Sri.C.K.V.Satyakanth Kumar

O.S.No. 52 of 2022Page No.1J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PRATHIPADU.

PRESENT: SRI C.K.V.SATYAKANTH KUMAR, Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, F.A.C. Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu.

Wednesday, this the Third [3rd] day of August, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.52 of 2022

Between:

Kandepalli Dhanaraju, S/o. Apparao, Aged 62 years, R/o. Siripuram

Village, Yeleswaram, East Godavari District, Prathipadu J.C.J.C. Limits.

… Plaintiff.

And

1. Sundarapu Parvathi, W/o. Late Maheswara Rao, Age 50 years,

Housewife, R/o. Peddanapalli Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, Prathipadu

J.C.J.C. Limits.

2. Sundarapu Govindu, S/o. Late Maheswara Rao, Aged 28 years, R/o.

Peddanapalli Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, Prathipadu J.C.J.C. Limits.

3. Sundarapu Ramakrishna, S/o. Late Maheswara Rao, Aged 27 years,

R/o. Peddanapalli Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, Prathipadu J.C.J.C.

Limits.

… Defendants. * * * This Suit, coming on 13.07.2022, before me, for the Plaintiff’s

Evidence and Hearing, in the presence of Sri B.V.Sivannarayana,

Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the Defendants No.1 to 3 having been set

Ex-parte, for their non appearance before the Court, inspite of receiving the Suit Summons; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants No.1 to 3, seeking passing of a Preliminary Decree, for recovery of a sum of

Rs.7,37,400/-, being the Principal and Interest, due under the Registered

Simple Mortgage Deed, dated 07.01.2016, executed by the Defendants

No.1 to 3, in favour of the Plaintiff, by mortgaging the Plaint Schedule

O.S.No. 52 of 2022Page No.2J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

Property for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum, along with subsequent interest and

Costs of the Suit.

2.The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The Defendant No.1 is the Mother of the Defendants No.2 and

3. The Plaint Schedule Property belongs to the Husband of the Defendant

No.1, namely, Sundarapu Maheswara Rao. While enjoying the same,

Sundarapu Maheswara Rao died, leaving the Defendants No.1 to 3 as his

Legal Heirs, and they are in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule

Property, as per the Hindu Succession Act, and they got clear and absolute title over the Schedule Property.

The Defendants No.1 to 3 had borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- from the Plaintiff, on 07.01.2016, for the purpose of their family expenses and to discharge sundry debts, and agreeing to discharge the same with interest at 24% per annum, the Defendants had executed a Registered Simple Mortgage Deed, vide Document No.59 of 2016, on the even date, in favour of the Plaintiff, by creating Charge over the Plaint Schedule Property. As per the terms of the Mortgage Deed, the

Defendants agreed to pay the entire amount with interest in single installment, within three years from the date of Mortgage, and to obtain

Endorsement from the Plaintiff on the back of the said Document. It was further recited that, if the Defendants committed default in payment of interest, the Plaintiff is entitled to get compound rate of interest.

Inspite of the repeated demands of the Plaintiff, the

Defendants No.1 to 3 have failed to pay the amount, and have been postponing the same on one pretext or other. The Plaintiff came to know that the Defendants are trying to alienate the Schedule Property to Third

Parties, with an intention to harass the Plaintiff, and to avoid payment to

O.S.No. 52 of 2022Page No.3J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover both the Principal and the

Interest from the Plaint Schedule Property. The Plaintiff got issued a

Legal Notice, dated 22.06.2021, calling upon the Defendants to pay the total amount due to him. Though the Defendants received the Notice, they had neither issued any reply, nor paid any amount to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants are not entitled to the benefits of Act 7/77, Act 45/86 and

Act 4/38 or any other Debt Relief Laws. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed this

Suit, to recover the amount due under the Registered Simple Mortgage

Deed, along with interest and Costs of the Suit.

3.The Suit Summons, issued through Court and Registered Post, were served upon the Defendants No.1 to 3. Yet, the Defendants No.1 to 3 had failed to appear before the Court, and there was no representation on their behalf, on the date of their first appearance, i.e., on 15.06.2022.

Hence, the Defendants No.1 to 3 were set Ex-parte on the same day.

4.On behalf of the Plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 are examined, and

Exhibits A1 to A5 are marked.

5.Heard the Arguments on the side of the Plaintiff.

6.The Point for consideration is whether the Plaintiff is

entitled for passing of the Preliminary Decree, against the

Defendants No.1 to 3, as prayed for by him?

7. POINT:-

(a)In order to establish his contentions, the Plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1, and the Attestors of the Registered Simple

Mortgage Deed as PW.2 and PW.3, and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on his behalf.

It is clear that PW.1 had deposed in his Chief Examination Affidavit, on par with the averments in the Plaint. PW.2 and PW.3, who are the

Attestors No.1 and 2 of Ex.A1, had deposed in their respective Chief

O.S.No. 52 of 2022Page No.4J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

Examination Affidavits, on par with the evidence of PW.1, regarding the

Mortgage of the Plaint Schedule Property, by the Defendants, under

Ex.A1, in favour of the Plaintiff. Since the Defendants No.1 to 3 had remained Ex-parte to the Proceedings of the Suit, inspite of receiving the

Suit Summons, it can be said that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 had remained undiscredited and unchallenged. On account of the said conduct of the Defendants No.1 to 3, an adverse inference can be drawn against the Defendants, to the effect that they had admitted the Case of the Plaintiff, and that they have nothing to put forth, as a contest for the same.

(b)It would be relevant to refer to Exs.A1 to A5, which are relied upon by the Plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the Original Registered Simple

Mortgage Deed, dated 07.01.2016, executed by the Defendants No.1 to 3, in favour of the Plaintiff, in respect of the Plaint Schedule Property, for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. As seen from the said Document, it was registered vide Document No.59 of 2016, before the Sub-Registrar, Prathipadu. As seen from the recitals in Ex.A1, the Defendants No.1 to 3 had agreed to pay the interest amount at the rate of Rs.2/- per Rs.100/- [i.e., 24%] every month to the Plaintiff, and to discharge the debt, within the period of three years from the date of Mortgage, and if they fail, the Plaintiff is at liberty to claim the interest at compound rate, per annum, from the

Court. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.A1 that the Possession of the

Mortgaged Property, i.e., the Plaint Schedule Property, is retained by the

Defendants. Ex.A2 is the Office Copy of the Registered Legal Notice,

dated 22.06.2021, got issued by the Plaintiff, to the Defendants No.1 to 3,

along with Postal Receipts. Exs.A3 to A5 are the Postal

Acknowledgements, received from Defendants No.1 to 3 respectively, with regard to Ex.A2.

O.S.No. 52 of 2022Page No.5J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

(c)It is clear from the recitals in Exs.A1 and A2 that though the Defendants No.1 to 3 had agreed to repay the monthly interest, and also to discharge the Mortgage Debt within three years from the date of

Ex.A1, they had failed to pay the monthly interest, as well as the due amount, to the Plaintiff, inspite of his repeated demands, within the stipulated period. The Plaintiff has claimed the interest at simple rate, in the Plaint, even though he is entitled for claiming compound interest, as per the recitals in Ex.A1. By virtue of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A1 to A5, it can be said that the execution of Ex.A1 by the

Defendants No.1 to 3, and the transaction thereunder, as well as the failure of the Defendants to pay the monthly interest and to discharge the said Mortgage Debt, etc., are proved.

(d)In view of the above discussion, this Court concludes and holds that the Plaintiff is entitled for passing of a Preliminary Decree against the Defendants No.1 to 3, for the Suit amount of Rs.7,37,400/-, along with subsequent interest at 12% per annum, from the date of the presentation of the Plaint, till the date of passing of the Preliminary

Decree, and thereafter, with future interest at 6% per annum, from the

Date of the Preliminary Decree till the date of realization, on the

Mortgage (Principal) of Rs.3,00,000/-, along with Costs, within the stipulated period of Redemption, as prayed for by him.

Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

8.In the result, the Suit is Preliminarily decreed with Costs, directing the Defendants No.1 to 3 to pay the Plaintiff, a sum of

Rs.7,37,400/-, with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of presentation of Suit till the date of Decree, and thereafter, at 6% p.a., from the date of Decree till the date of realization, on the Mortgage

O.S.No. 52 of 2022Page No.6J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

[Principal] amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Time for Redemption is Six Months from this day.

Typed to my Dictation, by the Stenographer, and corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 3rd day of August, 2022.

Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. F.A.C. Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW.1 : Kandepalli Dhanaraju.

PW.2 : Katheti Ravikumar.

PW.3 : Kotteti Venkata Lakshmana Rao.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 : Original Registered Simple Mortgage Deed, dated 07.01.2016, executed by the Defendants No.1 to 3, in favour of the Plaintiff, in respect of the Plaint Schedule Property, for a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/-.

Ex.A2 : Office Copy of the Registered Legal Notice, dated 22.06.2021, got issued by the Plaintiff, to the Defendants No.1 to 3, along with Postal Receipts.

Ex.A3 :Original Postal Acknowledgement received from the Defendant

No.1, with regard to Ex.A2.

Ex.A4 :Original Postal Acknowledgement received from the Defendant

No.2, with regard to Ex.A2.

Ex.A5 :Original Postal Acknowledgement received from the Defendant

No.3, with regard to Ex.A2.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

NIL.

Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. F.A.C. Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu.

O.S.No. 52 of 2022Page No.7J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

O.S.No. 52 of 2022

Page No.8 J.C.J. Court, Prathipadu.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PRATHIPADU.

PRESENT: SRI C.K.V.SATYAKANTH KUMAR, Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, F.A.C. Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu.

Wednesday, this the Third [3rd] day of August, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.52 of 2022

Between:

Kandepalli Dhanaraju, S/o. Apparao, Aged 62 years, R/o. Siripuram

Village, Yeleswaram, East Godavari District, Prathipadu J.C.J.C. Limits.

… Plaintiff.

And

1. Sundarapu Parvathi, W/o. Late Maheswara Rao, Age 50 years,

Housewife, R/o. Peddanapalli Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, Prathipadu

J.C.J.C. Limits.

2. Sundarapu Govindu, S/o. Late Maheswara Rao, Aged 28 years, R/o.

Peddanapalli Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, Prathipadu J.C.J.C. Limits.

3. Sundarapu Ramakrishna, S/o. Late Maheswara Rao, Aged 27 years,

R/o. Peddanapalli Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, Prathipadu J.C.J.C.

Limits.

… Defendants. * * * This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for

Recovery of Rs.7,37,400/-basing on the documents deposited by the defendant for creating euitable mortgage with subsequent interest and for costs.

Value of the suit:

Principal amount due on suit mortgage deed

dt:07-01-2016Rs.3,00,000-00

Interest on Rs.3,00,000/- at 24% P.A. from 07-01-2016 to 03-02-2022Rs.4,37,400-00 ------------------------

Total value of the suit Rs. 7,37,400-00 ------------------------

O.S.No. 52 of 2022

Page No.9 J.C.J. Court, Prathipadu.

A Court fee of Rs.9826/- is paid under Se.20Sch.1 Art 1(b) (c) of S.V.and A.C.F. Act. The cause of action of the suit arose on 07-01-2016 whern the defendants are borrowed the amount from plaintiff and where the suit transaction took place at peddanapalli of Yeleswaram is within the jurisdiction of this court.

The suit is coming before me on 13-07-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Bugata Venkata Sivannarayana advocate for the plaintiff and the defendatn remained exparte this court Dolth Order and Decree as follows.

i) That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed.

ii) That the defendants No.1 to 3 to pay the plaintiff,a sum of Rs.7,37,400/- with subsequent interest at 12%p.a., from the date of representation of suit till the date of Decree, and thereafter, at 6% P.a., from the date Decree till the date of reqalization, on the Mortgage (Principal) amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Time for Redemption is six months from this day.

iii)That the Defendants 1 to 3 do also pay to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. Towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 3rd day of August of 2022.

Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. F.A.C. Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Rs.Rs. Stamp on Vakalat2-00No Costs Memo is filed, Stamp on Plaint5,426-00 as the Defendant Advocate Fee5390-00 remained Ex-parte. Process75-00 Type charges 100-00 Total : Rs.10,993/-

Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. F.A.C. Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu. ‘

O.S.No. 52 of 2022

Page No.10 J.C.J. Court, Prathipadu.

O.S.No.237 of 2021. Page 1 of 8 J.C.J. Court, A.

Peddapuram.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPURAM.

PRESENT: SRI C.K.V.SATYAKANTH KUMAR, Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. F.A.C. Additional Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

Thursday, this the Fourth [4th] day of August, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.237 of 2021

Between:

Pilla Anasuyamma, W/o. Adinarayana, Age 70 years, Hindu, Housewife,

R/o. D.No.3-175, Yellamilli Village, Gandepalli Mandal, East Godavari

District, Peddapuram J.C.J.C Limits.

… Plaintiff.

And

Pilla Adinarayana, S/o. Veeranna, Age: 27 years, Hindu, Private Employee,

R/o D.No.3-212, Yellamilli Village, Gandepalli Mandal, East Godavari

District, Peddapuram J.C.J.C Limits.

… Defendant. * * * This Suit, coming on 21.07.2022, before me, for Hearing, in the presence of Sri K.Lovaraju, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the

Defendant having been set Ex-parte, for his non appearance before the

Court, inspite of receiving the Suit Summons; and upon hearing the

Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, seeking

Cancellation of the Settlement Deed, dated 24.02.2021, in the name of the

Defendant, vide Document No.1846 of 2021, relating to the Plaint

Schedule Property, and for Permanent Injunction, restraining the

Defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property, in any manner, what so ever, and for Costs of the Suit.

2.The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

O.S.No.237 of 2021. Page 2 of 8 J.C.J. Court, A.

Peddapuram.

The Plaintiff is the absolute Owner of the Plaint Schedule

Property. She got the same under the Registered Settlement Deed, dated 18.03.2011, executed by her husband Pilla Adinarayana @ Burraiah. Since the said date, the Plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. As per the said Deed, the husband of the Plaintiff conveyed to an extent of Ac.1.18 cents in two Items. The name of the Plaintiff has been mutated in the Revenue Records. The Government issued Pattadar

Passbook and Title Deed in favour of the Plaintiff, for the Schedule

Property. But, the said Books are in the Bank, when the Plaintiff availed a

Crop Loan. The Bank also issued a Certificate on 24.09.2021, evidencing the Crop Loan.

The Defendant is the Son of the Elder Son of the Plaintiff. The

Plaintiff is an illiterate, and is marks woman. During February, 2021, the

Defendant’s father, by name, Pilla Veeranna requested the Plaintiff to stand as Surety, as he was borrowing money from a 3rd Party. In view of the relationship, the Plaintiff accepted to stand as Surety for the father of the Defendant. Accordingly, on 24.02.2021, the Defendant and his father took the Plaintiff to the Registrar’s Office at Rajanagaram, and obtained

Thumb Impressions of the Plaintiff on some Document, keeping the

Plaintiff under impression that she was signing as Surety to the amount borrowed by the Defendant’s father at Rajanagaram.

In April 2021, the Plaintiff came to know about the said

Document, when the Defendant’s father came to her husband’s Property, and asked him to vacate, and handover the same for next crop. The matter was placed before the Village Elders, before whom the Defendant brought the Settlement Deed, dated 24.02.2021, along with the Settlement Deed obtained by the Defendant’s father from the husband of the Plaintiff, stating that Plaintiff herein and her husband had already executed a

O.S.No.237 of 2021. Page 3 of 8 J.C.J. Court, A.

Peddapuram.

Settlement Deed in his favour, and conveyed the Plaint Schedule Property to him. The Elders dissuaded the Defendant and his father, stating that it was not wise on their part to deceive the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s father stated that he was under impression that the Plaintiff may convey the

Plaint Schedule Property to the other Sons of the Plaintiff, and hence, he obtained the Document, by playing fraud on his own mother.

The Settlement Deed, dated 24.02.2021, obtained by the

Defendant, is not valid and is non-est in law. It does not bind the Plaintiff.

The Defendant, being grandson, took advantage of illiteracy of the

Plaintiff, and his relation with her, at the instance of his father Veeranna.

The above said Document, obtained in the name of the Defendant, is liable to be cancelled. Thereafter, the Plaintiff applied for Certified Copy of the

Settlement Deed, dated 24.02.2021. For about a week, the Defendant and his father have been putting hectic efforts to sell away the Plaint Schedule

Property, and other Properties to 3rd Parties. As as a part of his Plan, the

Defendant has brought some intending Purchasers to show the Plaint

Schedule Property. Hence, there is no time to issue any Legal Notice to the Defendant. The Defendant is also trying to evict the Plaintiff from the

Schedule Properties, by hook or crook. Since the Plaintiff is aged 70 years, she is weak and feeble physically. Though the Defendant obtained

Document, he has never succeeded in evicting the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff Schedule

Property. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed this Suit for Cancellation of the

Registered Settlement Deed, dated 24.02.2021, and for Permanent

Injunction against the Defendants, in respect of the Plaint Schedule

Property, and for the Costs of the Suit.

3.The Suit Summons, issued through Court, were served upon the Defendant personally. Yet, the Defendant had failed to appear before

O.S.No.237 of 2021. Page 4 of 8 J.C.J. Court, A.

Peddapuram.

the Court. On 23.02.2022, the Defendant was called absent, and there was no representation on his behalf. Hence, the Defendant was set Ex-parte on the same day, i.e., on 23.02.2022.

4.On behalf of the Plaintiff, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined, and

Exhibits A1 to A5 are marked.

5.Heard the Arguments on the side of the Plaintiff.

6.The Point for consideration is whether the Plaintiff is

entitled for the Cancellation of the Registered Settlement Deed,

dated 24.02.2021, and for Permanent Injunction against the

Defendant, in respect of the Plaint Schedule Property, as prayed for

by her?

7. POINT:-

(a)In order to establish her contentions, the Plaintiff has examined herself as PW.1, and a Third Party as PW.2, and got Exhibits A1 to A5 marked on her behalf. PW.1 had filed her Chief Examination

Affidavit, and deposed on par with the averments in the Plaint. PW.2 had filed his Chief Examination Affidavit, supporting the contentions of the

Plaintiff, on material aspects, regarding the attempts of the Defendant to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule

Property. Since the Defendant had remained Ex-parte to the Proceedings of the Suit, inspite of the receipt of the Suit Summons, it can be said that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 had remained unchallenged and undiscredited. Further, on account of the conduct of the Defendant, in remaining Ex-parte to the Proceedings of the Suit, even after receiving the

Suit Summons personally, an adverse inference can be drawn against the

Defendant, to the effect that he had admitted the case of the Plaintiff, and that he had nothing to put forth as a contest, for the same.

(b)It would be relevant to refer to Exs.A1 to A5, which are

O.S.No.237 of 2021. Page 5 of 8 J.C.J. Court, A.

Peddapuram.

relied upon by the Plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the Original Registered Settlement

Deed, dated 18.03.2011, executed in favour of the Plaintiff. As seen from the same, it was registered as Document No.2018 of 2011. It was executed by Pilla Adinarayana, in favour of his Wife, Pilla Anasuyamma, i.e., the

Plaintiff [PW.1], in respect of the Plaint Schedule Property. The Source of

Title of Pilla Adinarayana, over the Property covered by Ex.A1, was also mentioned therein.

(c)Ex.A2 is the Letter, dated 24.09.2021, issued by the

Branch Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Peddapuram, to the

Plaintiff. It shows that Pilla Anasuyamma, i.e., PW.1 had availed a Crop

Loan from the said Bank, against the Land of Ac.0.88 cents in S.No.138/1A and of Ac.0.30 cents in S.No.276/2. The Item No.1 therein is shown as the

Plaint Schedule Property herein. It also furnished the Crop Loan Account

Number of Pilla Anasuyamma [PW.1].

(d)Ex.A3 is the Mee Seva Copy of Form-1B issued on 11.10.2021. As seen from this Document, the Plaintiff is shown as the

Owner of the Properties, including the Plaint Schedule Property. Ex.A4 is the Mee Seva Copy of Adangal for Fasli No.1431. As seen from the said

Document, the Plaintiff is shown as Possessor for the lands, including the

Plaint Schedule Property.

(e)Ex.A5 is the Mee Seva Extract of the Registered

Settlement Deed, executed on 24.02.2021. As seen from the said

Document, it was executed by the Plaintiff, in favour of the Defendant, in respect of the Plaint Schedule Property. The Plaintiff had clearly averred that the Defendant and his father obtained her Thumb Impressions, saying that she is standing as a Surety for the amount borrowed by them. It shows that the Plaintiff had alleged that the facts were misrepresented to her, and thereby, fraud was played upon her, by the Defendant and his

O.S.No.237 of 2021. Page 6 of 8 J.C.J. Court, A.

Peddapuram.

father. The said allegations were not disproved by the Defendant, since he had remained Ex-parte to the Proceedings of this Suit.

(f)It is clear that the Documents in Ex.A1 to A4 clearly establishes the Title, Possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the

Plaint Schedule Property. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 also establishes that the Defendant and his father had obtained the Document under the

Original of Ex.A5, by playing fraud on her, and that the Defendant and his men tried to trespass into the Plaint Schedule Property, under the guise of the said Document. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, which is unchallenged, clearly establishes the case of the Plaintiff. It is the duty of the Defendant to disprove the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation made against him. But, he remained Ex-parte. In the circumstances, it is clear that the title of the Plaintiff would suffer, if the Document, under the

Original of Ex.A5 continues to be in existence. As the Plaintiff had established her contentions, it can be said that the Document under the

Original of Ex.A5, i.e., the Registered Settlement Deed, dated 24.02.2021, in the name of the Defendant, in respect of the Plaint Schedule Property, is liable to be cancelled, as prayed for by the Plaintiff.

(g)It is clear that the Defendant is trying to dispossess the

Plaintiff from the Plaint Schedule Property. It is also clear that the Prima-

Facie Case and Balance of Convenience are in favour of the Plaintiff, and that irreparable loss would be caused to the Plaintiff, if Injunction not granted, as the Defendant may take advantage of the same to dispossess the Plaintiff. It is clear from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that the

Plaintiff is unable to protect her possession and enjoyment over the Plaint

Schedule Property, without the aid of the Court.

(h)In view of the above discussion, this Court concludes and holds that the Plaintiff is entitled for Cancellation of the Registered

O.S.No.237 of 2021. Page 7 of 8 J.C.J. Court, A.

Peddapuram.

Settlement Deed, dated 24.02.2021, in the name of the Defendant, vide

Document No.1846 of 2021, relating to the Plaint Schedule Property, and for Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Plaint

Schedule Property, in any manner, what so ever, and for Costs of the Suit, as prayed for by her.

Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

8.In the result, the Suit is decreed with Costs, cancelling the

Registered Settlement Deed, dated 24.02.2021, in the name of the

Defendant, vide Document No.1846 of 2021, relating to the Plaint

Schedule Property, and granting Permanent Injunction, restraining the

Defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property, in any manner, what so ever. The Copy of the Decree shall be sent to the Sub-Registrar,

Rajanagaram, for making necessary Entries in the Registers, after one

Month, in accordance with Law.

Typed to my Dictation, by the Stenographer, and corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 4 th day of August, 2022.

Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. F.A.C. Additional Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW.1 : Pilla Anasuyamma.

PW.2 : Dodda Veerababu.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 : Original Registered Settlement Deed, dated 18.03.2011, bearing

O.S.No.237 of 2021. Page 8 of 8 J.C.J. Court, A.

Peddapuram.

Document No.2018 of 2011, executed in favour of the Plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : Letter, dated 24.09.2021, issued by the Branch Manager of the

Indian Overseas Bank, Peddapuram, to the Plaintiff.

Ex.A3 : Mee Seva Copy of Form-1 B, issued on 11-10-2021, in the name of the Plaintiff.

Ex.A4 : Mee Seva Copy of the Adangal for Fasli No.1431.

Ex.A5 : Mee Seva Extract of the Registered Settlement Deed, dated 24.02.2021, executed by the Plaintiff, in the name of the

Defendant, in respect of the Plaint Schedule Property.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

NIL.

Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. F.A.C. Additional Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

Fair Judgment

O.S.No.237 OF 2021

Dt. 04.08.2022.

Part - I

O.S.No.9 of 2022.Page No.1J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PRATHIPADU.

PRESENT: SRI C.K.V.SATYAKANTH KUMAR, Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. F.A.C. Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu.

Wednesday, this the Third [3rd] day of August, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.9 of 2022

Between:

Palivela Suresh Kumar, S/o. Paparao, Age: 35 years, Business, Door No. 2- 3, C.Rayavaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District,

Prathipadu J.C.J.

… Plaintiff.

And

Darla Ammaji, D/o. Satyanarayana, Age: 30 years, V.R.O., Alamuru

Village, Alamuru Mandal, Alamuru J.C.J., East Godavari District.

… Defendant. * * * This Suit, coming on 27.07.2022, before me for the Plaintiff’s

Evidence and Hearing, in the presence of Sri B.V.Siva Narayana,

Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Smt. N.V.V.S.S.N.L.Devi, Advocate for the

Defendant, and the Defendant having been set Ex-parte, for her failure to file her Written Statement before the Court, inspite of lapse of Statutory

Period; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, to recover an amount of Rs.3,36,000/-, being the Principal and Interest due under the Suit Promissory Note, dated 03.03.2019, for Rs.2,00,000/-, allegedly executed by the Defendant in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, and for subsequent interest, and

Costs of the Suit.

2.The Case of the Plaintiff, as per the averments in the Plaint, in

O.S.No.9 of 2022.Page No.2J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

brief, is as follows:-

On 03.03.2019, the Defendant had borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the Plaintiff, for her family expenses, and on the same day, the Defendant had executed the Suit Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same, with interest at 24% per annum, on demand, to him or to his order. Inspite of the repeated demands of the

Plaintiff, the Defendant had failed to repay the debt amount due to the

Plaintiff, under the said Promissory Note. The Plaintiff got issued the

Legal Notice on 09.01.2021 to the Defendant, demanding for the discharge of the debt due under the Suit Promissory Note. Though the

Defendant had received the same on 19.01.2021, she did not comply with the demand, nor gave any Reply. Therefore, the Plaintiff is constrained to file this Suit for recovery of the Suit Promissory Note amount, along with interest and Costs of the Suit, from the Defendant.

3.After receiving the Suit Summons, the Defendant had engaged an Advocate, and got Vakalath filed on her behalf on 03.03.2022, and the Suit was posted to 12.04.2022 for filing of the Written Statement.

Inspite of availing sufficient time, the Defendant had failed to file her

Written Statement on 17.06.2022, and the Defendant was called absent, and there was no representation on her behalf on that day. Statutory

Period had also lapsed. Hence, the Defendant was set Ex-parte on the same day.

4.On behalf of the Plaintiff, PW.1 was examined, and Exhibits A1 to A3 are marked.

5.Heard the Arguments on the side of the Plaintiff.

6.The Point for consideration is whether the Plaintiff is

O.S.No.9 of 2022.Page No.3J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

entitled for recovery of the Suit amount, along with subsequent

interest and Costs, from the Defendant, as prayed for?

7. POINT:-

(a)In order to establish his contentions, the Plaintiff had examined himself as PW.1, and marked Exhibits A1 to A3, on his behalf.

PW.1 had deposed in his Chief Examination Affidavit, on par with the averments in the Plaint. Since the Defendant had remained Ex-parte to the Proceedings of the Suit, without filing her Written Statement, even after engaging an Advocate to defend her, after receiving the Suit

Summons, it can be said that the evidence of PW.1 has remained unchallenged and undiscredited. On account of the said conduct of the

Defendant, an adverse inference can be drawn against the Defendant, to the effect that she had admitted the Case of the Plaintiff, and that she had nothing to put-forth, as a contest for the same.

(b)It would be relevant to refer to Exs.A1 to A3, which are relied upon by the Plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the Original Suit Promissory Note,

dated 03.03.2019, executed by the Defendant, in favour of the Plaintiff,

for Rs.2,00,000/-. As seen from the recitals in Ex.A1, the said Document was attested by two Persons, namely, Pandi Veera Venkateswararao and another Person, whose name is not legible, and it was scribed by Pandi

Nookaraju. It is clear that the Borrower, i.e., the Defendant had signed once upon the Revenue Stamp affixed on Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the Office Copy of the Registered Legal Notice, dated 09.01.2021, got issued by the

Plaintiff to the Defendant, along with Postal Receipt. Ex.A3 is the Postal

Acknowledgment received from the Defendant, with regard to Ex.A2. It is clear from the evidence of PW.1 that even after receiving the Legal

O.S.No.9 of 2022.Page No.4J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

Notice, under the Original of Ex.A2, as seen from Ex.A3, the Defendant had failed to give a Reply, or to make any Payment. By virtue of the unchallenged evidence of PW.1, coupled with Exs.A1 to A3, this Court opines that the Plaintiff has established his contentions that the

Defendant borrowed amount from him, and executed the Suit Promissory

Note in Ex.A1, and that the Defendant had failed to discharge the said debt, inspite of his repeated demands, both orally, and by way of Legal

Notice under the Original of Ex.A2.

(c)In view of the above discussion, this Court concludes and holds that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the Suit amount, along with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the Suit, and at 6% per annum from the date of passing of the Decree till the date of realization, on the Principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, and

Costs of the Suit, as prayed for by him.

Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

8.In the result, the Suit is decreed with Costs, directing the

Defendant to pay the Plaintiff, a sum of Rs.3,36,000/-, with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of presentation of Suit till the date of

Decree, and thereafter, at 6% p.a., from the date of Decree till the date of realization, on the Principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my Dictation, by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 3rd day of August, 2022.

Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. F.A.C. Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu.

O.S.No.9 of 2022.Page No.5J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW.1 : Palivela Suresh Kumar.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 : Original Suit Promissory Note, dated 03.03.2019, executed by the

Defendant, in favour of the Plaintiff, for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Ex.A2 : Office Copy of the Registered Legal Notice, dated 09.01.2021, got issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, along with Postal Receipt.

Ex.A3 : Postal Acknowledgment received from the Defendant, with regard to Ex.A2.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

NIL.

Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. F.A.C. Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu.

O.S.No.9 of 2022.Page No.6J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

Draft Judgment

O.S.No.9 OF 2022

Dt. 03.08.2022.

Part - I

O.S.No.9 of 2022.Page No.7J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PRATHIPADU.

PRESENT: SRI C.K.V.SATYAKANTH KUMAR, Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, F.A.C. Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu.

Wednesday, this the Third [3rd ] day of August, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.9 of 2022

Between:

Palivela Suresh Kumar, S/o. Paparao, Age: 35 years, Business, Door No. 2- 3, C.Rayavaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Prathipadu J.C.J. … Plaintiff.

And

Darla Ammaji, D/o. Satyanarayana, Age: 30 years, V.R.O., Alamuru bVillage, Alamuru Mandal, Alamuru J.C.J., East Godavari District. … Defendant. * * * This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, to recover an amount of Rs.3,36,000/-, being the Principal and Interest due under the Suit Promissory Note, dated 03.03.2019, for Rs.2,00,000/-, allegedly executed by the Defendant in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, and for subsequent interest, and Costs of the Suit. Suit presented on: 28.09.2020, filed on: 17.10.2020.

Value of the Suit:

Principal amount 2,00,000/-

Add: Interest at 24% p.a., from 1,36,000/- Total: Rs.3,36000/-

A Court fee of Rs.2,786/- is paid under 20 Schedule I, Article 1 (c) Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

The Cause of action for the Suit arose on 22.03.2020, when the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/-, from the Plaintiff and the Defendant had executed the Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff, on the even date at Chandredu Village of Rangampeta Mandal, and when the repeated demand s were made by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant postponing the same on some pretext or the other, all at Chandredu Village of Rangampeta Mandal, and when the Defendant kept quiet, and where both Parties are residing within the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court.

O.S.No.9 of 2022.Page No.8J.C.J. Court,

Prathipadu.

This Suit, coming on 27.07.2022, before me for the Plaintiff’s Evidence and Hearing, in the presence of Sri B.V.Siva Narayana, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Smt. N.V.V.S.S.N.L.Devi, Advocated for Defendant, and the Defendant having been set Ex-parte, for his failure to file his Written Statement before the Court, inspite of lapse of Statutory Period; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

[a]That the Suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

That the Defendant, be and the same is hereby directed to [b] pay the Plaintiff, a sum of Rs.====/- with interest 12% per annum, from the date of presentation of Suit till the date of Decree, and thereafter, at 6% p.a., from the date of Decree till the date of realization, on the Principal amount of Rs.1,20,000/-; [c]That the Defendant do also pay to the Plaintiff, a sum of Rs.== towards Costs of the Suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 3rd day of August, 2022.

Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. F.A.C. Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Rs.Rs. Stamp on Vakalat2-00No Costs Memo is filed, Stamp on Plaint as the Defendant Advocate Fee remained Ex-parte. Process Type charges 100-00 Total : Rs.

Fourth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. F.A.C. Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PEDDAPURAM.

Present:- Sri C.K.V.SATYAKANTH KUMAR, IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. Thursday, the Twenty First [21st] day of July, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.83/2022 Between:

1.Edla Mary Savitri, D/o Late Edla Jacob, Age: 77 years, Retired Teacher,

R/o H.No.2-11-2,Ramaraopeta, Peddapuram, Peddapuram JCJ Limits.

2. Edla E.S.Sakunthala, D/o late Edla Jacob, Age: 79 years, Retired Teacher,

R/o H.No.2-11-2,Ramaraopeta, Peddapuram, Peddapuram JCJ Limits.

..Plaintiffs

And

1.Kashatri Lavanya Bai, W/o Surajlal Singh, Age: 36 years, Private Employee,

H.No.6-33B, Mallayyapeta, 4th Street, Rajamahendravaram.

2.Bondili Janaki Bai, Age: 55 years, Head Mistress, M.P.P.Primary School ,

Ganganapalli, Kakinada,. Kakinara Rural Mandal, Kakinada JCJ Limits.

...Defendants

This Suit, coming on 21.07.2022, before me, for Hearing, in the presence of Sri M.S.N.Murthy and Sri A.Prabhuji, Advocates for the Plaintiffs, and Sri

B.Prasad, Advocate for the Defendants; and upon hearing the Advocate for the

Plaintiff ; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to cancel the sale dated 11- 07-2019 vide Document No.2913/2019 executed by the Plaintiffs and their deceased brother in favour of 1st Defendant; and also direct the 1st

Defendant to execute a regular and proper sale deed in favour of Plaintiffs at their expenses by re-delivering the Schedule Property with costs.

2. Counsel for the Plaintiff has filed a Memo, stating that the matter is settled before the elders, and the Plaintiffs are not pressing the Suit.

Memo is signed by the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2. By considering the reasons stated by the Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Memo, this Court is inclined to dismiss the Suit, as not pressed. Hence the Suit is dismissed, as not pressed. No costs.

Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of July, 2022.

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

FAC A.J.C.J

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PEDDAPURAM.

Present:- Sri C.K.V.SATYAKANTH KUMAR, IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. Thursday, the Twenty First [21st] day of July, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.83/2022 Between:

1.Edla Mary Savitri, D/o Late Edla Jacob, Age: 77 years, Retired Teacher, R/o H.No.2-11-2, Ramaraopeta, Peddapuram, Peddapuram JCJ Limits.

2. Edla E.S.Sakunthala, D/o late Edla Jacob, Age: 79 years, Retired Teacher, R/o H.No.2-11-2, Ramaraopeta, Peddapuram, Peddapuram JCJ Limits.

..Plaintiffs

And

1.Kashatri Lavanya Bai, W/o Surajlal Singh, Age: 36 years, Private Employee, H.No.6-33B, Mallayyapeta, 4th Street, Rajamahendravaram.

2.Bondili Janaki Bai, Age: 55 years, Head Mistress, M.P.P.Primary School , Ganganapalli, Kakinada,. Kakinara Rural Mandal, Kakinada JCJ Limits.

...Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to cancel the sale dated 11- 07-2019 vide Document No.2913/2019 executed by the Plaintiffs and their deceased brother in favour of 1st Defendant; and also direct the 1st

Defendant to execute a regular and proper sale deed in favour of Plaintiffs at their expenses by re-delivering the Schedule Property with costs.

Value of the suit : Rs.14,52,000/-

As this is a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 11-07-2019 executed by plaintiffs and their deceased brother in favour of 1st Defendant, the Plaintiffs have to pay Court Fee under Section 37. Of A.C.F and S.V.Act under Sech.1, Art.I(b) and (C) of A.C.F and S.V.Act. As per the Market Value Certificate issued by S.R.O Samalkot the Value of the Schedule Property is Rs.14,52,000/- On this the Plaintiffs have to pay 3/4th market value Rs.10,89,000/- under Section 24(1) of A.C.F and S.V.Act.

A Court fee of Rs.13,422/- is paid under Section 26(c), Sch.I, Art.I(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 11-07-2019 when the Plaintiffs executed Sale Deed in favour of 1st Defendant along with their deceased brother and on 25-05-2021 when Edla Samuel Chandra Sekhar died intestate and unmarried, issueless leaving behind the Plaintiffs as his only legalheirs and estate of said Chandra Sekhar devolved upon the Plaintiffs and when the dispute arose between Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant and the 1st Defendant repudicated the sale deed dated11-07-2019 and demanded the Plaintiffs to repay the entire sale consideration on that the Plaintiffs repaid the entire sale consideration in installments through on line and personally and also paid amounts to the 2nd Defendant at the request of 1st Defendant in installments and when the Plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 04-02-2022 to both the Defendants and they received the same, and that the Defendants acknowledgment of 1st defendant is herewith filed and in online portal of Indian Postal authorities it is also found that the 2nd Defendant also received notice, online tracking letter is herewith filed and approached the Plaintiffs raised a dispute before elders and the elders verified the accounts of both the parities and settled the matter that the Plaintiffs have to pay an amount of Rs.13,000/- to the Defendants and the 1st Defendant has execute a regular and proper sale deed in favour of Plaintiffs at their expenses and the same was occurred in last week of February, 2022 and at G.Ragampeta village, Pedapuram Mandal where the schedule property is situated is within the Jurisdiction of this Court.

D E C R E E :

This Suit, coming on 21.07.2022, before me, for Hearing, in the presence of

Sri M.S.N.Murthy and Sri A.Prabhuji, Advocates for the Plaintiffs, and Sri

B.Prasad, Advocate for the Defendants; and upon hearing the Advocate for the

Plaintiff ; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER

AND DECREE as follows :

1. that the suit is dismissed as not pressed and no Costs.

Given under my hand and the Seal of the court, this the 21rd day of July, 2022.

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge Kakinada. Addl. Junior Civil Judge Peddapuram.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPURAM.

Present:- Sri C.K.V.SATYAKANTH KUMAR, IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. Thursday, the Seventh [7th ] day of July, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.75/2022

Between:

Uppu Trinadha Nageswararao, S/o Suryarao, Age: 52 years, Business,

D.No.9-5-10, Pedda Maseed Veedhi,Peddapuram.

..Plaintiff

And

Volupu Srinivasarao, S/o Ramana, Age: 29 years, Business,

D.No.15-2-68, Bangaramma Temple Street, Peddapuram.

...Defendant

This Suit, coming on 07.07.2022, before me, for Hearing, in the presence of Sri Ch.Krishnarao, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Sri S.Durgarao,

Advocate for the Defendant; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff ; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for mortgage decree for the Suit amount of RS.3,53,600/- in his favour against the Defendant and over the Plaint Schedule Property by fixing date for redemption of suit amount with costs and subsequent interest failing which to pass a final decree in his favour in terms of preliminary decree.

2. Counsel for the Plaintiff has filed a Memo, stating that the matter is settled for Rs.2,50,000/-, and the Defendant has paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the Plaintiff towards the Suit amount, and the Plaintiff is not pressing the

Suit against the Defendant. By considering the Memo filed by the

Counsel for the Plaintiff, the Suit against the Defendant is dismissed as not pressed. Hence the Suit is dismissed as not pressed and no Costs.

Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of July, 2022.

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

FAC A.J.C.J

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPURAM.

Present:- Sri C.K.V.SATYAKANTH KUMAR, IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. Thursday, the Seventh [7th ] day of July, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.75/2022

Between:

Uppu Trinadha Nageswararao, S/o Suryarao, Age: 52 years, Business,

D.No.9-5-10, Pedda Maseed Veedhi,Peddapuram.

..Plaintiff

And

Volupu Srinivasarao, S/o Ramana, Age: 29 years, Business, D.No.15-2- 68,

Bangaramma Temple Street, Peddapuram.

...Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for mortgage decree for the Suit amount of RS.3,53,600/- in his favour against the Defendant and over the Plaint Schedule Property by fixing date for redemption of suit amount with costs and subsequent interest failing which to pass a final decree in his favour in terms of preliminary decree.

Value of the suit : Rs.3,53,600/-

Principle Amount borrowed by defendant on 27-05-2016 Rs.1,50,000

Interest at 24% P.A on Rs.1,50,000/- from 27-05-02016 to 23-01-2022 Rs.2,03,600

On this Court fee wroth of Rs,6,026/- is payable, but due to non availability of Court fee stamps, deposited the Court fees of Rs.6,026/- into S.B. Account of this Honourable Court under Section 31 r/w Sec.20, Sch.1, Art.1(b)(c) of S./V and ACF Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on and from 27-05-2016 when the

Defendant borrowed an amount of RS.1,50,000/- from Plaintiff and executed a demand Promissory note in her favour, and on and from 28-05-2016 when the Defendant deposited the title deed/settlement deed 1832/2012 dated 10- 05-2012 of him pertaining to the Plaint Schedule Property with the Plaintiff with an intention to create an equitable mortgage by deposit to tile deeds and created an equitable mortgage in her favour and on and from 29-05-2016 when the Defendants executed a letter styling it as memorandum of deposit of title deed confirming the fact of their deposit of title deed pertaining to the

Plaint Schedule Property with the Plaintiff and from dated 04-10-2021 when the Plaintiff issued Legal Notice to the Defendant demanding him for repayment of the Suit Mortgage debt due, and at Peddapuram village

Peddapuram Mandal where the Plaint Schedule Property is situated which is within the Jurisdiction of this Court.

D E C R E E :

This Suit, coming on 07.07.2022, before me, for Hearing, in the presence of Sri Ch.Krishnarao, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Sri S.Durgarao,

Advocate for the Defendant; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff ; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND

DECREE as follows :

1. that the suit is dismissed as not pressed and no Costs.

Given under my hand and the Seal of the court, this the 7th day of July, 2022.

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge Kakinada. Addl. Junior Civil Judge Peddapuram.