smt.ch. Sunandamma

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. CH.SUNANDAMMA,

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISRICT.

TUESDAY THE 6 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016

O.S.NO.43/2014

BETWEEN: K.Shankaraiah S/o. Sri.K.Ramaiah, Aged about 59 years,, Occ:Retd. Employee, R/o.1-7-692/1, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.

....Plaintiff

AND

V.S.T.Colony Welfare Association, Rep.by its President Sri. B.Swamy, S/o. Late Rajaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o. Q.No.1-195/11, VST Colony, Nacharam, Hyderabad-74.

....Defendant

This is a suit coming on 24-08-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. C.Raghu, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.P.Subba Rao, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

I. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff Under Order-7 Rule-8 R/W Section 26 and 151 CPC to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff perpetual injunction against the defendant, its representatives, agents, assignees, etc, restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, either by itself or through its representatives, agents, henchmen, associates or otherwise.

II. The averments of plaint are that (1).The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of 60 sq.yards, plot No.247/A in Sy.No.230/1, situated at VST colony, Nacharam village, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed document No.7981/2012, dated 27-7-2012 from the VST workers Cooperative Housing Society, since the purchase of the property the plaintiff has been in continuation possession and enjoyment of the same. The Defendant who does not have any right or title in relation to the suit schedule property owned and possessed 2 by the plaintiff had started making a false claim.

(2)At the time of execution of the sale deed dated 27-7-2012 document No.7981/2012 in relation to plot No.247/A in favour of the plaintiff the society had passed a resolution on 4-7- 2012 and resolved to allot the property to the plaintiff statutory enquiry was conducted under section 51of the AP.Cooperative Societies Act, the subject matter was fully taken into account by the enquiry Officer and had recognized the same.

(3).He further submitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property the defendant trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The defendant does not have any right to claim the suit schedule property for the purpose of the a septic tank and watchman room. When the colony was being developed the society had temporarily set up a temporary water tank and a storage room to store the material in the said plots but not for a permanent purpose report prepared under section 51 of the Act. On 22-9-2013 and 29-12-2013 the members of the defendant association had approached the plaintiff and threatened him to vacate the property. They have also made efforts on 4-1-2014 and 19-1-2014 to encroach the schedule property. The members of the defendant association do not have any right over the property the Society had registered an extent of 104 sq.yards in plot No.124/E of the layout to the purpose under two registered sale deeds dated 5-6-1987 and 30-4-2001. Hence he filed the suit.

III.The defendant filed a written statements as follows:

The defendant denied all the allegation mentioned in the plaint.

(1).The defendant submitted that the Charminar Company has purchased land admeasuring Ac.17.07 guntas at Nacharam for the purpose of workers in the Charminar

Company in the year 1975 and later the Charminar Company has constructed about 100 houses in the above said part of land through VST employees housing society for an amount of Rs. 32,000/- from each employee for the purpose of allotment of houses in the above said 3 land. Accordingly they constructed houses have been handed over to the employees of the

Charminar Company in the year 1982.

(2).The defendant submitted that the VST employees housing society has provided water connections through pipes from the water tank constructed in the land kept vacant including in the alleged schedule property to provide water to each and every house allotted to the employees by digging a bore-well and there is an existing committee hall adjacent to the water tank. There is a water tank with bore-well and committee hall on total land admeasuring 248 Sq.yards in Sy.No.230/1, situated at VST colony. The said property is in possession and enjoyment of the VST colony residents including the defendant association since 1982 onwards.

(3).The VST employees housing society has also constructed a watchman room and septic tank in the above said land very near to the houses for the purpose of colony people. The said septic tank and watchman room covered by 277 sq.yards. The said property is in possession and enjoyment of the VST colony residents including the defendant association since 1982 onwards. Out of the above said allottees of 100 members some of the members/employees have constructed 2 floors or 3 floors houses on their respective house premises. At present approximately 3000 above families are residing therein. In each and every family, there are four family members as such there are 12000 persons residing in defendant's association colony. But there is no community hall, library, play ground of children of the defendant's association colony people. There is no open place to conduct functions due to which the defendant's association colony people are performing functions on the road.

(4).The defendant further submitted that colony people are interesting to convert the small community hall room, bore-water tank place as community hall and septic tank place for construction of library for the purpose of defendant's association. While the mater stood plaintiff was creating a sale deed dt. 27-7-2012 in respect of alleged plot admeasuring 60 4 sq.yards in collusion with the said VST Workers housing society to grab the open place using the defendant's association colony people for their public utility services as stated supra.

(5).The defendant further submitted that there is no plot No.247/A either in the layout plan No.18/77 of Nacharam nor in any layout approved by concerned authority. It is suffice to say that the alleged schedule property is not existing physically and imaginary. The alleged plot No.247/A is created for the purpose of illegal gain by the plaintiff in collusion with his vendor. The alleged suit schedule plot No.247/A is not shown in the sale deed pertaining to the plot No. 247 in Sy.No.230/1 of Nacharam village. The said fact is well aware by the plaintiff being allottee of the said plot No.247. Even though the plaintiff filed the present suit by suppressing the said fact with a view to grab the property in possession and enjoyment of the defendant's association colony people.

(6).The defendant came to know that the plaintiff is trying to approach the local authority to get building construction permission in respect of the schedule property as such the defendant made an objection to the Commissioner Dy.Commissioner, Kapra on 23-9-2013 by requesting them not to issue any permission to the plaintiff and the defendant filed a caveat petition against the plaintiff and 2 other by mentioning their claim in respect of the alleged schedule property before the Hon'ble Prl. Junior Civil Judge, R.R.District other civil courts on 23-9-2013. The caveat petition was received by the plaintiff on 24-9-2013 which is much prior to filing of the present suit. The said fact was suppressed by the plaintiff.

(7).The defendant has also made several representations to the concerned authorities against the plaintiff and his vendor for necessary action. The open land using by the vicinity people for common amenities of the layout plot owners is under the custody of the local authority. The original owner of the property had lost his right on the open land left for common amenities, immediately after made the land in to plots through layout plan.

Absolutely there is no plot No.247/A prior to filing of the present suit. The plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the alleged schedule property at any point of time prior to filing 5 of the present suit. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said fact is well aware by one and all in the locality including the plaintiff.

(8).The defendant further submitted that there was a septic tank existing on the property as claimed by the plaintiff under the alleged schedule property. The defendant's association colony people are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. When the colony was being developed the society had temporarily set up a temporary water tank and a storage room to store the material in the said plots but not for a permanent purpose. It is suffice to say that the plaintiff is well aware that there was a rival claim from the defendant in respect of the alleged schedule property prior to filing of the present suit. Even though the plaintiff filed the present suit for perpetual injunction without seeking declaration of title. The plaintiff has not approached court with clean hands suppressed the true and real facts as such the plaintiff is not entitled for the discretionary relief and prayed to dismiss the suit.

IV.(1).Basing on the rival contention this court framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

3. To What relief?

(2)At the event of trial, plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the defendant, the President of defendant association, examined as

DW-1 and got marked Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-7.

(3).Heard both sides.

V.ISSUE No.1-Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

(1).The admitted facts in this case are that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from the President of VST Workers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. The defendant is the President of the VST Colony Welfare Association and claiming the suit schedule property for the public utility on behalf of the employees of VST. The plaintiff's vendor is the original owner of the suit schedule property. Though in the written statement the defendant 6 claimed that suit schedule property is not in existence on the ground in the evidence of DW1 he admitted that the plaintiff purchased the property for wrongful gain by colluding with the

President of VST Workers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd to grab the public property and without having any right the President of the VST Workers Cooperative Society executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. So as seen from the documents and evidence of PW-1 and

DW-1, the dispute is in between the members of the VST workers cooperative housing society with regard to the suit schedule property i.e. Open Plot No.247/A in Sy.No.230/1 admeasuring 60 square yards. The claim of the defendant is that the suit schedule property is meant for public utility at the time of obtaining Layout by the Society, but the plaintiff purchased the same with by-number 247/A to an extent of 60 square yards to grab the property of the colony people Ex.A-2 is created by collusion with his vendor. The plaintiff never in possession of suit schedule property and requested to dismiss the suit.

2.As this is a suit for injunction simplicitor, it is the burden of the plaintiff to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the interference of the defendant with his possession.

To prove the same the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-

3. Ex.A-1 is the Inquiry Report filed by the plaintiff before the court u/sec 51 of APCS Act.

Ex.A-2 is the Sale Deed executed by the President of the VST Workers Cooperative Housing

Society in favour of the plaintiff on 27/7/2012. Ex.A-3 is certified copy of EC reflecting the sale transaction between the vendor of the plaintiff and plaintiff. So it can be said that the plaintiff had filed the documents from 2012 to till the date of his purchase of suit schedule property. So it can be said that the plaintiff had adduced all the documentary evidence available to establish his case.

In an injunction suit the prima focus is the possession that has to be looked into.

Admittedly as per the version of the plaintiff it is a vacant land. Whereas the version of 7 defendant is there are structures and the plaintiff tried to obtain permission from concerned authorities for construction of the structures over the suit schedule property and filed Ex.B-3 and B-4. As seen from Ex.B-3 and B-4, the defendant addressed a letter to the

Commissioner, GHMC and the Deputy Commissioner, Kapra Municipality for objecting to grant any building construction permission to the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. So as seen from these two documents prior to obtaining permission by the plaintiff from the concerned authorities the defendant has taken steps and addressed a letter to the concerned authorities wherein it is mentioned that there is a water tank with bore-well and community hall on a total land admeasuring 248 square yards in Sy.No.230/1. He also mentioned that the society is also constructed a watchman room and septic tank in the above said land very much near to the houses for the purpose of colony people. The said Septic Tank and Watchman room covered by 277 square yards.

In support of defendant contention in the cross-examination PW-1 admitted that Ex.B- 1 reflects plot No.247 and 248 but not reflects plot No.247/A and by the date of execution of

Ex.A-2/Sale Deed watchman room was constructed. He further admitted that it might be true that in Ex.B-2 the defendant's association claimed possession over the suit schedule property. He does not know when the Septic Tank was constructed but it was prior to 1985 and it is still in existence. He further admitted that by the date of filing of the suit he was not in possession of the schedule plot and that in Ex.A-2, the land was shown as open plot, the land reflected in photographs shown to him by the defendant's counsels are that of plot

No.247. He does not know what is the total extent of plot No.247/A and also its boundaries.

The room which was shown in the photographs annexed to Ex.A-2 belongs to watchman.

When the learned counsel for defendant posed a question whether there is any recital in

Ex.A-2 Sale Deed regarding the watch room, he answered that as and when the land shown to him it was open and when he went to purchase the land the watchman room was constructed over it. He denied that by creating documents he has filed a false suit to grab the land which is in the possession of the defendant's association.

8

So the above evidence itself is sufficient that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Moreover the Ex.B-1/Layout Plan reflecting plot No.247 and 248, but there is no mention about the plot No.247/A, that was admitted by the plaintiff and there is no recital of existence of watchman room in Ex.A-2 in the suit schedule property. Admittedly the suit schedule property is open land, it is situated in the common area as per Ex.B-1 for the utility of public there is a water tank with bore-well and small room is in existence in the open area as claimed by the defendant. So as on the date of filing of the suit the watchman room is in existence and the septic tank and water tank also is in existence in the open area.

(4).In this case the plaintiff categorically relied on the Inquiry Report. But he failed to examine either the Inquiry Officer or his vendor to show that the plot was sub-divided and allotted to the plaintiff. Mere filing of Ex.A-1, is no way helpful to the plaintiff. Admittedly the total extent of land is Ac.17-07 guntas was purchased by the Society and thereafter they made Layout and sold away the plots to the society members. An association was formed for the welfare of the members of the society, that was admitted by the plaintiff. Moreover revised Layout if any was not enclosed either to the sale deed or to the Inquiry Report. So the evidence of PW-1, itself is clear that by the date of Ex.A-1 and A-2, the suit schedule plot was not in existence on the ground and it was an area meant for public utility. When the plaintiff admits that he was not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, it is the duty of the plaintiff to file revised Layout to establish his case. But the plaintiff failed to do so. Plaintiff deposed that as per Ex.A-1 schedule plot was shown as 247/A admeasuring 60 square yards and allotted to him on payment of sale consideration.

The defendant got marked Ex.B-1/Layout pertaining to vendor of the plaintiff. As per Ex.B-1, the suit schedule property is not in existence as on the date of Ex.B-1 in the year 1997 but in the year 2012 the suit schedule plot brought into existence. Therefore it is the burden of the plaintiff to establish at least to implead the original owner as party to the suit, but he has not done.

9 (5)The contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff in collusion with his vendor created Ex.A-1 and A-2 to grab the open land which is in the control of local authorities.

Due to the hike of price the vendor of the plaintiff sub-divided the plot for his wrongful gain and the plaintiff filed the suit by suppressing the facts in collusion with his vendor and the plaintiff do not know anything eventhough he filed the suit.

To prove his version he elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 he admitted that he is not aware of the contents of Ex.A-1, it is the outlook of chairman. He is the owner of plot

No.247. The sale consideration for purchasing the schedule plot is Rs.4,20,000/- and he did not pay Rs.6,00,000/- as mentioned in Ex.A-2. By the date of execution of Ex.A-2 watchman room was constructed. He does not know against whom he filed the suit. He cannot say the name of his learned counsel. After receipt of Caveat he went to the chairman and shown the caveat to him and the Chairman promised that he would clear all the disputes over the suit schedule property in turn he took him to the learned Advocate and got filed the suit. He denied that he created the documents and filed the suit to grab the land of public which is in the possession of the defendant's association.

(6) As seen from the evidence of PW-1, he does not know the contents of his evidence and he has not paid the sale consideration as per Ex.A-2 to his vendor and at the instance of his vendor he filed the suit before the court. Moreover prior to filing of the suit, he also received caveat. Though he is well aware of the claim of the defendant over the suit schedule property, he purchased the suit schedule property and filed the suit against the defendant. The Ex.B-5 is the acknowledgment served on the plaintiff in the caveat. Ex.B-6 is the photographs wherein it is apparent that watchman room is in existence on the part of the suit schedule property and the land was open land and the remaining land is for the usage of public which is situated abutting to the road. The Septic Tank is also situated as alleged by the defendant in the open place which is meant for public utility and prior to 1985 10 it is in existence as admitted by the plaintiff. Therefore it is the duty of the local authorities to take steps in the open area. The evidence of plaintiff itself sufficient that suit schedule property is not open land and it is meant for public utility as alleged by the defendant. As per Ex.A2 he has not paid the sale consideration. The value of the property is Rs.4,20,000/- but as per Ex.A2 the sale consideration 6 lakhs. The vendor took him to the counsel for plaintiff to file the suit. The plaintiff failed to examine even his vendor also. So it clearly established that the plaintiff colluded with his vendor, filed the suit to grab the open area.

(7)As seen from the above facts and circumstances and the evidence adduced by both the parties, it is clear that, plaintiff is well aware that his title being disputed by the defendant without filing of suit for declaration to put an end for entire dispute, he had simply chosen to file this suit for injunction.

The contention of defendant is that suit schedule property is in possession of the local authorities, there is no right to the vendor of the plaintiff to sell away the same to anybody and the vendor of the plaintiff for his wrongful gain sold away the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. In this case the plaintiff would have been added the local authorities as party or examined any official of the local authorities to establish that local authority is nothing to do with the plot area. But the plaintiff has not chosen to do so. Though he deposed that since the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till the date of filing of the suit, he failed to file a single document or any evidence to show his physical possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Apart from that he categorically admitted that he was not in possession as on the date of filing of the suit and also watchman room is in existence in part of the suit schedule property. The Septic Tank and bore-well with water tank is also situated in the open area. So viewing from any angle, the plaintiff failed to establish not only his lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit but also the interference of the defendant. Accordingly I answered the Issue No.1 against the plaintiff

VI. ISSUE. No.2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?.

11

Since the issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for.

VII. ISSUE. No.3:- To what relief?.

Since the Issue No.1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiff, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

In the result suit is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 6 th day

of September, 2016.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the plaintiff For the defendant PW-1: K.Shankariah DW-1: B.Swamy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the plaintiff Ex.A1 : Copy of Inquiry report under section 51 of APSC Act, 1964 Ex.A2 : CC of sale deed document No.7981/2012, dt.27-7-2012 Ex.A3 : Encumbrance Certificate dt.1-1-1985 to 5-1-2014.

For the defendant Ex.B1 : Original copy of Layout and GHMC Ex.B2 : Original Caveat petition Ex.B3 : Office copy of objections to grant building permission by the commissioner, GHMC, dt.23-9-2013 Ex.B4 : Office copy of objections to grant permission by Dy.Commissioner, Kapra circle, GHMC, dt.23-9-2013 (True copy) Ex.B5 : Postal acknowledgment from plaintiffs No. (2 in number) Ex.B6 : Photographs with C.D No. (8 in number) Ex.B7 : Letter along with layout plan, dt.1-3-2014 addressed by the public information officer, office of the Town and Country planning to one A.Sudhakar Reddy (marked subject to objection.)

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. CH.SUNANDAMMA,

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

WEDNESDAY THE 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016

OS 11 OF 2008

BETWEEN: Kotturi Yadamma W/o. K.Sailoo, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No. 8-3-228/390,Rahmanthnagar, Yusufguda, Hyderabad.

....Plaintiff

AND

1.P.Lakshma Reddy S/o. P.Papi Reddy, Aged Major, Occ: Business, 2.P.Amarender Reddy S/o. P.Lakshma Reddy, Aged Major, Occ: Advocate, 3.P.Surender Reddy S/o. P.Lakshma Reddy, Aged Major, Occ: Business,

All are residents of H.No.1-28, Chowdaryguda village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

....Defendants

This is a suit coming on 30-08-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.T.Ashok, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.D.Vijayender Rao, Advocate for defendant No.1 and D2 and D3 are exparte and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

I. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff Under Order-7 Rule-1 R/W Section 26 and 151 CPC to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, by granting perpetual injunction against the defendants their agents, henchmen or any person or persons claiming through them from interfering or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

II. The brief averments of plaint are as follows:

(1)The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of plots bearing Nos.7 and 12 in

Sy.No.865 admeasuring 540 situated at Chowdaryguda viilage, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District. The plaintiff purchased the same from her vendor vide registered sale deed ated 29-12-1987 bearing document No.8891/1987 registered before SRO, Uppal since the 2 date of purchase the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

(2)The plaintiff further submitted that her vendors i.e.,P.Ananatha Reddy and P.Shivaram

Reddy were originally having a total land of Ac.4.24 guntas in Sy.No.865 situated at

Chowdaryguda they devided the above said land into plots by an approved layuot, in the said layout the plaintiff purchased plot Nos.7 and 12 through a registered sale deed in the year 1987 and since then the plaintiff in the possession and enjoyment of the same without anybody interference.

She further submitted that the defendants who are the neighbouring plot owners of the plaintiff without having any right or title are trying to interfere and trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property to gain illegally.

(3)She further submitted that in the year 2003 the plaintiff obtained permission from the grampanchayat to construct a house in the suit schedule property. After that the plaintiff underwent scarcity of funds plaintiff was forced to stop the construction work during this period the defendants here were used to threaten the plaintiff to dispose the suit schedule property in their favour developed enmity and grudge towards the plaintiff and started to harass and threaten the plaintiff with dire consequences.

(4)She further submitted that as the earlier permission expired in the year 2004 and again the plaintiff submitted an application to the grampanchayat seeking permission to construct a house and the same is in the process and meanwhile the plaintiff intends to dump construction material at the suit schedule property at this juncture the defendants obstructing the plaintiff in doing so and trying to dispossess her from the suit schedule property.

(5)She further submitted that on 13-1-2008 and 15-1-2008 the defendants visited the suit schedule property along with some anti social elements and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Immediately the plaintiff along with her son approached local police station P.S.Ghatkesar and tried to lodge a complaint against the defendants but the police failed to take any action. Hence the suit.

III. The Written statement filed by the defendant No.1 are as follow:

The defendant denied all allegation mentioned in the plaint.

3 (1)It is further submitted that the defendant No.1 is the Inamdar of land extent of Ac.4.24 gts in Sy.No.865 of Korremula village, obtained occupancy certificate, the defendant has already paid Rs.82.60 paise to the Government as directed in the said occupancy certificate and became owner and possessor of the said land.

(2)It is further submitted that Sri.P.Anantha Reddy and P.Shivaram Reddy from whom the plaintiff alleged to have obtained sale deed in question were also obtained occupancy certificates to an extent of Ac.2.12 gts, each along with defendant No.1 in the same survey number through a common proceeding for exclusive possession of their respective land. It is clearly evident that through the common proceedings in which the defendant No.1 also separately obtained occupancy certificate for Ac.4-24 guntas other than the lands obtained by the alleged vendors of the plaintiff. Therefore the suit schedule property is totally different and nothing to do with the land under enjoyment of the defendant No.1 and his sons. The exact location of suit schedule property with in the land for which occupancy certificate granted in favour of her alleged vendors. Since the defendant No.1 and his sons are not at all disputing the title and possession of the vendors of the plaintiff over the land got by them to the equal extent in the suit survey number, it is open to the plaintiff to claim from her vendors showing the location of suit schedule property by specifying its boundaries with out prejudice to the right interest title and possession of the land extent of Ac.4.24 gts for which the defendants are exclusively entitled by virtue of occupancy certificate granted in their favour. Therefore the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts prayed to dismiss the suit.

IV.(1) Basing on the rival contention of both sides, this court framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property?

2. Whether the defendants tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property on 13/01/2008 and 15/01/2008?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Perpetual Injunction as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

(2) In support of the case of the plaintiff, the GPA holder of plaintiff examined as

PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-9. The defendants No.2 and 3 remained set exparte. The 4 defendant No.1, who is the contesting party examined himself as DW-1 through Advocate

Commissioner and got marked Ex.B-1 to B-3. .

(3) Heard the counsels for D1. The plaintiff not come forward to argue the matter.

Hence this arguments treated as heard.

V.ISSUE No.1 and 2:-Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and whether the defendants tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property on 13/01/2008 and 15/01/2008?

(1)The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of schedule plots bearing No.7 and 2 in Sy.No.865 admeasuring 540 square yards situated at

Choudariguda purchased in the year 1987 through registered sale deed from her vendors one

Anantha Reddy and P.Shivaram Reddy. She obtained permission for construction to construct house in the year 2003 from the Grampanchayat but due to scarcity of funds she stopped construction work and during that period the defendants used to threaten the plaintiff to dispose the suit schedule property in their favour as they are immediate neighbors. As the earlier permission of the Grampanchayat was expired in the year 2004, again the plaintiff submitted an application to the Grampanchayat seeking permission to construct a house and the same is in the process, the plaintiff intended to dump construction material in the suit schedule property; the defendants obstructing the plaintiff in doing so and trying to disposes her from the suit schedule property, on 13/01/2008 and 15/01/2008 the defendants visited the suit schedule property and threatened her with dire consequences as she tried to lodge complaint with the police but the police not register the case, hence filed the suit.

(2)The case of the defendant No.1 is that he is the Inamdar of land to an extent of Ac.4- 24 guntas and the vendors of the plaintiff were also obtained occupancy certificate to the extent of Ac.2-12 guntas each along with defendant No.1 in the same survey number through a common proceeding for exclusive possession of their respective land. The suit schedule property is totally different and nothing to do with the land under enjoyment of the defendant

No.1. The plaintiff has to establish the exact location of the suit schedule property within in the land for which occupancy certificate granted in favour of her alleged vendors with specific 5 boundaries. They never tried to interfere and requested the court to dismiss the suit.

(3)In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, the GPA holder of the plaintiff examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-9. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 to A-9 discloses that she purchased suit schedule property from her vendor Anantha Reddy and

Shivaram Reddy through registered sale deed and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and she obtained permission to construct a house in the suit schedule property. Due to lapse of period she did not construct the house she again gave application to the

Grampanchayat for permission to construct house in the suit schedule property. The defendants are trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

(4)To establish the same the counsel for plaintiff elicited in the cross-examination, the DW-1 categorically admitted that he has not converted his land Ac.4-24 guntas int plots so also

Ananth Reddy and Shivaram Reddy and he also admitted that Ananth Reddy and Shivaram

Reddy might have executed sale deed and in the Pahani for the year 1989-90 it is mentioned in Column No.13 as plots by Ananth Reddy and Shivaram Reddy, he gave GPA to one

Hanumantha Rao for dividing his land 4-24 acres and he has got converted said extent into plots. He further admitted that his plots and Ananth Reddy and Shivram Reddy plots are separate and distinct. He added that in the suit schedule property he is cultivating and there are teak trees and coconut trees belonging to him covering one acre. He does not know who filed the case against him and whether he filed written statement or not and the same is looking after by defendant No.2, who is present in the cross-examination. He denied that as per Ex.A-6 plaintiff commenced construction and the same was stopped for lack of funds. He further admitted that he purchased some plots from third parties, who purchased from

Ananth Reddy and Shivaram Reddy he further admitted that he purchased plots from Ananth

Reddy and Shivaram Reddyonly. He does not know whether plaintiff has purchased any plots from Ananth Reddy and Shivaram Reddy. He does not remember the exact day of which he purchased the plots from Ananth Reddy and Shivaram Reddy but it may be in the 6 year 1988 and they delivered the possession to him. The possession given to him by Ananth

Reddy and Shivram Reddy was in the shape of agriculture land of one acre. He cannot file the documents under which he purchased said extent of one acre land. Ananth Reddy and

Shivaram Reddy delivered possession, who purchased plots from them. Nobody is in possession of plots purchased by them. The suit filed against him and his two sons. He denied that on 13/01/2008, PW-1 made efforts to construct over the suit schedule property and they resisted them and beat him and he is Ex-Patawari and his son defendant No.2 is an advocate by profession trying to encroach the suit schedule property. He further admitted that he does not know the contents of the written statement filed by him and he does not know the contents of his chief evidence affidavit. He does not file any document to show that he purchased land from Ananth Reddy and Shivram Reddy.

(5)As seen from the above evidence, the defendants No.2 and 3 are sons of DW-1. The defendant No.2 is an advocate by profession and the DW-1 not known the averments in the written statement as well as contents of his evidence affidavit. So it is presumed that his son defendant No.2 is acting on behalf of DW-1 in the entire proceedings. Moreover the evidence of DW-1 establishes that the possession was delivered to the purchasers by the vendors of the plaintiff. So it shows that plaintiff is also one of the purchaser. Her vendor also delivered possession as on the date of purchase. Moreover the Defendant No.1 purchased plots from vendors of the plaintiff Ananth Reddy and Shivram Reddy. As per the sale deed of the plaintiff the land of Ananth Reddy and Shivram Reddy, was converted into plots it reflects the identification of the plots of the plaintiff, but the defendant No.1 failed to show that how many plots he purchased from the vendor of the plaintiff. Admittedly the D-1 categorically deposed in the cross-examination he purchased plots of the Ananth Reddy and Shivram

Reddy and in turn delivered the same plots in the form of agriculture land. But the defendant

No.1 has not filed even a single document to show that one acre agriculture land was purchased from the vendors of the plaintiffs in stead of plots. In this case the admitted facts are that both parties are neighbors. The suit schedule property is vacant land . The evidence 7 of DW-1 itself shows that the vendor of the plaintiff delivered possession to purchasers.

There is no record shown by the DW-1 that he is cultivating the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is consisting of teak and coconut trees under the cultivation of defendant No.1.

(6)The settled principle is that possession follows title. So the plaintiff purchased plots from her vendor. It shall be presumed that she is in possession and enjoyment of the same, since the defendant No.1 purchased the some plots from the vendors of the plaintiff subsequently. But he failed to file any documents to show his possession over the plots purchased by him from the vendors of the plaintiff. As per evidence and non filing of the documents by the defendants, I hold that he cannot claim any possession and title over the suit plots. PW-1 categorically stated his chief examination affidavit about the interference of defendants with his possession and enjoyment over the suit plots. But during his cross- examination DW1 categorically admitted that the suit schedule property is consisting of teak and coconut trees under the ......of the D1 itself sufficient that the PW-1 has established the interference of the defendants as pleaded. The documents filed by the defendants not establish the case of the defendants except Ex.B-1 it shows that under common proceedings thevendorsoftheplaintiff and the defendant No.1 was allotted land Ac.4-24 guntas to defendant No.1 and Ac.2-12 guntas each to the Ananth Reddy and Shivaram Reddy. In this case the counsel for defendant No.1 filed a memo along with xerox copy of registered AGPA with possession stating that suit schedule property was purchased by the D2 during the pendency of suit and requested the court to dismiss the suit. In this suit the D2 remained set exparte. Hence the memo filed by the defendant No.1 is not taken into consideration.

(7).In the light of the above discussion I held that plaintiff is not only proved his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule plots but also the interference of the defendants. Accordingly the issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8

ISSUE No.3:-Whether plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction as prayed for?

Since the Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for.

ISSUE No.4:-To what relief?

In the result the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs granting perpetual injunction against the defendants, their agents, henchmen or any person or persons claiming through them from interfering or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the

21 st day of September, 2016.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the plaintiff For the defendant Pw-1:K.Sudarshan Dw-1: P.Lakshma Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the plaintiff Ex.A1: Original Sale Deed vide document No.8891/198, dt.29/12/1987 Ex.A2: CC of pahani for the year 1984-85 Ex.A3: CC of pahani for the year 1987-88 Ex.A4: CC of pahani for the year 1988-89 Ex.A5: CC of pahani for the year 1989-90 Ex.A6: Building permission dt.23-10-2003 Ex.A7: Encumbrance Certificate dt.3-1-2008 Ex.A8: Encumbrance Certificate dt. 3-1-2008 Ex.A9: GPA dt.19-1-2011.

For the defendant Ex.B1: Form No.111 dt.27-3-1986 by RDO, Hyderabad, East Division Ex.B2: Certified Copy of document No.110/1987 Ex.B3: Copy of letter issued by O/o Grampanchayt dt.13-9-2007

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. CH.SUNANDAMMA,

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

FRIDAY , THE 16 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016

OS 617 OF 2015

Between:

C.Rajaiah S/o C.Rajalingam, Hindu, Aged 68 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o H.No.17- 67/202, Narayanadri Heights, Srinagar Colony, Dilsukh Nagar, Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad-60

...Plaintiff

AND

G.RAvinder S/o Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, Aged 53 years, Occ: NIL, H.No.A/462, Road No.1, Greem Park Colony, Karman Ghat, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 15/09/2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.S.Krishna Mohan, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant is exparte, having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff Under Section 26 R/W Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant directing to pay the suit amount of Rs.2,07,200 together with future interest along with costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that, the defendant is known to plaintiff for the last two decades and due to the acquaintance with the plaintiff used to borrow amounts under promissory notes and use to repay the amounts. In that context the defendant borrowed Rs.1,40,000/- on 13/04/2013 and agreed to repay the amount along with interest @ 30% per annum to the plaintiff or his nominee on his demand. Though several times the plaintiff demanded the defendant for repayment of amount, the defendant has been postponing the same to repay the amount. The plaintiff submitted that in partial discharge of the amount of Rs.1,40,000/-, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.085379 drawn on

ICICI Bank, Dilsukh Nagar Branch, dt.04/08/2013 for said cheque was presented by the plaintiff on 04/10/2013 and it was returned on 05/10/2013 with an endorsement “FUNDS 2

INSUFFICIENT”, then the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 17/10/2013 and the said notice was returned with an endorsement “REFUSED”. Immediately after receipt of the returned postal cover, the plaintiff filed CC.No.106/2014 on the file of Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyderabad and the same was transferred to Hon'ble X-Special Judge,

Hasthinapuram. In the said CC the plaintiff filed all the original promissory note, cheque, legal notice and returned postal cover as documents and in the said CC the defendant made his appearance and thereafter he has been absconding. Then the Hon'ble X-Special Judge,

Hasthinapuram issued Non-bailable Warrant against the defendant . Later the defendant filed

IP on the file of Hon'ble VIII Senior Civil Judge, RR District and the plaintiff is contesting the matter. Due to pendency of criminal case, the said promissory note was filed in that case,

Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the amount due under promissory note.

3.The defendant remained exparte.

4.Heard the Counsel for plaintiff.

5.At the event of trial the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to

A-3.

6.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for”?

7. POINT:-The plaintiff filed his chief evidence affidavit and reiterated the entire averments of plaint. To establish his case, he filed the documents Ex.A-1 to A-3. Ex.A-1 is the cheque bearing No.085379 drawn on ICICI Bank. Ex.A-2 is the Office copy of Legal Notice

dated 17/10/2013 and Ex.A-3 is Postal Return cover dated 17/10/2013. The contention of

the plaintiff is that the defendant is known to him for the last two decades and due to the acquaintance with the plaintiff used to borrow amount under promissory notes and use to repay the amounts. In that context the defendant borrowed Rs.1,40,000/- on 13/04/2013 and agreed to repay the amount along with interest @ 30% per annum to the plaintiff or his nominee. On several demands made by the plaintiff, he failed to pay the amount under 3 promissory note and in partial discharge of the amount, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.085379 drawn on ICICI Bank, Dilsukh Nagar Branch on 04/08/2013 and the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. As seen from Ex.A-1 the above said cheque was issued on 04/08/2013. On 17/10/2013, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and the same was also returned with an endorsement “Refused”. So as from Ex.A-1 to

A-3, the defendant borrowed the amount and issued a cheque to discharge partial amount and the said cheque was returned due to insufficient funds and then the plaintiff issued a legal notice and the same was also returned as refused. As seen from the evidence and pleadings it shows that immediately after receipt of Ex.A-3, he filed CC wherein the defendant appeared and thereafter absconded and NBW was issued. Later after receipt of summons the defendant filed IP on the file of Hon'ble VIII Senior Civil Judge, R.R District. The plaintiff has appeared through his counsel where he sought permission to file suit against the defendant. Due to pending of the CC, the plaintiff cannot file the suit against the defendant to recover the amount. But the plaintiff failed to file any documents to establish the above line. Ex.A-1 to A-3 and the evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged, established the case of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for.

Accordingly I answered the point in favour of the plaintiff.

9.In the result suit is decreed with costs. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.2,07,200/- from the defendant @ 12% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of Rs.1,40,000/-.

The office is directed to return the documents to the original court substituting the certified copies of Ex.A-1 to A-3, which are required in CC on the file of the Hasthinapuram

Court.

Dictated to the P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 16th day of

September, 2016.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: C.Rajaiah -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex-A1 : Cheque bearing No.085379, dt.04/08/2013 drawn on ICICI Bank. Ex-A2 : Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.17/10/2013. Ex-A3 : Postal Returned cover dated 17/10/2013.

For Defendant: -NIL-

I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. CH.SUNANDAMMA,

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

WEDNESDAY , THE 14 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016

OS 387 OF 2016

Between:

Bank of India, Saroornagar Branch, Saroornagar Mandal, Kothapet, R.R. District, Hyderabad represented by its Authorized Officer / Chief Manager -cum-G.P.A, Holder, Sri.S.Narasimha Rao S/o Narayana Rao. Email: narasimha.sankarayogi @bankofindia.co.in. Cell: 779984500.

...Plaintiff

AND

1) Mr.Madugula Sirama Sarma S/o Madugula Anjaneyulu, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Administrative Officer, R/o H.No.1-73/4, Hydershakote, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District – 500 008. Second Address: Mr.Madugula Sivarama Sarma S/o Madugula Anjaneyulu, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Administrative Officer, Geetanjali Institute of Science & Technology, Aziznagar village, C.B.Post, Hyderabad – 500 075

2) Mr.M.Subramanyam S/o M.Anjaneyulu, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o H.No.1-73/4, Hyderabadshakote, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District-500008.

...Defendants

This suit is coming on 08/09/2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.Saidaiah, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendants set exparte, having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff Under Section 26 R/W Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally directing to pay suit amount of Rs.1,01,043 together with future interest along with costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that, the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff-

Bank for sanction of Personal Loan to enable him to purchase consumer durables for his requirements and at the request of defendant No.1, plaintiff-bank sanctioned and disbursed

Demand Loan for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- vide its Sanction letter dt.16/12/2013. In consideration loan amount, both the defendant No.1 executed Demand Promissory Note,

Bearer Letter, Installment Letter, Request Letter, Authorization Letter, Composite Term Loan

Agreement, Hypothication-cum-Loan Agreement and Deed of Guarantee, executed by defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 has fully availed the above said Demand Loan and failed to adhere the terms and conditions of the sanction of Demand Loan facility and 2 committed defaults of the equated monthly installments. Plaintiff-Bank made several requests and reminders, but the defendants failed to comply with the demands made by the plaintiff-bank. Having all efforts ended in futile in recovering the loan dues from the defendants, the plaintiff-bank got issued a legal notice to clear the entire loan dues. But the defendants failed to clear the loan dues. Hence, plaintiff-bank constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amounts from the defendants jointly and severally.

3.The defendants remained exparte.

4.Heard the Counsel for plaintiff.

5.At the event of trial the authorized person of the plaintiff-Bank examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-15.

6.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for”?

7. POINT:-The authorized person of the plaintiff bank examined himself as PW-1 and he reiterated the averments of the plaint. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 A- 15 establishes that Defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff Bank and requested to sanction personal loan. At the request of defendant No.1, the plaintiff bank sanctioned Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff to purchase consumer durables/household articles on 16/12/2013. In consideration of sanction of said loan amount, the defendant No.1 executed Ex.A-2 to Ex.A-9 in favour of the plaintiff bank on 16/12/2013. Ex.A-10 was executed in favour of the plaintiff's bank by the defendant No.2. After availing loan amount, the defendants failed to adhere the terms and conditions of the sanction of the Demand Loan facility and committed default in making the repayment of the said equated monthly installments. The plaintiff made several requests to the defendants to clear the entire loan installments but the defendants failed to comply with the demand made by the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank got issued Legal Notice dated 23/05/2016 under Ex.A-11 to the defendants. As seen from the

Ex.A-14 the due amount is Rs.1,01,043/- as on 31/03/2016. All these documents coupled with the evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged. So the plaintiff established his case against the defendants. In view of the above said discussion, I answered the point in favour 3 of the plaintiff.

8.In the result suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1,01,043/- together with interest @10.73 per annum from the defendants jointly and severally from the date of suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the suit amount.

Dictated to the P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 14th day of

September, 2016.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: P.V.Muralidhar Rao-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex-A1 : Original Application for sanction of personal loan, dt.10/12/2013. Ex-A2 : Original sanction letter dt.16/12/2013. Ex-A3 : Original Demand Promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/- dt.16/12/2013. Ex-A4 : Original bearer letter dt.16/12/2013. Ex-A5 : Original installment letter dt.16/12/2013. Ex-A6 : Original request letter for grant of credit facilities, dt.16/12/2013. Ex-A7 : Original Authorization letter dt.16/12/2013. Ex-A8 : Original L-516 composite Term Loan agreement for Rs.2,00,000/- dt.16/12/2013. Ex.A-9 : Original Hypothecation-cum-Loan agreement for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- dt.16/12/2013. Ex.A-10: Original Guarantee agreement for Rs.2,00,000/- dt.16/12/2013. Ex.A-11: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.23/05/2016. Ex.A-12: Postal Receipt (2 Nos) dt.25/05/2016. Ex.A-13: Postal Receipt dt.25/05/2016. Ex.A-14: Certified copy of true extract of loan account dt.31/05/2016. Ex.A-15: Certificate filed u/sec 2 (a) (b) ( c ) of Banker's Book evidence Act, 1981 as amended in the year 2012.

For Defendant: -NIL-

I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. CH.SUNANDAMMA,

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

FRIDAY, THE 23 rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016

OS 226 OF 2016

Between:

B.Sugunadevi W/o Late Ramana Rao, H.No.391, South End Park, Saroornagar Mandal, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy.

...Plaintiff

AND

R.Prabhavathi W/o Ramesh, Plot No.295, South End Park, Mansoorabad, Saroornagar Mandal, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 22.09.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.B.H.Naik, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri.Y.Srinivasa Chary, Advocate for the Defendant and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff Under Order-VII Rule 1 r/w section 26 of CPC, to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing to pay the suit amount of Rs.46,000 together with future interest along with costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that, the plaintiff and the defendants are known to each other since long time and out of the acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to lend an amount of Rs.30,000/- for her personal expenses on 09.02.2014. The plaintiff lent the amount and the defendant executed a promissory note and acknowledging the receipt of amount in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to repay the borrowed amount within in short period. The plaintiff several times approached the defendant to repay the borrowed amount along with accrued interest. But the defendant failed to repay the amount as promised by her and on the contra threatening her and dragging the matter. The plaintiff got issued a Legal notice to the defendant on 15.02.2016 through her counsel under registered post with acknowledgment due calling upon her to pay the said amount along with interest. The defendant refused to receive the Legal notice and 2 on 26.02.2016 the defendant sent a reply notice to the plaintiff stating that she has not executed any promissory note and she has not obtained any hand loan from the plaintiff.

Hence she filed the suit.

3.Sri.Y.Srinivasa Chary, advocate filed vakalath for defendant. After expiry of statutory period also he failed to file W/S of defendant hence his right to file W/S was forfeited.

4.Heard the Counsel for plaintiff.

5.At the event of trial the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to

A-5.

6.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for”?

7. POINT:-PW-1 filed his chief examination affidavit and reiterated entire averments of the plaint. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 to A-5 establishes that she lent an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the defendant and the defendant promised to repay the borrowed amount within short period, but the defendant failed to repay the amount borrowed. The plaintiff approached her several times and demanded to repay the amount, but the defendant failed to do so. Later she got issued legal notice calling upon the defendant to repay the amount borrowed. After receipt of the notice she gave reply and denied the executive of promissory note and the hand loan of pronote in favour of the plaintiff. So the evidence of

PW-1 remained unchallenged. After giving ample opportunity the defendant failed to file

W/S. It clearly shows that there is no resistance from the defendant. The plaintiff established her case and she is entitled to recover the amount as prayed for. Accordingly I answered the point in favour of the plaintiff.

9.In the result the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.46,000/- to the plaintiff together with interest @12% per annum from the date o suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of Rs.30000/- 3

Dictated to the P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of

September, 2016.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: B.Suguna Devi -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex-A1 : Original Promissory Note dated 09.02.2014. Ex-A2 : Office copy of Legal Notice dated 15.02.2016. Ex-A3 : Original postal receipt dated 15.02.2016. Ex-A4 : Returned acknowledgment card dated 18.02.2016. Ex-A5 : Reply Legal Notice dated 26.02.2016.

For Defendant: -NIL-

I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.