Sri B. Sadhu Babu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PARVATIPURAM

Present:- Sri B.Sadhu Babu,

Senior Civil Judge,

Parvathipuram.

Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2019

O.S.No.70/2015

Between:-

Gara Venugopalarao, S/o Krishnamurthy, aged 55 years, Dr.No.1-199, cultivation, Narsipuram village, Parvathipuram Mandal. Vizianagaram District.

.. Plaintiff.

A n d :- 1.Dogga Simhachalam, S/o late. Somulu, aged 53 years, cultivation,

Narsipuram village, Door No.;2-66-2, Parvathipuram Mandal. Vizianagaram

District.

2. Dogga Satyanarayana, S/o Simhachalam, aged 29 years, rest-do-

3. Dogga Ganesh, S/o Simhachalam, aged 23 years, rest-do-

...Defendants.

This suit coming on 10.04.2019 for for hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.Madusudana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri

M.Nagarjuna, Advocate for defendants, after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,82,267/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Two Hundred

Sixty Seven only) being the principal and interest due under registered simple mortgage deed, dt.07.02.2005 executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,25,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest at 18.8% p.a., for subsequent interest; for costs of the suit.

2.Brief facts of the plaint are that: The defendants are absolute owners of the Plaint schedule property. The defendants approached the plaintiff for purpose of discharging sundry debts, family expenses, borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on 07.02.2005 and executed simple registered mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff on 07.02.2005 towards collateral security of the debt. The defendants agreed to pay 18.8% interest I.e, Rs.2,000/- on or before 6th of 2 every month on the principal amount and agreed to discharge the principal amount within three years. The schedule property is referred as suit hypotheca.

The defendants agreed to obtain payment endorsement on the reverse side of the mortgage deed. The suit schedule property is free from all encumberances.

Thereafter, the defendants did not make any payment either interest or

principal of mortgage debt either to the plaintiff or to his agent in spite of

repeated demands and postponing payment on one pretext or other. The plaintiff reliably learnt that the defendants are making hectic efforts since one month to alienate the schedule property to third parties. The defendants are not small farmers and they are not entitled to benefits under Act 7/7 and Act 47/87 and not entitled for scaling down for interest. Hence this suit.

3. The defendant No.1 filed written statement, the same was adopted by D.2 and D.3 The defendants are father and sons. The father of 1st defendant purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed

Nos.1139/1978, 2065/1981, 33/1987, 2681/2001 and subsequent to the death of the father of D.1, the schedule property devolved on the defendants as per

Hindu succession and survivorship. The defendant for their family expenses when they are in need of money they have jointly borrowed Rs.1,25,000/- from the plaintiff on on 07.02.2005 agreeing to repay the same with interest at

Rs.1.60 ps per hundred per month. As a security to the said loan, the defendants executed a registered simple mortgage deed in favourn of the plaintiff by showing the schedule property as security to the loan amount.

Subsequently, 2nd defendant used to pay interest every month to the plaintiff by depositing to his bank account I.e, State Bank of India, Parvathipuram, branch, likewise all these years the defendants paid total amount of

Rs.4,85,000/- i.e, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cash and the plaintiff passed a receipt on 01.06.2015 in favour of the plaintiff, an amount of

Rs.2,35,000/- by way of account transfer from 2nd defendant Bank account

No.034001505143 of ICICI Bank, Ratnagiri branch to the defendant bank account No.11328842060 of State Bank of India, Parvathipuram Branch on 3 different occasions towards principal and interest. On 01.06.2015 the plaintiff came to Visakhapatnam and demanded the defendants to pay the principal amount as he is in need of money as such the 1st defendant paid Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cash (i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- Principal + Rs.1,25,000/- interest) to the plaintiff in the presence of Jami Ramulu and Gottapu Jagadeesh. After receipt of the cash the plaintiff promised that he will come to the SRO, Parvathipuram, on the next day and execute cancellation deed to the simple mortgage deed, dt.07.02.2005. Subsequently, in spite of repeated requests and demands made by the defendants, the plaintiff is not coming forward to execute cancellation deed and postponing the same on one pretext or other. On the other hand, the plaintiff is making hectic efforts to interfere with the defendants peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and the defendants are filing the suit for cancellation of the simple mortgage deed, dt.07.02.2005 vide document No.319/2005 and the same pending before the Court and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

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

1. Whether the discharge pleaded by the defendants in their written statement is true and correct ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as sought in the plaint ?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as

PW.1, also examined the 2nd attestor of Ex.A.1 mortgage deed as PW.2. Ex.A.1 is the registered simple mortgage deed executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff ,dt.07.02.2005.

6.To substantiate the contention of the defendant, the defendant No.1 himself was examined as DW1 and got examined D.Ws.2 and 3 scribe and witness of Ex.B.1 receipt. Ex.B.1 is the receipt issued by the plaintiff on 01.06.2015.

4

7.Heard the arguments on both sides.

8.PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating his plaint averments. Ex.A.1 is the registered simple mortgage deed executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff ,dt.07.02.2005.

9.Pw.2 Salihundam Venugopalarao deposed that he is 2nd attestor of suit document. The suit filed by plaintiff for recovery of suit mortgage amount of Rs.3,82,267/- for sale of suit hypotheca in the hands of defendants in case of non payment of decretal amount within the period decided by the Court to satisfy the decree amount permitting the plaintiff to proceed against defendants personally and by sale of their other properties both moveable and immoveable, subsequent interest and costs of the suit. The defendants borrowed Rs.1,25,000/- from plaintiff on 07.02.2005 and immediately executed registered mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18.8% p.a.,. The defendants did not comply the terms and conditions of simple mortgage deed. The plaintiff made several demands to defendants, but they admitting their liability postponing the same on some pretext or other. The defendants having sufficient means and properties but intentionally avoiding to discharge the suit debt to plaintiff. The defendants never paid any amount or interest to plaintiff at any moment till now because he also made demand to defendants.

10.Dw.1 filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating his written statement and marked Ex.B.1 Receipt issued by the plaintiff on 01.06.2015.

11.D.W.2 Valida Demullu filed his chief affidavit and deposed that he uis third party to the suit and he scribed the receipt. He is resident of

Seethampeta of Visakhapatnam. He know Dogga Simhachalam, who is resident of Kotha Road of Visakhapatnam. On 01.06.2015 the said Simhachalam called him to his house at Kotha Road at Visakhapatnam, by the time he reached the house of Dogga Simhachalam, one Gara Venu Gopalarao, Gottapu Jagadish and 5

Jami Ramulu were present, the said Venugopalarao showed him a registered simple mortgage deed, dt.07.02.2005 for Rs.1,25,000/-. The said mortgage deed was executed by Dogga Simhachalam in favour of Gara Venugopalarao and asked him to scribe a receipt stating that Dogga Simhachalam is paying

Rs.2,50,000/- on 01.06.2015 towards full discharge of simple mortgage amount with interest and also stated that previously through bank Gara Venugopala

Rao has received Rs.2,50,000/- and thus received total Rs.5,00,000/- from

Dogga Simhachalam and in the presence of the 2 attestors Dogga

Simhachalam paid Rs.2,50,000/- to Gara Venugopalarao. Thereafter, he scribed a receipt and both parties gave their information to him and as per the information furnished by Gara Venu Gopalarao about the payment particulars, he scribed the said receipt, after Gara Venugopalarao signed across the revenue stamp the two attestors signed as witnesses and thereafter, he put his signature as a scribe.

12.D.W.3 Gottapu Jagadeesh, who is third party to the suit deposed that he is residing at Putikavalasa village of Kurupam Mandal, he know Dogga

Simhachalam and Dogga Ganesh who are resident of Kotha road of

Visakhapatnam. On 01.06.2015 the said Simhachalam and Ganesh called him to his house at Kotha Road of Visakhapatnam, by the time he reached the house of Dogga Simhachalam, one Gara Venugopalarao was present and two other persons viz., Demullu, Jami Ramulu were present, , the said

Venugopalarao showed him a registered simple mortgage deed which was executed by Dogga Simhachalam in favour of Gara Venugopalarao and asked him to scribe a receipt stating that Dogga Simhachalam paying Rs.2,50,000/- on 01.06.2015 towards full discharge of simple mortgage amount with interest and also stated that previously through Bank Gara Venugopalarao has received

Rs.2,50,000/- and in total he received Rs.5,00,000/- from Dogga Simhachalam and in the presence of two attestors Dogga Simhachalam paid Rs.2,50,000/- to

Gara Venu Gopalarao. He further deposed that he scribed a receipt and both parties gave information to him and as per the information furnished by Gara

Venugopalarao about the payment particulars, he scribed the said receipt, after 6

Gara Venugopalarao signed across the revenue stamp, the two attestors signed as witnesses, thereafter he put his signature as scribe.

13.ISSUES 1 and 2:The defendants are not denying the transaction under Ex.A.1. The main case of the defendants is that they discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff i.e including principal and interest under Ex.B.1 Receipt dated 1-6-2015, which is established by the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3, as such the defendants are not liable to pay the amount and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

14.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendants did not pay any amount to the plaintiff and Ex.B.1 is created by the defendants with the forged signatures of the plaintiff in order to escape from their liability.

He further submitted that as the defendants admitted the execution of Ex.A.1

Simple mortgage deed and failed to prove the alleged discharge under Ex.B.1

Receipt, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief.

15. Per contra the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the defendants paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the plaintiff on 1-6-2015 and the plaintiff issued Ex.B.1 Receipt to that effect. He further submitted that prior to the payment under Ex.B.1 Receipt the defendants paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the plaintiff by way of bank account transfer and as the defendants totally discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff, he is not entitled to the suit claim. The learned counsel for the defendants further submitted that as the defendants proved their contentions through the oral and documentary evidence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

16.Since the defendants contended that they discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff, the onus lies on them to prove their plea of discharge. The main contention of the defendants is that the 2nd defendant paid an amount of Rs.2,35,000/-by way of account transfer from his A/C No.

034001505143 of ICICI Bank, Rathnagiri Branch to the plaintiffs bank A/C No.

11328842060 of State Bank of India, Parvathipuram Branch on various occasions towards principle and interest and thereafter on 1-6-2015 the 1st 7 defendant paid Rs.2,50,000/- ( i.e Rs.1,25,000/- towards principle +

Rs.1,25,000/- towards interest) to the plaintiff under Ex.B.1 Receipt in the presence of attestors and scribe and after receipt of the cash the plaintiff promised that he will come to the Sub- Registrar office , Parvathipuram and execute cancellation deed to the Ex.A.1 Simple Mortgage Deed but he failed to do so despite of repeated demands and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. During the course of cross examination, the 1st defendant as D.W.1 deposed that he got issued legal notice to the plaintiff by demanding cancellation of Ex.A.1 and he filed copy of his notice and also statement of

Bank Account in to the court. But on perusal of record no such documents are filed in to the court to prove that they have paid Rs.2,35,000/- on various occasions to the plaintiff by way of account transfer. He further admitted that he did not make any efforts to discharge the mortgage debt under Ex.A.1 till 01.06.2015( i.e till the date of Ex.B.1) from the date of Ex.A.1. Admittedly the dates of said payments made by way of account transfer and the names of the banks were not mentioned in the Ex.B.1 Receipt. It is not the case of the defendants that the alleged payments by way of account transfers were made in the presence of D.Ws.2 and 3 and hence their evidence does not helps to the case of the defendants to the extent of the alleged payments made by the defendants to the plaintiff by way of account transfers. In the absence of filing of the relevant statements of bank accounts it is not possible to believe the version of the defendants that they made some payments to the plaintiff by way of account transfer.

17.In order to prove that they have paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 1-6-2015, the defendants relied upon the Ex.B.1 Receipt and proved the same by examining the attestor and scribe of Ex.B.1 as D.Ws.2 and 3 respectively.

Attestor and scribe of Ex.B.1 in voice supported the case of the defendants that the plaintiff received an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the 1st defendant in their presence at the residence of the defendants on 1-6-2015 and issued Ex.B.1

Receipt.

8

18.The plaintiff simply denied the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 in the form of mere suggestions, which were denied by them. The plaintiff did not make any efforts to send the Ex.B.1 to the expert. Suggestions however ingenious have no evidentiary value unless admitted by the witness or proved otherwise.

Apart from that except making suggestion that Ex.B.1 is fabricated

19.In view of the foregoing reasons, this court feels that the defendants failed to discharge their burden in respect of alleged payments made by them to the plaintiff by way of account transfer and proved only discharge of Rs.2,50,000/- under Ex.B.1 receipt.

20.Admittedly, Ex.A.1 was executed on 07.02.2005 for Rs.1,25,000/-.

The interest at 18.8% p.a., on Ex.A.1 from 07.02.2005 till payment made under

Ex.B.1, dt.01.06.2015 comes to Rs.2,18,942/-, the total comes to Rs.3,43,942/- and after excluding the amount paid under Ex.B.1 i.e, Rs.2,50,000/- comes to

Rs.93,942/- which is amount due by the defendants to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for the said amount with proportionate costs, and interest at 18.8% p.a., from the date of Ex.B.1 till the date of decree thereafter at 6% p;.a till realization against the defendants 1 to 3. Therefore the issues 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

21. ISSUE NO.3 :- In the result, suit is partly Preliminary decreed for

Rs.93,942/- ( after excluding the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- paid under Ex.B.1) with proportionate costs and interest at 18.8% p.a, from the date of Ex.B.1 till the date of decree, thereafter at 6% p.a., till realization, against the defendants 1 to 3. If the sale proceeds are insufficient, the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the amount from the defendants personally. Time for redemption is two months.

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

pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of April, 2019.

Sd/- B.Sadhubabu,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARVATIPURAM.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

P.W.1 : G.VenugopalaraoD.W.1: D.Simhachalam

P.W.2: S.Venugopalarao. D.W.2: V.Demullu

D.W.3: G.Jagadeesh

Documents marked

For plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1: Regd.Simple mortgage deed executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff ,dt.07.02.2005.

For Defendants:

Ex.B.1: Receipt issued by the plaintiff on 01.06.2015.

Sd/- B.Sadhubabu,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARVATIPURAM.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PARVATHIPURAM

Present : Sri B.Sadhu Babu,

Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram.

Saturday, the 27th day of April, 2019

OS.No.28 of 2018

Between :

Ganta Badrinath, S/o Venkata Rao, aged 42 years, Business, residing at D.No.24-171, Pedadevangula veedhi, Parvathipuram. Vizianagaram District. Cell No.9848105491 ..Plaintif

And :

Nallabilli Chakradhara Rao, S/o Adinarayana, aged 58 years,Business and cultivation, R/o D.No.18-52, Palakonda Road, Kothavalasa. Parvathipuram. Cell No.7729023459.

..Defendant

This suit is coming on 06.04.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Rajeswara Rao, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri M.Nagarjuna, Advocate for defendant, and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of Rs.6,10,666/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ten Thousand Six

Hundred Sixty Six only) being the amount of principal and interest due under suit promissory note dt.16.05.2016 for Rs.4,00,000/- executed in favour of plaintif by the defendant, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % per annum, with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2)The brief case of the plaintif is that: The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintif on 16.05.2016 for his family expenses and executed a demand Promissory note in favour of the plaintif on the even day at Parvathipuram, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and also agreeing to repay the same as and when demanded either to the plaintif or to his order. The defendant has received the entire cash consideration at the time of execution of the suit promissory note before the attestors and scribe of the suit promissory note. Thereafter, the defendant did not pay any amount either towards principal or interest.

After persistent demands, the defendant issued a cheque in favour of the plaintif for Rs.5,00,000/-, dt.27.06.2018 towards payment of interest but the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Hence the suit.

3)Defendant filed written statement, denying the material averments made in the plaint and contended that: he did not borrow any amount from the plaintif. The defendant has no acquaintance with the plaintif, this defendant never executed any Promissory note in favour of the plaintif, never issued any cheque, the defendant has no need to borrow such huge amount from the plaintif, the plaintif might have created the suit promissory note to grab money fraudulently from the defendant with the help of attestors, and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

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

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dt.16.05.2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for from the defendant?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintif got himself examined as

PW.1, also examined the 1st attestor of Ex.A.1 suit pronote as PW.2 on his behalf. Ex.A.1 is the suit promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintif dt. 16.05.2016 for Rs.4,00,000/- .

6.To substantiate the contention of the defendant, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced and his evidence is closed.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides.

8.PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating her plaint averments. Ex.A.1 is the suit promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintif dt. 16.05.2016 for Rs.4,00,000/-.

9.Pw.2 who is the 1st attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note filed his chief affidavit and deposed that on 16.05.2016 the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintif for his family expenses and executed a Promissory note in favour of the plaintif on the even day at

Parvathipuram, agreeing to repay with interest at 24% p.a. He is the 1st attestor of the suit promissory note and one Yellanki Vasu has signed as another attestor. The Promissory note was scribed by one Srinivasa Rao. In their presence, the defendant has received the cash consideration and executed the Promissory note. He can identify his signature as well as signature of the defendant, other attestor on the suit promissory note.

10.Defendant called absent, no representation,hence the defendant evidence is closed.

11.ISSUES 1 and 2:The main case of the defendant is that he did not borrow any amount, never executed any Promissory note, never issued any cheque in favour of the plaintif and the plaintif might have created the suit promissory note with the assistance of attestor and prayed to dismiss the suit.

12.Counsel for the plaintif submitted that as the plaintif established his case on the strength of oral and documentary evidence, he is entitled for the suit relief.

13.When the defendant denying the execution of the suit promissory note and contending that he never borrowed any amount, never executed any Promissory note, the burden heavily lies on the plaintif to prove the execution of the suit promissory note and also passing of consideration. Except bare denial, the defendant did not choose to come into witness box to put forth his contention.

14.The defendant simply denied the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the form of mere suggestions, which were denied by them. Suggestions however ingenious have no evidentiary value unless admitted by the witness or proved otherwise.

15.In support of his case the plaintif himself examined as P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2, who is the 1st attestor of Ex.A.1 Promissory note and proved the due execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant and passing of consideration thereunder.

16.In view of the foregoing reasons, it can be held that Ex.A.1 is true, valid binding on the defendant and the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. Hence Issues Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintif.

17.ISSUE No.3:-In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.6,10,666/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ten Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Six only) together with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of decree, thereafter at 6% p.a., till realization on the

principal amount of Rs,4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- B.Sadhubabu,

Senior Civil Judge,

Parvathipuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

PW1 : Ganta Badrinath None.

P.W.2: N.Chakradhararao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1: Suit promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintif dt. 16.05.2016 for Rs.4,00,000/- .

For Defendant :Nil

Sd/- B.Sadhubabu,

Senior Civil Judge,

Parvathipuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,AT PARVATHIPURAM.

PRESENT:- Sri B.Sadhu Babu,

Senior Civil Judge,

Parvathipuram.

Wednesday, the 17th day of April, 2019

H.M.O.P.No. 20 OF 2018.

Between:-

1. Alugolu Sankararao, S/o Venkatanaidu, aged 32 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Chinabuddidi village, Jiyyammavalasa mandal.Vizianagaram District.

2. Alugolu Aliveni Aruna @ Aruna W/o Sankararao, aged 28 years, D/o late. Karri Kumaraswamy , Kapu by caste, presently residing at her natural mother viz., Karri Nagamma, Peddabuddidi village, Jiyyammavalasa Mandal. Vizianagaram District.

.. Petitioners

And:-

NIL.. Respondent.

This petition is coming on 15.04.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Kurminaidu, Advocate for the petitioners, and respondent is NIL, and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

The petitioners filed the petition under Section 13-B of Hindu 1.

Marriage Act praying to dissolve their marriage solemnized on 31.05.2013 at 1st petitioner’s parents house at Chinabuddidi village of Jiyyammavalasa Mandal, according to Hindu rites and caste custom. Their marraige was consummated and both of them lead happy conjugal life for short period. Thereafter disputes arose between them and the petitioners are living separately more than four years. No issues were born during their lawful wedlock period . It is shown that the mediation efforts by the elders were made earlier but failed. It was agreed between the parties that 1st petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.7,20,000/- towards permanent alimony to the 2nd petitioner and the 1st petitoiner paid

Rs.3,20,000/- towards part payment before caste elders, balance amount is to be paid by the 1st petitioner to the 2nd petitioner at the time of passing award and the 2nd petitioner agreed that not to claim any further amounts from the 1st petitioner towards her permanent alimony. Reconciliation efforts are made by this Court. It is shown that the spouses parted ways and they are firm in seeking divorce.

2. It is shown that there is no similar petition filed before any Court.

3.The petitioners filed proof affidavits. They are further examined as

PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 and P.2. Ex.P.1 is marraige wedding card of petitioners. Ex.P.2 joint photograph of the petitioners certified by Gazetted officer.

It is shown that they resided for short period only from the date of 4.

marriage . According to terms of compromise, the 1st petitioner paid an amount of Rs.7,20,000/- to the 2nd petitioner in the presence of elders towards full and final settlement of maintenance of both present and future. It is shown that the petitioners 1 and 2 stood by their stand to obtain divorce even after statutory period of reflection. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage. Accoridngly, the petition is allowed.

5.In the result, the petition is allowed. The marital tie between the petitioners, dt.31.05.2013 is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

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

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 17th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- B.Sadhubabu,

Senior Civil Judge,

Parvathipuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:-FOR RESPONDENT:- NONE

P.W.1 : Alugolu Sankararao P.W.2: Alugolu Aliveni

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:-FOR RESPONDENT:- NIL

Ex.P.1 is marraige wedding card of petitioners.

Ex.P.2 joint photograph of the petitioners certified by Gazetted officer.

Sd/- B.Sadhubabu,

Senior Civil Judge,

Parvathipuram.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PARVATHIPURAM

Present : Sri B.Sadhu Babu,

Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram.

Tuesday, the 23rd day of April, 2019

OS.No.30 of 2018

Between :

Sri Yarla Ramakrishna Chaitanya, S/o Yarla Gunnarao, Hindu, residing at C/o Y.Susheela, No.55 U 56, 6th cross, Jai Bhuvaneswari Layout, T.C.Palya, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore, Represented by his Agent and General Power of Attorney Holder, Sri Yarla Gunnarao Sharma, S/o Late Yarla Jagannadha Swamy, aged 65 years, Hindu, Residing at 5­28, Bangaramma Temple road, B.C. colony, Lakkavarapukota, Vizianagaram District.

..Plaintiff

And :

Sri Muvvala Swamy Naidu, S/o late Parsi Naidu, Hindu, Agriculturist, aged about 82 years, Resident of Balagudaba village, Parvatipuram mandal, Vizianagaram District.

..Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff being represented by his agent and General Power of Attorney Holder (Y.Gunna Rao Sharma) against the defendant praying the court to pass a decree the defendant for (1) Specific

Performance of Agreement of Sale with a direction to the defendant to perform his part of contract by executing a registered sale deed and to get it registered at the expenses of the plaintiff and in case of failure by the defendant, the court may be pleased to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, (b) in any case, if the relief of Speecific Performance cannot be granted, to pass a decree directing the defendant to refund the sum of Rs.4,00,000/­ with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of agreement of sale i.e., 13.03.2016 till the date of payment; and (c) and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on 23.04.2019 before me in the presence of Sri

Ch.Chandra Sekhara Rao, advocate for the plaintiff and of

Sri A.Ramakrishna, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered judgment as following: 

­2­

J U D G M E N T 

Both the parties present. Plaintiff filed memo of not press and

the same is recorded. Hence the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 23rd day of April, 2019.

Sd/­B.Sadhu Babu,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARVATHIPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintiff:For defendant:

P.W.1 : Y.Gunnarao SharmaD.W.1: Muvvala Swamynaidu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Ex.A.1 : Notarized GPA executed by the plaintiff in favour of P.W.1, dated 19.07.2018.

Ex.A.2 : Agreement of Sale dated 13.03.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A.3 : Office copy of Legal Notice dated 19.07.2017 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.A.4 : Reply notice dated 25.07.2017 got issued by the defendant.

Ex.A.5 : Certified copy of Regd., Sale Deed dated 16.04.1983 vide Document No.1573/1983.

 Sd/­B.Sadhu Babu,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARVATHIPURAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PARVATHIPURAM

Present: Sri B. Sadhu Babu,

Senior Civil Judge,

Parvathipuram.

this is the Wednesday, the 08th day of April 2019

E.P.26/2018 in OS. No.55/2017

Between:

Varanasi Sankara Rao, S/o. Shivannarayana, Hindu, aged 52 years, D.No.24-2-11, main road, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram.

...D.H.R.

And:

Alavelli Sankara Rao, S/o. Late Atchibabu, Hindu, age 50 years, Narisipuram village, D.No.0-753, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram.

......JDR

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 08.04.2019 in the presence of Sri s. Uma Maheswara rao Counsel for D.H.R. and sri T. Joga Rao counsel for JDR and having stood over till this day this court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is the petition filed by the D.H.R. U/order 21, Rule 54,64,66

C.P.C. to issue notice to JDR to recover the EP amount.

DHR filed FS memo and same is recorded. Hence EP is terminated as a FS recorded.

Dictated to Typist corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this is

the 08th day of April 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Parvathipuram.

2

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner/DHR: For Respondent/JDR:

NIL NIL.

Documents Marked

For Petitioner/DHR: For Respondent/JDR:

NIL NIL.

Senior Civil Judge,

Parvathipuram.