Sri Ch.jithendhar

OS No. 125/2016.. 1 of 7..Jt. Dt: 28-04-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SURYAPET

Present : Ch. Jithendhar,

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet

Thursday, this the 28th day of April, 2022

O.S. No. 125 of 2016

Between:

Maddi Lingaiah s/o Sathyam, age: 38yrs, Occ.: business, r/o Durajpally (v) of Chivvemla (m).

... Plaintiff

AND Bhukya Narayana s/o Danthya, age: 47yrs, occ.: agriculture, r/o Ranthya Thanda h/o Dharmapuram (v) of Penpahad mandal. … Defendant

This suit came before me for hearing on 26-4-22 & today in the presence of Sri Md.Fareeduddin Ahmed/counsel for plaintiff and Sri Daka Srinivas Naidu/counsel for defendant, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

1.Basing on a promissory note dated 24-2-2014, the plaintiff filed this suit on 21-7-2016 for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,90,833/- (Rupees three lacs ninety thousand eight hundred and thirty three only) with future interest and costs of the suit from the defendant, contending that out of well acquaintance between them, having borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from plaintiff at Durajpally in the presence of witnesses, agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest per annum and executing said pronote, the defendant failed to repay either interest or principal in spite of several demands and finally issuance of legal notice dtd 23-1-16 by plaintiff, and 3days prior to filing this suit refused to repay when demanded by plaintiff.

2.On the other hand, defendant filed written statement admitting description of parties and well acquaintance between them, but denying all the other contentions of plaintiff about loan transaction, execution of suit document, interest rate, due amount and his liability to plaintiff etc.

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 15:01:27 +0530

OS No. 125/2016.. 2 of 7..Jt. Dt: 28-04-2022

According to him the facts are as follows. Plaintiff is an agriculturist.

Defendant had a tractor which he used to engage to plaintiff for rent for ploughing his land. In 2015 differences arose between them as to the payment of such rent. Hence defendant stopped to let his tractor to plaintiff for ploughing. As such plaintiff bore grudge against defendant. Plaintiff knows his signatures through rent receipts issued by him. Hence, plaintiff created a false pronote and filed this false suit to harass him. As such plaintiff is not entitled to any amount from him. Hence, this suit is liable to be dismissed.

3.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial on 14-6-2019.

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding against the defendant ?

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

3. To what relief ?

Considering the contentions on both sides, I opine it fit and convenient to discuss and decide the issues no.1 to 2 together as they are interdependent and to avoid repetition of same discussion.

4.Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and one of the attestors as PW2.

ExA1 to A4 were marked for plaintiff. Defendant examined himself as DW1 and another as DW2. No documents were marked for defendant. Heard arguments for both sides. Perused the record.

5.Issues No.1 & 2 :

PW1 reiterated the contents of his plaint during his evidence about loan transaction, execution of pronote/ExA1 by defendant, agreed interest,

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 15:01:39 +0530

OS No. 125/2016.. 3 of 7..Jt. Dt: 28-04-2022

default in repayment by defendant, issuance of legal notice, reply notice of defendant, refusal of defendant to repay, filing of this suit and due amount etc. PW1 deposed that on 24-2-14 defendant obtained loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed ExA1 agreeing to repay the loan amount on demand with interest @24% per annum. On perusal of ExA1 it appears that it was signed by an illiterate who learnt to write his name. The signatures thereon were in telugu with shaky and jumbled handwriting. PW2 supported the loan transaction in all respects as deposed by PW1.

6.Defendant denied complete transaction and prayed for dismissal of the suit stating a different version that he used to give his tractor to plaintiff for rent for ploughing the land, that in 2015 differences arose between them due to which he stopped giving his tractor to plaintiff, that due to the same plaintiff bore grudge against him, that hence plaintiff created a false pronote and filed this false suit. During cross examination, on behalf of defendant a complete contrary version is suggested by his counsel that plaintiff had a tractor previously, that plaintiff gave it to defendant for cultivation, that later disputes arose between them in that regard, and that hence plaintiff obtained defendant’s signatures on blank pronote with regard to his liability as to such tractor. Though these suggestions are denied by PW1, these suggestions impress that defendant is admitting that he signed a pronote in favor of plaintiff, though according to him it was blank. These contrary versions make defendant’s pleadings doubtful.

7.In spite of efforts, during cross examination nothing much material was elicited from PW1 or PW2 to disprove or discard their evidence in support of suit claim. Further PW2 was consistent through out his chief and cross examination with the evidence of PW1. Both affirmed that the

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 15:01:50 +0530

OS No. 125/2016.. 4 of 7..Jt. Dt: 28-04-2022

transaction occurred at Durajpally, and that plaintiff himself scribed ExA1.

8.On the other hand the evidence of DW1 & 2 itself was inconsistent.

DW1 deposed as in his written statement during his chief examination.

During cross examination, when his chief examination affidavit is confronted for identification of his signature, he denied the signature thereon to be his signature. This denial impresses that he might have been tutored to deny what ever the signature is shown in the court by other side advocate. Cleverly, the counsel for plaintiff did not show ExA1 first and instead he showed the chief examination affidavit of DW1 to elicit denial and to show the conduct and malafides of defendant to evade his liability.

9.Though DW2, being independent witness, supported DW1 initially, he stated new facts later which were not deposed even by DW1 or pleaded in written statement. DW2 stated that with regard to differences between parties herein as to payment of rent of tractor defendant held a panchayath

before elders among who he is one elder. However, he was silent as to

when it was held, where it was held, who were the elders in it for both sides, what were the versions of both parties herein in said panchayath, and what was decided in it etc. He simply stated that plaintiff agreed that he is due some amount to defendant. Even assuming it is so, it would be a different cause of action to defendant against plaintiff and not relevant in any manner to the present suit. If said panchayath was true, defendant would have pleaded in his written statement and deposed in this suit, but did not do so, which makes the evidence of DW2 doubtful and unreliable.

10.During cross examination, several questions were put to him to elicit what is his knowledge about the facts of this case to rely on him. Firstly according to him this suit was filed by defendant herein against plaintiff for

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 15:02:11 +0530

OS No. 125/2016.. 5 of 7..Jt. Dt: 28-04-2022

rent amount of tractor, which is wrong. Secondly, to his knowledge plaintiff is due some amount to defendant about which he came to court to depose about it, which is also not right considering the fact in issue. Thirdly, when specifically questioned about names of panchayath elders, DW2 mentioned few names. Admittedly they all were residents of Ranthya thanda. In this regard also learned counsel for plaintiff reasonably argued that any panchayath will consist elders for both sides, that the very fact that DW2 did not mention any elder from Durajpally or on behalf of plaintiff in the said panchayath itself makes his evidence in that regard unreliable. There is no explanation to counter this argument.

11.Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that defendant is resident of

Ranthya thanda whereas plaintiff is resident of Durajpally, that Durajpally is bigger village than said thanda, that there are several tractors available at

Durajpally itself, that hence plaintiff taking defendant’s tractor from such small thanda from such distance itself is unbelievable. Defendant could not place proper material to believe his version in view of such argument.

Learned counsel for defendant also failed to convince this court with proper submission in this regard.

12.The said tractor rent amount is not a fact in issue in this suit. There is no proper or reliable evidence to believe this version of defendant. On the other hand the evidence for plaintiff is consistent as to suit transaction and passage of consideration. S.118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act provides that until the contrary is proved, a negotiable instrument shall be presumed to have been made or drawn for consideration. Hence, the said presumption as to consideration can be reasonably drawn in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant. When there is reliable evidence in support of plaintiff's case,

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 15:02:30 +0530

OS No. 125/2016.. 6 of 7..Jt. Dt: 28-04-2022

bare denial or contra allegations will not suffice to disprove the same.

13.On discharge of initial burden by plaintiff, as creation of false document or forgery are his specific defenses the burden to prove the same lies on defendant. In my considered opinion from the record, defendant failed to discharge the same. Unless the defendant rebut the presumption available in favor of plaintiff u/s 118 of the Act by adducing convincing evidence, the evidential burden would not shift back to the plaintiff. From the discussion above, this court opines that the plaintiff succeeded in proving his claim against the defendant. Hence, the issues no.1 & 2 are answered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant.

14.Issue no.3 : To what relief ?

In view of discussion and decision arrived as to issues no.1 & 2, this court opines that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with future interest from the date of filing this suit.

15.In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs. Accordingly, the defendant is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,90,833/- (Rupees three lacs ninety thousand eight hundred and thirty three only) and with interest @12% per annum on the principal amount i.e., Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand only) from the date of filing this suit till the date of decree and future interest @6% per annum on the said principal amount from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of April, 2022.

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 15:02:44 +0530

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet

OS No. 125/2016.. 7 of 7..Jt. Dt: 28-04-2022

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff : PW1 : M.Lingaiah – Plaintiff PW2 : Sk.Usman – attestor

For Defendant : DW1 : B.Narayana – defendant DW2 : M.Nagu – independent witness

Exhibits marked For Plaintiff : ExA1/PW1 : Original promissory note with receipt dated 24-2-2014 ExA2/PW1 : O/c of legal notice dtd 23-1-2016 ExA3/PW1 : o/c of interim reply notice dtd 6-2-2016 ExA4/PW1 : o/c of reply notice dtd 27-2-2016

For Defendant : Nil

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

JITHENDHAR

CHIRANJI

Date:

JITHENDHAR

2022.04.28 15:02:55 +0530

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet

HMOP No. 70/2021.. 1 of 6..Order Dt: 28-04-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SURYAPET

Present : CH. JITHENDHAR,

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet

Thursday, this the 28th day of April, 2022

H.M.O.P. No. 70 of 2021

Between:

Bezawada Suman s/o late Durga Rao, age:35yrs, occ.:pvt.employee, r/o Suryapet town & dist.

... Petitioner

AND Bezawada Mounika w/o Suman, age:30yrs, occ.: household & lecturer, r/o Suryapet, presently r/at c/o Jampala Sambaiah, 5th floor, Raghurama residency, opp.:Kakathiya Mahila degree college, street no.2, Nakkalagutta, Hanumakonda. … Respondent

This case having come before me for hearing today in the presence of Sri K.Sriramulu, Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T.Vidyasagar, counsel for respondent, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Petitioner/husband filed this petition for restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 or alternatively for dissolution of his marriage with respondent/wife by a decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.

1.Petition averments in brief : Petitioner married respondent on 31-3- 2019 as per Hindu customs and rites at Hanumakonda. As respondent’s family was poor, nothing was presented to petitioner at the time of marriage. Later they lived together at Suryapet for 3months. Later respondent started quarreling with petitioner on trivial matters and stated that she is not interested to live with him at Suryapet. She used to say that she is willing to live at Hanumakonda. Petitioner tried to convince her saying that as his father is not alive and his mother is old aged person he had to look after her. But she used to leave to her parents house often. It is only on his convincing her she returned to him. In January 2021when

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 14:58:17 +0530

HMOP No. 70/2021.. 2 of 6..Order Dt: 28-04-2022

petitioner went to her parents’ house her brother/Srinadh beat him indiscriminately and respondent bluntly refused to join with him as she is not interested to live with him. On another occasion her brother again beat him and warned him not to come to their house again. Hence petitioner placed the matter before elders who conducted panchayaths 2 to 3 times at

Hanumakonda. But due to adamant attitude of respondent all such efforts failed. She further abused him in filthy language before such elders.

Though petitioner bore all such acts of respondent with fond hope that she may change, there is no change in her. As such respondent deserted him for 2yrs and living with her parents. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition for divorce.

2.Respondent filed counter and her counter in brief is as follows.

Marital relationship is admitted. All the other allegations made in petition are false. In fact, due to disputes between them petitioner himself drove respondent out of his house about 2yrs back and hence she is residing with her parents on their mercy. However, after filing this petition, on the intervention of elders on both sides, they both resolved to dissolve their marriage, as there appear no chances for reunion. They both agreed for payment of 6lacs towards permanent alimony for respondent on divorce through court of law. Household articles and gold ornaments of respondent were accordingly returned to her. Hence, respondent also agreed for divorce. In these circumstances, the petition may be allowed for alternative relief by granting divorce as prayed by petitioner.

3.In support of their claim, petitioner & respondent examined themselves as PW1 & RW1 and ExP1 & P2 were marked. Heard arguments for both sides. Perused the record.

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 14:58:25 +0530

HMOP No. 70/2021.. 3 of 6..Order Dt: 28-04-2022

4.Now the point for consideration is whether the parties herein are entitled for a decree of divorce dissolving their marriage ?

5.The chief examination affidavits of PW1 & RW1 are nothing but re- iteration of the facts pleaded by them respectively in their petition and counter. PW1 specifically affirmed about the intervention of elders after filing this petition, their resolution for divorce before such elders, terms for dissolution etc., as stated by respondent in her counter. During arguments also both parties and counsels confirmed the contentions of respondent about their resolution for divorce during the pendency of this petition at the instance of elders. As such there is no independent evidence in this petition. Certain admitted facts are to be noted viz., their marriage and their resolution for divorce during the pendency of this proceeding at the instance of elders. Leaving apart those admissions, the remaining facts are disputed. While petitioner claimed divorce on the ground of cruelty, respondent claimed divorce on the grounds of desertion by petitioner and strained relationship. As such both are blaming each other for their separate living and both are praying for divorce.

6.S.13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act provides that any marriage solemnized, …, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party - (i) …. ; or (ia) has after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or ….. .

7.Admittedly their marriage occurred on 31-3-19, lived together for 3months and they are living separately thereafter. This petition is filed on

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 14:58:37 +0530

HMOP No. 70/2021.. 4 of 6..Order Dt: 28-04-2022

2-9-21. As such the mandatory period of desertion for 2yrs prior to filing this petition is also complete. But respondent blamed petitioner for her such separate living. However, except self-serving oral testimonies of parties, there is no other evidence. Surprisingly, cross examination of both

PW1 & RW1 was reported as nil, which impresses that the parties are determined to dissolve their marriage without any further controversies.

8.Coming to allegations of cruelty, except the self-serving oral testimony of petitioner/PW1, there is no other evidence to prove the same.

ExP1 & P2 are sufficient to prove that the parties herein are married as admitted by parties. But there is no independent evidence to prove the allegations made by petitioner as to cruelty or mental agony sufficient enough to grant divorce on such ground. Respondent denied all such allegations as to circumstances leading to mental agony by her against petitioner herein. As such the same is not sufficient to prove the ground of cruelty as alleged by petitioner. However, it is clear that the relationship between the parties is so strained that the parties do not want to live with each other anymore.

9.During arguments both counsels submitted that their disputes were placed before the elders during the pendency of this proceeding, and that their efforts for reconciliation failed for reunion. Both PW1 & RW1 also confirmed the same. As such there appear no chances for reunion. Parties with same tone sought for divorce from each other. Accordingly, they prayed in their petition and counter. Hence, relief of restitution of conjugal rights cannot be granted in these circumstances. Both PW1 & RW1 deposed about their agreement before elders as to payment of 6lacs as permanent alimony by petitioner to respondent on divorce through court

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 14:58:52 +0530

HMOP No. 70/2021.. 5 of 6..Order Dt: 28-04-2022

of law.

10.Considering the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, it is clear that

S.13 & 13B are two different provisions in two different situations for dissolution of marriage. First one is when one party approaches court alleging something against the other and the other is not interested to dissolve the marriage. Second one is by mutual consent of both parties. For first one the grounds provided therein have to be proved by the petitioner.

For second one there is no need for any ground or its proof, except mutual consent. As such from those two provisions it is clear that even though the petition is filed u/s 13 when the terms between the spouses are not good, there is no restriction for them to come together and dissolve their marriage with mutual consent peacefully. The same appears to have occurred in this petition from the evidence of the parties.

11.Even though this petition initially is filed u/s 13 of the Act, later from the circumstances as deposed by PW1 & RW1, it is clear that the parties herein are not intending to lead marital life with each other, that there are no chances for their reunion again, and that the parties resolved to dissolve their marriage with consent as required u/s 13B of the Act.

12.Both the counsels submitted that in the interest of justice, in these circumstances of the petition, considering the submissions made by parties herein and their ages, the six months prescribed period of S.13B of the Act may be waived as elapsed. Considering the time lapse from filing of this petition, this submission appears reasonable.

13.From the discussion above, I opine that even though there is no proper evidence to prove the entitlement of petitioner for divorce u/s 13 (1)(ia) of the Act as prayed for, in the circumstances of the petition the

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 14:59:07 +0530

HMOP No. 70/2021.. 6 of 6..Order Dt: 28-04-2022

parties herein are entitled for dissolution of marriage u/s 13B of the Act.

Accordingly the point is answered.

14.In the result, this petition is dismissed so far as the relief of restitution of conjugal rights is concerned. Further this petition is allowed for the alternative relief of dissolution of marriage, not u/s 13 of Hindu

Marriage Act, but u/s 13B of Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage of petitioners performed on 31-3-2019 at Hanumakonda is hereby dissolved u/s 13B of Hindu Marriage Act by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

In the circumstances of the case, no costs.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of April, 2022.

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 14:59:20 +0530

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For petitioner :

PW1 : B.Suman – Petitioner

For respondent :

RW1 : B.Mounika – respondent

Exhibits marked

For petitioner :

ExP1 : wedding card photo – through PW1 ExP2 : marriage photos (2) – through PW1

For respondent : Nil

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.28 14:59:35 +0530

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet

HMOP No. 97/2021.. 1 of 2..Order Dt: 29-04-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SURYAPET

Present : CH. JITHENDHAR,

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet

Friday, this the 29th day of April, 2022

H.M.O.P. No. 97 of 2021

Between:

1. Dongari Swetha w/o Ravi Kumar, d/o Dongari Lingaiah, age:26yrs, Occ.:housewife, r/o Dharmapuram (v) of Penpahad (m), Suryapet Dist.

2. Payali Ravi Kumar s/o Sathyam, age:34yrs, occ.: agriculture, r/o 1-30/1, Kondapuram (v) of Chilukur mandal, Suryapet Dist. … Petitioners This case having come before me for hearing today in the presence of Sri M.Kishore, Counsel for the petitioners, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Petitioners filed this petition seeking to dissolve their marriage by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent u/s 13B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

1.Petition averments in brief : Petitioners married on 1-6-2013 at

Kondapuram village as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage they lived happily for 2yrs and were blessed with a daughter/Nikitha. Later due to behavioral changes and their adamant attitude towards each other differences arose between them and their relationship became strained. Hence, petitioners are residing separately since long. Parents, caste elders and well wishers tried their best to convince the parties to live together, but their efforts failed. As petitioners understood that they can no longer live together, on elders’ advise in the panchayath dtd 5-10-21 they mutually decided to dissolve their marriage on certain terms as per law. Hence, this petition.

2.The point for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce of mutual consent ?

3.Petitioners were examined as PW1 & 2 and ExP1 to P3 were marked.

Heard arguments of counsel for petitioners. Perused the record.

4.Both PW1 & 2 reiterated their petition and deposed the same about their marriage, irreconcilable differences, strained relationship and separate living for more than 2yrs as mentioned in the petition. They further deposed that as

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.29 12:51:11 +0530

HMOP No. 97/2021.. 2 of 2..Order Dt: 29-04-2022

the efforts of elders and family members for reconciliation failed they do not have any hope that they can live together as wife and husband, and that hence they resolved to get divorced through the court of law. Petitioners stated as above in their petition and also after 6 months time granted to them. They further deposed about their agreement of petitioner-2 giving Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner-1 towards her permanent alimony on divorce and A.0-10gts of agricultural land in sy.no.125/141 to their daughter on her attaining majority and till then its yields every year. PW2 admitted to have received the said amount already. From these all circumstances, I see no chances for the petitioners to live together as wife and husband any further and I am satisfied that the mutual consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence. In light of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the marriage of petitioners no.1 & 2 has to be dissolved by granting a decree of divorce.

5.In the result, this petition is allowed, without costs. The marriage of petitioners performed on 1-6-2013 at Kondapuram (v) of Chilukur mandal of

Suryapet district is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of April, 2022.

Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

JITHENDHAR

CHIRANJI

Date:

JITHENDHAR

2022.04.29 12:51:24 +0530

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for petitioners PW1 : D.Swetha – Petitioner no.1 PW2 : P.Ravi Kumar – Petitioner no.2 Exhibits marked for petitioners ExP1 : Wedding card - through PW1 ExP2 : 2 marriage photos - through PW1 ExP3 : spouse certificate - through PW1 Digitally signed by CHIRANJI

CHIRANJIJITHENDHAR

JITHENDHARDate: 2022.04.29 12:51:37 +0530

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SURYAPET

Present : CH. JITHENDHAR,

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet

Thursday, this the 28th day of April, 2022

O.S. No. 125 of 2016

Date of presentation : 21-07-2016 Date of registration : 21-07-2016 Between:

Maddi Lingaiah s/o Sathyam, age: 38yrs, Occ.: business, r/o Durajpally (v) of Chivvemla (m).

... Plaintiff

AND

Bhukya Narayana s/o Danthya, age: 47yrs, occ.: agriculture, r/o Ranthya Thanda h/o Dharmapuram (v) of Penpahad mandal. … Defendant

CLAIM : Suit for recovery of money of Rs.3,90,833/- with future interest and costs.

VALUATION : The Suit is valued for an amount of Rs.3,90,833/- and Court fee of Rs.6,426/-is paid u/s.20 of APCF & SV Act.

CAUSE OF ACTION : That the cause of action for the suit arose partly on 24-02- 2014 at Durajpally when and where the defendant had obtained the loan and executed the suit pronote and receipt in favor of the plaintiff, partly on all subsequent days when the defendant dodged the repayment of the loan amount, partly on 23-01-2016 when the plaintiff got issued the legal notice and defendant received the legal notice and the defendant got issued interim stating that to supply the attested copy of the promissory note and also issued reply notice on 27- 02-2016 with all false contents and failed to repay the loan amount due under the suit pronote and receipt.

DECREE : This suit came before me for hearing on 26-4-22 & 28-04-2022 in the presence of Sri Md.Fareeduddin Ahmed/counsel for plaintiff and Sri Daka Srinivas Naidu/ counsel for defendant, having heard and considered the record, this court doth order and decree as following:

1. That the suit of the plaintiff be and hereby is decreed.

2. That the defendant is hereby directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum

of Rs.3,90,833/- (Rupees three lacs ninety thousand eight hundred

and thirty three only) and with interest @ 12% per annum on the

principal amount i.e., Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty

thousand only) from the date of filing this suit till the date of

decree and further interest @ 6% per annum on the said principal

amount from the date of decree till the date of realization.

3. That the defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.6,508/- to the plaintiff

towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this the 28th day of April, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge

Suryapet

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

Sl.No.ParticularsFor PlaintiffFor Defendant

1.Stamp on PlaintRs.6,426-00--

2.Stamp on VakalathRs.2-00Rs.2-00

3.Process FeeRs.80-00--

4.Advocate FeeNot certified Not certified

5. Misc. and typing chargesNot certifiedNot certified TOTALRs.6,508-00Rs.2-00 Note: Costs memo not filed for plaintiff.

Senior Civil Judge

Suryapet

Note: The parties shall apply for return of documents as soon as possible which they may wish to preserve, as the records will be destroyed after three years from the date of decree.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SURYAPET

Present : Ch. Jithendhar,

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet

Friday day, this the 29th day of April, 2022

H.M.O.P. No. 75 of 2020

Between:

Sama Venkat Reddy @ Kushalava, s/o Hanumanthaiah, age:36 yrs, Occ.:Home Guard, r/o.Midthanapally village of Athmakur (s) mandal, Suryapet District.

...Petitioner

AND

Sama Swarajyam, w/o Venkat Reddy @ Kushalava, age:33 yrs, Occ.:House hold, r/o.Midthanapally village of Athmakur (s) mandal, Suryapet District, presently with her parents at d/o.Alleepurapu Narayana Reddy r/o.Chilpakuntla village of Noothankal mandal, Suryapet Distt. …Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner: Y.Venkata Bucheswar Rao, Advocate Counsel for Respondent :K.Chandrakanth, Advocate

This suit having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Both parties present. Counsels present. Mediation report received on 25-03-2022. Heard both parties on the terms recorded in mediation report and they admitted the terms as agreed during mediation proceedings. As such the matter is settled through mediation on certain terms recorded therein. Hence this petition is decreed for divorce in terms recorded through mediation report. Mediation report shall be annexed to decree and shall form part of it.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of April, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet