Smt B.Sobha Kumari

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Smt. B. SOBHA KUMARI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Friday, this the 01st day of November, 2019.

COMMON JUDGMENT

IN

O.S.No.400 of 2010 & O.S.494/2014

Cause title in O.S.400/2010: -

Between:

1. Ravipati Hanumantha Rao, s/o. Ravipati Punnaiah, Aged 50 years.

2. Ravipati Venkateswarlu, s/o. Ravipati Punnaiah, Aged 45 years.

Both are Hindu, Agriculture, r/o. Maddipadu, Muppalla (V), NG Padu Mandal,

Prakasam District.... Plaintiffs.

And

1. Ravipati Nayudamma (Died).

2. Bodala Anantha Lakshmi, w/o. Bodala Chennaiah, Aged 55 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala, NG Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Cherukuri Maruthi Kumari, w/o. Cherukuri Hanumantha Rao, Aged 50 years, hindu, Housewife, Chintagumpala (V), Timmasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Jagarlamudi Jayamma, w/o. Jagarlamudi Ragha Krishnamurthy, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Mattigunta (V) & (M), Prakasam District.

5. Sadineni Ramanujamma, s/o. Sadineni Subbarao, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Uppugundur (V), NG Padu (M), Prakasam District.

*6. Ravipati Saraswathi, w/o. Ravipati Naidamma, Aged 75 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala, 2

NG Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

6th defendant added as per orders In IA 1581/2016,

dated 09.06.2017.... Defendants.

Cause title in O.S.494/2014: -

Between:

1. Ravipati Nayudamma (Died).

2. Ravipati Saraswathi, w/o. Late Nayudamma, Aged 80 years, Hindu, Houswife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala (V), NG Padu (M).

3. Bodala Anantha Lakshmi, w/o. Chennaiah, Aged 61 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala (V), NG Padu (M).

4. Chilukuri Kumari, w/o. Hanumantha Rao, Aged 56 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Chinthagumpala (V), Chinaganjam (M), Prakasam District.

5. Jagarlamudi Jayamma, w/o. Radha Krishna Murthy, Aged 52 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Mattigunta (V), NG Padu (M), Prakasam District.

6. Sadineni Ramanujamma, w/o. Subba Rao, Aged 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Uppugundur (V), NG Padu (M), Prakasam District.

R2 to R6 added as Lrs of 1st plaintiff as per orders

in IA 1580/2016 dated 9.6.2017.... Plaintiffs.

Vs.

1. Ravipati Hanumantha Rao, s/o. Punnaiah, 50 years, Hindu, r/o. Maddirala-Muppalla (V), NG Padu (M).

2. Ravipadu Venkateswarlu, s/o. Punnaiah, 45 years, Hindu, presently residing at Ammanabrolu (V), NG Padu (M)... Defendants.

These suits are coming before me on 28.10.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri Pattipati Rammurthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri C.

Venkata Rao, Advocate for defendant [in O.S.400/2010] and Sri C.

Venkata Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri Pattipati Rammuthy, Advocate for Defendant [in O.S.494/2014] and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 3

// C O M M O N J U D G M E N T //

O.S. 400/2010 is filed by plaintiff to pass preliminary decree for

partition of the suit schedule property into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs with good and bad qualities and for future profits and for costs.

O.S.494/2014 is filed by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants

from demolishing XX1 joint wall in between A and B marked plots shown in plaint plan by way of permanent injunction and for costs.

2.The averments of the plaint in O.S.400/2010 are in succient:-

One Ravipati Ankamma is grandfather of plaintiffs and father of 1st defendant. The father of the plaintiff Ravipati Punnaiah is own brother of 1st defendant. Originally, item No.1 of the suit schedule property was purchased by Punnaiah and first defendant through a registered sale deed on 9.4.1946 and item No.2 of the schedule property was purchased by 1st defendant and Punnaiah through a registered sale deed on 2.7.1955. Further the said Ravipati Punnaiah and first defendant inherited item No.3 of the schedule property on the death of Ankamma as per Hindu succession Act. Ever since the suit schedule properties has been under joint possession and enjoyment of the said Punnaiah and first defendant till the death of Punnaiah i.e., on 20.8.1988. After that the plaintiff and first defendant without any partition by metes and bounds in accordance with convenience they have been in enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Few months back at the instance of first defendant, the plaintiffs and first defendant decided to demolish the old tiled house in item No.1 of the schedule property and to construct a new house therein, accordingly, plaintiff started to demolish the tiled house and he 4 completed demolition of house upto half portion. All of a sudden the defendants 2 to 5 who are daughters of first defendant along with their husbands obstructed this plaintiff in demolition of tiled house in the item

No.1 of the schedule property, then the village elders came into picture for the divison of schedule property between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant equally.

(B) The 1st defendant agreed for division amicably, but change his mind and got filed vide O.S.305/2010 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge, Ongole seeking injunction restraining the plaintiff not to remove

the joint wall in tiled house. The plaintiff vexed with their attitude, got issued a notice on 6.7.2010 demanding the first defendant to come forward for amicable partition of the suit schedule property with metes and bounds. The first defendant got issued reply notice on 31.7.2010 with all false allegations. At the instance of the defendants 2 to 5 who are the members of the Hindu undivided family of first defendant along with their husband, obstructing this plaintiff in use and enjoyment of property. There is no partition as stated by the first defendant either in the year 1963 or else with regard to schedule properties. Hence, present suit.

3.The 1st defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 2 to 5 by denying the allegations and submitted that it is true, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants and item No.1 and 2 were purchased by Punnaiah and the 1st defendant jointly in the year 1946 and 1955 as stated by the plaintiff. It is true item No.3 was inherited by the plaintiff, the first defendant and Punnaiah after death of

Ankamma as per Hindu succession Act. There was a partition was held 5 in between this 1st defendant, Punnaiah and their father Ankamma on 29.5.1963 through the unregistered partition deed by metes and bounds.

As per the said partition A schedule property were allotted to Ankamma,

B schedule proeprty fell to the father of the plaintiff, C schedule properties came to the share of the first defendant. While so, A schedule property which came to the parents were also partitioned between

Punnaiah and first defendant in turn, they both agreed to maintain their parents by way of giving paddy and cash. So the A schedule properties were also partitioned at the time of partition deed itself. Since the date of partition, Ankamma is in the house of plaintiff and his wife in the house of first defendant till their death.

(a) During the period, plaintiffs grand father, plaintiff’s father and first defendant have been enjoying their respective share as per the partition. The first defendant also obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the property came to his share in the partition. Some of the properties were alienated by the first defendant and some of the properties were mortgaged by the first defendant and he has been enjoying his share, while so, the first defendant father died in the year 1968 and mother died in the year 1982 being so, the plaintiffs father died about 22 years back. The plaintiffs family members also obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds with respect to their share in the partition, there are no divisible properties in between the first defendant and plaintiff.

(B) Item No.1 of the schedule property is titled house with two portions, item No.2 and 3 are vacante sites. Out of the item No.1 the western side portion fell to the share of the plaintiff’s father and Eastern side portion came to the first defendant. Adjacent to the Eastern side 6 portion, the 1st defendant purchased vacant site from Galli Seetha

Ramaiah through a registered sale deed in the year 1967 and 1968 and first defendant also purchased some vacant site in the year 2002 from

Jetti Anjaneyulu. Both the plaintff’s family and first defendant family has been using item No.2 and 3 as a costtam. The boundaries given by the plaintiff is not correct. After filing of the suit by this first defendant vide

O.S.305/2010, the plaintiff removed their kostam. There was a dispute

between the plaintiffs and first defendant with regard to joint wall in item No.1. When plaintiff highhandedly tried to remove the joint wall, this first defendant filed an injunction suit and Hon’ble Court granted temporary injunction also. Thereafter, the plaintiff with a malafide intention got issued legal notice to the first defendant with all false allegations. There is no any joint property which is liable to be partition in between parties. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled by this Court:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition?

2. To what relief?

05.The averments of the plaint in O.S.494/2014 are in succient:-

The plaintiff and father of the defendants viz., Punnaiah are brothers, they are residents of Maddirala Village. The plot A and B are consisting single item purchased from Jetti Kotaiah and Ramaiah and sons of Venkatappaiah in the year 1946. Since then, the first plaintiff and defendant’s father have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment till the year 1963, thereafter, they got partitioned the joint family properties, plot A and A1 came to plaintiffs and B and B1 came to 7 defendants father. This plaintiff has purchased C and C1 plots in the year 1967 and 1968 through registered sale deeds. Plot A1 is cattle shed, plot B belongs to defenadnts, their main door way facing towards western side plot B1 is cattle shed belongs to them. A and B marked houses on its north and westren side towards vacant site was left out for the purpose of passage shown as Y. On its north side Pancha covered with door way facing towards western side. In between A marked and B marked property house portions, there is a old wall shown as X, X1 above that there is a wooden bheem as on the date of purchase, the first plaintiff and defendants have been exercising their right of passage and through Y makred private galli bazaar to reach southern side main panchayat road. Both A and B houses having one Vennugadi and same is located in A marked tiled house, there were some interse disputes between plaintiffs and defendants and these defendants causing obstruction for the enjoyment of joint wall. Both the plaintiffs and defendants are having equal rights. But these defendants making hectic efforts to remove the joint wall, if they are allowed to demolish joint wall, the entire structure of the A, B marked schedule property will be collapsed. This plaintiff and defendants are enjoying A and B marked plots, since 1963, the first plaintiff requested the defendant not to demolish the wall, but it was in vain. These plaintiffs cannot resist highhanded acts of defendants. Hence, the present suit.

06.The 1st defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the 2nd defendant by denying the allegations in the plaint and submitted that these defendants never born at the time of purchase of the house and they do not have any knowledge about the partition of the properties in the year 1963, the question of partition by metes and 8 bounds does not arise at all. So far as plaintiff does not have any male children and all female children married away, they have been staying different places, these defendants are assisting the first plaintiff in agriculture operation and in the family matters due to old age. Recently, on the visit of son in law of first plaintiff, some inconvenience was arose between the family members. Plaintiffs and defendants obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds separately utilizing the plot A and B as averred in the plaint, but there is no division of plot A1, B1 as stated by plaintiff, even for convenience also. Both the plaintiffs and defenadnts are utilizing A, A1, B, B1 properties jointly according to their convenience. Few days back, the plaintiff himself approached the defendants to construct a new building in the place of old tiled house, accordingly, these defendants started demolishing the tiled house. At that juncture, the son in law of the first plaintiff visited the village and changed the mind of plaintiff and his wife due to their non willingness and objections. The elders in the village intervened and advised the defendant to construct a house in plot B only according to the measurements. As per the measurements, the defendant half share in the house comes beyond the wall of X, X1. Hence, the said wall is to be removed and new wall is placed in the plot A. It is utterly false to say that there is a wooden bheem over and above the said wall and the portion of tiled house in plot A will be collapsed. Though, the plaintiff and his wife and their children accepted for removal of X, X1 wall in the presence of elders, got filed false and frievlous suit and obtained exparte injunction orders by suppressing the real facts.

This plaintiff did not submit the proof of partition of the properties between the plaintiffs and father of the defendant either in 1963 or else.

9

Further plot B1 was purchased jointly by this father of the defendant and the plaintiff in the year 1955. A1 was devolved on the plaintiff by way of succession. Hence, both the plots A1 and B1 are liable to be partitioned between the plaintiff and defendant according to the good and bad qualities. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.

07.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled by this Court:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

08.As per the orders in T.R.O.P.36/2012 on the file of Hon’ble Prl. District Court, Ongole

O.S.494/2014 was clubbed with O.S.400/2010 and a joint trial is conducted in O.S.400/2010

only.

09.On behalf of the Plaintiff P.W.1 to P.W.3 examined and got marked

Exs. A1 to A5. On behalf of the defendant D.W.1 to D.W.3 are examined and got marked Ex.B1 to B3.

10.Heard arguments of both counsels. The status of parties in vide OS.

No. 400 of 2010 was referred in entire judgement as plaintiffs and defendants.

11.Issue No.1 in O.S.400/2010: -

It is the case of the plaintiff originally the suit schedule property, item No.1 and 2 were purchased by the father of the plaintiff Punniah and 1st defendant jointly through two separate sale deeds in the year 1946 and 1955 and item No.3 was devolved on them after death of their 10 grand father Ankamma by way of Hindu succession. Since then they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Father of plaintiff and 1st defendant are in possession of the property as per convenience, there was no partition was done by metes and bounds. On contra, it is contended by the first defendant that during the life time of their parents itself in the year 1963, there was a partition was held in which the properties of them were partition by metes and bounds, since then, they have been enjoying their respective possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and there is no joint family property left for partition between them. As this case was filed by plaintiff for partition of suit schedule property, the entire onus is on the plaintiff to show as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit schedule property open for partition and they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

13.It is the case of plaintiff as per averments and evidence of him that as on today there is no partition by metes and bounds, suit schedule property is in joint possession. To prove the same, the first plaintiff viz.,

Ravipati Hanumantha Rao examined himself as P.W.1 and deposed before the court that item No.1 of the suit scehdule property is two portioned tiled house. Though, they were in possession of the suit scehdule property as per their convenience, there was no partition by metes and bounds. Item Nos. 2 and 3 which are vacant sites are in joint possession, till today also they were in joint occupation of members of joint family.

Even for convenience property were not divided. So that schedule properties are to be partitioned by metes and bounds.

14.The second plaintiff R.Venkateswarlu examined as P.W.2 and 11 deposed that there was no partition was held for the suit schedule proeprty, though, the plaintiffs and defendants are in possession of item

No.1 of the schedule property for their convenience, but there was no partition by metes and bounds.The plaintiff also examined P.W.3 who is third party to proceedings, who deposed that there was no partition of properties between the families of both the plaintiff and defendant, but they are enjoying their properties according to their convenience. When these plaintiffs started to demolish the old tiled house, the first defendant suddenly changed his mind and obstructed for demolition.

Though, he agreed for amicable partition and removal of the joint wall.

15.On contra to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, it is the case of the defendants that during the life time of father of D1 itself, there was partition was held in the year 1963 by metes and bounds and these suit schedule properties were partitioned and they have been enjoying their respective shares. After partition some of the properties were sold away by plaintiff and 1st defendant to third parties and some property was mortgaged by the 1st defendant, then the question of joint possession does not arise.

16.To prove the same, the first defendant has filed chief affidavit, but his evidence is eschewed on his death. Defendants examined D.w.2 who is the 5th defendant herein who deposed that the first defendant was bed ridden for the last one year and the defendants 2 to 5 are the daughters of first defendant. The suit schedule property was partitioned long back itself as per Ex.B1 unregistered partitioned deed which was handed over her counsel in the year 2010 and the case was filed by her father vide 12

O.S.305/2010 was clubbed with vide O.S.400/2010 and transferred to this

court. During the life time of plaintiff’s father itself, the properties were partition by metes and bounds and there is no property was left for partition.

17.The defendant also examined D.W.3 third party to the proceedings who deposed about filing of the suit by the first defendant before the I

Addl. Junior Civil Judge for injunction, when this plaintiff tried to demolish the joint wall and deposed that there was a partition was held in the year 1963 itself, since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares.

18.There is no dispute between the parties about the relationship stated in pleadings that Ankamma is grandfather of the plaitniffs, he blessed with two children Punnaiah and first defendant. It is also undisputed fact that through Ex.A1 item No.1 was purchased by

Punnaiah and D1 through a registered sale deed and item No.2 vacant site was purchased by them through Ex.A2 in the year 1955. There is a clear pleadings in the written statement itself that item No.1 was purchased on 4.9.1946 by first defendant and Punnaiah from Jetti

Kotaiaah, Ramaiah sons of Venkatappaiah and item No.2 was purchased by them on 2.7.1955 as per Ex.A2 from Ravipati Rangaiah and his son

Subba Rao. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to extent, measurements and boundaries of item No.1 and 2 which was purchased through Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Though, the chief examination of

D.W.1 belongs to the first defendant Nayudamma was eschewed in vide

O.S.400/2010 after clubbing of the matter, but he was examined in vide

O.S.494/2014 before transfer to this court in vide O.S.305/2010 which

13 was re-numbered as O.S.494/2014 in the present court. On perusal of the evidence of Naidamma/1st defendant, he categorically admitted that the property shown in schedule item No.1 and 2 are the properties purchased by them as per Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

19.Now it is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property which was purchased by their father and first defendant jointly was not partitioned by metes and bounds, though, they have been in possession of the western side portion and eastern side by the 1st defendant for their convenience, thereby, it is just and necessary to divide the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. On contra, the defendant came up with a case that there was a prior partition between this plaintiff and defendant in the year 1963 itself as per Ex.B1 unregistered partition deed. Once both the parties admitting that item No.1 and 2 are jointly purchased by father of plaintiff Punnaiah and 1st defendant and item No.3 was devolved on them from their ancestors and there is no any dispute with regard to location of property, then it is pertinent to look into the evidence of both the parties and Ex B1 unregistered partition deed to know about servance of status of family and the partition allegedly held in the year 1963.

20.It is the case of the plaintiff that there was no partition by metes and bounds and they have been enjoying the property as per their convenience, but as seen the Ex.B1 not only item No.1 to 3 vacant sites, there are some other landed property also which falls in survey

No.147/2, 310/2, 479, 242 and those properties were allocated in between Ankamma, D1 and Punnaiah. But the said properties were not shown in the schedule of the present suit. Except the vacant sites which 14 was purchased through Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and item No.3 which is vacant site devolved on Ankamma from his ancestors, no property which was shown in the schedule of A, B, C in Ex.B1 are not the schedule of the present suit. So that the plaintiff excluded the landed property which was referred in Ex.B1 and filed the present suit for partition only for vacant sites which was shown as A1, B1, A and B as shown in the plaint plan filed by the 1st defendant vide O.S.494/2014. Since beginning it is the case of the plaintiff that there was no partition by metes and bounds, but coming to the evidence of them, they categorically admitted about the enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff and defendant as per their share, even during the life time of their father. To that effect P.W.1 deposed in the following lines:

“Item No.1 of the suit schedule property is a two portioned tiled house. It is true in the Eastern portion, the 1st defendant has been residing and western portion my father has been residing. It is true, the boundaries of item No.1 of the schedule were shown as per the boundaries of document in 1946. It is true, vacant sites towards North of my house were shown as item No.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule. From the date of separation of my father and D1, they have been in possession and enjoyment of item No.2 and 3 of the schedule properties.

From the date of my discretion itself my father and the 1st defendant has been residing separately. It is true, I sold some of the land fell to my share. It is true the D1 gave his share to D2 to D4 at the time of their marriage. It is true after separation of my father, D1 purchased vacant site on the Eastern side of my house from Jetti Kotaiah. It is true as per the partition terms my father and D1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.”

In the same way P.W.2 who is the second plaintiff herein has 15 deposed in the following lines:

“It is true my father and 1st defendant have been residing separately and enjoying their respective share of property for the last 40 years. It is true after purchase of lands Item No.1 to 3, my father and D1 partitioned their properties. It is true my family and D1 family were issued with pattadar pass books for their respective share and we have alienated some properties to third parties. It is true the tiled house situated in item No.1 my father used to reside in western side and D1 is used on Eastern side. It is true, D1 purchased some site abettting to the Eastern side of his share.”

With the above admissions made by P.Ws. 1 and 2 itself very clear that this D1 and Punnaiah partitioned the properties long back during the life time of thier father itself and they have been residing separately and enjoying the property which came to their share in the partition.

Even their names were mutated in revenue record as per the share of each brother. The same was reflecting from Ex.B2 the pattadar pass books stands in the name of the 1st defendant. The admission of P.Ws. 1 and 2 about the partition coupled with evidence of D.W.1 that the said partition was held in the year 1963 supporting case of defendant.

Further on perusal of evidence of Naidumma/ 1st defedant recorded in vide O.S.494/2014 shows that he categorically admitted about purchasing of item No.1 and 2 in their names by their fahter Ankamma and also deposed about the partition that was held in the year 1963. It is settled law that Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or

before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the

purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, when the witness is dead.

21.As seen evidence of Naidamma (1st defendant) it shows a 16 suggestion was posed by this plaintiff that there was a written document in regard to their partition, though, Naidamma dinied the said fact, but the suggestion which was posed by the plaintiff in cross-examiantion of

Naidamma/ D1, clearly shows that this plaintiff having first class information about the existence of Ex.B1 partition deed and the properties devolved on them as allocated as per the terms of partition deed-ExB1. In one way, the plaintiffs has came up with a case that there was no partition at all in the year 1963 and there is no partition by metes and bounds, but they relied on Ex.B1 to say that the vacant sites adjacent to the item No.1 were not partitioned by metes and bounds by relying on a condition stipulated in Ex.B1 that the vacant sites has to be settled after the death of their parents. So that this plaintiff at the time of filing of the suits its self having knowledge about the existence of Ex.B1 and allocation of landed property by metes and bounds between them, but came up with a case that there was no partition by meats and bounds and schedule liable to be partitioned in between them.

22.Though it is case of plaintiffs that there is no partition between plaintiffs father and D1 by meats and bounds but truth has come out through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are the plaintiffs herein that there was a partition was held long back about 40 years back itself during the lifetime of their father Punnaiah and both the brothers has enjoying their respective property as per the terms of partition deed.

There is a clear evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that their father used to reside on the western side of item No.1 of the schedule property and these items 2 and 3 are situated on the North side as a vacant sites. Through the evidence of D.W.1 it was brought on record those vacant sites which 17 were shown as A1 in the plaint plan of vide O.S.494/2010 was allotted to plaintiffs and B1 to D1 and they have been using the same as a costam (cattle shed). Once it was admitted by PW1 and 2 that there was a partition between brother long back as per terms of partition deed and suggestion is posed to Nayudamma/ D1 in cross examination in Vide OS 494 0f 2010 that there exists a written document for partition and these defendants relying on Ex B1 unregistered partition deed showing this plaintiff having knowledge about partition of properties as per Ex B1 long back itself. That is why PW1 and PW2 deposed about partition between brother about 40 years back itself and their possession over their respective properties. It was admitted by plaintiffs themselves in their evidence that they sold some of the properties which came to their share and their names are mutated in revenue records establishing the partition between parties. Once it was came on record there was a partition between father of plaintiff and D1 and these plaintiff through evidence contending that even as per partition deed Ex B1 there is no partition by meats and bounds it is pertinent to look into partition deed

Ex B1.

23.On perusal of the partition deed, it shows that the properties were allocated as A to C schedules between Ankamma, Punnaiah and

Naidamma, A schedule were given to Ankamma, B schedule to Punnaiah and C schedule to Naidamma, but there is a mention in the partition deed, though, the properties were divided as A to C schedule by allotting one portion to the Ankamma father of D1, the A schedule which came to parents was also divided between brothers equally. In furtherance of the same, it was decided by both the brothers to give 640 మానికలు(Manika = 2 18 ½ Kg rice) of paddy and also Rs.100/- per year to their parents for their maintenance. As seen the evidence of D.W.1 it shows the father of the defendant was resided with Punnaiah and mother was resided with the 1st defendant and Punnaiah died in the year 1998. As per the evidence of

D.W.1 and Ex.A3 the mother of 1st defendant died in the year 2003. From that it is clear even the property which was allocated to Ankamma was also partitioned long back itself between these brothers and paid maintenance to their parents as they agreed till their death.

24.It is true at the last lines of the partition deed, there is a mention that the vacant sites attached to tiled house has to be allocated between brothers after the death of their parents. The fact that Ankamma died in the year 1968 and mother died in 2003 was not disputed by both parties.

As seen evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, it is clear that during the life time of their parents itself, the said property was also settled between brothers and they have been in occupation of their respective share and these plaintiffs father resided on the western side of schedule property, item

No.1 of the tiled house and the 1st defendant and his family has been resided in Eastern side of item No.1 of the schedule property. It is also not in dispute that the 1st defendant has purchased some other vacant site on the Eastern side of his property as shown in C, C1 in plaint plan of vide O.S.No.494 of 2014. The evidence of DW1 that A1 site has been in possession of these plaintiff using as cattle shed was not discredited by these plaintiffs. More over as seen evidence of DW1 he testified that the said site has been using by plaintiffs for placing agricultural appliances as on today.

25.There is a clear evidence of P.W.1 that the C,C1 plot purchased by 19 this 1st defendant is after partition and separation of both brothers. It is also came on record, the said 1st defendant has also purchased another property in the year 2002 from Jetti Anjaneyulu on the north side of the vacant site of this first defendant. From that it is clear after allocation of property between the brothers in the year 1963, they have been enjoying their respective properties, they also partitioned the vacant sites and houses enjoying their property as per their will and wish, subsequently the 1st defendant also purchased some of the properties with his own earnings as admitted by P.Ws. 1 and 2, then it cannot be said that even till today, the property is open for partition as alleged by plaintiff.

Moreover, as seen from the circumstances and admissions made by P.Ws.

1 and 2 it reveals that when these plaintiff tried to remove common wall in item No.1 of the two portioned tiled house the 1st defendant has filed a suit against them for permanent injunction in vide O.S.494/2014 which resulted into filing of the present suit for partition. The said fact was admitted by P.W.2 himself in his evidence in the following lines:

It is true, we removed the western side portion of the tiled house situated in item No.1 of the schedule property. It is true there is a wall separating our share and the share of 1st defendant.

In the same way P.W.1 deposed in the following lines:

It is true as D1 filed suit, I filed the suit for partition.

With the above evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 clinchingly establishes that though the partition was held in between their family long back itself about 40 years back and they have been enjoying their respective properties, in view of dispute with regard to removal of common wall in item No.1 the schedule property plaintiffs pressed the present suit for partition. Once it was brought on record partition was done long back 20 between father of plaintiff and D1 and they have been enjoying their respective shares with meats and bounds, then question of partition of the suit schedule property again does not arise. Inview of disputes between plaintiffs and defendants in enjoyment of Item No 1 of schedule property resulted into filling of present suit for partition in vide OS. 400 of 2010. Then plaintiff not entitle for partition as prayed for. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs in vide OS 400 of 2010.

26.ISSUE No.1 in O.S.494/2014: -

It was already came on record that the first defendant filed a suit vide O.S.494/2014 when this plaintiff removed their portion in item No.1 along with common wall in between two portions, there is a clear evidence of Naidamma that he filed a criminal case when this plaintiff has removed the common wall, then they made reconstructed the common wall. Naidamma deposed in the following lines:

“I filed a criminal case against the defendant as they threatened us and attacked us with weapons, when police called defendants and discussed with them, the defendants arranged a few bricks in the place of X1 wall, but again they removed it. It is true, I filed the suit when defendant break the wall after filing of the suit. At the instance of police, the defendant arranged the wall again.”

From that it shows that these plaintiffs has removed the common wall in between the two portion house in item No.1, thereafter, as testified by Naidamma, they reconstructed the common wall. The same was observed by the commissioner who appointed in vide O.S.494/2014 in his commissioner report that the MN joint wall is old one and some part of joint wall covered with new construction and measuring 3.4 x 3.4 feet. Even, it was agreed by P.W.1 and 2 that they removed the common 21 wall, but from the evidence of Naidamma and from the observations made by the commissioner in report clearly shows that after filing of the suit by Naidamma, these plaintiffs has reconstructed the common wall.

As seen the advocate commissioner report, there is a old wooden beeam across to it, there is another beeam from East to West and the entire house is based on a common roof having the wooden beeams from East to West and North to South vise varsa. Admittedly, there is a common wall in between two portions which was came on record from the evidence of both parties. It is settled law that injunction cannot be granted against co-owner, but as a preventive rule an injunction can be granted even to a common owner or a co-sharer to prevent the damage of the property. Admittedly, the common wall is having height of four feet as per Advocate commissioner report touching the roof, the said wall is connected to joint bheem made by wooden from East to West and

North to South, if at all these plaintiffs removed the common wall, it may leads to distruction of entire house including the portion of the D1 which came to his share. Then certainly as a preventive relief, the defendants who are the plaintiffs in vide O.S.494/2014 are entitled for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs not to remove the common wall situated in between two portions in item No.1 of the schedule property.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

27.ISSUE No.2 in O.S.400/2010 and Issue No.2 in O.S.494/2014:

-

In the result, the suit in O.S.400/2010 is dismissed, without costs. Further, the suit in O.S.494/2014 is decreed, without costs

in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the defendants from

22

demolishing the X, X1 marked joint wall in between A and B

marked plots shown as in plaint plan in vide OS.494 of 2014, by

way of permanent injunction.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 01 st day of November, 2019.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE. FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW-1: R. Hanumantha Rao D.W.1: R. Naiduamma (Eschewed). PW-2: R. Venkateswarlu D.W.2: S. Ramanjamma. PW-3: J. Madana Mohan Rao. D.W.3: J. Akkaiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : CC of sale deed dated 9.4.1946 executed by Jetti Kotaiah and Ramaiah in favour of Ravipati Punnaiah and Naiduamma. Ex.A-2: CC of sale deed dated 2.7.1955 executed by Ravipati Rangaiah and his sons in favour of Ravipati Punnaiah and Naidamma. Ex.A-3 : CC of Birth and Death Register dated 14.11.1990. Ex.A-4 : Office copy of legal notice dated 6.7.2010. Ex.A-5 : Reply notice dated 31.7.2010.

DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B-1: Unregistered partition deed dated 29.5.1963. Ex.B-2: Pattadar pass book dated 7.8.1996. Ex.B-3: office copy of registere deed dated 29.3.1995.

P.S.C.J., OGL.

FAC: A.S.C.J., OGL.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Smt. B. SOBHA KUMARI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Friday, this the 01st day of November, 2019.

O.S.No.400 of 2010

Between:

1. Ravipati Hanumantha Rao, s/o. Ravipati Punnaiah, Aged 50 years.

2. Ravipati Venkateswarlu, s/o. Ravipati Punnaiah, Aged 45 years.

Both are Hindu, Agriculture, r/o. Maddipadu, Muppalla (V), NG Padu Mandal,

Prakasam District.... Plaintiffs.

And

1. Ravipati Nayudamma (Died).

2. Bodala Anantha Lakshmi, w/o. Bodala Chennaiah, Aged 55 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala, NG Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Cherukuri Maruthi Kumari, w/o. Cherukuri Hanumantha Rao, Aged 50 years, hindu, Housewife, Chintagumpala (V), Timmasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Jagarlamudi Jayamma, w/o. Jagarlamudi Ragha Krishnamurthy, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Mattigunta (V) & (M), Prakasam District.

5. Sadineni Ramanujamma, s/o. Sadineni Subbarao, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Uppugundur (V), NG Padu (M), Prakasam District.

*6. Ravipati Saraswathi, w/o. Ravipati Naidamma, Aged 75 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala, NG Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

6th defendant added as per orders In IA 1581/2016,

dated 09.06.2017.... Defendants.

This suit is filed by plaintiff to pass preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule property into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs with good and bad qualities and for future profits and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 19.08.2010 Plaint filed on :

22.09.2010

Cause of action for the suit arose on 6.7.2010, when the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice to the 1st defendant on 31.7.2010, when the 1st defendant got issued reply notice with all false averments, the schedule properties are within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and also the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant as a Kartha of HUF, consisting of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are residents of Muppalla village, H/o. Maddirala village, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Valuation : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is filed for partition of the joint and constructive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendants, as the valuation of the properties sought for division are under:

Total value of properties Rs.2,83,537.50 Ps.

The value of plaintiff’s shareRs.1,41,768.75 Ps.

3/4th market value of shareRs.1,06,326.57 Ps.

On which a court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under section 34 (2) (ii) of the APCF & Sv Act.

This suit is coming before me on 28.10.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri Pattipati Rammurthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri C.

Venkata Rao, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:-

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed;

2. that each party do bear their own costs.

..Schedule attached to decree.

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 01 st day of November, 2019.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Table of Costs

Particulars For Plaintiff For Defendant

Stamp on Vakalat2-00 Stamp on Plaint 200-00 Stamp on process fee450-00 Advocate fee senior7442-00 Costs memo not filed. Advocate fee junior-- Type charges100-00 Writing charges100-00 Total 8,294-00

P.S.C.J., OGL.

26

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Smt. B. SOBHA KUMARI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Friday, this the 01st day of November, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.494/2014

Between:

1. Ravipati Nayudamma (Died).

2. Ravipati Saraswathi, w/o. Late Nayudamma, Aged 80 years, Hindu, Houswife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala (V), NG Padu (M).

3. Bodala Anantha Lakshmi, w/o. Chennaiah, Aged 61 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala (V), NG Padu (M).

4. Chilukuri Kumari, w/o. Hanumantha Rao, Aged 56 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Chinthagumpala (V), Chinaganjam (M), Prakasam District.

5. Jagarlamudi Jayamma, w/o. Radha Krishna Murthy, Aged 52 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Mattigunta (V), NG Padu (M), Prakasam District.

6. Sadineni Ramanujamma, w/o. Subba Rao, Aged 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Uppugundur (V), NG Padu (M), Prakasam District.

R2 to R6 added as Lrs of 1st plaintiff as per orders

in IA 1580/2016 dated 9.6.2017...Plaintiffs.

Vs.

1. Ravipati Hanumantha Rao, s/o. Punnaiah, 50 years, Hindu, r/o. Maddirala-Muppalla (V), NG Padu (M).

2. Ravipadu Venkateswarlu, s/o. Punnaiah, 45 years, Hindu, presently residing at Ammanabrolu (V), NG Padu (M).

.. Defendants.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants from demolishing XX1 joint wall in between A and B marked plots shown in 27 plaint plan by way of permanent injunction and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 24.07.2014Filed on: 24.07.2014.

Cause of action for the suit arose when the 1st plaintiff and defendants are close relatives and they are residents of Maddirala-

Muppalla village, when A, A1 marked plots belongs to 1st plaintiff, B, B1 marked plots belongs to the defendants purchased from Jetti Kotaiah and others and since the 1st plaintiff and defendants have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till the year 1963 and joint wall shown as X, X1 in the plaint plan, when A marked plot main facing towards the northern side and B marked plot main facigin towards west, now the defendants without having any right making serious attempts for removal of intervening wall and causing much inconvenience to the 1st plaintiff, when the 1st plaintiff requested the defendants not to interfere and threatening the plaintiffs and the cause of action arose within the Jurisdiction of this Court.

For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is filed for permanent injunction and its notional value is Rs.10,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under section 26 (C) of APCF & SV Act.

This suit is coming before me on 28.10.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri C. Venkata Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri Pattipati

Rammuthy, Advocate for Defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:- (1) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiffs; and (2) It is further ordered that the defendants are be and hereby restraining from demolishing the X, X1 marked joint wall in between A and B marked plots shown as in

plaint plan, by way of permanent injunction; and

(3) that each party to bear their own costs.

.. Copy of plan attached to decree.

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 01 st day of

November, 2019.

28

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Table of Costs

Description of costsFor PlaintiffsFor Defendants. Vakalat--2-00 Advocate fee--5000-00 Typing charges--100-00 Writing charges--100-00 Total 5,202-00

P.S.C.J., OGL.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Smt. B. SOBHA KUMARI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Friday, this the 01st day of November, 2019.

COMMON JUDGMENT

IN

O.S.No.400 of 2010 & O.S.494/2014

Cause title in O.S.400/2010: -

Between:

1. Ravipati Hanumantha Rao, s/o. Ravipati Punnaiah, Aged 50 years.

2. Ravipati Venkateswarlu, s/o. Ravipati Punnaiah, Aged 45 years.

Both are Hindu, Agriculture, r/o. Maddipadu, Muppalla (V), NG Padu Mandal,

Prakasam District.... Plaintiffs.

And

1. Ravipati Nayudamma (Died).

2. Bodala Anantha Lakshmi, w/o. Bodala Chennaiah, Aged 55 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala, NG Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Cherukuri Maruthi Kumari, w/o. Cherukuri Hanumantha Rao, Aged 50 years, hindu, Housewife, Chintagumpala (V), Timmasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Jagarlamudi Jayamma, w/o. Jagarlamudi Ragha Krishnamurthy, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Mattigunta (V) & (M), Prakasam District.

5. Sadineni Ramanujamma, s/o. Sadineni Subbarao, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Uppugundur (V), NG Padu (M), Prakasam District.

*6. Ravipati Saraswathi, w/o. Ravipati Naidamma, Aged 75 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala, 2

NG Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

6th defendant added as per orders In IA 1581/2016,

dated 09.06.2017.... Defendants.

Cause title in O.S.494/2014: -

Between:

1. Ravipati Nayudamma (Died).

2. Ravipati Saraswathi, w/o. Late Nayudamma, Aged 80 years, Hindu, Houswife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala (V), NG Padu (M).

3. Bodala Anantha Lakshmi, w/o. Chennaiah, Aged 61 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala (V), NG Padu (M).

4. Chilukuri Kumari, w/o. Hanumantha Rao, Aged 56 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Chinthagumpala (V), Chinaganjam (M), Prakasam District.

5. Jagarlamudi Jayamma, w/o. Radha Krishna Murthy, Aged 52 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Mattigunta (V), NG Padu (M), Prakasam District.

6. Sadineni Ramanujamma, w/o. Subba Rao, Aged 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Uppugundur (V), NG Padu (M), Prakasam District.

R2 to R6 added as Lrs of 1st plaintiff as per orders

in IA 1580/2016 dated 9.6.2017.... Plaintiffs.

Vs.

1. Ravipati Hanumantha Rao, s/o. Punnaiah, 50 years, Hindu, r/o. Maddirala-Muppalla (V), NG Padu (M).

2. Ravipadu Venkateswarlu, s/o. Punnaiah, 45 years, Hindu, presently residing at Ammanabrolu (V), NG Padu (M)... Defendants.

These suits are coming before me on 28.10.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri Pattipati Rammurthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri C.

Venkata Rao, Advocate for defendant [in O.S.400/2010] and Sri C.

Venkata Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri Pattipati Rammuthy, Advocate for Defendant [in O.S.494/2014] and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 3

// C O M M O N J U D G M E N T //

O.S. 400/2010 is filed by plaintiff to pass preliminary decree for

partition of the suit schedule property into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs with good and bad qualities and for future profits and for costs.

O.S.494/2014 is filed by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants

from demolishing XX1 joint wall in between A and B marked plots shown in plaint plan by way of permanent injunction and for costs.

2.The averments of the plaint in O.S.400/2010 are in succient:-

One Ravipati Ankamma is grandfather of plaintiffs and father of 1st defendant. The father of the plaintiff Ravipati Punnaiah is own brother of 1st defendant. Originally, item No.1 of the suit schedule property was purchased by Punnaiah and first defendant through a registered sale deed on 9.4.1946 and item No.2 of the schedule property was purchased by 1st defendant and Punnaiah through a registered sale deed on 2.7.1955. Further the said Ravipati Punnaiah and first defendant inherited item No.3 of the schedule property on the death of Ankamma as per Hindu succession Act. Ever since the suit schedule properties has been under joint possession and enjoyment of the said Punnaiah and first defendant till the death of Punnaiah i.e., on 20.8.1988. After that the plaintiff and first defendant without any partition by metes and bounds in accordance with convenience they have been in enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Few months back at the instance of first defendant, the plaintiffs and first defendant decided to demolish the old tiled house in item No.1 of the schedule property and to construct a new house therein, accordingly, plaintiff started to demolish the tiled house and he 4 completed demolition of house upto half portion. All of a sudden the defendants 2 to 5 who are daughters of first defendant along with their husbands obstructed this plaintiff in demolition of tiled house in the item

No.1 of the schedule property, then the village elders came into picture for the divison of schedule property between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant equally.

(B) The 1st defendant agreed for division amicably, but change his mind and got filed vide O.S.305/2010 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge, Ongole seeking injunction restraining the plaintiff not to remove

the joint wall in tiled house. The plaintiff vexed with their attitude, got issued a notice on 6.7.2010 demanding the first defendant to come forward for amicable partition of the suit schedule property with metes and bounds. The first defendant got issued reply notice on 31.7.2010 with all false allegations. At the instance of the defendants 2 to 5 who are the members of the Hindu undivided family of first defendant along with their husband, obstructing this plaintiff in use and enjoyment of property. There is no partition as stated by the first defendant either in the year 1963 or else with regard to schedule properties. Hence, present suit.

3.The 1st defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 2 to 5 by denying the allegations and submitted that it is true, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants and item No.1 and 2 were purchased by Punnaiah and the 1st defendant jointly in the year 1946 and 1955 as stated by the plaintiff. It is true item No.3 was inherited by the plaintiff, the first defendant and Punnaiah after death of

Ankamma as per Hindu succession Act. There was a partition was held 5 in between this 1st defendant, Punnaiah and their father Ankamma on 29.5.1963 through the unregistered partition deed by metes and bounds.

As per the said partition A schedule property were allotted to Ankamma,

B schedule proeprty fell to the father of the plaintiff, C schedule properties came to the share of the first defendant. While so, A schedule property which came to the parents were also partitioned between

Punnaiah and first defendant in turn, they both agreed to maintain their parents by way of giving paddy and cash. So the A schedule properties were also partitioned at the time of partition deed itself. Since the date of partition, Ankamma is in the house of plaintiff and his wife in the house of first defendant till their death.

(a) During the period, plaintiffs grand father, plaintiff’s father and first defendant have been enjoying their respective share as per the partition. The first defendant also obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the property came to his share in the partition. Some of the properties were alienated by the first defendant and some of the properties were mortgaged by the first defendant and he has been enjoying his share, while so, the first defendant father died in the year 1968 and mother died in the year 1982 being so, the plaintiffs father died about 22 years back. The plaintiffs family members also obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds with respect to their share in the partition, there are no divisible properties in between the first defendant and plaintiff.

(B) Item No.1 of the schedule property is titled house with two portions, item No.2 and 3 are vacante sites. Out of the item No.1 the western side portion fell to the share of the plaintiff’s father and Eastern side portion came to the first defendant. Adjacent to the Eastern side 6 portion, the 1st defendant purchased vacant site from Galli Seetha

Ramaiah through a registered sale deed in the year 1967 and 1968 and first defendant also purchased some vacant site in the year 2002 from

Jetti Anjaneyulu. Both the plaintff’s family and first defendant family has been using item No.2 and 3 as a costtam. The boundaries given by the plaintiff is not correct. After filing of the suit by this first defendant vide

O.S.305/2010, the plaintiff removed their kostam. There was a dispute

between the plaintiffs and first defendant with regard to joint wall in item No.1. When plaintiff highhandedly tried to remove the joint wall, this first defendant filed an injunction suit and Hon’ble Court granted temporary injunction also. Thereafter, the plaintiff with a malafide intention got issued legal notice to the first defendant with all false allegations. There is no any joint property which is liable to be partition in between parties. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled by this Court:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition?

2. To what relief?

05.The averments of the plaint in O.S.494/2014 are in succient:-

The plaintiff and father of the defendants viz., Punnaiah are brothers, they are residents of Maddirala Village. The plot A and B are consisting single item purchased from Jetti Kotaiah and Ramaiah and sons of Venkatappaiah in the year 1946. Since then, the first plaintiff and defendant’s father have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment till the year 1963, thereafter, they got partitioned the joint family properties, plot A and A1 came to plaintiffs and B and B1 came to 7 defendants father. This plaintiff has purchased C and C1 plots in the year 1967 and 1968 through registered sale deeds. Plot A1 is cattle shed, plot B belongs to defenadnts, their main door way facing towards western side plot B1 is cattle shed belongs to them. A and B marked houses on its north and westren side towards vacant site was left out for the purpose of passage shown as Y. On its north side Pancha covered with door way facing towards western side. In between A marked and B marked property house portions, there is a old wall shown as X, X1 above that there is a wooden bheem as on the date of purchase, the first plaintiff and defendants have been exercising their right of passage and through Y makred private galli bazaar to reach southern side main panchayat road. Both A and B houses having one Vennugadi and same is located in A marked tiled house, there were some interse disputes between plaintiffs and defendants and these defendants causing obstruction for the enjoyment of joint wall. Both the plaintiffs and defendants are having equal rights. But these defendants making hectic efforts to remove the joint wall, if they are allowed to demolish joint wall, the entire structure of the A, B marked schedule property will be collapsed. This plaintiff and defendants are enjoying A and B marked plots, since 1963, the first plaintiff requested the defendant not to demolish the wall, but it was in vain. These plaintiffs cannot resist highhanded acts of defendants. Hence, the present suit.

06.The 1st defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the 2nd defendant by denying the allegations in the plaint and submitted that these defendants never born at the time of purchase of the house and they do not have any knowledge about the partition of the properties in the year 1963, the question of partition by metes and 8 bounds does not arise at all. So far as plaintiff does not have any male children and all female children married away, they have been staying different places, these defendants are assisting the first plaintiff in agriculture operation and in the family matters due to old age. Recently, on the visit of son in law of first plaintiff, some inconvenience was arose between the family members. Plaintiffs and defendants obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds separately utilizing the plot A and B as averred in the plaint, but there is no division of plot A1, B1 as stated by plaintiff, even for convenience also. Both the plaintiffs and defenadnts are utilizing A, A1, B, B1 properties jointly according to their convenience. Few days back, the plaintiff himself approached the defendants to construct a new building in the place of old tiled house, accordingly, these defendants started demolishing the tiled house. At that juncture, the son in law of the first plaintiff visited the village and changed the mind of plaintiff and his wife due to their non willingness and objections. The elders in the village intervened and advised the defendant to construct a house in plot B only according to the measurements. As per the measurements, the defendant half share in the house comes beyond the wall of X, X1. Hence, the said wall is to be removed and new wall is placed in the plot A. It is utterly false to say that there is a wooden bheem over and above the said wall and the portion of tiled house in plot A will be collapsed. Though, the plaintiff and his wife and their children accepted for removal of X, X1 wall in the presence of elders, got filed false and frievlous suit and obtained exparte injunction orders by suppressing the real facts.

This plaintiff did not submit the proof of partition of the properties between the plaintiffs and father of the defendant either in 1963 or else.

9

Further plot B1 was purchased jointly by this father of the defendant and the plaintiff in the year 1955. A1 was devolved on the plaintiff by way of succession. Hence, both the plots A1 and B1 are liable to be partitioned between the plaintiff and defendant according to the good and bad qualities. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.

07.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled by this Court:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

08.As per the orders in T.R.O.P.36/2012 on the file of Hon’ble Prl. District Court, Ongole

O.S.494/2014 was clubbed with O.S.400/2010 and a joint trial is conducted in O.S.400/2010

only.

09.On behalf of the Plaintiff P.W.1 to P.W.3 examined and got marked

Exs. A1 to A5. On behalf of the defendant D.W.1 to D.W.3 are examined and got marked Ex.B1 to B3.

10.Heard arguments of both counsels. The status of parties in vide OS.

No. 400 of 2010 was referred in entire judgement as plaintiffs and defendants.

11.Issue No.1 in O.S.400/2010: -

It is the case of the plaintiff originally the suit schedule property, item No.1 and 2 were purchased by the father of the plaintiff Punniah and 1st defendant jointly through two separate sale deeds in the year 1946 and 1955 and item No.3 was devolved on them after death of their 10 grand father Ankamma by way of Hindu succession. Since then they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Father of plaintiff and 1st defendant are in possession of the property as per convenience, there was no partition was done by metes and bounds. On contra, it is contended by the first defendant that during the life time of their parents itself in the year 1963, there was a partition was held in which the properties of them were partition by metes and bounds, since then, they have been enjoying their respective possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and there is no joint family property left for partition between them. As this case was filed by plaintiff for partition of suit schedule property, the entire onus is on the plaintiff to show as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit schedule property open for partition and they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

13.It is the case of plaintiff as per averments and evidence of him that as on today there is no partition by metes and bounds, suit schedule property is in joint possession. To prove the same, the first plaintiff viz.,

Ravipati Hanumantha Rao examined himself as P.W.1 and deposed before the court that item No.1 of the suit scehdule property is two portioned tiled house. Though, they were in possession of the suit scehdule property as per their convenience, there was no partition by metes and bounds. Item Nos. 2 and 3 which are vacant sites are in joint possession, till today also they were in joint occupation of members of joint family.

Even for convenience property were not divided. So that schedule properties are to be partitioned by metes and bounds.

14.The second plaintiff R.Venkateswarlu examined as P.W.2 and 11 deposed that there was no partition was held for the suit schedule proeprty, though, the plaintiffs and defendants are in possession of item

No.1 of the schedule property for their convenience, but there was no partition by metes and bounds.The plaintiff also examined P.W.3 who is third party to proceedings, who deposed that there was no partition of properties between the families of both the plaintiff and defendant, but they are enjoying their properties according to their convenience. When these plaintiffs started to demolish the old tiled house, the first defendant suddenly changed his mind and obstructed for demolition.

Though, he agreed for amicable partition and removal of the joint wall.

15.On contra to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, it is the case of the defendants that during the life time of father of D1 itself, there was partition was held in the year 1963 by metes and bounds and these suit schedule properties were partitioned and they have been enjoying their respective shares. After partition some of the properties were sold away by plaintiff and 1st defendant to third parties and some property was mortgaged by the 1st defendant, then the question of joint possession does not arise.

16.To prove the same, the first defendant has filed chief affidavit, but his evidence is eschewed on his death. Defendants examined D.w.2 who is the 5th defendant herein who deposed that the first defendant was bed ridden for the last one year and the defendants 2 to 5 are the daughters of first defendant. The suit schedule property was partitioned long back itself as per Ex.B1 unregistered partitioned deed which was handed over her counsel in the year 2010 and the case was filed by her father vide 12

O.S.305/2010 was clubbed with vide O.S.400/2010 and transferred to this

court. During the life time of plaintiff’s father itself, the properties were partition by metes and bounds and there is no property was left for partition.

17.The defendant also examined D.W.3 third party to the proceedings who deposed about filing of the suit by the first defendant before the I

Addl. Junior Civil Judge for injunction, when this plaintiff tried to demolish the joint wall and deposed that there was a partition was held in the year 1963 itself, since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares.

18.There is no dispute between the parties about the relationship stated in pleadings that Ankamma is grandfather of the plaitniffs, he blessed with two children Punnaiah and first defendant. It is also undisputed fact that through Ex.A1 item No.1 was purchased by

Punnaiah and D1 through a registered sale deed and item No.2 vacant site was purchased by them through Ex.A2 in the year 1955. There is a clear pleadings in the written statement itself that item No.1 was purchased on 4.9.1946 by first defendant and Punnaiah from Jetti

Kotaiaah, Ramaiah sons of Venkatappaiah and item No.2 was purchased by them on 2.7.1955 as per Ex.A2 from Ravipati Rangaiah and his son

Subba Rao. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to extent, measurements and boundaries of item No.1 and 2 which was purchased through Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Though, the chief examination of

D.W.1 belongs to the first defendant Nayudamma was eschewed in vide

O.S.400/2010 after clubbing of the matter, but he was examined in vide

O.S.494/2014 before transfer to this court in vide O.S.305/2010 which

13 was re-numbered as O.S.494/2014 in the present court. On perusal of the evidence of Naidamma/1st defendant, he categorically admitted that the property shown in schedule item No.1 and 2 are the properties purchased by them as per Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

19.Now it is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property which was purchased by their father and first defendant jointly was not partitioned by metes and bounds, though, they have been in possession of the western side portion and eastern side by the 1st defendant for their convenience, thereby, it is just and necessary to divide the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. On contra, the defendant came up with a case that there was a prior partition between this plaintiff and defendant in the year 1963 itself as per Ex.B1 unregistered partition deed. Once both the parties admitting that item No.1 and 2 are jointly purchased by father of plaintiff Punnaiah and 1st defendant and item No.3 was devolved on them from their ancestors and there is no any dispute with regard to location of property, then it is pertinent to look into the evidence of both the parties and Ex B1 unregistered partition deed to know about servance of status of family and the partition allegedly held in the year 1963.

20.It is the case of the plaintiff that there was no partition by metes and bounds and they have been enjoying the property as per their convenience, but as seen the Ex.B1 not only item No.1 to 3 vacant sites, there are some other landed property also which falls in survey

No.147/2, 310/2, 479, 242 and those properties were allocated in between Ankamma, D1 and Punnaiah. But the said properties were not shown in the schedule of the present suit. Except the vacant sites which 14 was purchased through Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and item No.3 which is vacant site devolved on Ankamma from his ancestors, no property which was shown in the schedule of A, B, C in Ex.B1 are not the schedule of the present suit. So that the plaintiff excluded the landed property which was referred in Ex.B1 and filed the present suit for partition only for vacant sites which was shown as A1, B1, A and B as shown in the plaint plan filed by the 1st defendant vide O.S.494/2014. Since beginning it is the case of the plaintiff that there was no partition by metes and bounds, but coming to the evidence of them, they categorically admitted about the enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff and defendant as per their share, even during the life time of their father. To that effect P.W.1 deposed in the following lines:

“Item No.1 of the suit schedule property is a two portioned tiled house. It is true in the Eastern portion, the 1st defendant has been residing and western portion my father has been residing. It is true, the boundaries of item No.1 of the schedule were shown as per the boundaries of document in 1946. It is true, vacant sites towards North of my house were shown as item No.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule. From the date of separation of my father and D1, they have been in possession and enjoyment of item No.2 and 3 of the schedule properties.

From the date of my discretion itself my father and the 1st defendant has been residing separately. It is true, I sold some of the land fell to my share. It is true the D1 gave his share to D2 to D4 at the time of their marriage. It is true after separation of my father, D1 purchased vacant site on the Eastern side of my house from Jetti Kotaiah. It is true as per the partition terms my father and D1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.”

In the same way P.W.2 who is the second plaintiff herein has 15 deposed in the following lines:

“It is true my father and 1st defendant have been residing separately and enjoying their respective share of property for the last 40 years. It is true after purchase of lands Item No.1 to 3, my father and D1 partitioned their properties. It is true my family and D1 family were issued with pattadar pass books for their respective share and we have alienated some properties to third parties. It is true the tiled house situated in item No.1 my father used to reside in western side and D1 is used on Eastern side. It is true, D1 purchased some site abettting to the Eastern side of his share.”

With the above admissions made by P.Ws. 1 and 2 itself very clear that this D1 and Punnaiah partitioned the properties long back during the life time of thier father itself and they have been residing separately and enjoying the property which came to their share in the partition.

Even their names were mutated in revenue record as per the share of each brother. The same was reflecting from Ex.B2 the pattadar pass books stands in the name of the 1st defendant. The admission of P.Ws. 1 and 2 about the partition coupled with evidence of D.W.1 that the said partition was held in the year 1963 supporting case of defendant.

Further on perusal of evidence of Naidumma/ 1st defedant recorded in vide O.S.494/2014 shows that he categorically admitted about purchasing of item No.1 and 2 in their names by their fahter Ankamma and also deposed about the partition that was held in the year 1963. It is settled law that Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or

before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the

purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, when the witness is dead.

21.As seen evidence of Naidamma (1st defendant) it shows a 16 suggestion was posed by this plaintiff that there was a written document in regard to their partition, though, Naidamma dinied the said fact, but the suggestion which was posed by the plaintiff in cross-examiantion of

Naidamma/ D1, clearly shows that this plaintiff having first class information about the existence of Ex.B1 partition deed and the properties devolved on them as allocated as per the terms of partition deed-ExB1. In one way, the plaintiffs has came up with a case that there was no partition at all in the year 1963 and there is no partition by metes and bounds, but they relied on Ex.B1 to say that the vacant sites adjacent to the item No.1 were not partitioned by metes and bounds by relying on a condition stipulated in Ex.B1 that the vacant sites has to be settled after the death of their parents. So that this plaintiff at the time of filing of the suits its self having knowledge about the existence of Ex.B1 and allocation of landed property by metes and bounds between them, but came up with a case that there was no partition by meats and bounds and schedule liable to be partitioned in between them.

22.Though it is case of plaintiffs that there is no partition between plaintiffs father and D1 by meats and bounds but truth has come out through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are the plaintiffs herein that there was a partition was held long back about 40 years back itself during the lifetime of their father Punnaiah and both the brothers has enjoying their respective property as per the terms of partition deed.

There is a clear evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that their father used to reside on the western side of item No.1 of the schedule property and these items 2 and 3 are situated on the North side as a vacant sites. Through the evidence of D.W.1 it was brought on record those vacant sites which 17 were shown as A1 in the plaint plan of vide O.S.494/2010 was allotted to plaintiffs and B1 to D1 and they have been using the same as a costam (cattle shed). Once it was admitted by PW1 and 2 that there was a partition between brother long back as per terms of partition deed and suggestion is posed to Nayudamma/ D1 in cross examination in Vide OS 494 0f 2010 that there exists a written document for partition and these defendants relying on Ex B1 unregistered partition deed showing this plaintiff having knowledge about partition of properties as per Ex B1 long back itself. That is why PW1 and PW2 deposed about partition between brother about 40 years back itself and their possession over their respective properties. It was admitted by plaintiffs themselves in their evidence that they sold some of the properties which came to their share and their names are mutated in revenue records establishing the partition between parties. Once it was came on record there was a partition between father of plaintiff and D1 and these plaintiff through evidence contending that even as per partition deed Ex B1 there is no partition by meats and bounds it is pertinent to look into partition deed

Ex B1.

23.On perusal of the partition deed, it shows that the properties were allocated as A to C schedules between Ankamma, Punnaiah and

Naidamma, A schedule were given to Ankamma, B schedule to Punnaiah and C schedule to Naidamma, but there is a mention in the partition deed, though, the properties were divided as A to C schedule by allotting one portion to the Ankamma father of D1, the A schedule which came to parents was also divided between brothers equally. In furtherance of the same, it was decided by both the brothers to give 640 మానికలు(Manika = 2 18 ½ Kg rice) of paddy and also Rs.100/- per year to their parents for their maintenance. As seen the evidence of D.W.1 it shows the father of the defendant was resided with Punnaiah and mother was resided with the 1st defendant and Punnaiah died in the year 1998. As per the evidence of

D.W.1 and Ex.A3 the mother of 1st defendant died in the year 2003. From that it is clear even the property which was allocated to Ankamma was also partitioned long back itself between these brothers and paid maintenance to their parents as they agreed till their death.

24.It is true at the last lines of the partition deed, there is a mention that the vacant sites attached to tiled house has to be allocated between brothers after the death of their parents. The fact that Ankamma died in the year 1968 and mother died in 2003 was not disputed by both parties.

As seen evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, it is clear that during the life time of their parents itself, the said property was also settled between brothers and they have been in occupation of their respective share and these plaintiffs father resided on the western side of schedule property, item

No.1 of the tiled house and the 1st defendant and his family has been resided in Eastern side of item No.1 of the schedule property. It is also not in dispute that the 1st defendant has purchased some other vacant site on the Eastern side of his property as shown in C, C1 in plaint plan of vide O.S.No.494 of 2014. The evidence of DW1 that A1 site has been in possession of these plaintiff using as cattle shed was not discredited by these plaintiffs. More over as seen evidence of DW1 he testified that the said site has been using by plaintiffs for placing agricultural appliances as on today.

25.There is a clear evidence of P.W.1 that the C,C1 plot purchased by 19 this 1st defendant is after partition and separation of both brothers. It is also came on record, the said 1st defendant has also purchased another property in the year 2002 from Jetti Anjaneyulu on the north side of the vacant site of this first defendant. From that it is clear after allocation of property between the brothers in the year 1963, they have been enjoying their respective properties, they also partitioned the vacant sites and houses enjoying their property as per their will and wish, subsequently the 1st defendant also purchased some of the properties with his own earnings as admitted by P.Ws. 1 and 2, then it cannot be said that even till today, the property is open for partition as alleged by plaintiff.

Moreover, as seen from the circumstances and admissions made by P.Ws.

1 and 2 it reveals that when these plaintiff tried to remove common wall in item No.1 of the two portioned tiled house the 1st defendant has filed a suit against them for permanent injunction in vide O.S.494/2014 which resulted into filing of the present suit for partition. The said fact was admitted by P.W.2 himself in his evidence in the following lines:

It is true, we removed the western side portion of the tiled house situated in item No.1 of the schedule property. It is true there is a wall separating our share and the share of 1st defendant.

In the same way P.W.1 deposed in the following lines:

It is true as D1 filed suit, I filed the suit for partition.

With the above evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 clinchingly establishes that though the partition was held in between their family long back itself about 40 years back and they have been enjoying their respective properties, in view of dispute with regard to removal of common wall in item No.1 the schedule property plaintiffs pressed the present suit for partition. Once it was brought on record partition was done long back 20 between father of plaintiff and D1 and they have been enjoying their respective shares with meats and bounds, then question of partition of the suit schedule property again does not arise. Inview of disputes between plaintiffs and defendants in enjoyment of Item No 1 of schedule property resulted into filling of present suit for partition in vide OS. 400 of 2010. Then plaintiff not entitle for partition as prayed for. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs in vide OS 400 of 2010.

26.ISSUE No.1 in O.S.494/2014: -

It was already came on record that the first defendant filed a suit vide O.S.494/2014 when this plaintiff removed their portion in item No.1 along with common wall in between two portions, there is a clear evidence of Naidamma that he filed a criminal case when this plaintiff has removed the common wall, then they made reconstructed the common wall. Naidamma deposed in the following lines:

“I filed a criminal case against the defendant as they threatened us and attacked us with weapons, when police called defendants and discussed with them, the defendants arranged a few bricks in the place of X1 wall, but again they removed it. It is true, I filed the suit when defendant break the wall after filing of the suit. At the instance of police, the defendant arranged the wall again.”

From that it shows that these plaintiffs has removed the common wall in between the two portion house in item No.1, thereafter, as testified by Naidamma, they reconstructed the common wall. The same was observed by the commissioner who appointed in vide O.S.494/2014 in his commissioner report that the MN joint wall is old one and some part of joint wall covered with new construction and measuring 3.4 x 3.4 feet. Even, it was agreed by P.W.1 and 2 that they removed the common 21 wall, but from the evidence of Naidamma and from the observations made by the commissioner in report clearly shows that after filing of the suit by Naidamma, these plaintiffs has reconstructed the common wall.

As seen the advocate commissioner report, there is a old wooden beeam across to it, there is another beeam from East to West and the entire house is based on a common roof having the wooden beeams from East to West and North to South vise varsa. Admittedly, there is a common wall in between two portions which was came on record from the evidence of both parties. It is settled law that injunction cannot be granted against co-owner, but as a preventive rule an injunction can be granted even to a common owner or a co-sharer to prevent the damage of the property. Admittedly, the common wall is having height of four feet as per Advocate commissioner report touching the roof, the said wall is connected to joint bheem made by wooden from East to West and

North to South, if at all these plaintiffs removed the common wall, it may leads to distruction of entire house including the portion of the D1 which came to his share. Then certainly as a preventive relief, the defendants who are the plaintiffs in vide O.S.494/2014 are entitled for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs not to remove the common wall situated in between two portions in item No.1 of the schedule property.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

27.ISSUE No.2 in O.S.400/2010 and Issue No.2 in O.S.494/2014:

-

In the result, the suit in O.S.400/2010 is dismissed, without costs. Further, the suit in O.S.494/2014 is decreed, without costs

in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the defendants from

22

demolishing the X, X1 marked joint wall in between A and B

marked plots shown as in plaint plan in vide OS.494 of 2014, by

way of permanent injunction.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 01 st day of November, 2019.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE. FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW-1: R. Hanumantha Rao D.W.1: R. Naiduamma (Eschewed). PW-2: R. Venkateswarlu D.W.2: S. Ramanjamma. PW-3: J. Madana Mohan Rao. D.W.3: J. Akkaiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : CC of sale deed dated 9.4.1946 executed by Jetti Kotaiah and Ramaiah in favour of Ravipati Punnaiah and Naiduamma. Ex.A-2: CC of sale deed dated 2.7.1955 executed by Ravipati Rangaiah and his sons in favour of Ravipati Punnaiah and Naidamma. Ex.A-3 : CC of Birth and Death Register dated 14.11.1990. Ex.A-4 : Office copy of legal notice dated 6.7.2010. Ex.A-5 : Reply notice dated 31.7.2010.

DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B-1: Unregistered partition deed dated 29.5.1963. Ex.B-2: Pattadar pass book dated 7.8.1996. Ex.B-3: office copy of registere deed dated 29.3.1995.

P.S.C.J., OGL.

FAC: A.S.C.J., OGL.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Smt. B. SOBHA KUMARI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Friday, this the 01st day of November, 2019.

O.S.No.400 of 2010

Between:

1. Ravipati Hanumantha Rao, s/o. Ravipati Punnaiah, Aged 50 years.

2. Ravipati Venkateswarlu, s/o. Ravipati Punnaiah, Aged 45 years.

Both are Hindu, Agriculture, r/o. Maddipadu, Muppalla (V), NG Padu Mandal,

Prakasam District.... Plaintiffs.

And

1. Ravipati Nayudamma (Died).

2. Bodala Anantha Lakshmi, w/o. Bodala Chennaiah, Aged 55 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala, NG Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Cherukuri Maruthi Kumari, w/o. Cherukuri Hanumantha Rao, Aged 50 years, hindu, Housewife, Chintagumpala (V), Timmasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Jagarlamudi Jayamma, w/o. Jagarlamudi Ragha Krishnamurthy, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Mattigunta (V) & (M), Prakasam District.

5. Sadineni Ramanujamma, s/o. Sadineni Subbarao, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Uppugundur (V), NG Padu (M), Prakasam District.

*6. Ravipati Saraswathi, w/o. Ravipati Naidamma, Aged 75 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala, NG Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

6th defendant added as per orders In IA 1581/2016,

dated 09.06.2017.... Defendants.

This suit is filed by plaintiff to pass preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule property into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs with good and bad qualities and for future profits and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 19.08.2010 Plaint filed on :

22.09.2010

Cause of action for the suit arose on 6.7.2010, when the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice to the 1st defendant on 31.7.2010, when the 1st defendant got issued reply notice with all false averments, the schedule properties are within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and also the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant as a Kartha of HUF, consisting of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are residents of Muppalla village, H/o. Maddirala village, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Valuation : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is filed for partition of the joint and constructive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendants, as the valuation of the properties sought for division are under:

Total value of properties Rs.2,83,537.50 Ps.

The value of plaintiff’s shareRs.1,41,768.75 Ps.

3/4th market value of shareRs.1,06,326.57 Ps.

On which a court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under section 34 (2) (ii) of the APCF & Sv Act.

This suit is coming before me on 28.10.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri Pattipati Rammurthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri C.

Venkata Rao, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:-

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed;

2. that each party do bear their own costs.

..Schedule attached to decree.

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 01 st day of November, 2019.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Table of Costs

Particulars For Plaintiff For Defendant

Stamp on Vakalat2-00 Stamp on Plaint 200-00 Stamp on process fee450-00 Advocate fee senior7442-00 Costs memo not filed. Advocate fee junior-- Type charges100-00 Writing charges100-00 Total 8,294-00

P.S.C.J., OGL.

26

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Smt. B. SOBHA KUMARI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Friday, this the 01st day of November, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.494/2014

Between:

1. Ravipati Nayudamma (Died).

2. Ravipati Saraswathi, w/o. Late Nayudamma, Aged 80 years, Hindu, Houswife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala (V), NG Padu (M).

3. Bodala Anantha Lakshmi, w/o. Chennaiah, Aged 61 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Maddirala-Muppala (V), NG Padu (M).

4. Chilukuri Kumari, w/o. Hanumantha Rao, Aged 56 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Chinthagumpala (V), Chinaganjam (M), Prakasam District.

5. Jagarlamudi Jayamma, w/o. Radha Krishna Murthy, Aged 52 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Mattigunta (V), NG Padu (M), Prakasam District.

6. Sadineni Ramanujamma, w/o. Subba Rao, Aged 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o. Uppugundur (V), NG Padu (M), Prakasam District.

R2 to R6 added as Lrs of 1st plaintiff as per orders

in IA 1580/2016 dated 9.6.2017...Plaintiffs.

Vs.

1. Ravipati Hanumantha Rao, s/o. Punnaiah, 50 years, Hindu, r/o. Maddirala-Muppalla (V), NG Padu (M).

2. Ravipadu Venkateswarlu, s/o. Punnaiah, 45 years, Hindu, presently residing at Ammanabrolu (V), NG Padu (M).

.. Defendants.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants from demolishing XX1 joint wall in between A and B marked plots shown in 27 plaint plan by way of permanent injunction and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 24.07.2014Filed on: 24.07.2014.

Cause of action for the suit arose when the 1st plaintiff and defendants are close relatives and they are residents of Maddirala-

Muppalla village, when A, A1 marked plots belongs to 1st plaintiff, B, B1 marked plots belongs to the defendants purchased from Jetti Kotaiah and others and since the 1st plaintiff and defendants have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till the year 1963 and joint wall shown as X, X1 in the plaint plan, when A marked plot main facing towards the northern side and B marked plot main facigin towards west, now the defendants without having any right making serious attempts for removal of intervening wall and causing much inconvenience to the 1st plaintiff, when the 1st plaintiff requested the defendants not to interfere and threatening the plaintiffs and the cause of action arose within the Jurisdiction of this Court.

For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is filed for permanent injunction and its notional value is Rs.10,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under section 26 (C) of APCF & SV Act.

This suit is coming before me on 28.10.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri C. Venkata Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri Pattipati

Rammuthy, Advocate for Defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:- (1) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiffs; and (2) It is further ordered that the defendants are be and hereby restraining from demolishing the X, X1 marked joint wall in between A and B marked plots shown as in

plaint plan, by way of permanent injunction; and

(3) that each party to bear their own costs.

.. Copy of plan attached to decree.

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 01 st day of

November, 2019.

28

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Table of Costs

Description of costsFor PlaintiffsFor Defendants. Vakalat--2-00 Advocate fee--5000-00 Typing charges--100-00 Writing charges--100-00 Total 5,202-00

P.S.C.J., OGL.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Smt. B. SOBHA KUMARI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC:Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Monday, this the 04th day of November, 2019.

O.S.No.268 of 2016

Between:

Konanki Thirumala, w/o. Radha Krishna @ Krishna Rao, Aged 60 years, R/o. Chellammathota,

Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District.... Plaintiff

And

Boddapati Srinivasulu, s/o. Subba Rao, Aged 36 years, working at No.1 water plant, Kalikivaya Bitragunta, Singarayakonda (M), r/o. Tangutur (V) & (M), Prakasam District. ... Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 31.10.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Veera Raghavulu, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri

P.R.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of

Rs.4,03,700/- from the defendant, being the principal and interest due under three pronotes [each for Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.12.2013,

Rs.1,00,000/- on 20.12.2013 and Rs.50,000/- on 20.12.2013 executed by the defendant for Rs.2,50,000/- and for costs.

02.The averments of the plaint in succient:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- i.e., [Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.12.2013 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 20.12.2013 and Rs.50,000/- 2 on 20.12.2013] to meet his family expenses and executed three promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of attestors and scribe and received entire consideration amount under it, thereafter inspite of several requests and demands made by this plaintiff, though, admitting his liability the defendant did not turn up, thereby, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 10.5.2016 demanding the defendant to pay the debt due under three promissory notes, after receiving the same, the defendant has given reply notice on 22.6.2016 with all false allegations.

Hence, the suit.

03.The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaint and submitted that this defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, actually there are financial transactions between this defendant and B.Anitha Kumari who is partner in private chits business running along with plaintiff, they both doing joint business by conducting private chits in Tangutur village, since few years. On the instructions given by Anitha Kumari, this defendant has executed seven promissory notes in favour of plaintiff, but not three promissory notes as alleged by the plaintiff. Later on, he discharged the entire amount due to Anitha

Kumari, this plaintiff by taking advantage of the promissory note issued by the defendant, even after discharge has filed a false case for want of wrongful gain. In fact, B. Anitha Kumari has issued receipts on various dates in a Dairy book with her own handwriting on 10.6.2016 settled the accounts and the plaintiffs amount was paid by the defendant to Anitha

Kumari in the presence of her partner i.e., plaintiff and all the promissory note debts were finally settled after that this defendant asked

Anitha Kumari to return the promissory notes, but she did not return the 3 same and stated that she kept those promissory notes with the plaintiff who is mediator for settlement of issues. On demand made by the defendant and on the advise of elders, mediators the plaintiff has executed a receipt cum undertaking letter with her own handwriting and handed over to defendant. This defendant received legal notice and issued reply notice with due facts.

[a]The said Anitha Kumari is behind back of filing false suit against him through the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff altered the promissory notes with the help of B. Anitha Kumari at the time of filing of false suit, so it is clearly shows that promissory note was materially altered, after receiving of the suit summons, the defendant consulted the plaintiff and Anitha Kumari and questioned their attitude, they stated that they given the notice to threaten the defendant with scaring manner and demanded to pay Rs.1,00,000/- immediately towards the penal interest for the late payment, but the defendant did not agree and this plaintiff has been contesting the suit with unjust manner by misleading the court. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled by this Court:

1. Whether the suit pronotes, dt.17.12.2013 for Rs.1,00,000/- dt.20.12.2013 for Rs.50,000/- dt.20.12.2013 for

Rs.1,00,000/- are true valid and supported by consideration?

2. Whether the case of defendant that he handed over to

empty pronote to B. Anitha Kumari is true and correct?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount?

4. To what relief?

4

05. On behalf of the Plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 are examined and Ex.A1 to

A5 got marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 and D.W.3 are examined, Ex.B1 got marked.

06.Heard arguments of both counsels.

07.ISSUE Nos.1 to 3: -

It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- through three separate promissory notes on 17.12.2013 and 20.12.2013 respectively, thereafter, inspite of several requests and demands made by him, he did not turn up to pay the debt due, though issued reply notice, he did not choose to discharge the debt amount under promissory notes.

08.To prove the same, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and deposed before the court that this defendant to meet his family necessities has borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from him in various dates and executed Ex.A1 to A3 in his favour in the presence of attestors and scribe named on it. To prove his contention, the plaintiff also examined P.W.2 who is one of the attestor to Ex.A1 to A3 who testified that he was present at the time of transactions which were held at the house of plaintiff, at the time of transaction himself and another attestor

B.Lakshmi were present and Ex.A1 to A3 were scribed by defendant himself.The plaintiff also examined P.W.3 another attestor who deposed that she was present at the time of Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 transactions at the house of plaintiff at about 11 AM and in her presence only, the defendant has borrowed amounts from the plaintiff.

5

9. On contra to the evidence of P.W.1 to 3, it is the case of the defendant that this plaintiff and one Anitha Kumari has been running private chit business jointly, in furtherance of the same, he has issued seven promissory notes to Anitha Kumari, later on, he discharged entire amount due to Anitha Kumari, but, she did not return the prmoissory notes and filed suit through the plaintiff for want of wrongful gain. To prove the same, the defendant himself has examined as D.W.1 and deposed that there were no financial transactions between himself and plaintiff. It is Anitha Kumari who is partner of the plaintiff having transactions with him and he has given seven promissory notes to her who discharged amount debt to her and she also issued receipts as per

Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and entire amount was discharged to Anitha Kumari and these promissory notes were made used for want of wrongful gain.

10.In a suit for recovery of money, the entire onus is on the plaintiff to prove that this defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him in the presence of attestors and scribe named on Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, after receipt of full consideration amount. In the instance case, the plaintiff who is lendor himself examined as P.W.1 and deposed before the court that he is having a good acquaintance with defendant. In furtherance of the same, the defendant borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from him on two different dates and executed three separate promissory notes as that Ex.A1 to A3 and all the promissory notes were scribed by defendant himself. The evidence of P.W.1 is also corroborated by P.Ws. 2 and 3 who are attestors to the Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. there is a clear evidence of PW2 that he stood as attestors to the Ex.A1 to A3 and his presence only this defendant borrowed amounts from plaintiff. The evidence of PW2 is also 6 supported by P.W.3 who testified that he was present at the time of transaction of Ex.A2 and A3 where in this defendant borrowed amounts to meet his family necessities and passing of consideration to the defendant. PW2 and PW3 testified about the presence of each other at the time of Ex A2 and A3 transaction stating that those transactions were held at the house of plaintiff. As seen the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, there are no discrepancies in the evidence in explaining the sequences and circumstances which leads to the execution of Ex.A1 to A3 by the defendant.

11.Though, it is the contention of the defendant that he has no money transactions with the plaintiff, in furtherance of the joint chit business run by the plaintiff with Anitha Kumari he has given promsisory notes to him, but as seen the cross-examination of D.W.1 in the first lines, he testified that he borrowed amount from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 to A3 and he discharged the amount due to the plaintiff. The very evidence of D.W.1 itself clearly indicating that Ex.A1 to a3 are in furtherance of amounts borrowed by him from the plaintiff. Once the plaintiff has discharged his initial burden, by examining himself and both attestors as P.Ws. 2 and 3 that this defendant himself has borrowed amounts from him and executed Ex.A1 to A3, now the burden shifts to the defendant to say that in furtherance of chit transactions with plaintiff and Anitha Kumari, Ex.A1 to A3 created for want of wrongful gain. To prove his contention, the defendant has relied on evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2.

12.As seen the evidence of D.W.1 though, it is the contention of 7 defendant that there are no financial transactions between him and plaintiff and he has given seven promissory notes in furtherance of chit transactions which was jointly running by the plaintiff and Anitha

Kumari, but as seen the evidence of D.W.1 he categorically admitted about borrowing amount as per Ex.A1 to A3 from plaintiff and he also admitted that he himself scribed Ex.A1 to A3, then the contention of the defendant that this plaintiff and Anitha Kumari has created Ex.A1 to A3 are in furtherance of chit transaction is false.

13.It is true as seen Ex.B1 endorsement given by plaintiff it shows that the plaintiff given an endorsement that he has received entire amount due under promissory note to a tune of Rs.7,50,000/- and the promissory notes were misplaced as and when traced out, he will return the same.

On perusal of the Ex.B1 it shows that it was attested by M. Amala,

Gaddam Narendra babu who was examined as D.W.2. As seen the evidence of D.W.2 he testified that the mediation was conducted in the presence of E. Venkateswarlu and M. Amala of Tangutur. After the settlement, defendant has requested to return the seven promissory notes from the plaintiff which were executed by him at the time of borrowing amount from B. Anitha Kumari. Both the plaintiff and Anitha

Kumari were promised to return promissory note to the defendants as and when traced out. Once the plaintiff has been denying the very signatures on Ex.B1 that he never received any amounts due under

Ex.A1 to A3, it is the onus on the defendant to adduce cogent and reliable evidence to show that he discharged the amount due under

Ex.A1 to A3.

8

14.As seen the evidence of D.W.2, he is a close friend of defendant and his house was situated at Thurpu Naidupalem and the distance between the Tangutur and Thurpu Naidupalem is 6 KM. It is not the case of the defendant that this D.W.2 is also witnessed the transactions of him with the plaintiff under Ex.A1 to A3. There is no any explanation what is the relation between this defendant and DW2 and when and where the payments were made. On perusal of Ex.B1, this D.W.1 was shown as one of the attestor and it shows the plaintiff has given endorsement with his own hand writing that he has received an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the defendant. It is not the case of the defendant that he has paid the interest due to the plaintiff since the date of execution of Ex.A1 to the date of discharge of amounts, then payment of the principal amount alone through Ex.B1 without making any calculations with regard to interest as noted in Ex.A1 to A3 throws a doubt about the issuance of receipt by plaintiff. Moreover, Ex.B1 does not contain any date when this defendant has discharged the amount and when this plaintiff has given

Ex.B1 endorsement showing, he has received entire amount due under promissory note. As seen evidence of DW1 and DW2 there is no whisper about place and date of discharge allegedly made by defendant.

15.Even as seen the signatures on Ex.B1 of the plaintiff comparing with the plaint to the nacked eye, they are not similar. Once the plaintiff has been contesting that the signatures on Ex.B1 is not belongs to him and he never received any amount from the defendant and the writing on

Ex.B1 is not belongs to him, then what prevented to this defendant to examine the writings and signatures of the plaintiff by the expert.

Absolutely, there is no steps were taken by the defendant to examine 9

Ex.B1 with that of signatures and writings of plaintiff under section 45 of

Indian Evidence Act. Though, it is the contention of the defendant that at the time of mediation one E. Venkateswarlu of Tangutur was also present, but his signatures were not appearing from Ex.B1. Even the defendant did not examine the said Emani Venkateswarlu and second attestor M. Amala who allegedly present at the time of discharge made by the defendant. Though, the defendant has relied on Ex.B2 the payments made by the defendant to Anitha Kumari, but the said Ex.B2 is no way related to the present transactions. It was admitted by the defendant that he borrowed amounts from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 to A3 and he himself scribed pronotes. Then contention him that the transactions with Anitha Kumari, and herself and plaintiff running joint chit business is false hood. Even absolutely no material on record to show that this plaintiff running joint chit business. Then any payments which were made by him to Anitha Kumari is no way concerned to present transactions under Ex.A1 to A3, then Ex.B2 is not helpful to the defendant to say that he discharged the amount due to the plaintiff.

16.It is not out of point to make a note that once the defendant has discharged the amount due to the plaintiff to a tune of Rs.2,50,000/-, he may not take any endorsement on a torned white paper which was plucked from note book, he might have taken a receipt which was duly issued by the plaintiff on a stamped receipt as the amount which was received by the plaintiff comes to a tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. Taking endorsement on white paper as alleged by the defendant attested by

D.W.2 without showing the date of issuing receipt without mentioning that the said receipt is for total discharge of the Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 along 10 with interest, then, cannot be taken into consideration. Even otherwise, it was already discussed the defendant utterly failed to examine the second witness as well as E. Venkateswarlu who were allegedly present at the time of settlment of Ex.A1 to A3 debt. In the absence of the same, it cannot be said that this defendant discharged the entire amount due to

Ex.A1 to A3. On contra, the plaintiff has placed cogent, reliable and convincing evidence to prove that this defendant himself borrowed amounts from him and executed Ex A1 to Ex.A3 in his favour, as such, he is entitled for recovery of the same. Then certainly plaintiff is entitle for suit claim. Accordingly issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered.

17.ISSUE No.3: -

In view of foregoing discussion in issues 1 and 2, this plaintiff is entitles for recovery of suit amount.

In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant with costs for a sum of Rs.4,03,700/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 04 th day of November, 2019.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.

FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

PW-1: K. ThirumalaD.W.1: B. Srinivasulu PW-2: P. Raja SekharD.W.2: G. Narendra Babu. PW-3: B. Lakshmi.

11

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Original pronote dated 17.12.2013 executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A-2 : Original pronote dated 20.12.2013 executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A-3 : Original pronote dated 20.12.2013 executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A-4 : Office copy of legal notice dated 10.06.2016.

Ex.A-5 : Reply notice dated 22.06.2016.

DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1: Original receipt and undertaking letter executed by Plaintiff.

P.S.C.J., OGL.

FAC: A.S.C.J., OGL.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Smt. B. SOBHA KUMARI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC:Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Monday, this the 04th day of November, 2019.

O.S.No.268 of 2016

Between:

Konanki Thirumala, w/o. Radha Krishna @ Krishna Rao, Aged 60 years, R/o. Chellammathota,

Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District.... Plaintiff

And

Boddapati Srinivasulu, s/o. Subba Rao, Aged 36 years, working at No.1 water plant, Kalikivaya Bitragunta, Singarayakonda (M), r/o. Tangutur (V) & (M), Prakasam District. ... Defendant.

The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of

Rs.4,03,700/- from the defendant, being the principal and interest due under three pronotes [each for Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.12.2013,

Rs.1,00,000/- on 20.12.2013 and Rs.50,000/- on 20.12.2013 executed by the defendant for Rs.2,50,000/- and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 15.07.2016 Filed on :

10.08.2016.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 17.12.2013, 20.12.2013, when the defendant borrowed the principal amount from plaintiff under suit promissory note and when inspite of several demands by the plaintiff, when the Defendant failed to discharge the debt, and where the suit transaction had taken place at Tangutur village and Mandal within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs.4,03,700/- on which a court fee of Rs.11,278/- is paid u/sec.20 of APCF & SV Act.

1st pronote value is Rs.1,61,600/- CF paid Rs.4,126/-.

2nd pronote value is Rs.1,61,400/- CF paid Rs.4,126/-. 3rd pronote value is Rs.80,700/- CF 3,026/-

Total jurisdiction value is Rs.4,03,700/- CF Paid Rs.11,278/-.

This suit is coming before me on 31.10.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Veera Raghavulu, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri

P.R.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:-

1. that the defendant do pay an amount of Rs.4,03,700/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit i.e., 15-7-2016 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/-; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.11,280/- towards institutional costs of the suit. (Cm & Fc not filed)

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 04 th day of November, 2019.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.

FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Table of Costs

ParticularsFor PlaintiffFor Defendant Stamp on Vakalat2.00 Stamp on Plaint 11,278.00CM & FC not filed. Total 11,280-00

P.S.C.J., OGL.

FAC: A.S.C.J., OGL.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Smt. B. SOBHA KUMARI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC:Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Thursday, this the 31st day of October, 2019.

O.S.No.346 of 2018

Between:

Vemuri Ravindra Babu, s/o. Ramanaiah, Hindu, Aged 33 years, Business, r/o. NGO colony, Kurnool Road,

Ongole town, Prakasam District.... Plaintiff

And

Gurram Narayana Swamy, s/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Aged 37 years, Business, r/o. Back side to Amrutha Hospital, Satyanarayanapuram, Ongole town,

Prakasam District.... Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 29.10.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Siva Hari, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P. L.

Govindaiah, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of

Rs.10,45,333/- from the defendant, being the principal and interest due under pronote dated 16.07.2016 executed by the defendant for

Rs.7,00,000/- and for costs.

02.The averments of the plaint in succient:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 16.7.2016 to meet his family and business necessities and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with 2 an interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. After execution of promissory note, this plaintiff has made several requests and demands in need of money, but the defendant admitting his liability has postponed the same in one pretext or other.

Meanwhile, he is trying to alienate the property of him, so as to defeat his creditors and to leave the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, the suit.

03.The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaint and submitted that originally, he borrowed amounts from the scribe of promissory note, Kakollu Srinivasa Rao who is doing unauthorized money lending business for the last 10 years. This defendant and plaintiff are distant relatives, they used to do second hand auto business jointly. In between 2013-2015, they sustained loss, when calculations are made, this defendant likely to pay an amount of

Rs.2,30,000/- to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay the said amount immediately, he promised to discharge the amount in monthly instalments. Since 2018 the defendant has paid Rs.6,900/- per month towards the interest and paid principal amount to a tune of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/- in two occasions, but later on, this defendant failed to pay the interest and principal amount as agreed by him. At that time, the plaintiff had demanded the defendant to execute agreement of sale as security for the amount due by him, accordingly on 28.12.2017, the defendant has executed agreement of sale for an extent of Ac.1.17 cents in survey No.71/1 to an extent of Ac.1.53 cents in survey No.75/1 in

Garlapeta village. The scribe of the promissory note is attestor to the said agreement of sale, later, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff and Rs.5,000/- to the scribe in furtherance of promissory 3 note transaction between them. The plaintiff also issued an endorsement for the payment, but this defendant lost the said endorsement, unable to trace out the same till today.

The plaintiff also obtained promissory notes and vouchers from the defendant towards the security for the amount due by this defendant to a tune of Rs.30,000/-. By forging the signatures of the defendant, the plaintiff has created the suit promissory note showing Rs.7,00,000/- as if borrowed by this defendant, this plaintiff made a phone call to the defendant on 15.11.2018 at about 10.12 AM and discussed with the issues for 43.49 seconds having phone No.7386015556. In the said conversation, the plaintiff categorically admitted about the amount due by the defendant to a tune of Rs.2,30,000/- and threatened him if he failed to repay the amount, he will fill up the promissory note and file a false case against him. The scribe of the promissory note also filed a case against this defendant, both are colluded and creating litigation against this defendant. Actually this defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff as shown in the prmoissory note. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled by this Court:

1. Whether the suit pronote dated 16.07.2016 is true, valid and supported by the consideration?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

05. On behalf of the Plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are examined and Ex.A1 got marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.3 are examined, 4 no documents are marked.

06.Heard arguments of both counsels.

07.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2: -

It is the case of the plaintiff that this defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from him on 16.10.2016 and executed a promissory note in the presence of both attestors and scribe, thereafter, in spite of several requests and demands made by him, the defendant did not choose to pay the amount. To prove the same, the defendant himself examined as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2 who is one of the attestor and deposed about the circumstances which leads to the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant and passing of consideration.

08.On contra to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is the case of the defendant that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff actually the plaintiff and defendant did second hand auto business, wherein they sustained losses, at last on settlement of accounts, plaintiff has shown that this defendant has to pay an amount of rs.2,30,000/- to the plaintiff in furtherance all transactions between them, for which as a security he obtained empty promissory notes and agreement of sale, wherein, the scribe has stood as attestor to the said agreement of sale. actually there were financial transactions between this defendant and scribe

K.Srinivasa Rao who created the present litigation through the plaintiff.

though, this defendant has paid interest amount and some extent of

principal amount, still he is in due of Rs.2,30,000/- and amounts due to

the scribe in furtherance of the promissory note transactions, they forged the signatures of this defendant and created Ex.A1 and filed a false case against him.

5

09.To prove the same, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and examined D.Ws. 2 and 3 who are the friends and relatives of him who deposed that this plaintiff and defendant did a joint business, wherein, the defendant oved an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- to the plaintiff. In furtherance of the same, the plaintiff has created present litigation.

10. We all know in a suit for recovery of money, the entire onus is on the plaintiff to prove that this defendant has executed a promissory note and received entire consideration amount in the presence of both attestors and scribe named on it.In the instance case, the plaintiff who is lendor himself examined as P.W.1 and deposed before the court that this defendant is a relative of him, they both did joint business, wherein, this defendant oved an amount of Rs.2,30,000/-. In furtherance of financial crisis, the defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from him on the even date and executed a promissory note in his favour in the presence of P.W.2, K.Srinivasa Rao who is the scribe of Ex.A1 another attester. The evidence of P.W.1 is also supported by P.W.2 who deposed that the transaction was held at the house of plaintiff. At the time, the plaintiff, defendant another attetor, K. Srinivasa Rao scribe were present, in their presence only the defendant has received entire consideration amount under Ex.A1. As seen the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 there are no any discrepancies in explaining the sequences of transactions, presence of defendant, place of transaction and passing of consideration. Hence, this court is believing the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that this defendant himself has borrowed an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the plaintiff.

Moreover, though it is the case of the defendant that by forging the signatures of him, the plaintiff has created Ex.A1 with active assistance 6 of K.Srinivasa Rao who is the scribe of document and the said scribe is also attestor for the agreement of sale which was obtained by the plaintiff In furtherance of amounts due by him in joint business conducted by them, but he categorically admitted in cross-examination that the signatures on Ex.A1 are belongs to him. Then, there is no force in the contention of the defendant that this plaintiff has forged the signatures of him and created Ex.A1 by examining P.Ws. 1 and 2 and by exhibiting Ex.A1, the plaintiff has rightly brought on record that this defendant himself has borrowed amount from him and executed Ex.A1 in his favour in the presence of P.W.2 , another attestor and scribe.

11.Once the plaintiff has discharged his initial onus, then onus shifts to the defendant to say that in furtherance of financial disputes between himself and K.Srinivasa rao who is the scribe of Ex.A1 and in furtherance of the amount due by him to the plaintiff in joint business conducted by them, Ex.A1 brought into existence to create the present litigation. For which, the defendant has mainly relied on evidence of himself as D.W.1 and evidence his friend and relative examined as D.Ws. 2 and 3. As seen the evidence of D.W.1 except bold allegations that there was a prior transaction between him and K.Srinivasa Rao who is the scribe, absolutely, there is no any documentary evidence to show that previously he has borrowed amounts from K.Srinivasa Rao wherein, he has discharged the amount due to him, but without showing the said endorsements K.Srinivasa Rao has created the Ex.A1 and filed suit through plaintiff. Moreover, this defendant has taken a contention that this plaintiff has obtained empty promissory note and vouchers from him in furtherance of amounts due by him to the plaintiff in joint business to 7 a tune of Rs.2,30,000/- and he also made payments to a tune of

Rs.30,000/- and Rs.40,000/- in two occasions and paid interest in the year 2015 for some months. But as seen record absolutely, there is no any documentary evidence to say that he repaid the amounts due to the plaintiff in business disputes. Though, it is the evidence of D.W.1 that this plaintiff has issued an endorsement for the payments of made by him, but it was averred in the written statement itself, the said endorsement is lost and he unable to produce the same.

12. it is the case of the defendant at the time of issuing endorsement by the plaintiff none were present and even there is no corroborative document evidence to the oral testimony of defendat then it cannot be believed that the plaintiff has given receipts for the amounts given by the defendant to settle the disputes of common business conducted by them.

Though the defendant has examined Dws.2 and 3, but they unable to say what are the financial transactions between the plaintiff and defendant admitting they know the plaintiff and defendant and they did common business from 2013 to 2015. Their evidence may not be helpful to defendant to say that this defendant has discharged the amount due to the plaintiff and Ex.A1 was created by forging the signatures of defendant. Defendant utterly failed to prove Ex A1 is rank forged one created by plaintiff in furtherance of business transaction between them.

On contra, the plaintiff has placed cogent, reliable and convincing evidence to prove that this defendant himself borrowed amount from him and executed Ex A1 in his favour, as such, he is entitled for recovery of the same. Then certainly plaintiff is entitle for suit claim. Accordingly issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered.

8

13.ISSUE No.3: -

In view of foregoing discussion in issues 1 and 2, this plaintiff is entitles for recovery of suit amount.

In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant with costs for a sum of Rs.10,45,333/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31 st day of October, 2019.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.

FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

PW-1: V. Ravindra babuD.W.1: G. Narayana Swamy PW-2: M. Siva Sankar.D.W.2: M. Ravindra babu D.W.3: M. Ankaiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Suit pronote dated 16.07.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff for Rs.7,00,000/-.

DEFENDANT: -Nil-

P.S.C.J., OGL.

FAC: A.S.C.J., OGL.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Smt. B. SOBHA KUMARI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC:Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Thursday, this the 31st day of October, 2019.

O.S.No.346 of 2018

Between:

Vemuri Ravindra Babu, s/o. Ramanaiah, Hindu, Aged 33 years, Business, r/o. NGO colony, Kurnool Road,

Ongole town, Prakasam District.... Plaintiff

And

Gurram Narayana Swamy, s/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Aged 37 years, Business, r/o. Back side to Amrutha Hospital, Satyanarayanapuram, Ongole town,

Prakasam District.... Defendant.

The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of

Rs.10,45,333/- from the defendant, being the principal and interest due under pronote dated 16.07.2016 executed by the defendant for

Rs.7,00,000/- and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 07.08.2018. Filed on :

07.08.2018.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 16.07.2016, when the defendant borrowed the principal amount from plaintiff under suit promissory note and when inspite of several demands by the plaintiff, when the Defendant failed to discharge the debt, and where the suit transaction had taken place at Ongole and Mandal within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs.10,45,333/- on which a court fee of Rs.12,926/- is paid u/sec.20 of APCF & SV Act.

This suit is coming before me on 29.10.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Siva Hari, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P. L.

Govindaiah, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:-

1. that the defendant do pay an amount of Rs.10,45,333/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit i.e., 07-8-2018 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.7,00,000/-; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.31,626/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 31 st day of October, 2019.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Table of Costs

ParticularsFor PlaintiffFor Defendant Stamp on Vakalat.. Stamp on Plaint 12,926.00 Process fee75.00 Advocate fee18,525.00CM & FC not filed. Jr. Advocate fee.. Typing charges100.00

Total 31,626-00

P.S.C.J., OGL.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Smt. B. SOBHA KUMARI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC:Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 05th day of November, 2019.

O.S.No.440 of 2018

Between:

Upputuri Janardhana Rao, s/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 42 years, Hindu, r/o. Opp. Zakraiah Hospital,

Ongole, Prakasam District.... Plaintiff

And

Nune Yugandhar, s/o. Ramanjaneyulu, Aged 40 years, Hindu, Business, Veeranjaneya Metal Stores, Under Geethamandiram, Gandhi Road, Ongole, Prakasam district.... Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 31.10.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri Boddu Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri N.

Mohan Das, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of

Rs.10,89,450/- from the defendant, being the principal and interest due under pronote dated 05.03.2016 executed by the defendant for

Rs.6,75,000/- and for costs.

02.The averments of the plaint in succient:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,75,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.3.2016 to meet his business purposes and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with an interest 2 @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. After execution of promissroy note, this plaintiff has made several requests and demands to the defendant to pay the debt due under promissory note, though the defendant admitting his liability the defendant has postpone the same in one pretext or other. Seeing his attitude this plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 18.09.2018 and the same was received by the defendant on 20.9.2018, but failed to give any reply notice or discharge the amount due under promissory note. Hence, the present suit.

03.The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaint and submitted that one Nalamothu Venakteswarlu filed a criminal case against this defendant in vide C.C.No.205/2017 on the file of Excise

Court, Ongole and a Civil suit in O.S.182/2017 on the file of I Addl.

District Court, Ongole for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, this defendant never seen the face of the plaintiff and there are no transaction betwen them. The suit promissory note is fabricated one. The cases which were filed by Venkateswarlu were compromised out of the court for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. It was represented by this plaintiff and Venkateswarlu that this defendant presence is not required at the time of compromise.

So that this defendant did not appear on 8.11.2018 and not engaged any advocate. So that the defendant set exparte in cases filed by N.

Venkateswarlu. C.C.205/2017 and O.S.182/2017 was settled before the

Lok Adalat on 12.11.2018 and passed was award. The plaintiff and N.

Venkateswarlu are both are friends, they colluded and filed above case through plaintiff after closing his evidence in C.C.205/2017.

Venkateswarlu was accused No.2 in C.C.25/2010 on the file of Mobile 3

Court and the case was filed under sections 120-B, 407 and 420 of IPC, it was disposed off on 8.3.2013. Nalamothu Venkateswarlu having a criminal mind and living with cheating mind, they forged the defendant signatures and filed the above suit and Venkateswarlu is behind back of the filing of the suit. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled by this Court:

1. Whether the suit pronote dated 05.03.2016 is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

05. On behalf of the Plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.3 are examined and Ex.A1 to A3 got marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 is examined, no documents are marked.

06.Heard arguments of both counsels.

07.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2: -

It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,75,000/- from him 5.3.2016 to meet his business expenses and executed a promissory note in his favour in the presence of attestors and scribe named on it. To prove the same, the Plaintiff himself examined as

P.W.1 and deposed before the court except the present suit, he did not file any other case and this defendant directly approached him and asked to arrange the Ex.A1 amount prior to 15 days to the execution. He further deposed that this plaintiff is real estate agent and used to get

Rs.40,000/- per month in business and he also get amounts towards the 4 commission, so that he secured Ex.A1 amount and lent to the defendant who in turn executed Ex.A1 in his favour in the presence of attestors and scribe.

08.Plaintiff also examined P.W.2 who is the scribe of Ex.A1 who deposed that he was present at the time of transaction which was held at the shop of defendant on 5.3.2016 in between 4 to 5 PM, this plaintiff and himself went to the place of transaction in his presence only, the defendant borrowed amounts and executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff.

The plaintiff also examined attestor of the Ex.A1 as P.W.3 who deposed about his presence and passing of consideration and presence of the defendant at the time of transaction.

09.On contra to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, it is the case of the defendant that he never known to the plaintiff, actually one N.

Venkateswarlu has filed civil and criminal cases against him and both the cases which was filed by N. Venkateswarlu was settled before Lok Adalat and award was passed. These plaintiff and N. Venkateswarlu are close friends who created present suit litigation for want of wrongful gain. To prove the same, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and deposed

before the court that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff

and Venkateswarlu is behind back of present litigation.

10.In a suit for recovery of money, the entire onus is on the plaintiff to prove that this defendant himself has executed Ex.A1 after receipt of full consideration amount in the presence of attestors and scribe named on it. In the instance case, the plaintiff who is lendor himself examined as

P.W.1 and deposed before the court that N. Venkateswarlu is good friend 5 of him through whom, he got acquaintance with the defendant and this defendant himself has approached him prior to 15 days to the Ex.A1 to arrange the amounts, accordingly he arranged amounts to him, from the earnings being a real estate agent and out of the commissions. He lent amount to the defendant on 5.3.2016 which was attested by P.W.3,

Narayana and scribed by P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.1 is also supported by P.Ws. 2 and 3 who are scribe and attestor who deposed about their presence at the time of execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant and passing of consideration to him. They also categorically deposed about the presence of Narayana who is second attestor to the Ex.A1.

11.As seen the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, there are no discrepancies in explaining the place of transaction ie., defendant shop, time of transaction i.e., in between 4 to 5 PM on 5.3.2016. They categorically deposed about the passing of consideration to the defendant to a tune of

Rs.6,75,000/-. Hence, this court is believing the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that this defendant himself has borrowed amounts from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 in his favour, after receipt of full consideration amount.

Once the plaintiff has discharged his initial burden, then the burden shifts to the defendant to say Ex.A1 is rank forged one created by the plaintiff with the active assistance of Nalamothu Venkateswarlu with whom he has previous litigation.

12.To prove the same, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and deposed before the court that this Nalamothu Venkateswarlu has filed two cases against him, one is under section 138 of NI Act before the

Excise Court, Ongole and O.S.182/2017 on the file of I Addl. Distrcit 6

Court for recovery of money to a tune of Rs.15,00,000/- and both are compromised before the Lok Adalat and award was also passed, but these Nalamothu Venkateswarlu with an evil intention has created Ex.A1 and filed false case against him through the present plaintiff. It is true as seen evidence of P.W.1 he categorically admitted that Nalamothu

Venkateswarlu is close friend of him, though whom he got acquittance with defendant. The fact that this plaintiff is close friend of Nalamothu

Venkateswarlu does not mean that he is behind back of creating Ex.A1 transaction. It is onus on defendant to prove enmity between himself and Venkateswarlu. The evidence of DW1 that he compromised the cases which was filed by Venkateswarlu long back itself and an award was also passed showing this defendant and Venkateswarly amicably settled their dispute before lock adalath. Showing cordial relation between

Venkateswalu and defendant or some of the empty pronotes are still in the custody of Venkateswarlu. It is not the case of defendant there are still other cases are pending between them. Though it is case of defendant he never known plaintiff at all but there is a clear evidence of

P.W.1 to 3, who testified that in their presence only this defendant executed promissory note and received entire consideration amount, showing presence of defendant at the place of transaction and passing of consideration. More over as seen evidence of PW2 it shows the transaction was done at the shop of the defendant himself. Showing friendly relation between them. Once it is the case of defendant that this plaintiff in collusion with Venkateswarly has filed present, it is the onus on the defendant to place cogent evidence to say that the signatures of him on Ex.A1 was forged by the plaintiff with active support of

Venkateswarlu. But as seen the evidence of D.W.1, he categorically 7 admitted that the signatures of Ex.A1 is belongs to him. Then it cannot be said that the Ex.A1 is forged document created by the plaintiff by forging the signatures of defendant. Defendant utterly failed to prove that Ex A1 is forged document created by plaintiff with active assistance of Venkateswarlu. On contra, the plaintiff has placed cogent, reliable and convincing evidence to prove that this defendant himself borrowed amount from him and executed Ex A1 in his favour after receipt of entire consideration amount under it, as such, he is entitled for recovery of the same. Then certainly plaintiff is entitle for suit claim. Accordingly issue

Nos. 1 and 2 are answered.

13.ISSUE No.3: -

In view of foregoing discussion in issues 1 and 2, this plaintiff is entitles for recovery of suit amount.

In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant with costs for a sum of Rs.10,89,450/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.6,75,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 05 th day of November, 2019.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.

FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

PW-1: U. Janardhana RaoD.W.1: N. Yugandhar PW-2: D. Srinivasa Rao PW-3: P. Venkata Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Suit pronote dated 05.03.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff for Rs.6,75,000/-. Ex.A-2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 18.09.2018. Ex.A-3 : Postal acknowledgment.

DEFENDANT: -Nil-

P.S.C.J., OGL.

FAC: A.S.C.J., OGL.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Smt. B. SOBHA KUMARI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC:Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 05th day of November, 2019.

O.S.No.440 of 2018

Between:

Upputuri Janardhana Rao, s/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 42 years, Hindu, r/o. Opp. Zakraiah Hospital,

Ongole, Prakasam District.... Plaintiff

And

Nune Yugandhar, s/o. Ramanjaneyulu, Aged 40 years, Hindu, Business, Veeranjaneya Metal Stores, Under Geethamandiram, Gandhi Road, Ongole, Prakasam district.... Defendant.

The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of

Rs.10,89,450/- from the defendant, being the principal and interest due under pronote dated 05.03.2016 executed by the defendant for

Rs.6,75,000/- and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 29.09.2018 Filed on :

08.10.2018.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 05.03.2016, when the defendant borrowed the principal amount from plaintiff under suit promissory note and when inspite of several demands by the plaintiff, when the Defendant failed to discharge the debt, and where the suit transaction had taken place at Ongole town and Mandal within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs.10,89,450/- on which a court fee of Rs.13,426/- is paid u/sec.20 of APCF & SV Act.

This suit is coming before me on 31.10.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri Boddu Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri N.

Mohan Das, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree: -

1. that the defendant do pay an amount of Rs.10,89,450/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit i.e., 29-9-2018 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,75,000/-; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.13,428/- towards institutional costs of the suit. [CM & FC not filed]

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 05 th day of November, 2019.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Table of Costs

ParticularsFor PlaintiffFor Defendant Stamp on Vakalat2.00 Stamp on Plaint 13,426.00 Process fee.. Advocate fee..CM & FC not filed. Jr. Advocate fee.. Typing charges.. Total 13,428-00

P.S.C.J., OGL.