Ch.Srinivasa Babu,B.Sc.,LL.M,

O.S. No.124/20151 Dt.27.04.2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PODILI

Present : SRI.CH.SRINIVASA BABU Junior Civil Judge, Podili

Thursday, this the 27 th day of April, 2017

Original Suit No. 124 of 2015 Between:

Kothapalli Subba Rao, S/o. Chandraiah, aged 67 years, Cultivation, Jaggarajupalem Village, Ayyaparajupalem Post, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

Vs.,

1. Gutlapalli Prasad, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged 26 years,

2. Gutlapalli Rajyam, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged 49 years,

3. Daddala Subhashini, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged 30 years,

4. Yedluri Padma, W/o. Hari Krishna, aged 28 years, All are Hindus, Cultivation, Narasarajupalem Village, Ayyaparajupalem Post, Marripudi Mandal. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on 24.04.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri G. Srinivasulu, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri V. Naga Raju, learned

Advocate for defendants, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :- // J U D G M E N T //

01.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the estate of the deceased Gutlapalli

Srinivasa Rao lying in the hands of defendants to pass a Judgment and decree for the recovery of the suit amount of Rs.40,394/- with costs of the suit and for future interest.

02.The brief averments of the Plaint, in nutshell, are that the first defendant is the son, second defendant is the wife and defendant No.3 and 4 are the daughters of late

Gutlapalli Srinivasa Rao, and they constituted as Hindu Joint Family. On 10.12.2013

O.S. No.124/20152 Dt.27.04.2017

the said Gutlapalli Srinivasa Rao has borrowed an amount of Rs.30,800/- from the

Plaintiff at Jaggarajupalem Village for his family expenses and executed the suit pronote on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order. The said pronote was attested by V. Venkata Rao and K.

Bhupathi Rao. The plaintiff has demanded said Srinivasa Rao to repay the amount due under the suit pronote, but he has postponed the same. While so on 04.04.2015 the said Gutlapalli Srinivasa Rao was died leaving behind the defendants and his estate.

After the death of Gutlapalli Srinivasa Rao, the defendants have succeeded his entire estate and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same, as such the defendants are liable to discharge the amount due under the suit pronote. The plaintiff has informed the defendants about the borrowal of the amount and execution of the suit pronote by the said Gutlapalli Srinivasa Rao and the defendants have promised to repay the same and have postponed the same. On 15.06.2015 the plaintiff has got issued legal notice to the first defendant and on 04.08.2015, the plaintiff has got issued legal notice to defendants 2 to 4 demanding them to repay the amount due under the suit pronote. The defendants have given reply with false allegations, as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit against the defendants.

03.On the other hand the first defendant has filed written statement and the same is adopted by the defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The brief averments of the written statement in nut shell are that the defendants have denied the execution of the suit pronote by late

Gutlapalli Srinivasa Rao and have admitted that the plaintiff has issued legal notice and that the defendants have issued reply demanding the plaintiff to send the copy of promissory note in order to ascertain whether the said Srinivasa Rao has borrowed the amount or not. But the plaintiff has failed to sent the pronote. The father of the first defendant maintained a kept mistress by name Gangavarapu Anasuyamma of the same village. One Duddala Thulasamma is the elder daughter of the plaintiff and was the mediator between them. The said relationship continued till the date of death of

Srinivasa Rao and they used to meet in a dilapidated house in the Village at a distance of half kilometer. On 01.04.2015 during night both of them met in the said place and the

O.S. No.124/20153 Dt.27.04.2017

father of the first defendant has fell unconscious. At that time Duddala Thulasamma i.e., the concubine of the father of the first defendant came to the daughter of the plaintiff and informed about the same. On that she called her paramour by name Gali

Srinivasa Rao and the said three persons together went to the spot, lifted the body of the father of the first defendant and laid him at bushes beside the passage as if he died on the same night. Some of the by-passers have found the body and informed the same to the defendants. When the deceased was taken to the hospital the doctors have declared that the deceased was died. On the complaint given by the first defendant to the police, above said three persons were interrogated and the issue was afloat in the

Village. The plaintiff felt insulted and developed grudge against the defendants family, as such the plaintiff and his son Kothapalli Hari Krishna have created two promissory notes as if executed by the father of the first defendant with anti dates and fraudulently filed this suit to wreck vengeance against the defendants and the father of the first defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed suit pronote and the defendants are not liable to pay any amount and the interest claimed by the plaintiff is improper as the defendants are agriculturists and that there is no cause of action for filing the suit, hence prayed to court to dismiss the suit with costs.

04.Basing on the above pleadings as there was no elements of settlement this

Court framed the following issues for the purpose of trial :-

1. Whether the deceased Gutlapalli Srinivasa Rao has executed the suit

Promissory note dated 10.12.2013 for Rs.30,800/- and the same is supported with consideration?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is forged document as contended by the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim ; to what relief ?

05.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as

PW1 and Ex.A1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, first defendant was examined as DW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

O.S. No.124/20154 Dt.27.04.2017

06. Heard arguments of both sides.

07.On behalf of the plaintiff the learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged as PW.1 has deposed before this court about the transaction under Ex.A.1 and passing of consideration. The deceased Gutlapalli

Srinivasa Rao himself has scribed the suit pronote and PW.1 has deposed that at the time transaction under Ex.A.1 at his sundry shop the attestors by names Vuyyala

Venkata Rao and Kothapalli Bhupathi Rao were present. Though on behalf of the defendants Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. In Ex.B.3 the investigating officer has mentioned the death of Gutlapalli Srinivasa Rao was natural death and that the plaintiff has no necessity to create the suit pronote for a meagre amount of Rs.30,800/- and the plaintiff counsel has relied upon the finding given by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh reported in (2006 (1) ALD 745) Bonala Raju and another Vs., Sarupuru

Sreenivasulu. As the plaintiff has discharged the initial burden which lies upon him and that as the pronote is not a compulsory attestable document, the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 establishes that the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration. Hence prayed the court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff.

08.On the other hand on behalf of the defendants the learned Counsel for defendants has filed written arguments and contests of the same in nut shell are that the plaintiff has failed to prove execution of Ex.A.1 and passing of consideration as his evidence was not corroborated with any independent witness. Section 118 of

Negotiable Instrument Act creates a presumption on execution of Negotiable Instrument and that as the first defendant has denied execution of Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff has failed to prove execution of the suit pronote by examining the attestors, as such the suit pronote is not a valid document. The plaintiff has failed to prove execution of Ex.A.1 and has failed to comply the provisions of Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act and the learned counsel for the defendants has relied upon the findings given by the

Honourable Apex Court in 1. Anil Rishi Vs., Gurbaksh Singh 2. Rosamma

Issetheenammal Fernandez ( dead) by LRS & Ors., Vs., Joosa Mariyan Fernandez

O.S. No.124/20155 Dt.27.04.2017

& Ors. As the plaintiff has failed to discharge his initial burden of execution of Ex.A.1 and the burden will not be shifts upon the defendants until the plaintiff discharges his initial burden, as execution of the suit pronote is not proved, as such Exs.A.2 to A.4 have no evidential value, as the defendants are able to establish their case by way of filing Exs.B.1 to B.3 and that basing on the material placed before this court by the defendants, the court can draw presumption Under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act that Ex.A.1 was created by the plaintiff and brought before the court, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

09. Issue No. 1 : The contention of the plaintiff is that the deceased Gutlapalli

Srinivasa Rao has executed the suit pronote on 10.12.2013 and borrowed an amount of

Rs.30,800/- and that he himself has scribed the suit pronote. The defendants have denied execution of Ex.A.1 and passing of consideration, as such it is for the plaintiff to prove that the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration. To support the case of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1 he has deposed that the deceased

Gutlapalli Srinivasa Rao has borrowed the amount under Ex.A.1 and he himself had scribed the same in the presence of attestors by name Vuyyala Venkata Rao and

Kothapalli Bhupathi Rao. PW.1 has deposed that the deceased himself has scribed

Ex.A.1, there after the witnesses by name Vuyyala Venkata Rao and Kothapalli

Bhupathi Rao have signed on Ex.A.1 and the transaction under Ex.A.1 was at the sundry shop of PW.1. Though the defendants have taken the plea that the suit pronote was forged document, however, PW.1 has denied the same. The claim of the defendants is that the plaintiff has failed to prove execution of Ex.A.1 and passing of consideration and the plaintiff has failed to examine the attestors and has failed to discharge the initial burden which lies upon him. It has to be verified whether the suit pronote is a compulsory attestable document and the evidence coupled with the material placed before this court is supporting the case of the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is able to discharge the initial burden which lies upon him.

O.S. No.124/20156 Dt.27.04.2017

10.Under the provisions of Section 72 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 “ Proof of document not required by law to be attested :- An attested document not required by law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested”. As per the provisions of

Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act it explains what are the documents which requires attestation. Promissory note will not come under the purview of Section 68 of Indian

Evidence Act and the same is not a compulsory attestable document and the document does not requires any attestation. In a civil suit it has to be verified preponderance of probabilities and that the plaintiff, who filed the suit has to prove his case. The learned

Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon finding given by the Hon'ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh reported in (2006 (1) ALD 745) Bonala Raju and another Vs.,

Sarupuru Sreenivasulu., where in the Honourable High Court was pleased to held in

Para No.12:

“The fact that none of the attestors to Ex.A.1 are examined is also of no consequences and is not fatal to the case of the respondent because promissory note is not a compulsory attestable document.

Similarly, non-examination of the scribe also is not of much relevance, because it is for the respondent to decide how to prove execution of Ex.A.1. He can be satisfied by examining himself, and make a request to the court to compare the signatures and give a findings. The appellants could have examined the attestor and scribe on their side when the respondent failed to examine them to rebut the case of the respondent. But, for reasons known only to them, they did not choose to do so”.

In view of the finding given by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh as the pronote is not compulsory attestable document and that as the deceased himself has scribed the suit pronote. Hence, the plaintiff is able to establish that the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration and non examination of attestors is not a fatal to the case of the plaintiff. As the plaintiff is able to discharge his initial burden which lies upon him the court can safely draw presumption Under Section 118 of

Negotiable Instrument Act and that Ex.A.1 is supported by consideration. It is for the

O.S. No.124/20157 Dt.27.04.2017

defendants to prove that the suit pronote is not supported by consideration, as the onus of proof shifts upon the defendants to prove otherwise.

11.Though the defendants have taken the plea of forgery except the oral testimony of DW.1 there was no evidence placed before this court by the defendants. On behalf of the defendants, the learned counsel for the defendants has relied upon the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in 1. Anil Rishi Vs., Gurbaksh Singh on

2 nd May, 2006 Appeal (Civil) 2413 of 2006. 2. Rosammal Issetheenammal

Fernandez ( dead) by LRS & Ors., Vs., Joosa Mariyan Fernandez & Ors., on 9 th

August, 2000. On perusal of the said judgments the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to give findings with regard to the suits filed based on the agreement of sale and suit for partition respectively. As discussed supra, under the provisions of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, as the pronote will not come under the purview of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act. The judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon the learned defendants counsel will not help the case of the defendants. The claim of the defendants is that the daughter of plaintiff by name Duddala Tulasamma and one

Gangavarapu Anasuyamma are responsible for the death of the deceased Gutlapalli

Srinivasa Rao and that the suit pronote was brought into existence by the plaintiff. On perusal of Ex.B.3, which is the final report filed by the investigating officer the medical officer has given final opinion that the deceased was died due to Cardio Respiratory failure as a result of Cerebro Vascular Attack. As per Ex.B3 filed on behalf of the defendants it reveals that the death of deceased Gutlapalli Srinivasa Rao is natural death and that the case was referred as action drop. Though the defendants have taken the plea of forgery, the defendants have failed to place any evidence before this court and the burden which was shifts upon the defendants is not discharged by the defendants. In view of the discussion supra, as the plaintiff is able to prove that the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration. Hence, the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

O.S. No.124/20158 Dt.27.04.2017

12. Issue No.2 : In view of the discussion supra in issue No.1 though the defendants have taken the plea of forgery the defendants have failed to place any reliable piece of evidence before this court to establish that the suit Promissory note is forged and their plea is not substantiated with any reliable piece of evidence and have failed to prove that the suit Promissory note is forged document, hence the issue is answered against the defendants.

13. Issue No.3 : In view of the findings given by this court in issue No.1 and 2 as the plaintiff is able to prove that the transactions under Ex.A.1 is true valid and supported by consideration, hence the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim and the defendants are liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff from the estate of the deceased Gutlapalli Srinivas Rao lying with them, hence the issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

In view of the findings given by this court the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for, however considering the circumstances of the case this court is inclined to grant interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the estate of the deceased Gutlapalli Srinivasa Rao lying in the hands of defendants for an amount of Rs.40,394/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree on principal amount of Rs.30,800/- and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization upon the same principal amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

O.S. No.124/20159 Dt.27.04.2017

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW1 : K. Subba Rao DW1: G. Prasad

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Promissory note dated 10.12.2013

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 15.06.2015

Ex.A3 : Office copy of legal notice dated 04.08.2015

Ex.A4 : Reply notice dated 13.08.2015

For Defendants :

Ex.B.1 : Attested Copy of First Information Report in Crime Number 22/2015 of

Marripudi Police Station.

Ex.B.2 : Attested copy of inquest mediatornama of G.Srinivasa Rao dated 05.04.2015.

Ex.B.3 : Attested copy of Final report in Crime Number 22/2015 of Marripudi Police

Station.

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

// True Copy \\

J.C.J., Podili.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PODILI

Present : SRI.CH.SRINIVASA BABU Junior Civil Judge, Podili

Thursday, this the 27 th day of April, 2017.

Original Suit No. 14 of 2012

Vankayalapati Indira, W/o. Paulraj, aged about 57 years, Christian by religion, Branch Post Master, Thalamalla Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District. …. Plaintiff.

Vs.,

1. Vankayalapati Chandramouli, S/o. Daveedu, aged about 39 years,

2. Vankayalapati Yesobu, S/o. Daveedu, aged about 54 years,

3. Vankayalapati Chinnaiah, S/o. Ramaswami, aged about 59 years,

4. Mithikayala Lingamma, W/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 39 years,

All are Agriculturists, R/o. Thalamalla Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District. .… Defendants ## Suit against Defendants No.1 to 3 was dismissed for default with out costs on 23.03.2017.

This suit is coming on 24.04.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri U.Lakshmi Reddy, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri M. Narayana

Reddy, Advocate for defendant No.1 to 4, at the state of further chief examination of

PW.1 the defendants counsel has filed memo stating that he had no instructions, on that this court has sent notice to 4th defendant and the suit against defendants No.1 to 3 was dismissed for default with out costs on 23.03.2017, and the 4th defendant failed to made her appearance; and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following :- // J U D G M E N T \\

01.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants with a prayer to pass a

Judgment and decree for grant of Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, assignees from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2

02. The brief averments of the Plaint, in nutshell are that the suit schedule property is situated at Thalamalla Village covering in an extent of Ac.0.33 cents in Survey

Number 283/1, which was the absolute property of Kondragunta Subbarayudu and he sold the same to Chunduri Veeraiah under a registered sale deed dated 14.06.1956 and delivered possession of the same. Since then he was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. At about 30 years ago the said Veeraiah has died leaving behind his only son Chunduri Yerraiah. After the death of his father Yerraiah was in possession and enjoyment of the same and he died at about 15 years ago leaving his wife Chunduri

Rathamma as sole legal heir and the said Rathamma was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and she offered to sell the same on 21.09.2011, plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- and obtained registered sale deed and took possession of the same, as the plaintiff has misplaced the registered sale deed, as such the certified copy of the document was filed

before this court. After purchasing of the plaint schedule property the plaintiff has

constructed RCC building in the site, the plaintiff along with her family members are residing in the said property. The plaintiff has left some vacate place in between her house and Annavaram to Thalamalla road and using the same as vacant site. At about one week prior to filing the suit due to political disputes between the family of the plaintiff and the defendants and three days prior to filing the suit the defendants have came to the house of plaintiff and threatened her stating that they will dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property, though the defendants have no manner of right or title over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff unable to resist the high handed activities of the defendants is constrained to file the suit for grant of permanent injunction.

03.On the other hand the first defendant has filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendant No.2 to 4. The defendants No. 1 to 4 have denied the contents of the plaint and further added that suit schedule property in Survey Number 283/1 is the absolute property of Gogineni Audinarayana, Gogineni Seshaiah and

Yannabathina Krishnaiah and property in Survey Number 283/3 is the absolute property 3 of Gogineni Audinarayana and the vendor of the plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule property and she has created a nominal document to occupy the site of

Yellampalli Subbamma. The sale deed dated 14.06.1956 reveals the survey number as 283/1, whereas in the sale deed dated 21.09.2011 the survey numbers were mentioned

as 283/1 and 283/3. The properties in the said survey numbers are in the name of

Gogineni Audinarayana, Gogineni Seshaiah and Yannabathina Krishnaiah as stated above. The plaintiff has wantonly mentioned two survey numbers with wrong boundaries to grab the property belongs to Yallampalli Subbamma. The plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of Yallampalli Polaiah, who is the father-in-law of

Subbamma and the government has assigned site to him in plot No.2 covering in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Survey Numbers 284/1p and 2p of Thalamalla Village and he constructed house on 06.03.1982, since then he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. At about 20 years ago the said Polaiah has died intestate leaving behind his only son Rosaiah and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the death of said Rosaiah, Subbamma was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the panchayat records also reveals about the same. As the thatched house was in dilapidated condition and the said Subbamma wanted to construct pucca house on that she got dismantled the thatched house at about 2 months prior to filing of the suit. The said Subbamma had made preparation for constructing basement and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff along with his family members have filed the suit for permanent injunction to occupy the property belongs to Subbamma. The plaintiff has constructed her house in the site mentioned in her sale deed and the plaintiff has no right to claim property in

Survey Number 284/1p and 2p and the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiff has no balance of convenience and the said Subbamma was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the suit is filed with wrong boundaries to grab her property, as such prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4

04. Basing on the above pleadings as there was no elements of settlement this Court framed the following issues for the purpose of trial :-

1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Plaint

Schedule Property?

2.Whether the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for?

4.To what relief?

05. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself was examined as PW.1 and Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 were marked. At the stage of further chief examination of PW.1 the counsel for the defendants has filed memo on 21.01.2017 stating that he has no instructions, on that this court has ordered notice to the defendants, as the plaintiff has failed to pay batta for defendant No.1 to 3, as such the suit against defendant No.1 to 3 was dismissed for default without costs on 23.03.2017. Inspite of service of notice to 4th defendant, she failed to attend before this court, as such cross- examination of PW.1 was treated as nil. Inspite of granting sufficient time the fourth defendant has failed to adduce any evidence on her behalf, hence the defendant side evidence was closed.

06. Heard arguments.

07.On behalf of the plaintiff, the counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff has filed the registered sale deed standing in her name and corresponding link document under Ex. A.1 and A.2. The plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since from the date of Ex.A.2 and that the evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged. As the plaintiff is able to prove that she was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit, hence prayed the court to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff.

5

8.On the other hand the contention of the defendants is that one Yallampalli

Subbamma was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff has created the registered sale deed under Ex.A.2 and she was never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff is claiming right in survey number 284/1p and 284/2p which belongs to Yallampalli

Subbamma and that the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and that there was no cause of action for filing the suit, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9. Issue No.1 to 3 : In a suit for Permanent Injunction the plaintiff, who approached the court has to establish that she was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, as she was claiming possession over the plaint schedule property.

In a suit for Permanent Injunction the possession of the plaintiff over the Plaint

Schedule Property assumes much importance, of course a tag is added to it that the possession of the plaintiff shall be lawful. It is for the plaintiff to establish her possession and enjoyment over the Plaint Schedule Property as on the date of filing of the suit, as she was claiming lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. It is well settled law that in a suit for Permanent Injunction the primary question to be considered is one of the possession as on the date of filing the suit.

Of course, the question of title may be gone into incidentally. As the plaintiff is claiming title of the property which is a vacant site, the possession may be established with reference to actual use and occupation, as such it is for the plaintiff to establish her lawful possession and enjoyment over the Plaint Schedule Property by way of placing oral and documentary evidence.

10.The plaintiff herself was examined as PW.1 and on her behalf Ex.A.1 and A.2 were marked. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed standing in the name of the plaintiff. On perusal of the schedule of Ex.A.2 and the plaint schedule both are one and the same. The plaintiff is claiming possession over the plaint schedule property stating that she had been in possession and enjoyment of the same with 6 absolute rights. The plaintiff has also filed the corresponding link document under

Ex.A.1. On perusal of the plaint schedule which reveals that the plaint schedule property is consisting of RCC building and vacant site. To support the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed Ex.A.2, which is the registered sale deed standing in the name of the plaintiff. The contention of the defendants is that one Yallampalli

Subbamma was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff herein has filed the suit stating that the defendants were interfering with her possession and enjoyment, but not by Yallampalli Subbamma. It has to be verified whether the plaintiff is able to established her possession over the plaint schedule property as she filed the suit for grant of injunction against the defendants. As stated supra, though this court has issued notices to the fourth defendant at the stage of examination of PW.1 she failed to made her appearance and the evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged. Hence, the plaintiff is able to establish that she was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit and that her contention is that the defendants have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, the apprehension and threat of the plaintiff seems to be reasonable and that the threat of interference cannot be ruled out, as the plaintiff is able to establish that she was in lawful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction pertaining to the plaint schedule property, accordingly the issue are answered.

11. Issue No.4 : In view of the findings given by this court in issues No.1 to 3 the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction over to the plaint schedule property, accordingly the issues are answered.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against defendant No.4 restraining the 4th defendant, her men, assignees and representatives from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the 7 plaint schedule property by way of granting Permanent Injunction. The suit against the defendant No.1 to 3 was already dismissed for default with out costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff :For defendants:

PW1 : V. IndiraNone.

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of Registered Sale deed document No.34/1956 dt: 14.06.1956.

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Registered Sale deed document No.5968/11 dt: 21.09.2011.

For Defendants

NIL.

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

// True Copy \\

J.C.J., Podili.

8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PODILI

Present : SRI.CH.SRINIVASA BABU Junior Civil Judge, Podili

Thursday, this the 27 th day of April, 2017

Original Suit No. 15 of 2016 Between:

Yarramudi Venkateswarlu, S/o. Pullaiah, aged about 57 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o. Mallavaram Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

Vs.,

1. Shaik Khasimvali, S/o. Peeru Saheb, aged 72 years,

2. Shaik Sujanbi, W/o. Khasimvali, aged 65 years,

3. Shaik Ramjanbi, W/o. Late Hazarath, aged 45 years,

4. Shaik Anwar, S/o. Late Hazarath, aged 28 years,

5. Shaik Ansar, S/o. Late Hazarath, aged 25 years,

6. Shaik Sai Jaswin, D/o. Late Hazarath, (reported minor as per the endorsement of summons)

All are Muslims, Defendants No.1, 2, 4 and 5 are R/o. D.No.9-15-1, 1st Line, Viswanadhapuram, Podili.

Defendant No.3 and 6 are R/o. Back side of Sub-Station, Viswanadhapuram, Podili, Prakasam District. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on 26.04.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri U. Lakshmi Reddy, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 6 were set exparte on 09.03.2016, 28.04.2016, 12.07.2016, 30.03.2017 respectively, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :- // J U D G M E N T //

01.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the estate of the deceased Shaik

Hazarath lying in the hands of defendants to pass a Judgment and decree for the recovery of the suit amount of Rs.1,52,749/- with costs of the suit and for future interest.

02. The brief averments of the Plaint, in nutshell are that the deceased Shaik

Hazarath is the son of defendant No.1 and 2, husband of third defendant, and father of 2 defendant No.4 to 6, he has borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- for his family necessities on 07.12.2014 at morning time from the plaintiff and executed 'A' marked promissory note duly attested by the witnesses, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order. The said Shaik Hazarath has borrowed another amount of Rs.20,000/- for his family necessities on 07.12.2014 at evening time from the plaintiff and executed 'B' marked promissory note duly attested by the witnesses, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order. The said Shaik Hazarath has also borrowed amount of

Rs.30,000/- for his family necessities on 26.12.2014 from the plaintiff and executed 'C' marked promissory note duly attested by the witnesses, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order. The said Shaik Hazarath has also borrowed amount of Rs.20,000/- for his family necessities on 18.01.2015 from the plaintiff and executed 'D' marked promissory note duly attested by the witnesses, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order. The said Shaik Hazarath has also borrowed amounts of Rs.20,000/- on 04.04.2015 and Rs.10,000/- on 24.04.2015 and executed two separate promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has reserves his right to file another suit based on the above said two pronotes. Inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff,

Shaik Hazarath has failed to repay the amount due under the above said pronotes.

While so, in the month of October, 2015 the said Shaik Hazarath has died leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs and the entire estate of Shaik Hazarath was devolved upon the defendants. The plaintiffs has also demanded the defendants to pay the amount due under the above said pronotes, but the defendants has failed to pay the said amount, on that on 09.11.2015 the plaintiff has got issued legal notice to the defendants demanding to repay the amount due under pronotes and the defendant

No.1 and 2 have received the same and the other defendants have refused to take legal notice and the defendants have failed to pay the amount due under the above said pronotes. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit against the defendants.

03.On the other hand the third defendant was set exparte on 09.03.2016.

Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 were set exparte on 28.04.2016, defendant No.5 was set 3 exparte on 12.07.2016. This court has appointed Sri M.V. Ramana Kishore, as court guardian for the sixth defendant in I.A.No.259/2017, as the written statement of sixth defendant was not filed, hence, the sixth defendant was set exparte on 30.03.2017.

04.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as

PW1 and on his behalf, Ex.A.1 to A.7 were marked. Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

05. Now the point for consideration is :

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

for ?

06. POINT : On perusal of the evidence of PW.1 he has deposed that the deceased

Shaik Hazarath has borrowed amounts on different dates under Ex.A.1 to A.4 and that the said Hazarath has passed away in the month of October, 2015. On perusal of

Ex.A.1 to A.4 all the pronotes were scribed by the deceased Shaik Hazarath and the said pronotes were attested by the attestors. On perusal of Ex.A.5 it is evidence that the plaintiff has got issued legal notice to the defendants and the defendants have failed to pay the amount due under the suit pronotes. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, the defendants have failed to pay the amount due, inspite of the demands made by the plaintiff. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.7 remains unchallenged. As the plaintiff is able to prove that the suit pronotes are true, valid and supported by consideration, as such the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. Accordingly, the point is answered.

07.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the estate of deceased Shaik Hazarath lying in the hands of defendant No.1 to 6 for an amount of Rs.1,52,749/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization upon the principal amount of Rs.1,20,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

4 // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW1 : Y. Venkateswarlu None

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff

Ex.A1 : Pronote dated 07.12.2014 executed by Shaik Hazarath in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : Pronote dated 07.12.2014 executed by Shaik Hazarath in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A3 : Pronote dated 26.12.2014 executed by Shaik Hazarath in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A4 : Pronote dated 18.01.2015 executed by Shaik Hazarath in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A5 : Office Copy of Legal notice dated 09.11.2015.

Ex.A6 : Acknowledgment cards of defendant No.1 and 2.

Ex.A7 : Returned covers of defendant No.3 to 6.

For Defendants

NIL

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

// True Copy \\

J.C.J., Podili.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PODILI

PRESENT : Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu Junior Civil Judge, Podili

Tuesday, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

O.S.No.128/2016

Between:

Adusumalli Venkateswarlu, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, aged 62 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Musalayapalli Village, H/o. Veligandla, Konakanamitla Mandal, Prakasam District. …. Petitioner / Plaintiff.

Vs.,

1. Adusumalli Vekateswarlu, S/o. Venkaiah, aged 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

2. Adusumalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Seshaiah, aged 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

3. Adusumalli Subbanarasaiah, S/o. Subba Ramaiah, aged 58 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

4. Adusumalli Subba Rao, S/o. Subba Ramaiah, aged 62 years, Hindu, cultivation,

5. Adusumalli Ravindra Babu, S/o. Rangaiah, aged 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

Respondents are R/o. Musalayapalli Village, H/o. Veligandla, Konakanamitla Mandal, Prakasam District. …. Respondents/ Defendants.

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for mandatory injunction to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 to 3, with a direction to remove the illegal constructed houses of Item No.1 to 3 of suit schedule property and direct the 4th defendant to remove the sand storage heaps in Item No.4 of suit schedule property and for costs.

This suit is coming on 2nd day of May, 2017 before me for trial in the presence of Sri G. Srinivasulu, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri U. Lakshmi Reddy,

Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

// Judgment //

I.A.No. 559/2017 is allowed, as permission is granted to the plaintiff for with drawal of the suit for the purpose of filing separate suit against the defendants for declaration and consequential permanent injunction subject to limitation and due process of law, hence the suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

// Appendix of Evidence //

NIL

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

// True Copy \\

J.C.J., Podili.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PODILI

PRESENT : Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu Junior Civil Judge, Podili

Tuesday, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

O.S.No.128/2016

Between:

Adusumalli Venkateswarlu, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, aged 62 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Musalayapalli Village, H/o. Veligandla, Konakanamitla Mandal, Prakasam District. …. Petitioner / Plaintiff.

Vs.,

1. Adusumalli Vekateswarlu, S/o. Venkaiah, aged 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

2. Adusumalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Seshaiah, aged 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

3. Adusumalli Subbanarasaiah, S/o. Subba Ramaiah, aged 58 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

4. Adusumalli Subba Rao, S/o. Subba Ramaiah, aged 62 years, Hindu, cultivation,

5. Adusumalli Ravindra Babu, S/o. Rangaiah, aged 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

Respondents are R/o. Musalayapalli Village, H/o. Veligandla, Konakanamitla Mandal, Prakasam District. …. Respondents/ Defendants.

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for mandatory injunction to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 to 3, with a direction to remove the illegal constructed houses of Item No.1 to 3 of suit schedule property and direct the 4th defendant to remove the sand storage heaps in Item No.4 of suit schedule property and for costs.

Date of Presentation : 16.08.2016 Date of Filing : 18.08.2016

Valuation and Court Fee: For the relief of mandatory injunction is notionally valued at

Rs.5,000/- on each item of schedule i.e. Rs.15,000/- on which a Court fee of Rs.1257/- is paid U/Sec.26 (C ) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act remaining balance of Rs.10,000/- each amount of Rs.2001/- is paid and Item No.4 court fee of Rs.1086/- is paid. Total court fee of Rs.4344/- is paid for Item No.1 to 4.

Cause of Action: The cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintiff succeeded to the ancestral property in an extent of Ac.4.53 cents and became an absentee land lord by residing with his son at Hyderabad and taking undue advantage of the same, the defendant No.1 to 3 criminally trespassed into the land of the plaintiff and illegally constructed three houses in the land of the plaintiff and roughly six months back, when the plaintiff came and witnessed the fact of trespass and illegal construction when questioned the defendants 1 to 4 to remove the house constructions by approaching concerned authorities, proved futile, at the influence of the defendants assaulted the plaintiff to create panic and havoc, not to pursue the affair at Musalayapalli village,

Veligandla Mandal, where the schedule properties are situated with in the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try this suit.

This suit is coming on 2nd day of May, 2017 before me for trial in the presence of

Sri G. Srinivasulu, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri U. Lakshmi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree :

1. that I.A.No.559/2017 be and is hereby allowed, as permission is granted to the plaintiff for with drawal of the suit for the purpose of filing separate suit against the defendants for declaration and consequential permanent injunction subject to limitation and due process of law;

2. the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed, as not pressed ;

3. that each party do bear their own costs.

( C.M & F.C not filed on either side ) (schedule attached to decree)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

// Table of Costs //

NIL

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

NOTE: Both parties/parties concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non- exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “ the same should produce as and when required by the Court”.

// True Copy \\

J.C.J., Podili.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PODILI

Present : SRI.CH.SRINIVASA BABU Junior Civil Judge, Podili

Tuesday this the 2 nd day of May, 2017

Original Suit No. 162 of 2016 Between:

Dibbamadugu Bala Raju, S/o. Guntaiah, aged 53 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. D.No.3-69, Chimata Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. …. Plaintiff

Vs.

Ravulapalli Polaiah, S/o. Kotaiah, aged 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. 2nd Line, Bestapalem, PNR Colony, Podili Village and Mandal,

Prakasam District. ….. Defendant

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff restraining the defendant, his men, representatives and assignees by means of permanent injunction from causing obstructions from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on 2nd day of May, 2017 before me for trial in the presence of Sri B. Suresh Kumar, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri U. Lakshmi Reddy,

Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

// Judgment //

Memo filed by the plaintiff counsel stating that the plaintiff is not pressing the suit.

Memo recorded. Hence, the suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

// Appendix of Evidence //

NIL

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili. // True Copy \\

J.C.J., Podili.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PODILI

Present : SRI.CH.SRINIVASA BABU Junior Civil Judge, Podili

Tuesday this the 2 nd day of May, 2017

Original Suit No. 162 of 2016 Between:

Dibbamadugu Bala Raju, S/o. Guntaiah, aged 53 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. D.No.3-69, Chimata Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. …. Plaintiff

Vs.

Ravulapalli Polaiah, S/o. Kotaiah, aged 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. 2nd Line, Bestapalem, PNR Colony, Podili Village and Mandal,

Prakasam District. ….. Defendant

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff restraining the defendant, his men, representatives and assignees by means of permanent injunction from causing obstructions from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

Date of Presentation : 26.09.2016 Date of Filing : 26.09.2016

Valuation and Court Fee: For the relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued at

Rs.15,000/- on which a Court fee of Rs.1086/- is paid U/Sec.26 (C ) of A.P.C.F and

S.V.Act.

Cause of Action: The cause of action for the suit arose when the suit schedule land belongs to the ancestral property of plaintiff originally and revenue authorities recognized his possession and enjoyment and they issued pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour, since 20 days the defendants have been proclaiming and professing in the village that he wound trespass over the suit land forcibly and trying to cause obstruction to the land at Chimata Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District, which is situated with in the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try this suit.

This suit is coming on 2nd day of May, 2017 before me for trial in the presence of

Sri B. Suresh Kumar, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri U. Lakshmi Reddy,

Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree :

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed, as not pressed ;

2. that each party do bear their own costs.

( C.M & F.C not filed on either side ) (schedule attached to decree)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

// Table of Costs //

NIL

Sd/- Sri Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

NOTE: Both parties/parties concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non- exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “ the same should produce as and when required by the Court”.

// True Copy \\

J.C.J., Podili.

// True Copy \\

J.C.J., Podili.