination. But he was pleaded that due to Covid, the said business was loss. But at present the Covid-19 Pandamic situation is over looked by the world. So that any person doing the business, and more over, he has doing the business since long time except said situation i.e., only two years. So that the petitioner have a skill to doing the business and more over before Covid secure profit in said business but not any loss and also he was earning person in his family.

So that what was stated by the petitioner in his petition and schedule is clearly presumed that the petitioner wantonly avoid the decreetal amount to the

Fair5 I.P.No.6/2015 respondents 1 and 2. So, the petitioner not adduced any rebuttal against the respondents version automatically this point answered in favour of the respondents.

Hence petition is dismissed without costs.

13.Therefore, in the light of the above forgoing discussions, court hold that the petitioner has failed to prove his contention. Hence, he is not entitled to be adjudged as insolvent.

In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open

Court, this the 23rd day of November, 2023.

Sd/- G. VANI

Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC),Bapatla.

FAC Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//

//WITNESSES EXAMINED //

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

P.W.1: Kagita Venkateswarlu R.W.1: T. Poorna Chandra Rao //DOCUMENTS MARKED//

For Petitioner: NIL

For Respondent: NIL

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl. Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Bapatla. FAC Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

// TRUE COPY //

Addl. Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Bapatla.

FAC Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Fair1O.S.No.9/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT: Kum G.Vani, M.A., B.L.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge(FTC), Bapatla.

FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Thursday the 23rd day of November, 2023

O.S.No.9/2023

Between : Yarramraju Vasumathi, W/o Chandrasekhara Raju, Hindu, aged about 60 years, R/o Manthenavaripalem Village, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District. … Plaintiff.

Vs.

Godavarthi Dhanalakshmi, W/o Late Srinivasa Raju, Hindu, aged about 47 years, R/o Flat No.502, 503, Saketh Towers, Sreenivasa Nagar Colony, Near Nest Praneeth Happy Homes, Aditya Nagar, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad-500090, Telangana State.

… Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 16.11.2023 and was posted for Judgment in the presence of Sri K. Harinadha Reddy, Learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant set exparte and upon for hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present Judgment arises as a consequence of getting filed a suit by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking the recovery of the amount of Rs.32,32,050/-, which was alleged to have been due to him in connection with eight Promissory notes transaction dated 08.02.2021, 05.03.2021, 05.05.2021, 01.06.2021, 02.07.2021, 04.08.2021, 10.09.2021 and 12.10.2021 respectively in between the plaintiff and defendant with the following averments.

2.a)The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- on 08.02.2021 for her children education purpose and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- on 05.03.2021 for her children education purpose and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 05.05.2021 for her children education purpose and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 01.06.2021 for her family and

Fair2O.S.No.9/2023 agricultural expenses and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 02.07.2021 for her family and agricultural expenses and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 04.08.2021 for her family and agricultural expenses and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 10.09.2021 for her family and agricultural expenses and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 12.10.2021 for her family and agricultural expenses and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% yearly compoundable interest for each pronote either to the plaintiff or her order on demand.

b)Thereafter, the plaintiff repeated demands to the defendant for discharging the pronotes debt, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.000071 on 20.12.2022 for

Rs.20,00,000/- and also issued another cheque bearing No.000073 dated 10.11.2022 for

Rs.4,50,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Nizampet Road, Hyderabad towards the part payment under the said eight promissory notes. The said cheque was presented but returned because not valid and enforceable as the Andhra Bank was merged long back with Union Bank of India. Hence the plaintiff was sent the legal notice on 03.01.2023.

But defendant did not choose to repay the amount and not send the reply notice. There is another way except filing the suit. Hence the plaintiff constrained the suit.

3.The defendant refused the summons. Hence the court treated as valid, served summons and set exparte.

4.During the course of the trial, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and attesters examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Exhibits A1 to A10 are marked.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the amount from the defendant basing on the suit promissory notes?

Fair3O.S.No.9/2023

7.On perusal of the entire records available in this bundle, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff. So that the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and two attestors examines as P.W.2 and P.W.3, Exhibits A1 to Exhibit A10 are marked.

8.Upon the chief affidavit of P.W.1, the defendant borrowed an amount of 1)

Rs.4,50,000/- on 08.02.2021, 2)Rs.4,50,000/- on 05.03.2021, 3)Rs.3,00,000/- on 05.05.2021, 4)Rs.3,00,000/- on 01.06.2021, 5)Rs.3,00,000/- 02.07.2021, 6)Rs.3,00,000/- on 04.08.2021, 7)Rs.3,00,000/- on 10.09.2021 and 8)Rs.3,00,000/- on 12.10.2021 of

Rs.27,00,000/- executed under Exhibits A1 to Exhibit A8 in the presence of P.W.2 and

P.W.3 and this version was also supported to P.W.2 and P.W.3.

9.On combined study of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.27,000/- under Exhibits A1 to Exhibit A8. Subsequently, they are not discharged the debt. Thereafter, the P.W.1 sent Exhibit A9 and Exhibit A10 i.e., the legal notice on 03.01.2023. But the defendant received the said notice but did not choose to reply notice and not discharged the debt. So the plaintiff was clearly established her contention. Hence burden was shifted to the defendant.

10.In this regard, the defendant not let by the ocular as well as the documentary evidence and not adduced the rebuttal evidence. More over, defendant unchallenged to the version of P.W.1 to P.W.3 with Exhibit A1 to Exhibit A10. So that the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount. Hence point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for sum of

Rs.32,32,050/- along with subsequent interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.27,00,000/- from the defendant.

Dictated to Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, this the 23th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl. Senior Civil Judge(F.T.C), Bapatla. FAC Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Fair4O.S.No.9/2023

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W.1 : Yarramraju VasumathiExparte P.W.2 : Nalluri Prabhudasu P.W.3 : Yarramraju Hari Kumari

Exhibits marked for

PLAINTIFF :

1. Ex.A1 : Promissory note executed by G. Dhanalakshmi (defendant) in favour of P.W.1 an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- dated 08.02.2021.

2. Ex.A2 : Promissory note executed by G. Dhanalakshmi (defendant) in favour of P.W.1 an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- dated 05.03.2021.

3. Ex.A3 : Promissory note executed by G. Dhanalakshmi (defendant) in favour of P.W.1 an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 05.05.2021.

4. Ex.A4 : Promissory note executed by G. Dhanalakshmi (defendant) in favour of P.W.1 an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 01.06.2021.

5. Ex.A5 : Promissory note executed by G. Dhanalakshmi (defendant) in favour of P.W.1 an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 02.07.2021.

6. Ex.A6 : Promissory note executed by G. Dhanalakshmi (defendant) in favour of P.W.1 an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 04.08.2021.

7. Ex.A7 : Promissory note executed by G. Dhanalakshmi (defendant) in favour of P.W.1 an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 10.09.2021.

8. Ex.A8 : Promissory note executed by G. Dhanalakshmi (defendant) in favour of P.W.1 an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 12.10.2021.

9. Ex.A9 : Office Copy of the legal notice dated 03.01.2023.

10. Ex.A10: Office Copy of the legal notice dated 03.01.2023.

DEFENDANT : NIL

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl.S.C.J (FTC), BPT. FAC Prl. S.C.J., BPT.

// TRUE COPY //

Addl. Senior Civil Judge(F.T.C), Bapatla.

FAC Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Fair1 I.P.No.11/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: BAPATLA

Present: Ms.G. Vani, M.A., L.L.B.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Bapatla.

FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2023.

Insolvency Petition No.11/2023

Between: Yenumula Dharma Rao, S/o Subbaiah, aged about 65 years, Pothanakattavaripalem (V), Buddham,

Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District....Petitioner

Versus

1. Yenumula Narasimha Rao, S/o. Parandhamaiah, aged about 50 years, Pothanakattavaripalem, Buddham Post, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District.

2. Yenumula Parvathi, W/o. Seetharamaiah, aged about 60 years, Pothanakattavaripalem, Buddham Post, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District.

3. Yenumula Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Arjuna Rao, aged about 50 years, Pothanakattavaripalem, Buddham Post, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District.

4. Gali Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Veera Raghavulu, aged about 40 years, Pothanakattavaripalem, Buddham Post, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District.

5. Borru Ravi Varma, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged about 32 years, Pothanakattavaripalem, Buddham Post, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District.

6. Yenumula Gudaru Venkaiah, S/o. Subrahmanyam, aged about 36 years, Pothanakattavaripalem, Buddham Post, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District.

7. Alamuri Siva Koteswara Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged about 60 years, Dammannavaripalem, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatla District.

8. Imadabathuni Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Pitchaiah, aged about 65 years, Dammannavaripalem, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatla District.

9. Amara Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 60 years, Cycle Shop, Khazipalem, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District. 10.Amara Venkata Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged about 60 years, Khazipalem, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District. 11.Marturi Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Subrahmanyam, aged about 60 years, Medical Shop, Khazipalem, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District. 12.Koniki Venkateswarlu, S/o. Kotaiah, aged about 60 years, Medical Shop, Mangalipalem, Near Elementary School, Khazipalem, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District.

Fair2 I.P.No.11/2023 13.Uppala Subba Rao, S/o. Durgaiah, aged about 65 years, Mandevaripalem, Khazipalem, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District. 14.Uppala Rama Rao, S/o. Peddabbai, aged about 65 years,Opp. Holy Cross School, Nandirajuthota, Bapatla Mandal & District.…Respondents

This Insolvency petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri B. Venkateswarlu, Learned counsel for Petitioner, and Respondents 1 to 14 are set exparte and upon hearing the arguments of Learned counsel for petitioner and respondent, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

O R D E R

The petitioner filed the present petition Under Section 7 and 10 of the

Provincial Insolvency Act 1920 for to adjudge as Insolvent.

2.The averments of the petition are as follows:

a)The petitioner started she buffaloes business with the help of brokers.

The petitioner used to prucahse the she buffaloes in different villages and sell away the same to others. Some of the respondents are also residents of the petitioner’s village and other respondents are the residents of surrounding villages of the petitioner’s village.

b)Due to the pandamic situation of Covid-19 affected to the functioning of business and there is no income to the petitioner and there is no other go, this petitioner borrowed the amounts as hand loan from some of the respondents.

Thereafter, the business of the petitioner is not continued due to the above said reasons, the petitioner borrowed amounts from other respondents also and he is indebted to all the respondents and the debts are increased as the petitioner was not able to pay even interests to the respondents.

c)The petitioner was not able to pay the amounts to the respondents in time and the debts are increased and the respondents are demanding for the amounts. The petitioner is not able to discharge the debts due to the respondents, they are pressurizing the petitioner for the repayment. The kith and kin of the petitioner are also not in a position to help him as debts owned by him are exceeded their capacity also.

Fair3 I.P.No.11/2023

d)The petitidoner has no movable or immovable properties except “D” schedule property, 1)Four Tumblers worth about Rs.200/-, 2)Utensils worth about Rs.150/- and

Clothes worth about Rs.1,000/-. So that the petitioner has not alienated any movable or immovable properties within three months next before filing of this petition.

There is no assets and liabilities except filing the present petition. Hence constrained the petition.

3.On the other hand, the respondents are set exparte.

4.During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and there are no documents marked. On the otherhand, the respondents are set exparte.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to adjudge as an insolvent”?

7.On perusal of the petition and submission made by the petitioner, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner borrowed the amounts from the respondents 1 to 14. But the contention of the petitioner that have no movable and immovable properties except “D” schedule property mentioned in petition that, 1) Four Tumblers worth about Rs.200/-, 2) Utensils worth about Rs.150/- and Clothes worth about

Rs.1,000/-. So that he was unable to discharge the debts and hand loans from the respondents 1 to 14.

8.In this regard, the petitioner adduced his evidence by way of filing the chief affidavit and examined as P.W.1. Upon the chief affidavit of P.W.1 categorically deposed that he is doing the she buffaloe business and due to the pandemic condition of Covid-19, he obtained hand loans from the respondents 1 to 14.

Subsequently, he was unable to discharge the said debts because he has only “D” schedule property in his hand.

Fair4 I.P.No.11/2023

9.In this regard, on thoroughly perusal of the entire records in this bundle, the petitioner was doing she buffaloe business and also not disclosed to whether who are dependents on him. And more over, he himself admitted that he is doing the business of she buffaloes. And more over, the Covid Pandamic condition is only three years i.e., 2019 to 2022. Subsequently, the Covid atmosphere is coming in the normal because, prior Pandamic Period of Covid-19. So, Petitioner have only not doing the business only 2 years i.e. Covid-19 period. So expect said period, remaining period he done business, it is also oneground to not allowed the petition.

10.And more over he was hale and healthy person because he was not filed any single scrap of paper with regarding to his health. So on totality, the petition it is clearly shows that have money, he was hale and healthy. He was debts to respondents 1 to 14. And more over, he has not submit that how much amount was obtained from the respondents 1 to 14. Hence, petitioner utterly failed to prove his contention. So in these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to declare the insolvent.

In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open

Court, this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl. Senior Civil Judge(FTC), Bapatla. FAC Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//

//WITNESSES EXAMINED //

For Petitioner:For Respondent: Exparte

P.W.1: Yenumula Dharma Rao //DOCUMENTS MARKED//

For Petitioner: NIL

For Respondent: NIL

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl. Senior Civil Judge(FTC),Bapatla. FAC Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. // TRUE COPY //

Addl. Senior Civil Judge(FTC), Bapatla.

FAC Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:(FTC) BAPATLA.

Present: SRI B. SADHU BABU, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. FAC. Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. Wednesday, this the 16th day of November, 2022.

O.S No. 8 of 2015

Between:- 1.Vegiraju Hare Rama Raju, 2.Gorantla Tulasamma.

....Plaintiff

And

Molakalapalli Vanisri.

... Defendant

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri K, Harinadha Reddy, Learned counsel for plaintiff; defendant set exparte, and upon hearing the arguments of Learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- [Rupees three Lakhs fourty five thousand only] based on mortgage deed dt.30-08-2007, and to award interest and costs.

[2] a) The brief averments of the plaint are like this; that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from the plaintiffs on 30-08-2007 and executed a Mortgage Deed in favour of plaintiff, mortgaging the suit schedule property by agreeing to repay the amount due with interest at 24% per annum. The defendant borrowed the said amount for the purpose of discharging her family debts and for business purpose and assured the amount due with interest.

b) The plaintiff further submitted that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiffs, the defendant has been postponing to discharge the amount due on some pretext or other. Hence, on 09-07-2014, the plaintiffs got issued the legal notice demanding the defendant to pay the amount with interest secured under the Mortgage Deed. The defendant refused to receive the said notice and hence returned. The defendant failed to pay the amount due. The defendant/mortgager failed to pay the amount secured under Mortgage Deed. The plaintiff being simple mortgagees are entitled to Preliminary Decree for sale of the mortgaged property and for recovery of the mortgage amount out of the sale proceeds thereof and also a personal decree agaisnt the defendant in case the sale proceeds are not found insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt. Hence, the suit.

[3] Per contra, the defendant filed her written statement by denying the plaint averments and submitted that she has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiffs as stated in the plaint. The plaintiffs played fraud, misrepresentation in obtaining the suit mortgageed deed and in fact no consideration passed thereunder to this defendant. The details of mortgage and the claim of the plaintiffs for decreeing the suit does not arise because no consideration was passed to the defendant. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant. There is no cause of action for the suit and alleged cause of action is invented and concocted. Hence, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

[4] Basing on the rival pleadings of the parties, my Learned predecessor framed the following issues for trial;

1. Whether the suit Mortgage Deed dt.30-8-2007 is true, valid, supported by consideration and the same is binding on the defendnat or not ?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for the suit amount as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

[5] In order to prove their case, the 1 plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the Registered Mortgage deed dated 30.8.2007 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the Office copy of legal notice, dated 9.7.2014, Ex.A3 is the Postal receipt, dated 9.7.2014, Ex.A4 is the Un-served returned registered post cover of legal notice with "refused" postal endorsement, dated 14.7.2014. Though the defendant filed written statement, but failed to cross examine P.W.1. Defendant is called absent and no representation. Hence, defendant is set exparte.

[6] Heard the plaintiffs. [7] Issue Nos.1 and 2:

In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the 1" plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. The evidence of P.W.1 is that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from the plaintiffs on 30-08- 2007 for the purpose of discharging her family debts and for business purpose, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and by mortgaging the suit schedule property and on the same day the defendant also executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiffs and handed over the same to the plaintiffs. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiffs, the defendant is postponing to discharge the above said debt with some pretext or other. The plaintiff also got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 9-7-2014 demanding the defendant to discharge the above said mortgage debt. The defendant refused to receive the notice and hence returned. Hence, they constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit debt.

[8] Though the defendant filed written statement, but failed to cross examine P.W.1. Defendant is called absent and no representation. Hence, the defendant is set exparte. Hence, the testimony of PW.1 remained un-rebutted and unchallenged. As such, the un-rebutted testimony of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4, would establish the case of the plaintiffs and it constrained the Court to believe the version of PW.1. Therefore, this Court finds that the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit amount. Thus, I answered the Issue Nos.1 and 2.

[9] ISSUE No.3:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant (a) for a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- [Rupees three Lakhs fourty five thousand only] by passing preliminary decree over the plaint schedule mortgage property together with Interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @6% per annum till the date of realization on Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty five thousnad only).

(b) time for redemption is Three (03) months from the date of this

Judgment; and

(c) the plaintiff is at liberty to file final decree petition according to law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me, in Open Court, this the 16th day of November, 2022.

Sd:- B. Sadhu Babu

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatia.

FAC Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Bapatla.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For plaintiffs: For defendant:

P.W.1: Vegiraju Hare Rama Raju,- Exparte-

Documents marked:

For plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1: Registered Mortgage deed, dated 30.8.2007 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff,

Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice, dated 9.7.2014,

Ex.A.3: Postal receipt, dated 9.7.2014,

Ex.A.4: Un-served returned registered post cover of legal notice with "refused" postal endorsement, dated 14.7.2014.

For defendant: -Nil-

Sd:- B. Sadhu Babu

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatia.

FAC Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Bapatla.

//True Copy//

Additional Senior Civil Judge,(F.T.C) Bapatla

Fair1O.S.27/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT: Kum G.Vani, M.A., B.L.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge(FTC), Bapatla.

FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Monday the 28th day of November, 2023

O.S.No.27/2023

Between : Inaganti Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o Late Suryaprakasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 74 years, Cultivation, R/o Appikatla Village, Bapatla Mandal, Bapatla District. … Plaintiff.

Vs.

1. Annamneedi Venkata Satya Prasad, S/o A.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Hindu, aged about 46 years, Business, R/o Do.No.240, Street No.200, Naralasettipalem, Bapatla Town, Bapatla District.

2. Annamneedi Srivalli, W/o Venkata Satya Prasad, Hindu, aged about 42 years, House wife, R/o Do.No.240, Street No.200, Naralasettipalem, Bapatla Town, Bapatla District.… Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 21.11.2023 and was posted for Judgment in the presence of Sri G. Suvarna Naga Mohini, Learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants set exparte and upon for hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present Judgment arises as a consequence of getting filed a suit by the

Plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of suit amount basing on the promissory note dated 20.10.2019, which was executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff.

2.The averments of the suit are follows:

a)The 1st defendant is the husband of 2nd defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- for their family expenses and for the purpose of their business expenses from the plaintiff and jointly executed a demand promissory note on the same day on 20.10.2019 in favour of plaintiff at Appikatla Village,

Bapatla Mandal agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. yearly compoundable on demand either to the plaintiff or on his order. The 1st defendant scribed the promissory note with his own handwriting.

Fair2O.S.27/2023

b)The defendants 1 and 2 made a part payment of Rs.25,000/- on 25.01.2022 towards the debt due under the suit promissory note and both are jointly endorsed the same and signed don the back side of the said pronote and acknowledging their liability.

c)Inspite of repeated demands by the plaintiff personally and through others admitting the borrowing, execution, delivery of the suit promissory note and part payment, the defendants 1 and 2 are sought time after time and failed to discharge the balance debt amount. Hence the plaintiff constrained the suit.

3.The defendants 1 and 2 refused to take the summons. Hence the court treated as valid, served summons and set exparte.

4.During the course of the trial, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits

A1 to A5 are marked.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the amount from the

defendant basing on the suit promissory note?

7.On perusal of the entire records available in this bundle, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff. So that the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits A1 to Exhibit A5 are marked. The chief affidavit of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of plaint averments.

8.Upon the chief affidavit of P.W.1, the defendants 1 and 2 borrowed an amount of

Rs.12,00,000/- under Exhibits A1. Thereafter, defendants 1 and 2 made part payment endorsement of Rs.25,000/- on 25.01.2022 under Exhibit A2. Subsequently, they are not discharged the debt. Thereafter, the P.W.1 sent Exhibit A3 and Exhibit A5 i.e., the legal notice on 12.07.2023. But the defendants 1 and 2 received the said notice but did not choose to reply notice and not discharged amount. So, on combined study of chief examination of P.W.1 and Exhibit A1 to Exhibit A5 are clearly established his contention.

Hence burden was shifted to the defendants 1 and 2.

Fair3O.S.27/2023

9.In this regard, the defendants 1 and 2 not let by the ocular as well as the documentary evidence and not adduced the rebuttal evidence against version of plaintiff. More over, unchallenged to the version of P.W.1 with Exhibit A1 to Exhibit A5.

So that the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants 1 and 2 for sum of Rs.23,04,050/- along with subsequent interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the defendants 1 and 2.

Type to dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl. Senior Civil Judge(F.T.C), Bapatla.

FAC Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Appendix of evidenceWitnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W.1 : I. Uma Maheswara RaoExparte

Exhibits marked for PLAINTIFF :

1. Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note executed by A. Venkata Satya Prasad and A. Srivalli (defendants 1 and 2) an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- dated 20.10.2019.

2. Ex.A2 : Part payment endorsement of Rs.25,000/- dated 25.01.2022.

3. Ex.A3 : Office copy of the legal notice dated 12.07.2023.

4. Ex.A4 : Postal receidpts (2 in number).

5. Ex.A5 : Postal receipts.

DEFENDANT : NIL

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl.S.C.J (FTC), BPT. FAC Prl. S.C.J., BPT.

// TRUE COPY //

Addl. Senior Civil Judge(F.T.C), Bapatla FAC Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.