B.V.Sulochana Rani

O.S.No.470/2018, PJCJC, MCL

Dt.23.07.2019

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::MACHERLA

PRESENT: S MT B.V S ULOCHANA R ANI , M.A., LL.M., Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Macherla,

Tuesday, this the 23rd day of July, 2019

O.S.No.470/2018

BETWEEN:

Valaparla Santhamma, W/o.Late John, Hindu, Aged about 75 years, housewife, D.No.14-1-65, Santhinagar, near KCP gate, Macherla, Guntur District.

...Plaintiff

AND

1.Boniga Kotamma, W/o.Late Venkaiah, Aged 70 years,

2.Boniga Lakshmaiah, S/o.Late Venkaiah, Aged 35 years,

3.Boniga Mariyamma, W/o.Lakshmaiah, Aged 30 years,

4.Aleti Ammanna, W/o.Daveedu, Aged 38 years, C/.Devalla Satyadev, D1 to D4 are R/o.D.No.14-2-495, Srisailam road

5.Peruvali Rani, W/o.Chandraiah, Aged 29 years, R/o.Koppunuru village, Macherla Mandal, Guntur District.

6.Macherla Municipality, rep by Municipal Commissioner, Macherla.

...Defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 02.07.2019 in the presence of Sri K.V Ranga Rao, Advocate, for the plaintiff and Sri B. Babu Rao, Advocate for defendants 1 and 2 and defendants 3 to 6 having remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 6 (herein after referred as

D1 to D6) for declaration of the title of the plaintiff over EFGH marked plaint plan property which is part of ABCD marked plaint plan property, as a consequent to grant decree for recovery of possession of EFGH plan property by directing D1 to D5 to remove all their fixtures and ACC sheeted shed measuring 20 x 30 and its appurtenants from the EFGH portion of the plaint plan and in the event of their failure the Hon’ble Court may remove the same at the costs or expenses of D1 to D5. Further to grant mandatory injunction directing D6 to cancel assessment for D.No.14-2-495 stands in the name of D1 to D5 or their manager Boniga Venkaiah and for costs.

2.Brief averments of the plaint are that : The ABCD plaint plan site which includes

EFGH plan is an ACC sheeted shed, the ABCD plan site is an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in S.No.1073/1 AA and D.No.1073/1B1. The said land originally belongs to Talluri

Page 1 of 6

O.S.No.470/2018, PJCJC, MCL

Dt.23.07.2019

Bitchalu who purchased under registered sale deed dt.12.03.1979 from Palakurthi

Ramulamma vide document No.8/1980. The plaintiff has purchased the said extent of

Ac.0.20 cents on 01.02.1980 under registered sale deed for a valid consideration and obtained possession on the same day. Since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without any obstruction from anybody. At the time of purchase of ABCD plan site, plaintiff got measured the same and fixed the pegs on all sides of ABCD points.

3.While things stood thus one Boniga Venkaiah, S/o.Akkulu who is the husband of D1 and father of D2 to D5 was trying to obstruct the possession of the plaintiff during the year 2012. Then the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the said

Boniga Venkaiah on the file of this court vide O.S No. 192/2012 for the whole ABCD site which includes EFGH portion of plaint plan and obtained interim injunction orders initially and later the court passed an exparte decree on 08.02.2013 against the said

Boniga Venkaiah and in favour of the plaintiff. There is no appeal or any kind of action taken by the said Boniga Venkaiah since the decree passed by this court has been confirmed and it is in force. Later the plaintiff has constructed loose stone wall up to 3 feet height of ABCD point and that has been used to keep the entire site and manure pits and hayrick yards.

4.Thereafter the husband of the plaintiff was died and the sons of the plaintiff are residing at different places by virtue of their position and they are doing business at Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam. The plaintiff used to go to their places and come back to

Macherla. Meanwhile she had suffered with chronic disease and bed ridden for several days and she did not come back to Macherla early during the few months. When the plaintiff came to Macherla about few days back, after getting recovery with a view to making constructions in the ABCD plan site and she found an ACC sheeted shed measuring 20 x 30 feet which has been erected at point D i.e. southwest of the ABCD plan site and on its western side a small bathroom was constructed. The said ACC sheeted shed and bathroom has been as EFGH in the plan and it is with the annexed

Page 2 of 6

O.S.No.470/2018, PJCJC, MCL

Dt.23.07.2019 schedule. Thereafter on the enquiry of the plaintiff, she came to know that D1 to D5 has been illegally encroached EFGH portion and raised ACC sheeted shed in her absence without any manner of right, possession and enjoyment over the same. As D1 to D5 without any manner of right, title and possession and enjoyment over the EFGH site illegally occupied and constructed ACC sheeted shed, the plaintiff demanded them to remove the same, but they did not respond. The defendants further trying to occupy the remaining site of ABCD plan site and they are making hectic efforts. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to D1 to D5 by demanding them to vacate or evict from the schedule premises, but the defendants did not opt to vacate the schedule premises, though legal notices have been served on them. The plaintiff is an old lady and she is a weak person in the village and she cannot resist the defendants without the aid of the court. Hence, the suit.

5.After service of summons, D1 and D2 made their appearance through their counsel.

The other defendants i.e. D3 to D6 remained as exparte. Thereafter D1 and D2 failed to file written statement even after lapse of statutory period. Hence, the right of D1 and

D2 to file written statement is forfeited.

6.At the time of trial P.W.1 and P.W.2 examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Exs.A1 and A2 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

7.Heard the plaintiff.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of her title over the EFGH plaint plan property which is part and parcelof ABCD plaint plan ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of EFGH plaint plan

property by removing the construction which allegedly made in the said site

i.e. ACC sheeted shed and to direct D1 to D5 for its removal, on their failure

removal by the court ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a direction to D6 not to collect the house tax for the assessment in D.No.14-2-495 ?

Page 3 of 6

O.S.No.470/2018, PJCJC, MCL

Dt.23.07.2019

8.POINT Nos. 1 to 3:-It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner of the ABCD plaint plan property. She purchased the same from one Talluri Bitchalu, he purchased the same from Palakurthy Ramulamma under a registered sale deed dt.01.02.1980 for a consideration and obtained possession. Since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any obstructions. The EFGH plaint plan property is also part and parcel of ABCD plan property and the said property is occupied by the defendants in the absence of the plaintiff and they constructed an

ACC sheeted shed and they did not heed the voice of the plaintiff, though she made so many requests to vacate the EFGH portion property.

9.The plaintiff in support of her contention entered into the witness box by availing the provision under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. She filed her evidence affidavit by reiterating the entire contents of her plaint. Through this witness Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. D1 and D2 did not choose to cross examine P.W.1. Further the plaintiff mentioned in her plaint and in her chief evidence affidavit that one Boniga Venkaiah who is none other than the Manager of the family of D1 to D5, made efforts to occupy the suit schedule land and to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the year 2012. At that time she filed a suit vide O.S No.192/2012 against the said Venkaiah for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the said Venkaiah from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property forever. But again D1 to D5 interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and they made constructions in EFGH portion of the suit schedule property in the temporary absence of the plaintiff.

10.The plaintiff relied upon the sale deed dt. 01.02.1980 which is marked as Ex.A1 to show her title, right and possession over the suit schedule property. Ex.A1 categorically discloses that the suit schedule property i.e. ABCD plaint plan property is purchased by the plaintiff on 01.02.1980 from Palakurthy Ramulamma and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Exs.A2 to A4 categorically

Page 4 of 6

O.S.No.470/2018, PJCJC, MCL

Dt.23.07.2019 discloses that suit filed by the plaintiff vide O.S No.192/2012 for permanent injunction against the Manager of the family of D1 to D5 i.e. Boniga Venkaiah was decree on 08.02.2013 in favour of the plaintiff and an interim injunction order is also passed in that suit vide I.A No.954/2012 dt.30.01.2013. Thus Exs.A1 to A4 categorically disclosing that there is interference from the defendants with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property i.e. ABCD plaint plan. In order to restrain them, plaintiff previously filed a suit against Boniga Venkaiah and obtained decree and the said decree is also not challenged by them, as it became final and it is in force. But again D1 to D5 are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and they occupied the EFGH portion of the plaint schedule property, they constructed ACC roof shed. Ex.A5 demand notice speaks that the plaintiff issued a legal notice to D1 to D5 for removal of the ACC roof shed which constructed in the EFGH plaint plan site, in the temporary absence of the plaintiff, but there is no response from the defendants. Exs.A6 and A7 are acknowledgments to say that D1 to D5 received legal notice issued by the plaintiff.

Thus the plaintiff established her entire case.

11.But defendants did not turn up to contest the matter and D1 and D2 failed to file written statement and the remaining defendants remained as exparte. Thus the evidence of plaintiff is remained as unchallenged. Further Ex.A5 is legal notice issued to D6 for not to collect house tax for the above said RCC roof sheeted shed with assessment No.14- 2-495. D6 also remained as exparte.

12.In support of the contention of plaintiff, she examined one Kukkamudi Kotaiah who is a third party. He also filed his evidence in support of the contention of the plaintiff in all material aspects. His evidence is also remained as unchallenged. Thus the evidence of both P.W.1 and P.W.2 categorically establishes the case of the plaintiff. In the absence of contrary evidence on record, the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.

Page 5 of 6

O.S.No.470/2018, PJCJC, MCL

Dt.23.07.2019

13.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 5 declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of EFGH plan schedule property in the ABCD whole site, further D1 to D5 are directed to hand over the possession of EFGH plan schedule property to the plaintiff by removing all their fixtures and ACC sheet shed measuring 20 x 30 and its appurtenants from the EFGH portion of the plaint plan schedule property. Further mandatory injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff directing D6 to cancel the assessment for D.No.14-2-495 stands in the name of any of D1 to D5 or their manager Bonige Venkaiah.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of July, 2019.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MACHERLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For D1 and D2:

PW1Valaparla Santhamma. None. PW2Kukkamudi Kotaiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1Certified copy of sale deed dt.01.02.1980 stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A2Certified copy of decree with schedule in O.S 192/2012. Ex.A3Certified copy of judgment in O.S 192/2012 dt.08.02.2013. Ex.A4Certified copy of interim injunction final orders in I.A 954/2012 in O.S 192/2012. Ex.A5Office copy of legal notice dt.30.07.2013. Ex.A6Acknowledgments received by D1 to D3 and D6. Ex.A7Returned cover from D4.

For Defendants : Nil.

P.J.C.J, MCL.

Page 6 of 6

O.S 148/2019, P.J.C.J.C, MCL

Dt.20.1.2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MACHERLA

PRESENT: SMT. B.V.SULOCHANA RANI, M.A., LL.M., Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Macherla Monday, the 20th day of January, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.148/2019

Between:

Settipalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 38 yrs, cultivation cum business, R/o.Durgi (V & M), Guntur (Dt), Macherla J.C.J.C. … Plaintiff AND

Thota Nageswara Rao, S/o.Yalamanda, Hindu, 38 yrs, mechanic, R/o.Near Brahmmamgari Temple, Durgi (V & M), Guntur (Dt), Macherla J.C.J.C.

... Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 06.01.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.J.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.P.Ch.Mastan, Advocate for the defendant, and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of Rs.1,46,850/- alleging that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.66,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively from him and executed two separate suit promissory notes dated 5.5.2016 and 7.6.2016 promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and that the defendant failed to discharge the suit promissory notes debt.

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows : On 5.5.2016 and 7.6.2016, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.66,000/- and Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and on the same day, the defendant executed two separate suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff towards the said debt as collateral security at Durgi village. Later inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the debt due to the plaintiff under suit pronotes. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of money from the defendant.

3.Though the defendant appeared through his counsel, but failed to file written statement within stipulated period. Hence, the right to file written statement is forfeited.

4.During the course of trial, the plaintiff viz. Settipalli Srinivasa Rao filed chief affidavit in lieu of evidence in chief, it is taken on file as evidence in chief of P.W.1, Exs.A1 & A2

O.S 148/2019, P.J.C.J.C, MCL

Dt.20.1.2020 are marked on behalf of P.W.1. In such evidence, P.W.1 deposed that on 5.5.2016 and 7.6.2016, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.66,000/- and Rs.20,000/- from him for his family expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and on the same day, defendant executed two separate suit promissory notes in favour of plaintiff towards the said debt. Subsequently, the defendant failed to discharge the said debt. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of debt amount under the suit promissory notes i.e. Ex.A1 & Ex.A2. Hence, P.W.1 prays this Court to pass a decree for Rs.1,46,850/- in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant with subsequent interest from the date of filing of the suit till the realization and for costs of the suit.

5.As noted above, the defendant failed to file written statement and did not adduce any evidence on his behalf. Therefore, the evidence in chief of P.W.1 was remained as unchallenged. Therefore, considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 & A2, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim, as Exs.A1 & A2 are in support of the oral testimony of P.W.1 in all aspects.

6.In the result, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,46,850/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Six Thousand Eight

Hundred and Fifty Only) with subsequent interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 01.05.2019 till the date of decree i.e. 20.01.2020 and future interest at 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.86,000/- (Rs.66,000/- + Rs.20,000/-).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of January, 2020.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MACHERLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Settipalli Srinivasa RaoExparte.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : First Promissory note dt.5.5.2016 for an amount of Rs.66,000/- Ex.A2 : Second Promissory note dt.7.6.2016 for an amount of Rs.20,000/-

For Defendant: Nil.

P.J.C.J, M.C.L.

O.S 148/2019, P.J.C.J.C, MCL

Dt.20.1.2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MACHERLA

PRESENT: SMT. B.V.SULOCHANA RANI, M.A., LL.M., Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Macherla Monday, the 20th day of January, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.148/2019

Between:

Settipalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 38 yrs, cultivation cum business, R/o.Durgi (V & M), Guntur (Dt), Macherla J.C.J.C. … Plaintiff AND

Thota Nageswara Rao, S/o.Yalamanda, Hindu, 38 yrs, mechanic, R/o.Near Brahmmamgari Temple, Durgi (V & M), Guntur (Dt), Macherla J.C.J.C.

... Defendant

The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of Rs.1,46,850/- alleging that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.66,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively from him and executed two separate suit promissory notes dated 5.5.2016 and 7.6.2016 promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and that the defendant failed to discharge the suit promissory notes debt.

Plaint presented on : 1.5.2019 Plaint registered on : 6.5.2019

CAUSE OF ACTION: Cause of action for the suit arose on 5.5.2016 and 7.6.2016 when the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.66,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively from the plaintiff and executed two separate promissory notes in his favour at Durgi village; on such other dates when the defendant fails to discharge the debts due to the plaintiff inspite of his repeated demands under the promissory notes; and where the parties to the suit are residing and where the cause of action is fully arosed (i.e) at Durgi village etc., are all comes under purview of this Hon’ble Court’s jurisdiction.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION :

Principal amount (1st pronote):Rs. 66,000-00

Interest from 5.5.2016 to 29.4.2019:Rs 47,000-00 @ 24% p.a --------------------- :Rs.1,13,000-00

Principal amount (2nd pronote):Rs. 20,000-00

Interest from 7.6.2016 to 29.4.2019:Rs 13,850-00 @ 24% p.a --------------------- :Rs. 33,850-00

Suit Amount = Rs.1,13,000/- + Rs.33,850/- = Rs.1,46,850/-.

O.S 148/2019, P.J.C.J.C, MCL

Dt.20.1.2020

On which, a Court Fee of Rs.3,626/- + Rs.1,908/- = Rs.5,534/- is paid U/Sec.20 of

APCF and SV Act.

Value for the purpose of jurisdiction is same as above.

This suit is coming before me on 06.01.2020 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.J.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.P.Ch.Mastan, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows :

1.That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff ;

2.That the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,46,850/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Only) with subsequent interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 01.05.2019 till the date of decree i.e. 20.01.2020 and future interest at 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of

Rs.86,000/- (Rs.66,000/- + Rs.20,000/-).

3.That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,889/- towards costs of this suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.NIL (CM & F.C not filed by defendant).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 20th day of January, 2020.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MACHERLA.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: Rs. Ps.Rs. Ps. Plaint Fee5,534-00Exparte Stamp on Vakalat2-00– Advocate fees3,053-00– (C.M & F.C not filed) Process fees200-00– Typing charges100-00– Total 8,889-00NIL

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MACHERLA.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : MACHERLA

PRESENT: C.Madhu Babu,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Macherla,

Tuesday, this the 20th day of September, 2022.

E.P.No.124/2019 in O.S.No.203/2015

Between:- Javisetty China Naraiah @ China Narayana, S/o.Peda Nagaiah, Hindu, aged 53 years, Cultivation, R/o.Gundlapadu village, Veldurthy Mandal, Guntur District, Macherla JCJC. ..... Decree holder And.

1. Upputholla Koteswari, W/o.Late Ramulu, Hindu, aged 45 years, cultivation.

2. Challa Nagamma , W/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 25 years, Cultivation, House wife. (1 and 2 are r/o.Gundlapadu village, Veldurthy Mandal, Guntur District, Macherla JCJC

3. Mallela Sri Lakshmi, W/o.Krishna, Hindu, aged 23 years, House wife, R/o.Durgi village and Mandal, Guntur District.

4. Vemula Maheswari, W/o.Anka Rao, Hindu, aged 21 years, R/o.Bhimavaram village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, Sattenapalli JCJC.

5. Upputholla Someswara Rao, S/o.Late Ramulu, Hindu, aged 17 years, student, Gundlapadu village, Veldurthy Mandal, Guntur District, Macherla JCJC. (J.Dr No.5 being minor represented by his mother 1st J.Dr).

….. Defendants/J.Drs

This petition is coming on this day i.e. on 20-09-2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Nagireddy, learned Advocate for D.Hr, and the J.Drs 1 to 5 having remained exparte, having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following :-

O R D E R

1.The present Execution Petition was filed by the D.Hr against the J.Drs. 1 to 5 under Order 21, Rules 66 and 64 of CPC against the Judgment Debtors 1 to 5 for issuance of notice under order 21, Rule-66 CPC and thereafter issue proclamation and

Isthihar and conduct sale of the E.P schedule property in open auction and the sale proceeds shall be utilized for realization of E.P Amount.

2. On 12.07.2022 sale is confirmed and made absolute. Accordingly, E.P. is allowed.

3. In the result, E.A.259/2022 is allowed. Property is delivered to Auction purchaser/D.Hr. Hence, E.P. proceedings are terminated.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20 th day of September, 2022.

Sd/- C.Madhu Babu

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MACHERLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side)

Sd/- C.M.B.

PJCJ, MCL.