Smt. Bakkera Naga Lakshmi

1

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt. B. Naga Lakshmi, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, Khammam

O.S No. 144 / 2022

Between: Banoth Biksham, S/o Harya, Age: 40 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Raghunadhapalem Village & Mandal, Khammam District

...........Plaintiff

And

Mandanapu Kishan Rao, S/o Seshaiah, Age: 65 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Balapeta, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District

.........Defendant

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 17.11.2025 in the presence of S ri M. Niranjan Reddy , Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Smt. S.Somasekhar, Advocates for the Defendant; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The plaintiff filed this suit under Order 7 Rule 1 & 2 read with Sec.26 of

Civil Procedure Code against the defendant praying the court to grant perpet- ual injunction in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the defendant, his men, servants, Subordinates, agents, and all other persons claiming through the de- fendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to award costs of the suit and to grant any other relief or reliefs.

2

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

That the plaintiff hailed from agricultural family and a schedule tribe by community, Lambada by caste, the father of the plaintiff by name Banoth

Hatya is the original pattedar and possessor of the agricultural land out of Sy

No.191/E to an extent of Ac 1-08 gts., including suit schedule property, the father of the plaintiff at the instance and influence of the defendant, he was forced to alienated an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., leaving behind Ac.0-08 gts., i.e., the suit schedule property herein through registered sale deed bearing Doc.

No.1549/2002 dated 23. 10.2002 by retaining the suit schedule property till his death i.e, up to till 22.11.2015 thereafter, the plaintiff and his brother are looking after the said extent by grazing the cattle etc., and during oral parti- tion the said extent of Ac.0-08 gts, ie, suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and the neighbouring lands were though converted into the plots, they are in possession of the said extent and in revenue records at patta column and the plaintiff name is still continuing and patta No.390 is subsisting show- ing the factum of ownership, however, in the possessor column it was recorded as plots, in fact the plaintiff have not alienated the said extent of

Ac.0-08 gts, in favour of anybody and not made the land into plots, as such taking undue advantage of such error crept in revenue records, the plaintiff have approached the defendant on 08.12.2021, to come forward and to get it enjoyment survey through proper authority thereupon the defendant with an ulterior motive without following due process made the agricultural lands into 3

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

unauthorized layouts and failed to identify their own lands unnecessarily try- ing to interfere into the plaintiff's land when the plaintiff questioned, the de- fendant and his henchmen are abusing the plaintiff in filthy language by touching the caste of the plaintiff by saying that "లం�బాడి లం�జకొడుకుల్లా� రా! మీ అయ్య�లు అమ్ము�కు�టే మీరు ఎల్లా వచ్చి� అడుగుతారు? మీ అమ్మ�. మీ పెళ్ళాం�� అ�టూ " and further threatened not to disclose and not to claim the land belongs to the plaintiff before any- body, failing the defendant will do away with the life of the plaintiff Immedi- ately, the plaintiff lodged a report before the SHO, Raghunadhapajem, on 16.12.2021 bringing all the facts to the kind notice of superiors through Regis- tered post acknowledgment. Due and those were served on the defendant, in spite of service of such complaint, the police did not take any action against the defendant as the defendant is highly influential, taking undue advantage of it, the defendant is trying to dispossess the plaintiff by hook or cook and openly threatening with dire consequences, the plaintiff being law abiding citi- zen unable to resist the illegal acts and attempts of the defendant, however, the plaintiff could have resist the illegal acts of the defendant with the help of neighbours and unable to resist permanently without lawful assistant of the

Hon'ble Court. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement and denied all the facts men- tioned in the plaint and submitted that there is no cause of action to file the suit against the defendant. The alleged cause of action is invented only to file the above suit with a malafide intention in order to gain wrongfully. That the defendant sold away land to an extent of Ac.1.80 gts. through registered sale 4

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

deed in favour of Ajmeera Bikya, s/o.Sukya on 05.01.2009, which was pur- chased by him vide document No.1549/2002. Since then the defendant is not in possession over the said land for the last many years, as such preventing the plaintiff by the defendant is not correct. That there is no land to the plain- tiff within the boundaries as mentioned in suit schedule property. The plaintiff have no prima-facie case and balance of convenience is not in favour of plain- tiff and prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been settled by this Court for trial:

Issue No.1 "Whether the plaintiff is lawfully in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property ?

Issue No.2 Whether there is any unlawful interference caused by the defendants into peaceful possession of the plaintiff?

Issue No.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed for?

Issue No.4 If so what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and inspite of several opportunities given for cross of PW1, the defendant failed to cross examine him and hence the cross of PW1 is closed. Several opportunities were given for adducing the evidence on be- half of the defendant, the defendant failed to adduce any evidence on his be- half. Hence the defendant evidence is closed after giving ample opportunities.

5

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

6.Heard arguments of the plaintiff. Inspite of several adjournments and even conditional orders, the defendant did not choose to submit his argu- ments, hence treated it as heard and perused the record.

ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:

7.The issues No.1 to 3 are necessary together for the sake of convenience.

8(i).It is the contention of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff, one

Banoth Hatya, was the original pattedar and possessor of agricultural land in

Sy. No.191/E, to an extent of Ac. 1-08 gts, including the suit schedule property.

It is stated that the father of the plaintiff, at the instance and influence of the defendant, was compelled to alienate an extent of Ac.1-00 gts, retaining the remaining extent of Ac.0-08 gts, i.e., the suit schedule property, under a regis- tered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1549/2002, dated 23.10.2002. The father of the plaintiff continued to retain and possess the suit schedule property till his death on 22.11.2015. After his demise, the plaintiff and his brother have been looking after the said land by grazing cattle and performing other agricultural activities. During the oral partition between the plaintiff and his brother, the extent of Ac.0-08 gts, i.e., the suit schedule property, fell to the share of the plaintiff, and ever since, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

ii).It is further submitted that though the neighboring lands have been con- verted into plots, the plaintiff continues in possession of the said extent. In the revenue records, his name is still reflected in the patta column under Patta

No. 390, which is subsisting and indicates his ownership. However, in the pos- 6

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

sessor column, the nature of land has been erroneously shown as “plots.” The plaintiff asserts that he has never alienated the extent of Ac.0-08 gts to anyone nor converted it into plots. Taking undue advantage of this error in the rev- enue records, the plaintiff approached the defendant on 08.12.2021, request- ing him to get an enjoyment survey conducted through proper authorities.

However, the defendant, with an ulterior motive and without following due process, converted the agricultural lands into unauthorized layouts and failed to identify his own land, and is unnecessarily interfering with the plaintiff’s land. When the plaintiff questioned such acts, the defendant and his hench- men abused the plaintiff in filthy language, touching his caste, saying: “లం�బాడి లం�జకొడుకుల్లా� రా! మీ అయ్య�లం అమ్ము�కున్నా"క మీరు ఎల్లా వచ్చి� అడుగుతారు? మీ అమ్మ�, మీ పెళ్ళాం�� అ�టూ ,” and further threatened the plaintiff not to disclose anything or claim the land, warning that otherwise they would eliminate him. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff lodged a report before the SHO, Raghunadhapalem, on 16.12.2021, bringing all the facts to the notice of the superiors through Registered Post

Acknowledgment Due, which were duly served on the defendant. In spite of such service, the police did not take action as the defendant is highly influen- tial. Taking undue advantage of this, the defendant is attempting to dispossess the plaintiff by hook or crook and is openly issuing dire threats. The plaintiff, being a law-abiding citizen, is unable to withstand the illegal acts of the defen- dant. Though he could resist with the help of neighbours temporarily, he can- not do so permanently without the lawful assistance of this Hon’ble Court.

7

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

9. Per contra, the defendant contended that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to institute the present suit. The alleged cause of action has been invented solely for the purpose of filing this suit with a malafide intention to secure wrongful gain. The defendant further submitted that he had already sold the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts. through a registered sale deed dated 05.01.2009 in favour of Ajmeera Bikya, S/o. Sukya, which land was originally purchased by the defendant under Document No.1549/2002. Since the date of such sale, the defendant has not been in possession of the said land for sev- eral years. Hence, the allegation that the defendant is preventing the plaintiff from enjoying the property is wholly incorrect. It is also contended that the plaintiff has no land within the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property and, therefore, the plaintiff has neither a prima facie case nor the balance of convenience in his favour.

10.Since this is a suit for permanent injunction, at the outset this Court in- tends to mention some of the legal principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court relating to permanent injunction.

“In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The plaintiff has to establish that as on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property and that the defendant tried to interfere or disturbed such lawful pos- session of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property”.

11.To prove the version of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as

PW1. PW1 filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination reiterated the plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 on his behalf. PW1 was exam- ined in chief on 30.07.2025 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked on the same day.

8

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

Even after giving several adjournments the defendant failed to cross examine

PW1. Hence, this Court posted the matter for defendant evidence by closing the cross of PW1 and plaintiff side evidence after giving several opportunities, hence the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. PW1 relied upon Ex.A1 to

Ex.A6, on perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. Ex.A1 it is the Certified copy of regis- tered sale deed bearing No.1549/2002, dated 23.10.2002, it shows that the fa- ther of the plaintiff alienated an extent of Ac.1.00 gts leaving behind Ac.0.08 gts i.e. suit schedule property through registered sale deed by retaining the suit schedule property till the death of his father, when during oral partition the said extent of Ac.0.08 gts to the share of plaintiff. Ex.A2 it is certified copy of Meeseva Pahani of Badavath Hatya, who is the father of the plaintiff in

Khata No.390, dated 02.02.2013, it shows that on the date when the revenue records at patta column and the plaintiff name is still continuing and subsist- ing showing the factum of ownership. Ex.A3 it is the certified copy of Pahanies obtained through RTI for the year 2007-2008, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2015-16 it shows that the adangal pahani issued by the Nayab Tahsildar, Raghunadha- palem. Ex.A.4 is office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff against the defendant, dated 16.02.2021, Ex.A5 it is the original postal acknowledgment (3) number, dated 17.12.2021, and Ex.A.6 it is the postal receipts (3) in num- ber, dated 16.12.2021. Upon perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A6 shows that the plain- tiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he is in peaceful possession of suit schedule property.

9

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

12. Coming to the contention of the defendant, it is stated that he had sold the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts. through a registered sale deed dated 05.01.2009 in favour of Ajmeera Bikya, S/o. Sukya, which land had been origi- nally purchased by him under Document No.1549/2002. Since the date of the said sale, the defendant has not been in possession of the land for many years.

Therefore, the allegation that the defendant is preventing the plaintiff from enjoying the property is incorrect. The defendant further contends that the plaintiff has no land within the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff has filed the present suit based on fabricated documents created in collusion with certain Revenue officials, with a dishon- est intention. It is also his contention that the suit schedule property does not exist and that the plaintiff is neither in possession nor enjoyment of the al- leged suit land. But the defendant did not choose to enter into the witness box and adduced the evidence as to prove that there is no land physically in the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and did not file any document to prove his contention be- fore the court and did not choose to enter into the witness box to adduce the evidence and to contest the suit to disprove the contention of the plaintiff and to prove his claim. In the absence of oral or documentary evidence of defen- dant, this court cannot relied upon mere averments of written statement of de- fendant.

13.In S.Gangadhar Goud vs. Chikkela Laxman and others reported in 2009(3) ALT 498, wherein it is held that; 10

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

"mere filing of pleadings would not be sufficient in a case. The pleadings, at the most would help the Court to identify the area of controversy and to frame issues. Once, the issues are framed, the respective parties have to adduce evidence in support of or opposi- tion to the issues. Even where a defendant is confident of the weakness of the plaintiff's case, he has to enter the witness box atleast, to speak to the contents of the written statement, failure in this regard is bound to entail in serious consequences".

14.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao's case reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441, held that; "where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case setup by him is not correct".

15.Averting to the above proposition in the case on hand and also as the de- fendant failed to adduce any evidence in support of his pleadings, as such the unrebuttable evidence of the plaintiff is taken into consideration. More base- less allegations cannot be entertained by this Court, unless there is valid proof in supporting the contentions of the defendant pertaining to the case. The doc- uments filed by the plaintiff clearly shows that the plaintiff was successful in establishing his possession and ownership over the suit schedule property.

16.Upon perusal of the defendant, this court is of the opinion that the evi- dence of PW1 is unchallenged and unrebutted and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 supported the claim of the plaintiff and this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. This point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant that the plaintiff is the owner and posses- sor and he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit.

11

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

17.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed without costs in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant, his men, servants, subordinates, agents and all other persons claiming through the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Directly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 28th day of November, 2025.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: P.W.1: Banoth Biksham.

FOR DEFENDANT S : -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1: CC of registered sale deed beating No.1549/2002, dated 23.10.2002 Ex.A.2: CC of Meeseva Pahani of Badavath Hatya, who is the father of the plaintiff in Khata No.390, dated 02.02.2013 Ex.A.3CC of Pahanies obtained through RTI for the year 2007-2008, 2008- 09, 2011-12, 2015-16. Ex.A.4: Office copy of legal notice, dated 16.12.2021 Ex.A.5: Original postal acknowledgment (3) number, dated 17.12.2021 Ex.A.6: postal receipts (3) in number, dated 16.12.2021.

DEFENDANT S : -Nil-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

12

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KHAMMAM

This the 28th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt. B. Naga Lakshmi, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, Khammam

O.S.No. 144 of 20 22

Presented on:08.02.2022 Filed on:09.02.2022 Between:- Banoth Biksham, S/o Harya, Age: 40 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Raghunadhapalem Village & Mandal, Khammam District

...........Plaintiff

And

Mandanapu Kishan Rao, S/o Seshaiah, Age: 65 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Balapeta, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District

.........Defendant

CLAIM FOR: This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction praying to restrain the defen- dant, his/their men, servants, subordinates, agents and all other persons claiming through him/them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to award costs of the suit.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: That the cause of action for the suit arose on 16.12.2021 at Raghunad- hapalem village and mandal, Khammam District.

VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND COURT FEE: The suit is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under section 26(c) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 17.11.2025 in the pres- ence of S ri M. Niranjan Reddy , Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Smt. S.So - masekhar, Advocates for the Defendant; upon perusing the material papers available on record, having stood over for consideration, till this day; this court doth order and decree:

13

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

DECREE:

1.That the suit is be and is hereby decreed without costs, by granting the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his men, servants, subordinates, agents and all other persons claiming through the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 28th day of November, 2025.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

Sl.FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT No.

1Stamps on plaint 2Stamps on power 3stamps on process 4Stamps on petitions 5Publication charges 6Stamps on documents 7Advocate fee 8Misc. & type charges

Total

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

Agriculture land to an extent of Ac.0.08 gts in and out of Sy.No.191/E/1 situated at Raghunadhapalem village and Mandal, Khammam District is 14

O.S No.144 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025

bounded by:-

East : Land of Mandanapu Seshagiri Rao

West : Land of Kota Srinivasa Rao

North : Donka

South : Land of Bandarupalli Srinivasa Rao

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

1

O.S No.66 of 2020, dated 28.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt. B. Naga Lakshmi, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, Khammam

O.S No. 66/2020

Between: Polepongu Venkata Narayana S/o Late Sangajah, Aged about: 39 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-127, Yarragadda village, Thirumalayapalem Mandal. Klammam district.

....Plaintiff

And

Polepongu Upendraiah @ Upendar S/o Veeraiah, Aged about: 45 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Yarragadda village, Thirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam district.

....Defendant

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 26.11.2025 in the presence of Sri. Beesha Ramesh , Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri . A.Indrachary, Advocate for the Defendant; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The plaintiff filed this suit under Order 7 Rule 1 read with Sec.26 of Civil

Procedure Code against the defendant praying the court to grant perpetual in- junction in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the defendant, his men, ser- vants, agents, subordinates and all other persons claiming through him from in- terfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to award costs of the suit and to grant any other re- lief or reliefs.

2

O.S No.66 of 2020, dated 28.11.2025

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts in and out of Sy. No. 351 situated at Kondapuram rev- enue village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khamman district, which were suc- ceeded by the plaintiff from his father by name Sri Late Polepongu Sangaiah af- ter his demise and since then the plaintiff has been in continuous, uninter- rupted, peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties without any interference from anybody and the name of the father of the plain- tiff was also entered in revenue records as possessor. The Tahsildar, Khammam

Rural Mandal issued memo certifying that the plaintiff has been cultivating the suit schedule property after due enquiry and the plaintiff herewith filed the cer- tified copies of the pahanies, Original enquiry report of the Tahsildar, Kham- mam Rural Mandal.

Further submitted that on 11-01-2020, when the plaintiff with the help of the coolies trying to prepare the suit schedule property for cultivation, in the meantime the defendant having no manner of right what so ever over the schedule of property tried to interfere with the help of some unknown anti-so- cial elements and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences with an in- tention to occupy the land illegally for wrongful gain to him with illegal unten- able false claims. That on the day the plaintiff with the support of the coolies, neighboring land owners resisted the illegal acts of the defendant and his sup- porters with great difficulty and the defendant who is influential with the active support of the local politicians having no right or interest whatsoever over the 3

O.S No.66 of 2020, dated 28.11.2025

suit schedule property is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by making hectic attempts to en- croach into the schedule of property and having no other option the plaintiff filed this suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement and denied all the facts men- tioned in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff is no way concerned with the suit schedule property and the respondent is the actual owner and posses- sor of the suit schedule property and the revenue authorities also issued pat- tedar passbook No.T26060140837 vide Katha No.1206 since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and in or- der to encroach the suit schedule property the plaintiff created a concocted story and forged and fabricated documents with the active support of some vested interest created by the plaintiff and field the present suit along with this

I.A without having any right or interest whatsoever over the suit schedule prop- erty and the plaintiff gave false affidavit and evidence before this court and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been settled by this Court for trial:

Issue No.1 "Whether the plaintiff is lawfully in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property ?

Issue No.2 Whether there is any unlawful interference caused by the defendants into peaceful possession of the plaintiff?

Issue No.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed for?

Issue No.4 If so what relief?

4

O.S No.66 of 2020, dated 28.11.2025

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and inspite of several opportunities given for cross of PW1, the defendant failed to cross examine him and hence the cross of PW1 is closed. Several opportunities were given for adducing the evidence on behalf of the defendant, the defendant failed to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

Hence the defendant evidence is closed after giving ample opportunities.

6.Heard arguments of the plaintiff. Inspite of several adjournments and even conditional orders, the defendant did not choose to submit his arguments, hence treated it as heard and perused the record.

ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:

7.The issues No.1 to 3 are necessary together for the sake of convenience.

8.It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner and pos- sessor of the suit schedule property which was succeeded by the plaintiff from his father by name Sri Late Polepongu Sangaiah after his demise and since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property without any interference from anybody and the name of the father of the plaintiff was also entered in revenue records as possessor and the

Tahsildar, Khammam Rural Mandal issued memo certifying that the plaintiff has been cultivating the suit schedule property after due enquiry and on 11-01- 2020, when the plaintiff along with his coolies trying to cultivate the suit sched- ule property, in the meantime the defendant tried to interfere with the help of some unknown anti-social elements and threatened the plaintiff with dire con- 5

O.S No.66 of 2020, dated 28.11.2025

sequences with an intention to occupy the land illegally for wrongful gain.

Hence the suit.

9. Per contra, the defendant contended that the plaintiff is no way con- cerned with the suit schedule property and the respondent is the actual owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the revenue authorities also is- sued pattedar passbook No.T26060140837 vide Katha No.1206 since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and in order to encroach the suit schedule property the plaintiff forged and fabricated documents with the active support of some vested interest created by the plaintiff.

10.Since this is a suit for permanent injunction, at the outset this Court in- tends to mention some of the legal principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court relating to permanent injunction.

“In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The plaintiff has to establish that as on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property and that the defendant tried to interfere or disturbed such lawful possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property”.

11.To prove the version of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as

PW1. PW1 filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination reiterated the plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 on his behalf. PW1 was exam- ined in chief on 11.07.2025 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked on the same day.

Even after giving several adjournments the defendant failed to cross examine 6

O.S No.66 of 2020, dated 28.11.2025

PW1. Hence, this Court posted the matter for defendant evidence by closing the cross of PW1 and plaintiff side evidence after giving several opportunities, hence the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. PW1 relied upon Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3, on perusal of Ex.A1 it is the original enquiry report cum certificate of possession of the plaintiff issued by the Tahsildar, Khammam Rural Mandal,

Khammam District, dated 13.01.2020 it shows that the plaintiff succeeded the suit schedule property from his father by name Sri Late Polepongu Sangaiah af- ter his demise and since then the plaintiff cultivating the suit schedule prop- erty. Ex.A2 it is notice issued to the plaintiff by the Tahsildar, Khammam Rural

Mandal for mutation record, it shows that the Tahsdilar, Khammam Rural issued notice to plaintiff for mutation of records in his name and Ex.A3 it is the certi- fied copy of Pahanies for the years 1993-94, 97-98, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 issued by the revenue authorities, Khammam Rural, it shows that the adangal pahani issued by the Tahsildar, Khammam Rural. Upon perusal of Ex.A1 and

Ex.A3 shows that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he is in peaceful possession of suit schedule property.

12. Coming to the contention of the defendant, it is stated that he is the actual owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the revenue au- thorities issued pattedar passbook No.T26060140837 vide Katha No.1206 since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule prop- erty. But the defendant did not choose to enter into the witness box and ad- duced the evidence as to prove that there is no land physically in the suit 7

O.S No.66 of 2020, dated 28.11.2025

schedule property and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and did not file any document to prove his contention before the court and did not choose to enter into the witness box to adduce the evidence and to contest the suit to disprove the contention of the plaintiff and to prove his claim. In the absence of oral or documentary evidence of defendant, this court cannot relied upon mere averments of written statement of defendant.

13.In S.Gangadhar Goud vs. Chikkela Laxman and others reported in 2009(3) ALT 498, wherein it is held that; "mere filing of pleadings would not be sufficient in a case. The pleadings, at the most would help the Court to identify the area of controversy and to frame issues. Once, the issues are framed, the respective parties have to adduce evidence in support of or opposi- tion to the issues. Even where a defendant is confident of the weakness of the plaintiff's case, he has to enter the witness box atleast, to speak to the contents of the written statement, failure in this regard is bound to entail in serious consequences".

14.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao's case reported in

AIR 1999 SC 1441, held that; "where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case setup by him is not correct".

15.Averting to the above proposition in the case on hand and also as the de- fendant failed to adduce any evidence in support of his pleadings, as such the unrebuttable evidence of the plaintiff is taken into consideration. More baseless allegations cannot be entertained by this Court, unless there is valid proof in supporting the contentions of the defendant pertaining to the case. The docu- 8

O.S No.66 of 2020, dated 28.11.2025

ments filed by the plaintiff clearly shows that the plaintiff was successful in es- tablishing his possession and ownership over the suit schedule property.

16.Upon perusal of the defendant, this court is of the opinion that the evi- dence of PW1 is unchallenged and unrebutted and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 supported the claim of the plaintiff and this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. This point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor and he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of fil- ing of this suit.

17.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed without costs in favour of the plain- tiff restraining the defendant, his men, servants, agents, subordinates and all other persons claiming through him from interfering with the peaceful posses- sion and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Directly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 28th day of November, 2025.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: P.W.1: Polepongu Venkata Narayana.

FOR DEFENDANT: -Nil- 9

O.S No.66 of 2020, dated 28.11.2025

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1: Original enquiry report cum certificate of possession of the plaintiff issued by the Tahsildar, Khammam Rural mandal, Khammam District,

dated 13.01.2020.

Ex.A.2: Notice issued to the plaintiff by the Tahsildar, Khammam Rural Mandal for mutation record.

Ex.A.3CC of pahanies for the years 1993-94, 1995-96, 97-98, 2001-02, 2002- 2003, 2003-2004, 2004-05, 2005-2006, 2006-07, 2007-2008, 2008- 2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 issued by the revenue authorities, Khammam Rural, Khammam district.

DEFENDANT: -Nil-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

10

O.S No.66 of 2020, dated 28.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KHAMMAM

This the 28th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt. B. Naga Lakshmi, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, Khammam

O.S.No. 66 of 2020

Presented on:20.01.2020 Filed on: 20.01.2020 Between:- Polepongu Venkata Narayana S/o Late Sangajah, Aged about: 39 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-127, Yarragadda village, Thirumalayapalem Mandal. Klammam district.

....Plaintiff

And

Polepongu Upendraiah @ Upendar S/o Veeraiah, Aged about: 45 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Yarragadda village, Thirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam district.

....Defendant

CLAIM FOR: This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction with a prayer to restrain the de- fendant, his men, servants, subordinates, agents and all other persons claiming through him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to award costs of the suit.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: That the cause of action for the suit arose on 11.01.2021 at Kondapuram village, Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District, when the defendants tried to interfere the suit schedule property with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and it is continuing one.

VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND COURT FEE: The suit is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/- upon which a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under section 26(c) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 26.11.2025 in the pres- ence of Sri. Beesha Ramesh , Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri . A.In - drachary, Advocate for the Defendant; upon perusing the material papers 11

O.S No.66 of 2020, dated 28.11.2025

available on record, having stood over for consideration, till this day; this court doth order and decree:

DECREE:

1.That the suit is be and is hereby decreed without costs, by granting the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his men, servants, agents, subordinates and all other persons claiming through him from interfer- ing with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 28th day of No- vember, 2025.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

Sl.FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT No.

1Stamps on plaint 2Stamps on power 3stamps on process 4Stamps on petitions 5Publication charges 6Stamps on documents 7Advocate fee 8Misc. & type charges

Total

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

Agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.1.00gts in and out of Sy.No.351 12

O.S No.66 of 2020, dated 28.11.2025

situated at Kondapuram revenue village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam

District, within the following boundaries:

East : Land of Polepongu Laxmi Narayana

West : Land of Guggila Laxmaiah

South : Land of Polepongu Laxmi Narayana

North : Land of Veldi Nageswara Rao

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

1

OS. No.77 of 2021, dated 28.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPL. MOBILE COURT AT KHAMMAM

This the 28th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt. B. Naga Lakshmi, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, Khammam

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 77 of 2021

BETWEEN:- Murahari Koteswari, W/o Kotaiah, Aged. 67 years. Occ. House wife, R/o. Nelakondapally village and Mandal, Khammam District.

...Plaintiff

And

Banoth Nehru S/o Bheemudu, Age: 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Nachepally village. Nelakondapally mandal, Khammam District. …Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 25.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Kolli Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Plaintiff; Sri Puli Narasimha rao, Advocate for the defendant; upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant under Order

VII Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code for recovery of money of Rs.2,81,161/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand One

Hundred and Sixty One only) along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and to award costs of the suit and to grant any other relief or reliefs.

2.The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:-

That the Plaintiff and Defendant are well acquainted with each other through her husband by name Muraharı Kotaiah. That out of such 2

OS. No.77 of 2021, dated 28.11.2025

acquaintance, Defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- for

Agricultural purpose. On 21-01-2018 the Defendant approached the

Plaintiff at her residence and at the time of lending amount the Plaintiff could secure Rs.1,63,466/- and the same was paid to Defendant. That on receiving such amount Rs.1,63,466/- Defendant has executed a

Promissory Note on the same day i.e. 21-01-2018 which was scribed by

T.Laxmana Chary, and the transaction was witnessed by Defendant's wife who has acted as attesting witness also. At the time of borrowing such amount defendant have accepted to repay the same with interest 24% per annum and the same was incorporated in the Promissory Note and further he promised to repay the amount with interest to plaintiff or to her order. That while scribing the Promissory Note, there arose a mistake with regard to the Surname of Defendant and the same was corrected by the scriber Mr. Laxmana Chary.

The Plaintiff further submitted that she is an old aged lady and while her husband is suffering with ill health, she has demanded him to repay the amount with interest, but the Defendant did not pay the same. Finally the Plaintiff got issued a Legal Notice dated 16-01-2021 by calling upon the Defendant to repay the borrowed amount with accrued interest. But till date there is no reply received and also the

Plaintiff did not receive either the Acknowledgment or un-served cover.

Hence the Plaintiff has no other way except filing of the present Suit for

Recovery of the amount. Therefore, in these compelling circumstances the plaintiff lost hope that the defendant would come forward and 3

OS. No.77 of 2021, dated 28.11.2025

would pay the entire amount covered under the promissory note with interest. Hence the suit for recovery money.

3.On receiving of the summons the defendant filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint and contended that the defendant is an agriculturist having sufficient amounts to meet his agricultural necessities, as such there is no such necessity arose to the defendant to borrow such amounts from the plaintiff herein. As such the defendant is not liable to pay any amounts to the plaintiff. The suit promissory note is created document with the active collusion of attestor and scribe shown therein. Hence, it is specifically denied that the suit promissory note is out and out forged and fabricated documents created for the purpose of this case with an intention to extract money from the defendant. The plaintiff came

before the court with unclean hands by misrepresenting facts before the

court with false and baseless allegations, there is no cause of action arose as shown by the plaintiff and it is invented for the purpose of filing the suit, as per the convenience of plaintiff. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.In view of pleadings of the both parties, the following issues are framed for settlement of trial by my predecessor.

Issue No: 1 Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the parties?

Issue No:2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim suit amount from the defendant?

4

OS. No.77 of 2021, dated 28.11.2025

Issue No:3 To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Several opportunities were given for adducing the evidence on behalf of the defendant, but the defendant failed to adduce any evidence on his behalf. Hence the defendant’s evidence is closed.

6.Inspite of giving several opportunities and conditional orders the plaintiff and defendant did not choose to submit their arguments, hence treated it as heard and perused the record.

ISSUE No.1 and 2:-

7.The plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint and deposed that plaintiff and the defendant are well acquainted with each other and out of acquaintance the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,63,466/- on 21.01.2018 to meet her agricultural necessities and after receiving the said amount, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, which was scribed by T.Laxmana Chary, the said transaction was witnessed by defendants wife who was acted as attesting witness agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand.

8.Several opportunities given for cross of PW1, but the defendant failed to cross examine her and hence the cross of PW1 is treated as nil.

5

OS. No.77 of 2021, dated 28.11.2025

9.The plaintiff has proved the signature of the defendant on the promissory note and though the defendant pleaded that the said promissory note was forged and created, but the defendant did not choose to take steps in order to prove the said Ex.A1 is forged and no evidence was adduced in order to prove the contention of the defendant. Thus, the execution of the promissory note was proved by the plaintiff and thus the presumption u/sec.118 (a) of N.I. Act arises in favour of the plaintiff.

10."This court feels to pertinent to mention a citation in AIR 2008 SC 2898 Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao Vs. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm &

Ors. Under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court is obliged to presume, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non- existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the Court to believe the non-existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal. Thus, when the presumption under 118(a) of NI Act arises, the burden is on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances and the defendant did not adduce any direct evidence and bare denial of the passing of the consideration does not amount to the defence, thus the defendant failed to prove non-existence of the 6

OS. No.77 of 2021, dated 28.11.2025

consideration.

11.Considering the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 this

Court is of the opinion that the defendant failed to discharge the burden lying on him and failed to rebut the presumption u/sec.118(a)

NI Act by proving that Ex.A1 was not executed for an amount

Rs.1,63,466/- and the plaintiff successfully proved her case and accordingly issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and hold that the suit promissory note is valid and plaintiff is entitled for recovery for the suit amount.

ISSUE No.3:

12.In view of finding given in the issues No.1 and 2, the suit promissory note i.e., Ex.A.1 along with oral evidence laid by the plaintiff who got herself examined as P.W.1 also reveals that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,63,466/- from the plaintiff on 21.01.2018. However, rebutting the same no document was adduced by the defendant so also no witness was examined on his behalf to support his claim. Even several opportunities given for cross of PW1, but the defendant failed to cross examine her and failed to prove his contention. Having a glance at Ex.A.1 to A3 coupled with the oral evidence adduced by P.W.1 it is clear that the defendant failed to repay the borrowed amount to the plaintiff as agreed by him while executing

Ex.A.1. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for suit promissory note amount. Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

7

OS. No.77 of 2021, dated 28.11.2025

ISSUE No.4: Considering the findings of the above said issues the plaintiff has proved the suit claim.

13.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for suit claim of Rs.2,81,161/- (rupees two lakhs eighty one thousand one hundred and sixty one only) and future interest is awarded @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on principal amount of rs.1,63,466/- (rupees one lakh sixty three thousand four hundred and sixty six only).

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of November, 2025.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW.1: Murahari Koteswari. -Nil-

DOCUMENT MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: is the Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 21.01.2018

Ex.A2: is the office copy of legal notice, dated 14.01.2021

Ex.A3: is the postal receipts, dated 16.01.2021.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

8

OS. No.77 of 2021, dated 28.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SPL. MOBILE

COURT AT KHAMMAM

This the 28th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt. B. Naga Lakshmi, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, Khammam

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 77 of 202 1

Presented on :19.01.2021 Filed on :21.01.2021 BETWEEN:- Murahari Koteswari, W/o Kotaiah, Aged. 67 years. Occ. House wife, R/o. Nelakondapally village and Mandal, Khammam District.

...Plaintiff

And

Banoth Nehru S/o Bheemudu, Age: 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Nachepally village. Nelakondapally mandal, Khammam District. …Defendant. CLAIM FOR: This suit is filed for recovery of Money and the plaint filed under Order VII rule 1 r/w Sec.26 of CPC for realization of amount of Rs.2,81,161/-.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:

The cause of action for the suit arose on 21.01.2018 at Nelakondapally (village and Mandal), Khammam District.

VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND COURT FEE:

This suit is valued at Rs.2,81,161/- on which the court fee of Rs.5,326/- is paid u/Sec.20 of A.P.C.F and SV Act.

DECREE: This suit is coming before me on 25.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Kolli Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Plaintiff; Sri Puli Narasimha rao, Advocate for the defendant; upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day; this court doth order and decree:

1.That the suit be and is hereby decreed with costs.

2.That the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay the plaintiff a 9

OS. No.77 of 2021, dated 28.11.2025

sum of Rs.2,81,161/- (Rupees Two lakhs Eighty one thousand one hundred and Sixty one only) with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on

principal amount of Rs.1,63,466/- (Rupees One lakh Sixty three

thousand Four hundred and sixty six only).

3.That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.______________ towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 28th day of November, 2025.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

Sl.FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT No.

1Stamps on plaint 2Stamps on power 3stamps on process 4Stamps on petitions 5Publication charges 6Stamps on documents 7Advocate fee 8Misc. & type charges

Total

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

1

O.S No.188 of 2025, dated 28.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt. B. Naga Lakshmi, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, Khammam

O.S No. 188/2025

Between: Yenisetty Venkateswarlu, S/o. Veeraiah, age 60 years, Occ: Relator and Agriculturist, R/o.15-8-898/201/A/1, Mamatha Hospital road, Khammam City and District. …Plaintiff.

and

Kodumuri Srinivasa Rao, age 58 years, S/o. Purushotham, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-4-165/4(Sri Sai Nilayam), Pilli Chinna Krishna Thota, Sri Ram Nagar, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam City and District.

...Defendant.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 27.11.2025 in the presence of Sri S. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant remained exparte: upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Sec.26 of CPC for recovery of money of Rs.9,94,590/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety Four thousand Five hundred and Ninety only) together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and to award costs of the suit and to grant any other relief or reliefs.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in nutshell is that:

(i)The plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other and out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of 2

O.S No.188 of 2025, dated 28.11.2025

Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.01.2024 to meet his business purpose and after receipt of said consideration, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the said amount with interest @Rs.3/- per hundred (36% per annum) as collateral security on the same day. Subsequently, on 31.07.2024 the defendant approached the plaintiff and again borrowed another amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for his business purpose and having received the said amount, the defendant executed another demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the said amount with interest @ Rs.2/- per hundred per month as a collateral security on 31.07.2024 and the said transaction took place in the house of the plaintiff in the presence of witness.

Later the plaintiff asked and demanded several times for repayment of the said amount, but the defendant failed to repay the said amount and the plaintiff had insisted for the repayment of the said amounts on 27.02.2025 and the defendant had issued a cheque bearing No.000060, dt.27.02.2025 for

Rs.8,00,000/- towards payment of promissory note drawn on Kotak Mahindra

Bank, Gandhi Chowk branch, Khammam. Accordingly, the plaintiff presented the cheque on 07.03.2025 in his account at Bhadradri Cooperative Urban

Bank Limited, Rotary Nagar branch, Khammam, but the said cheque was dishonoured due to reason Funds Insufficient and the bank authorities issued a cheque return memo along with the returned cheque to his client on 10.03.2025 and having no other alternative, the plaintiff filed this suit.

3

O.S No.188 of 2025, dated 28.11.2025

3.After registering the suit, summons were issued to the defendant and the same was served on him and was held sufficient service and inspite of receiving the same, he did not appear before this Court and hence the defendant was set exparte on 08.05.2025.

4.During the trial, the Plaintiff filed chief affidavit and examined himself as

PW1 and got marked as Ex.A1 and A2 and one T. Venkata Satyanarayana, who is the attestor of promissory note examined as PW2 on behalf of plaintiff.

5.Heard the arguments of plaintiff.

6.Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether the promissory note is true, valid and binding on the

defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit

amount?

2) To what relief? POINT No.1:

7.The contention of the plaintiff is that, on 09.01.2024 the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in order to meet his business necessities and on receiving the debt amount the defendant executed Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same along with interest @36% per annum and the said transaction took place in his house and the same was witnessed by Talluri

Satyanarayana/PW2 and again the defendant borrowed additional sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- to meet his business necessities and on receiving the debt amount the defendant executed Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same along with interest @24% per annum and the said 4

O.S No.188 of 2025, dated 28.11.2025

transaction took place in his house and the same was witnessed by Talluri

Satyanarayana/PW2.

8.To substantiate the case, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and

PW2 by filing chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to to A3.

Ex.A.1 is the Original Promissory Note No.1 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 09.01.2021, Ex.A.2 is the Original Promissory Note No.2 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 31.07.2021, Ex.A3 is theoriginal income tax return acknowledgment for the year 2025-26, dated 18.08.2021.

On perusal of Ex.A.1 and A2/Promissory Notes it reveals that defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.01.2024 with interest @ 36% per annum and again borrowed an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 31.07.2024 with interest @ 24% per annum in order to meet his business necessities and the defendant failed to repay the same to the plaintiff even after repeated demands. Despite of receiving summons from the Court, the defendant did not appear before this Court and did not choose to contest the matter thereby he was set exparte on 08.05.2025.

9.When the suit is filed basing on the promissory note, which is a negotiable instrument, a presumption under Sec.118 of the Act, has to be raised in favour of the plaintiff that the suit promissory notes are executed by the defendant, duly after receiving the consideration of the debt mentioned therein and for the terms agreed thereupon. Herein the present suit, the 5

O.S No.188 of 2025, dated 28.11.2025

plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A3 on his behalf and the evidence of PW2 corroborated the evidence of PW1 which is the primary evidence shows that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 09.01.2024 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 31.07.2024 from the plaintiff respectively and there is a transaction between the plaintiff and defendant. The presumption is a rebuttable one, but the defendant failed to set up his defence. Therefore, the oral evidence of P.W.1 and PW2 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A3 remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

10.Hence, the unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 and PW2 coupled with

Ex.A.1 to A3 clearly proved the case of the plaintiff. Hence the promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Hence, point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11.POINT No.2:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff for

Rs.9,94,590/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety Four thousand Five hundred and

Ninety only) with subsequent interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only).

Directly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 28 th day of November, 2025.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

6

O.S No.188 of 2025, dated 28.11.2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Y. Venkateswarlu - Exparte -

P.W.2: T. Venkata Satyanarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1: is the Original Promissory Note No.1 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 09.01.2021

Ex.A.2: is the Original Promissory Note No.2 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 31.07.2021 Ex.A.3: is the original income tax return acknowledgment for the year 2025-26, dated 18.08.2021

DEFENDANT: -Nil-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

7

O.S No.188 of 2025, dated 28.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KHAMMAM

This the 28th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt. B. Naga Lakshmi, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, Khammam

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 188 of 202 5

Presented on :19.03.2025 Filed on :19.03.2025 BETWEEN:- Yenisetty Venkateswarlu, S/o. Veeraiah, age 60 years, Occ: Relator and Agriculturist, R/o.15-8-898/201/A/1, Mamatha Hospital road, Khammam City and District. …Plaintiff.

and

Kodumuri Srinivasa Rao, age 58 years, S/o. Purushotham, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-4-165/4(Sri Sai Nilayam), Pilli Chinna Krishna Thota, Sri Ram Nagar, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam City and District.

...Defendant.

CLAIM FOR: This suit is filed for recovery of Money and the plaint filed under Order VII rule 1 r/w Sec.26 of CPC praying the court to pass Judgment and Decree in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of amount of Rs.9,94,590/- from the defendant and to award costs of the suit from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of realization. CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 09.01.2024 and 31.07.2024 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff at his residence. VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND COURT FEE: This suit is valued at Rs.9,94,590/- upon which the court fee of Rs.14,852/- is paid u/Sec.20 of T.S.C.F and SV Act.

DECREE: This suit coming before me for final hearing on 27.11.2025 in the presence of Sri S. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant remained exparte: upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day; this court doth order and decree:

1.That the suit be and is hereby decreed with costs.

8

O.S No.188 of 2025, dated 28.11.2025

2.That the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.9,94,590/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety Four thousand Five hundred and Ninety only) with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only).

3.That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.______________ towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 28th day of November, 2025.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

Sl.FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT No.

1Stamps on plaintE 2Stamps on power X 3stamps on processP 4Stamps on petitionsA 5Publication chargesR 6Stamps on documentsT 7Advocate feeE 8Misc. & type charges -

Total-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

1

O.S No.242 of 2025, dated 31.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 31st day of March, 2026

Present: Smt. B. Naga Lakshmi, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile, Khammam

O.S No.242 /2025

Between: Bhukya Satyavathi, W/o. Laxman, age 51 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.6-12, Tirumalapuram village, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District. …Plaintiff.

and

Eegalapati Nageswara Rao, S/o. Gopaiah, age 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/h.No.1-99, Jakkepalli village, Kusumanchi Mandal, Khammam District.

...Defendant.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 30.03.2026 in the presence of Sri J. Papa Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant remained exparte: upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of Rs.8,27,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Seven thousand only) together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and to award costs of the suit and to grant any other relief or reliefs.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in nutshell is that:

(i) The plaintiff and the defendant are well acquainted with each other and out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.5,90,000/- from the plaintiff on 16.07.2023 to meet his family necessities and after receipt of said consideration, the defendant had executed a demand 2

O.S No.242 of 2025, dated 31.03.2026

promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or her order on demand. Subsequently, the plaintiff made several demands to the defendant for the repayment of borrowed amount under the above referred promissory note with accrued interest thereon, but the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other. On 03.03.2025 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant and the said legal notice also served to the defendant on 05.03.2025. The defendant had indebted to several persons in her locality, she had borrowed the huge amounts from the locality and the defendant is trying to leave away the jurisdiction of the Court and the plaintiff having no other alternative, he filed this suit.

3.After registering the suit, summons were issued to the defendant and the summons were returned unserved. As such the summons to defendant were issued by way of substitute service by way of paper publication and the service of summons was held sufficient service, but the defendant did not appear before this Court and hence the defendant was set exparte on 06.01.2026.

4.During the trial, the Plaintiff filed chief affidavit and examined herself as

PW1 and got marked as Ex.A1 to A4 on her behalf.

5.Heard the arguments of plaintiff.

6.Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount?

2) To what relief?

3

O.S No.242 of 2025, dated 31.03.2026

POINT No.1:

7.The contention of the plaintiff is that, on 16.07.2023 the defendant had approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- in order to meet his family necessities and on receiving the debt amount the defendant executed a Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same along with interest @24% per annum.

8.To substantiate the case, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 by filing chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A4. Ex.A.1 is the

Original Promissory Note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- dated 16.07.2023; Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice dated 03.03.2025; Ex.A.3 is postal receipt dated 03.03.2025 and Ex.A4 is the postal track consignment dated 05.03.2025. On perusal of

Ex.A.1/Promissory Note it reveals that defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- from the plaintiff in order to meet his family necessities and the defendant failed to repay the same even after repeated demands by way of legal notice under Ex.A.2. Despite of receiving summons from the Court, the defendant did not appear before this Court and did not choose to contest the matter, thereby the defendant was set exparte on 06.01.2026.

9.When the suit is filed basing on the promissory note, which is a negotiable instrument, a presumption under Sec.118 of the Act, has to be raised in favour of the plaintiff that the suit promissory note is executed by the defendant, duly after receiving the consideration of the debt mentioned therein and for the terms agreed thereupon. Herein the present suit, the 4

O.S No.242 of 2025, dated 31.03.2026

plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.3 on her behalf which is the primary evidence shows that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- from the plaintiff and there is a transaction between the plaintiff and defendant. The presumption is a rebuttable one, but the defendant failed to set up his defence. Therefore, the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.4 remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

10.Hence, the unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A4 clearly proved the case of the plaintiff. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11.POINT No.2:

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.8,27,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Seven thousand only) with subsequent interest @12% per annum from the date of presentation of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.5,90,000/- (Rupees Five

Lakhs Ninety Thousand only).

Directly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 31 st day of March, 2026.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE, KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Bhukya Satyavathi - Exparte - 5

O.S No.242 of 2025, dated 31.03.2026

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 :is the original Promissory Note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- on 16.07.2023 Ex.A.2:is the office copy of legal notice, dated 03.03.2025 Ex.A.3:is the postal receipt dated 03.03.2025 Ex.A.4:is the postal track consignment dated 05.03.2025

DEFENDANT: -Nil-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE, KHAMMAM.

6

O.S No.242 of 2025, dated 31.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KHAMMAM

This the 31st day of March, 2026

Present: Smt. B. Naga Lakshmi, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile, Khammam

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 242 of 2025

Presented on :02.04.2025 Filed on :02.04.2025 BETWEEN:- Bhukya Satyavathi, W/o. Laxman, age 51 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.6-12, Tirumalapuram village, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District. …Plaintiff.

and

Eegalapati Nageswara Rao, S/o. Gopaiah, age 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/h.No.1-99, Jakkepalli village, Kusumanchi Mandal, Khammam District.

...Defendant.

CLAIM FOR: This suit is filed for recovery of Money and the plaint filed under Order VII rule 1 r/w Sec.26 of CPC praying the Hon'ble Court to pass Judgment and Decree in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,27,000/- from the defendant and to award costs of the suit from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 16.07.2023 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- from the plaintiff at his house.

VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND COURT FEE:

This suit is valued at Rs.8,27,000/- upon which the court fee of Rs.10,726/- is paid u/Sec.20 of T.S.C.F and SV Act which is sufficient.

DECREE: This suit coming before me for final hearing on 30.03.2026 in the presence of Sri J. Papa Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant remained exparte: upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day; this court doth order and decree:

1.That the suit be and is hereby decreed without costs.

7

O.S No.242 of 2025, dated 31.03.2026

2.That the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,27,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Seven thousand only) with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of presentation of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.5,90,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs

Ninety Thousand only).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 31st day of March, 2026.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT,

KHAMMAM

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

Sl.FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT No.

1Stamps on plaintE 2Stamps on power X 3stamps on processP 4Stamps on petitionsA 5Publication chargesR 6Stamps on documentsT 7Advocate feeE 8Misc. & type charges -

Total-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SPECIAL MOBILE, KHAMMAM