Sri B.Sadhubabu

1

Fair Judgment in

OS.108/2014/JCJ/GJK

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GAJUWAKA

Present: Sri B.Sadhubabu, M.A.,B.L., Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka,

Tuesday, the 25 th day of April, 2017

O.S. No.108/2014

Between: Paluri Parvathalu, W/o. Maheswara Rao, Hindu, 47 years, Housewife, Resident of D.No.21-17-2, Seethanagaram, Pedagantyada, RH Colony, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam -44.

… Plaintif . And:

1. Jommala Appala Raju, S/o. Yellayya, Hindu, 32 years, Resident of Chinakorada, Pedagantyada RH Colony, Visakhapatnam.

2. Jommala Mahesh, S/o. Durgalu, Hindu, 30 years, Resident of Chinakorada, Pedagantyada RH Colony, Visakhapatnam.

3. Saripilli Anand, S/o.Appa Rao, Hindu, 34 years, Resident of Chinakorada, Pedagantyada RH Colony, Visakhapatnam. …Defendants .

This suit coming on 28-3-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.P.Rama Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri K.A.Lakshmana Rao, Advocate for the defendants 2 and 3 and defendant No.1 was set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit is filed by the plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their hench men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2)The averments of the plaint in brief are that: Plaintiff is a land looser of Steel plant and R-card holder and resident of Seethanagaram, the Special Grade Deputy

Collector, Land Acquisition, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam allotted a house site to him under R-card No.755, vide proceedings dated 23-12-2010 for an extent of 107 sq. yards in Sector-I of Pedagantyada R.H.Colony bearing Plot No.2011 with specific boundaries.

That the surveyor of L.A. Steel Plant handover the physical possession of the schedule property since then she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of same, the schedule 2

Fair Judgment in

OS.108/2014/JCJ/GJK

property is a vacant house site for an extent of 107 sq. yards bearing plot No.2011 situated in Sector-I of Pedagantyada R.H.Colony, Pedagantyada Mandal and she has been paying vacant land tax for the schedule property to the GVMC. That the boundaries of Plot No.2006 which is situated at Northern side, Plot No.2012 which is situated at Eastern side, 24 Ft. Road which is situated at Southern side, Plot No.2010 which is situated at Western side. While so on 05-09-2014, when the plaintiff in order to construct a compound wall around the schedule property by clearing the bushes

Defendants their henchmen and agents tried to trespass into the schedule property and also tried to occupy the same and obstructed to clear the bushes and threatened her and her family members with dire consequences, immediately her husband gave a police report to the New port police against the defendants and their henchmen and the police advised her to approach a civil court. As no other go, she filed this suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their hench men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

3)Per contra, the 3rd defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by 2nd defendant on a memo, denying material averments in the plaint and contended that he is a land looser and displaced person of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and R-card holder bearing No.266 and on 20-04-1998 the Special Officer, Land Acquisition, Steel

Plant, Visakhapatnam sanctioned plot bearing No.2011 and Special Surveyor /Special

RI of his office had handed over the physical possession of the suit schedule plot, since then he has been in peaceful, long settled and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment over the schedule property. He further contended that the Patta bearing

SR No.682/2003 was issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedagantyada in his favour on 04-01-2003 in respect of the petition schedule property and he has been paying vacant land tax to the GVMC @ Rs.1605/- per annum to the schedule property vide

Assessment No.520100/26464. He further contended that the Steel Plant authorities 3

Fair Judgment in

OS.108/2014/JCJ/GJK

never issued any proceedings to the plaintiff and she was never in possession of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff is a stranger to the same, in order to grab the plaint schedule property she created all these documents and filed this suit against the defendants. That the patta was created and fabricated by the plaintiff. That the plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing the real facts. The 2nd defendant is the absolute owner of the plot No.2010 which is situated on the Western side of the plaint schedule property. He further contended that the plaintiff never tried to construct any compound wall around the schedule property either on 05-09-2014 or any other date and the defendants never threatened the plaintiff and her family members with dire consequences. That there is no cause of action to file the suit.

Hence, prays to dismiss the suit, with costs.

4)Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?.

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5)During the course of trial, husband of plaintiff ie., P.Maheswara Rao was examined as PW.1 and also examined one Jeelakarra Ramana as PW.2 and marked

Ex.A.1 to A.8 on her behalf. Ex.A.1 is Proceedings of Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector, Steel Plant (LA), Visakhapatnam dt. 23-12-2010 allotting the plot to plaintiff. Ex.A.2 is

Endorsement issued by Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector, Steel Plant (LA), Visakhapatnam dt. 14- 1-2011 informing about the allotment of Plot No.2011 of Seethanagaram to plaintiff.

Ex.A.3 is Tax receipt dt. 13-8-2014 for the vacant land of plaintiff. Ex.A.4 is Tax pass book dt. 13-8-2014 in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A.5 is two photographs with CD, Ex.A.6 is Owner ship certificate issued by Zonal commissioner, Zone V , GVMC, Gajuwaka in the name of Plaintiff. Ex.A.7 is R-card No.755, Ex.A.8 is Endorsement of Tahsildar,

Pedagantyada dt. 30-12-2015. Ex.A.9 is Proceedings issued by Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector, 4

Fair Judgment in

OS.108/2014/JCJ/GJK

Steel Plant (LA), Visakhapatnam in RC.No.805/2010/SA, dt.23-12-2010 in the name of

Plaintiff under RTI Act. On the other hand, on behalf of defendants, 3rd defendant himself examined as DW.1 and marked Ex.B.1 to B.7 on their behalf. Ex.B.1 is

Proceedings of the Spl. Officer, Steel Plant Visakhapatnam, dt. 20-4-1998 allotting plot

No.2011 to Saripilli Anand Kumar ( 3rd defendant). Ex.B.2 is patta issued by the MRO,

Pedagantyada in favour of 3rd defendant allotting plot No.2011. Ex.B.3 is R.Card bearing No.266 issued to 3rd defendant by Steel Plant, LA Authorities. Ex.B.4 is receipt issued by GVMC for issuance of tax book charges dt. 16-2-2010. Ex.B.5 is receipt issued by GVMC in respect of collection of vacant land tax paid by D.3 for vacant land.

Ex.B.6 is vacant land tax paid by D.3 in respect of schedule property dt. 20-9-2014.

Ex.B.7 is tax pass book issued by GVMC Visakhapatnam in the name of 3rd defendant.

6) Heard both sides.

7)ISSUES 1 and 2:

Granting of temporary or permanent injunction is a discretionary remedy and in order to obtain the injunction the plaintiff must satisfy the three ingredients viz., that there is a prima-facie case, balance of convenience in his favour and if no injunction is granted, he will sustain irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by way of damages.

8)Husband of Plaintiff as PW.1 in his chief affidavit deposed to the plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A.1 to A.9 documents. P.W.2 J.Ramana who is a third party to the suit in his chief affidavit reiterated the plaint averments.

9)3rd Defendant as DW.1 deposed to in accordance with his written statement averments and exhibited Ex.B.1 to B.7 in support of the case of defendants.

10)Admittedly suit schedule property is a vacant site. aw in respect of the vacant sites is ‘ possession follows title” 5

Fair Judgment in

OS.108/2014/JCJ/GJK

11)On perusal of the pleadings and documents of the both sides it is clear that they are claiming title and possession over the suit schedule property on the strength of their respective documents.

12)Documents filed by both the parties in support of their title and possession are allegedly issued by the public officials except the Ex.A5 Photographs. Nothing was shown in the said photographs except the faces of some persons. Both the parties are denying the genuinity of the documents filed by their opposite side. Under such circumstances it is for the plaintiff to prove the genuinity of his documents by examining the public officers who issued the same with the concerned public registers.

But the plaintiff failed to do so even after the court gave specific finding to that effect in the order passed in temporary injunction petition.

13) Though the burden lies on her to prove the genuinity of her documents, instead of that the plaintiff put an effort to disprove the documents of the defendants through the Ex.A8 Endorsement allegedly issued by the Tahsidar, Pedagantyada.

14) It is well settled law that in a suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff has to prove his case by adducing positive evidence and ha cannot depend on the weakness of the defendant’s case.

15)According to the plaint averments the suit schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff under the quota of land looser for the formation of steel plant. But as per Ex.A2

Endorsement allegedly issued by the Special deputy collector (LA) Steel plant, the schedule plot has been allotted to the plaintiff under the married major son’s quota.

So it is clear that the Ex.A2 is contradictory to the plaint pleadings.

16)As seen from the Ex.A7 “R” Card” of the plaintiff allegedly issued by the Land

Acquisition Authorities, Steel Plant there are so many plot numbers mentioned and circled on it’s rear side without mentioning of the plot number of the suit schedule property herein. It is not the case of the plaintiff that previously other plot was allotted to her and subsequently it was changed. There is no explanation from the plaintiff for 6

Fair Judgment in

OS.108/2014/JCJ/GJK

such variation of plot number in Ex.A7. Moreover the PW.1 (husband of the plaintiff) admitted during his cross examination that the plot number should be mentioned on the rear side of the R card by the time of allotment of plot to the ‘R’ card holder. That itself creating some doubt in the mind of the court on the genuinity of the case of the plaintiff and on the documents filed by her in support of her case.

17)Counsel for the defendants submitted that as the plaintiff failed to prove her documents by examining the public officials the title and possession cannot be decided in her favour and hence she is not entitled for the equitable relief of permanent injunction.

18) In reply counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as the documents filed by the plaintiff are entries in public records they are relevant and admissible in evidence. In support of his contention he relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India reported in 2006(5) SCC 584 and 2008(13) SCC 133 .

19) Though the entries in public records are relevant and admissible in evidence, the admissibility of a document and probative value of entry contained therein are deferent things. Moreover the defendants also have filed the same nature of the documents i.e entries in public records in support of their case. Under these circumstances the above judgments relied upon by the plaintiff are not applicable to the case in hand.

20) It is apt to refer Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India in between

Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh @ Chhotu Singh and another in which it was held that “ Even if the entry was made in an official record by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duty, it may have weight but still may require corroboration by the person on whose information the entry has been made and as to whether the entry so made has been exhibited and proved. The standard proof required herein is the same as in other civil and criminal cases”.

7

Fair Judgment in

OS.108/2014/JCJ/GJK

21) By applying the principle laid down in the above judgment to the facts and circumstances of the present case when the defendants have also filed the same nature of the documents like the documents filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to prove her documents by summoning the public authority who issued the same and the concerned registers. But the plaintiff did not put any effort in proving so for the reasons best known to her.

22) As the PW.2 is not a competent person to give evidence on the genuinity of the documents filed by the plaintiff, his evidence does not help to prove the alleged title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

23) Though the counsel for the plaintiff cross examined the DW.1 at length nothing was elicited in favour of the plaintiff’s case.

24) In view of the foregoing reasons, this court feels that as the plaintiff failed to prove her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date filing of the suit no prima-facie case is made out and balance of convenience also not found in her favour and no irreparable loss will be caused to her if injunction is not granted. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled for the permanent injunction and issues 1 to 4 are settled against the plaintiff accordingly.

25) In the result, suit is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 25 th day of April, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

P.W.1/ P.Maheswara RaoDW.1/ S.Anand Kumar

PW.2/J.Ramana 8

Fair Judgment in

OS.108/2014/JCJ/GJK

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff :

Ex.A.1/ Proceedings of Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector, Steel Plant (LA), Visakhapatnam dt. 23-12-2010 allotting the plot to plaintiff.

Ex.A.2/ Endorsement issued by Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector, Steel Plant (LA), Visakhapatnam dt. 14-1- 2011.

Ex.A.3/ Tax receipt dt. 13-8-2014 for the vacant land of plaintiff.

Ex.A.4/ Tax pass book dt. 13-8-2014 in the name of plaintiff.

Ex.A.5 is two photographs with CD.

Ex.A.6/Owner ship certificate issued by Zonal commissioner, Zone V , GVMC, Gajuwaka in the name of Plaintiff.

Ex.A.7/ R-card No.755,

Ex.A.8/ Endorsement of Tahsildar, Pedagantyada dt. 30-12-2015.

Ex.A.9/ Proceedings issued by Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector, Steel Plant (LA), Visakhapatnam in

RC.No.805/2010/SA, dt23-12-2010 in the name of Plaintiff under RTI Act.

For Defendants:

Ex.B.1/ Proceedings of the Spl. Officer, Steel Plant Visakhapatnam, dt. 20-4-1998 allotting plot No.2011 to Saripilli Anand Kumar (3rd defendant).

Ex.B.2/ Patta issued by the MRO, Pedagantyada in favour of 3rd defendant allotting plot No.2011.

Ex.B.3/ R.Card bearing No.266 issued to 3rd defendant by Steel Plant, LA Authorities.

Ex.B.4/ Receipt issued by GVMC for issuance of tax book charges dt. 16-2-2010.

Ex.B.5/ Receipt issued by GVMC in respect of collection of vacant land tax paid by D.3 for vacant land.

Ex.B.6/ Vacant land tax paid by D.3 in respect of schedule property dt. 20-9-2014.

Ex.B.7/ Tax pass book issued by GVMC Visakhapatnam in the name of 3rd defendant.

JCJ/GWK 9

Fair Judgment in

OS.108/2014/JCJ/GJK

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GAJUWAKA

Present: Sri. B. Sadhubabu, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

FRIDAY THIS THE 28 th DAY OF APRIL,2017

O.S.45/2017

Between:

1. Kantumuchu Danaiah, S/o late Pentaian, Hindu, employee, Visakhapatnam, aged 48 years, residing at D.No.15-1-85/1, Jalaripalliplem, Gangavaram, Visakhapatnam-530044 ( Rep. by GPA holder No.2 to 43)

2. Bangar Raju, S/o Danaiah( late) aged 48 years, -rest do-

3. K. Nooka Raju, S/o Bhuloka Raju( late) , aged 48 years, -rest do-

4. K.Anill Kumar, S/o Nooka Raju, aged 21 years , Hindu, Fishery, -rest do-

5. K.Nitin, S/o Raka ra, aged 13 years, Hindu, student -rest do-

6. K.Guranna, S/o Bhuloka, aged 28 years, -rest do-

7. K. Bhuloka Raju , S/o Guranna, aged 28 years, -rest do-

8. K.Satya Raju, S/o Guranna, aged 33 years, -rest do-

9. K.Anand Kumar, S/o Guranna , aged 22 years, -rest do-

10. K.Bharat , S/o Guranna, aged 20 years -rest do-

11. K.Nookanna, S/o Bhuloka aged 48 years, -rest do-

12. K.Srinuvasu, S/o K.Nookanna, aged 14 years, – rest do-

13. K.Manikanta, S/o Nookanna, aged 56 years, – rest do-

14. K.Pentaiah, S/o Bodaiah, aged 56 years, – rest do-

15. K.Appanna. S/o Pentaiah, aged 38 years, – rest do-

16. K.Ramana, S/o Pentaiah, aged 35 years – rest do-

17. K.Apparao, S/o Tata Rao, aged 21 years, – rest do-

18. K.Dinesh, S/o Apparao, aged 21 years , – rest do-

19. K.Prudhvi, S/o Appanna, aged 19 years, -rest do-

20. K.Peda Nookanna, S/o Appanna, aged 19 years, -rest do-

21. K.Appala Raju, S/o Peda Nookanna, aged 26 years -rest do-

22. K.Dhana Raju, S/o Peda Appanna , aged 28 years -rest do-

23. K.China nookanna, Apanna, aged 60 years, -rest do-

24. K.Appala Raju , S/o Nookanna, aged 35 years, -rest do-

25. K.Bhuloka Raju, s/o Simhadri, aged 22 years , -rest do-

26. K.Bhuloka Raju, S/o Pentaiah, aged 43 years, -rest do-

27. K.Mutya Raju, S/o Bhuloka Raju, aged 18 years, -rest do-

28. K.Sattayya, S/o Appanna, aged 52 years, -rest do-

29. K.Dhana Raju, S/o Sattayya, aged 33 years. -rest do-

30. K.Dhanaiah, S/o Nookanna aged 53 years, -rest do-

31. K.Sattayya , S/o Danayya, aged 38 years, -rest do-

32. K.Nookaraju, S/o Appanna, aged 39 years, -rest do-

33. K.Gurunna, S/o Appanna aged 25 years, – rest do-

34. K.Paida Raju, S/o Appanna aged 22 years, -rest do-

35. K.Sattaiah, S/o Paidaraju, aged 40 years -rest do-

36. k.Danaiah , S/o Paidaraju, aged 40 years, -rest do-

37. K.Chinna Rao, S/o Bhuloka aged 52 years, -rest do-

38. K. Srinu, S/o Nookaraju, aged 36 years, -rest do-

39. k.Pilla Bhuloka, S/o sattaya, aged 33 years, -rest do-

40. K.Pilla Paida Raju, S/o Sattayya, aged 33 years, – rest do-

41. K.Simhachalam , S/o Bhuloka, aged 56 years, – rest do-

42. K.Appala Raju, S/o Simhachalam, aged 36 years, – rest do-

43. K.Srinu, S/o Simhachalam, aged 33 years, – rest do-

...Plaintiffs

And:

1. Kantumuchu Satayya, S/o Paltata, Hindu, aged 53 years, residing at Jalaipallipalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam

2. K.Srinu, s/o Sataiah. Hindu, aged 27 years, Jalaipallipalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam

3. K.Pentaiah, S/o Danaiah, Hindu, aged 41 years, Jalaipallipalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam

4. K.Satish , S/o Danaiah, Hindu, aged 36 years, Jalaipallipalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam

5. K.Appanna, S/o not known , Hindu, aged 45 years, Jalaipallipalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam

6. K.Nookanna, s/o not known, Hindu, aged 42 years, Jalaipallipalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam

7. K.Nalla Sattanna, S/o Guruvulu, Hindu, aged about 70 years, residing at New Dibbapalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam

8. k.Simhadri, S/o Nalla Sattanna, aged 35 years, -rest do-

9. K.Dahaiah, S/o Satanna, Hindu, aged 35 years,- rest do-

10. K. Ammoru, S/o Nalla Sattanna, Hindu, aged 45 years -rest do-

11. K. Chinna Rao, S/o Nalla Sattayya, Hindu, aged 42 years -rest do-

12. K.Nooka Raju, s/o Nalla sattayya, Hindu, aged 39 years -rest do-

13. K.Guruiah, S/o Appanna, aged 56 years -rest do-

14. K.Simhachalam, S/o Appanna, aged 32 years -rest do-

15. K.Tatalu, S/o Gurulu, Hindu, aged 60 years, -rest do-

16. K.Ganesh , S/o Tatalu, Hindu, aged 40 years -rest do-

17. K.Papudu, S/o Tatalu, Hindu, aged 32 years -rest do-

18. K.bogi raju, S/o Pydaiah, Hindu, aged 45 years -rest do-

19. K. Simhadri, S/o Pydaiah, Hindu, aged 35 years -rest do-

.. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 28-4-2017 in the presence of Sri S.Adilakshmi Advocate for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following the: and

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, the defendants, their men, agents and whosoever acts on their behalf from ever interfering with the peaceful performance of t he Seva Garuda in any manner whatsoever.

2) Plaintiff fled not press memo by stating that the matter was settled out of the court . The same is recorded and the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of April, 2017

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESS EXAMINED

NIL

JCJ/GWK

Date of presentation:28-3-2017 Date of filing : 28-3-2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GAJUWAKA

Present: Sri. B. Sadhubabu, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

FRIDAY THIS THE 28 th DAY OF APRIL,2017

O.S.45/2017

Between:

1. Kantumuchu Danaiah, S/o late Pentaian, Hindu, employee, Visakhapatnam, aged 48 years, residing at D.No.15-1-85/1, Jalaripalliplem, Gangavaram, Visakhapatnam-530044 ( Rep. by GPA holder No.2 to 43)

2. Bangar Raju, S/o Danaiah( late) aged 48 years, -rest do-

3. K. Nooka Raju, S/o Bhuloka Raju( late) , aged 48 years, -rest do-

4. K.Anill Kumar, S/o Nooka Raju, aged 21 years , Hindu, Fishery, -rest do-

5. K.Nitin, S/o Raka ra, aged 13 years, Hindu, student -rest do-

6. K.Guranna, S/o Bhuloka, aged 28 years, -rest do-

7. K. Bhuloka Raju , S/o Guranna, aged 28 years, -rest do-

8. K.Satya Raju, S/o Guranna, aged 33 years, -rest do-

9. K.Anand Kumar, S/o Guranna , aged 22 years, -rest do-

10. K.Bharat , S/o Guranna, aged 20 years -rest do-

11. K.Nookanna, S/o Bhuloka aged 48 years, -rest do-

12. K.Srinuvasu, S/o K.Nookanna, aged 14 years, – rest do-

13. K.Manikanta, S/o Nookanna, aged 56 years, – rest do-

14. K.Pentaiah, S/o Bodaiah, aged 56 years, – rest do-

15. K.Appanna. S/o Pentaiah, aged 38 years, – rest do-

16. K.Ramana, S/o Pentaiah, aged 35 years – rest do-

17. K.Apparao, S/o Tata Rao, aged 21 years, – rest do-

18. K.Dinesh, S/o Apparao, aged 21 years , – rest do-

19. K.Prudhvi, S/o Appanna, aged 19 years, -rest do-

20. K.Peda Nookanna, S/o Appanna, aged 19 years, -rest do-

21. K.Appala Raju, S/o Peda Nookanna, aged 26 years -rest do-

22. K.Dhana Raju, S/o Peda Appanna , aged 28 years -rest do-

23. K.China nookanna, Apanna, aged 60 years, -rest do-

24. K.Appala Raju , S/o Nookanna, aged 35 years, -rest do-

25. K.Bhuloka Raju, s/o Simhadri, aged 22 years , -rest do-

26. K.Bhuloka Raju, S/o Pentaiah, aged 43 years, -rest do-

27. K.Mutya Raju, S/o Bhuloka Raju, aged 18 years, -rest do-

28. K.Sattayya, S/o Appanna, aged 52 years, -rest do-

29. K.Dhana Raju, S/o Sattayya, aged 33 years. -rest do-

30. K.Dhanaiah, S/o Nookanna aged 53 years, -rest do-

31. K.Sattayya , S/o Danayya, aged 38 years, -rest do-

32. K.Nookaraju, S/o Appanna, aged 39 years, -rest do-

33. K.Gurunna, S/o Appanna aged 25 years, – rest do-

34. K.Paida Raju, S/o Appanna aged 22 years, -rest do-

35. K.Sattaiah, S/o Paidaraju, aged 40 years -rest do-

36. k.Danaiah , S/o Paidaraju, aged 40 years, -rest do-

37. K.Chinna Rao, S/o Bhuloka aged 52 years, -rest do-

38. K. Srinu, S/o Nookaraju, aged 36 years, -rest do-

39. k.Pilla Bhuloka, S/o sattaya, aged 33 years, -rest do-

40. K.Pilla Paida Raju, S/o Sattayya, aged 33 years, – rest do-

41. K.Simhachalam , S/o Bhuloka, aged 56 years, – rest do-

42. K.Appala Raju, S/o Simhachalam, aged 36 years, – rest do-

43. K.Srinu, S/o Simhachalam, aged 33 years, – rest do-

...Plaintiffs

And:

1. Kantumuchu Satayya, S/o Paltata, Hindu, aged 53 years, residing at Jalaipallipalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam

2. K.Srinu, s/o Sataiah. Hindu, aged 27 years, Jalaipallipalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam

3. K.Pentaiah, S/o Danaiah, Hindu, aged 41 years, Jalaipallipalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam

4. K.Satish , S/o Danaiah, Hindu, aged 36 years, Jalaipallipalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam

5. K.Appanna, S/o not known , Hindu, aged 45 years, Jalaipallipalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam

6. K.Nookanna, s/o not known, Hindu, aged 42 years, Jalaipallipalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam

7. K.Nalla Sattanna, S/o Guruvulu, Hindu, aged about 70 years, residing at New Dibbapalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam

8. k.Simhadri, S/o Nalla Sattanna, aged 35 years, -rest do-

9. K.Dahaiah, S/o Satanna, Hindu, aged 35 years,- rest do-

10. K. Ammoru, S/o Nalla Sattanna, Hindu, aged 45 years -rest do-

11. K. Chinna Rao, S/o Nalla Sattayya, Hindu, aged 42 years -rest do-

12. K.Nooka Raju, s/o Nalla sattayya, Hindu, aged 39 years -rest do-

13. K.Guruiah, S/o Appanna, aged 56 years -rest do-

14. K.Simhachalam, S/o Appanna, aged 32 years -rest do-

15. K.Tatalu, S/o Gurulu, Hindu, aged 60 years, -rest do-

16. K.Ganesh , S/o Tatalu, Hindu, aged 40 years -rest do-

17. K.Papudu, S/o Tatalu, Hindu, aged 32 years -rest do-

18. K.bogi raju, S/o Pydaiah, Hindu, aged 45 years -rest do-

19. K. Simhadri, S/o Pydaiah, Hindu, aged 35 years -rest do-

.. Defendants

This suit is filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, the defendants, their men, agents and whosoever acts on their behalf from ever interfering with the peaceful performance of t he Seva Garuda in any manner whatsoever.

Value of the suit is Rs.1,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.3526/- is paid thereon as per sec.26(c)Sch-I Art-I (b) and (c) of APCF and SV Act. Challan No.39694 dated 20-3-2017

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 28-4-2017 in the presence of Sri S.Adilakshmi Advocate for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court doth order; and

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed ; and

2. that there be no order as to costs.

( Copy of not press memo attached to here)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 28th day of April,2017

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff : For Defendants:

No cost memo filed on either side

JCJ/GWK

1

Fair Judgment in OS.110/2016/JCJ/GJK

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GAJUWAKA

PRESENT: B.SADHUBABU, Junior Civil Judge,

Thursday, the 20 th day of April, 2017

O.S. No.110/2016

Between: Nidadavolu Tammi Raju, s/o. Appala Raju, Hindu, 41 years, residing at D.No.1-6-66. Akkireddypalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintif . And:

1.Chaganti Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Veera Raju, Hindu, 45 years, Resident of D.No.12- 36, Back side of Gantasala Kalamandir, Sramasakhti Nagar, Chinamushidiwada, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam.

2.Chaganti Lakshmi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, 38 years, Resident of D.No.12-36, Back side of Gantasala Kalamandir, Sramasakhti Nagar, Chinamushidiwada, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam.Chaga …Defendants .

This suit coming on 19-4-2017 before me in the presence of Smt.M.Pavani, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants called absent and set exparte and having and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,16,800/ (Rupees Two lakhs sixteen thousand eight hundred only) from the defendants, being the amount of principal and interest due under a promissory note dt.6-3-2016, for Rs.2,00,000/- executed in favour of plaintiff by the defendants, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2)The brief case of the plaintiff is that: On 6-3-2016, defendants 1 and 2, for their family need and to clear sundry debts, jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, from the plaintiff and jointly executed demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In spite of repeated demands and requests made by the plaintiff, defendants failed to repay either the principal or interest. Hence, the suit.

3)On 7-11-2016 Defendant No.1 was called absent and no representation. Service held sufficient for D.1. Hence Defendant No.1 was set exparte. On 17-4-2017 the defendant

No.2 was set exparte as service of summons held sufficient.

4)The plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff for an amount of 2

Fair Judgment in OS.110/2016/JCJ/GJK Rs.2,00,000/-, dated 6-3-2016. The evidence of P.W.1 was not challenged by the defendants.

For the reasons best known to the defendants they remained absent and were set exparte.

The unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 suit pronote proves about the borrowing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and also the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 6-3-2016. The evidence of P.W.1 further proves that in spite of demands made by the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 failed to discharge the suit promissory note debt. Hence, the suit claim is proved.

5)In the result, suit is decreed against defendants 1 and 2 with costs for an amount of Rs.2,16,800/ (Rupees Two lakhs sixteen thousand eight hundred only) with subsequent interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of April, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: P.W.1 : N.Tammi Raju-NONE-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/ Suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, dated 6-3-2016.

For Defendants : -NIL-

JCJ/GWK 3

Fair Judgment in OS.110/2016/JCJ/GJK

Date of Presentation:12-7-2016/27-7-2016 Date of filing:8-8-2016

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GAJUWAKA

PRESENT: B.SADHUBABU, Junior Civil Judge,

Thursday, the 20 th day of April, 2017

O.S. No.110/2016

Between: Nidadavolu Tammi Raju, s/o. Appala Raju, Hindu, 41 years, residing at D.No.1-6-66. Akkireddypalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintif . And:

1. Chaganti Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Veera Raju, Hindu, 45 years, Resident of D.No.12-36, Back side of Gantasala Kalamandir, Sramasakhti Nagar, Chinamushidiwada, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam.

2. Chaganti Lakshmi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, 38 years, Resident of D.No.12-36, Back side of Gantasala Kalamandir, Sramasakhti Nagar, Chinamushidiwada, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam.Chaga …Defendants .

Suit to recover a sum of Rs.2,16,800/ (Rupees Two lakhs sixteen thousand eight hundred only) from the defendants, being the amount of principal and interest due under a promissory note dt.6-3-2016, for Rs.2,00,000/- executed in favour of plaintiff by the defendants, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit. Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction is Rs.2,16,800/ and a Court Fee of Rs.4626/- is paid under Section 20, Schedule-1, Article-1(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This suit coming on 19-4-2017 before me in the presence of Smt.M.Pavani, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants called absent and set exparte and having and stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order: and

D E C R E E

1. that the defendants 1 and 2 do pay to the plaintiff a sum ofRs.2,16,800/ (Rupees Two lakhs sixteen thousand eight hundred only) with subsequent interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000; and

2. that the defendant 1 and 2 do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,556 /- towards costs of the suit. Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 20th day of April, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

GAJUWAKA

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: Rs. ps. Vakalat 2-00 Plaint stamp 4,626-00 Stamp on process 63-00No cost memo is filed.

4

Fair Judgment in OS.110/2016/JCJ/GJK Type charges 100-00 Advocate fee 3,865-00 Costs allowed. 8,556-00 JCJ/GWK

1

Draft Judgment in OS.34/2017/JCJ/GJK

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GAJUWAKA

PRESENT: B.SADHUBABU, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

Thursday, the 20 th day of April, 2017

O.S. No.34/2017

Between: Ayyala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. A.S.M.Koteswara Rao, Employee in Steel Plant, Hindu, 509 years, R/o. D.No.31-17-1/12, SF-3, Sai Chandra apartments, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam -46. … Plaintif . And: Katraparti Trimurthulu, S/o. Sri Ramulu, Hindu, 50 years, Resident of Q.No.313/E, Sector -V, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam, Working as Foreman, E.No.115919, BHS Section, BF Department, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. …Defendant .

This suit coming on 20-4-2017 before me in the presence of Sri.D.Chandra Rao, K.v.Brahamam, Advocates for the Plaintiff and the defendant was present before this court and having and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rupees One lakh five thousand only) from the defendant, being the amount of principal and interest due under a promissory note dt.5-6-2015, for Rs.75,000/- executed in favour of plaintiff by the defendant, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2)The brief case of the plaintiff is that: On 5-6-2015, defendant, for his family expenses and to clear sundry debts borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000/-, from the plaintiff and executed demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In spite of repeated demands and requests made by the plaintiff, defendant failed to repay either the principal or interest.

Hence, the suit.

3)On 20-4-2017 the defendant was present and filed proof of identity ie., Employment card. The same was verified with the original and satisfied. Defendant admitted the suit claim and reported that decree may be passed in favour of plaintiff and to that effect he filed memo.

The same was recorded.

4)Heard. Perused the record. As defendant reported that he has no defence in this suit, this court is inclined to pass decree with costs in favour of plaintiff for the suit amount basing on the suit pronote dt.5-6-2015 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.75,000/-.

2

Draft Judgment in OS.34/2017/JCJ/GJK

5)In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- with subsequent interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.75,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of April, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

JCJ/GWK 3

Draft Judgment in OS.34/2017/JCJ/GJK

Date of Presentation:4-1-2017 Date of filing:5-1-2017

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GAJUWAKA

PRESENT: B.SADHUBABU, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

Monday, the 17 th day of April, 2017

O.S. No.5/2017

Between: Kantipudi Venkata Srinivasu, S/o. Late Rama Rao, Hindu, 47 years, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Employee, Resident of Qtr. No.102/a, Sector -4, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintif . And: Vardhanapu Sanjeeva Rao, S/o.Narayana Murthy, 64 years, Retired Employee, Residing at D.No.61-4-11, Venkannapalem, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam -11. …Defendant .

Suit to recover a sum of Rs.2,48,000/ (Rupees Two lakhs Forty eight thousand only) from the defendant, being the amount of principal and interest due under a promissory note dt.29-11-2015, for Rs.2,00,000/- executed in favour of plaintiff by the defendant, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit. Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction is Rs.2,48,000/ and a Court Fee of Rs.4926/- is paid under Section 20, Schedule-1, Article-1(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act. This suit coming on 13-4-2017 before me in the presence of Sri.K.Naga Devi, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant called absent and set exparte and having and stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order: and

D E C R E E

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum ofRs.2,48,000/ (Rupees Two lakhs Forty eight thousand only) with subsequent interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,970-00/- towards Institutional costs of the suit. Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 17th day of April, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

GAJUWAKA

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

4

Draft Judgment in OS.34/2017/JCJ/GJK No costs memo is filed on either side. Institutional costs: Rs. ps. Vakalat 2-00 Plaint stamp 4,926-00 Stamp on process 42-00 Institutional Costs allowed. 4,970-00 JCJ/GWK

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GAJUWAKA

Present: Sri. B. Sadhubabu, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

THRUSDAY THIS THE 27 th DAY OF APRIL,2017

O.S.7/2017

Between: Gadepe Vijaya Raju, S/o Nageswara Rao, christian, aged 35 years, Fonder Christ Gospel church Ministries , R/at D.No. 39-8/70, Muralinagar, Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam-530007, Adhar Card No. 643585394298 ...Plaintif

And: Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner, Tenneti Bhavan, Visakhapatnam

.. Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 27-4-2017 in the presence of Sri I.M.Ahmed Advocate for plaintiff and SriV.K.R & P.R.R(Ramu) Advocate for the Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following the:

and

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their henchmen, and agents from ever interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties in any manner whatsoever ..

2) Advance petition filed by the plaintiff and the same is allowed suit is advanced from 3-5-2017 to 27-4-2017. Not press memo filed by the plaintiff by withdrawing the suit and the same is recorded. Suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of April, 2017

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESS EXAMINED

NIL

JCJ/GWK

Date of presentation:03-01-2017 Date of filing : 05-01-2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GAJUWAKA

Present: Sri. B. Sadhubabu, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

THRUSDAY THIS THE 27 th DAY OF APRIL,2017

O.S.7/2017

Between: Gadepe Vijaya Raju, S/o Nageswara Rao, christian, aged 35 years, Fonder Christ Gospel Church Ministries , R/at D.No. 39-8/70, Muralinagar, Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam-530007, Adhar Card No. 643585394298 ...Plaintif

And: Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner, Tenneti Bhavan, Visakhapatnam . Defendant

This suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their henchmen, and agents from ever interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties in any manner whatsoever ...

Value of the suit is Rs.1,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.3426/- is paid thereon as per sec.26(c)Sch-I Art-I (b) and (c) of APCF and SV Act. Challan No. 78666 dated 3-1-2017

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 27-4-2017 in the presence of Sri I.M.Ahmed Advocate for plaintiff and SriV.K.R & P.R.R(Ramu) Advocate for the Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court doth order ; and

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed ; and

2. that there be no order as to costs. ( Copy of not press memo attached to here)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 27th day of April,2017

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff : For Defendants:

No cost memo filed on either side

JCJ/GWK