Sri Ch.Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA

Present: Sri Ch. Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Tuesday, this the 7th day of August, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.153 of 2012 Between:

Penugonda Mahalakshmi W/o Late Brahmaji Rao, (D/o Late Kurmala Subba Ro, R/o Epurupalem), aged about 50 years, Hindu, House-wife, C/o Penugonda Venkata Siva Durga Satish Kumar, Door No.17-29-3, Opp. Ayyappa & Sai Baba Temple,

Old Court Road Street, Bose Nagar, Chirala. .... Plaintiff.

And

1. Kurmala Rama Chandra Rao S/o Late Kurmala Subba Rao, aged about 63 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Main Road, Srinivasa Fertilizers, Epurupalem, Chirala Mandal.

2. Kurmala Venkateswarlu S/o Late Kurmala Subba Rao, aged about 61 years, Hindu, Business, R/o main Road, Kumari Medical Stores, Epuruplem, Chirala Mandal.

3. Bapanapalli Ranganayakamma W/o Satyanarayana, A/A.59 years , Hindu, House-wife, R/o C/o Bapanapalli Srinivasa Rao, Padmanabhunipet, Satram Bazar, Epurupalem, Chirala Mandal.

4. Kurmala Venkata Satyanarayana S/o Late Kurmala Subba Rao, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Main Road, Padmanabhunipet, Epurupalem, Chirala Mandal.

5. Muvvala Satyanarayana S/o Seshagiri Rao, aged about 62 years, Hindu, Business, R/o C/o Satya Communications, Cherukuru Road, Ponnur, Guntur District.

6. Muvvala Ramesh S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Business, R/o C/o Satya Communications, Cherukuru Road, Ponnur, Guntur District.

7. Muvvala Ramnagesh S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 30 years, Hindu, Business, R/o C/o Satya Communications, Cherukuru Road, Ponnur, Guntur District.

8. Athmakuri Ramalakshmi W/o Anjaneyulu, aged about 52 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Opp. Vijayalakshmi Theatre, Epurupalem, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

2

9. Kurmala Sambasiva Rao S/o Late Kurmala Subba Rao, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Business, R/o C/o Rattaiah’s House, Purugulupet, Epurupalem, Chirala Mandal.

10. Kurmala Srinivasa Rao S/o Late Kurmala Subba Rao, aged about 51 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No.5-7-2, Flat No.73, Phase-1,

Sai Vihar Colony, Meerpet, Hyderabad-79. ....Defendants.

This suit came before this Court on 01.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri

M.V.Chalapathi Rao and Sri A.S.N.V.V.Prasad, Advocates for the 2nd

Defendant, the defendants 1, 3 to 10 remained ex parte, upon hearing the arguments on both the sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for Partition of the suit schedule property into 9 equal shares and allot 1/9th share to plaintiff with reference to good and bad qualities and deliver 1/9th share to the plaintiff and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 10 to remove the constructed and constructing shopping rooms in road margin which are shown in the plaint rough plan as A, B, C and D and award costs of the suit.

2.The abridged facts of the plaint are as follows:

The father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 and Satyavathi and defendants 8, 9 & 10 is one Kurmala Subbarao, who died intestate about 8 years back. Satyavathi died on 25.11.2009 intestate leaving behind her, her husband 5th defendant and sons defendants 6 & 7. During the life time of Kurmala Subba Rao, he purchased Ac.0-05 1/3rd cents out of Ac.0- 09 cents and odd out of Ac.1-06 cents in revision survey D.No.239/2 of

Epurupalem Village on 14.04.1950 for consideration of Rs.2000/- under registered sale deed vide document No.830/1950. The constructions in 3 the purchased site at the time of purchase were removed about two and half years and it was kept vacant. After death of Kurmala Subbarao, the suit schedule property has been in joint and constructive possession of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 10. The schedule property is not yet divided.

The mother of the plaintiff by name Rama Tulasamma died prior to demise of her husband. The 1st defendant kept 40 sovereigns of gold with him after death of his mother, which is also not yet partitioned. The plaintiff requested the defendants for amicable partition of both movable and immovable property, but they are intentionally postponing for division of properties. The plaintiff got issued legal notice for partition on 14.06.2012 and defendants 1 to 5, 8 & 9 received notices and defendants 6 & 10 returned the same and no acknowledgments are from the defendants 6 & 10. One week after receiving of the legal notice, the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 10 constructed two shops and constructing two more shops in Bapatla-Chirala R & B road margin, which is shown as A, B,

C and D in the plaint rough plan. For proof of the constructions in Road

Margin, the plaintiff’s son had taken one photo on 22.06.2012 at 10.53.52 seconds and another photo was taken by the plaintiff on 06.07.2012 through photographer of Zoom-Lazer Digital Color Lab, Chirala regarding the constructed and constructing shop rooms in Road Margin i.e., A, B, C and D in the Rough Plan. If the constructed and constructing shops and rooms remained in the Road Margin, it would be very difficult to partition the suit schedule property and also enjoyment of their respective sharers after division and as such the said constructions are to be removed and for partition of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations in toto and inter alia contending that the suit schedule 4 property is situated at Epurupalem village, but the plaintiff is living separately within the limits of Chirala Municipality and the plaintiff has never been in joint and constructive possession of the suit schedule property and as such the plaintiff has to pay court fee on the value of her share claimed U/S.34(1) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act. The suit is not maintainable on that aspect. This defendant’s son 15 years back occupied the R & B road margin site and raised a shop therein and he has got possession and enjoyment of the said shop without any interruption from anybody with his own right. Due to recent escalation of the prices of the lands, the plaintiff put her evil eye upon the shop of this defendant’s son with a view to grab the same. The father of the plaintiff never purchased the road margin and the claim of partition of road margin by the plaintiff is heinous in the eye of law and the suit is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties to the suit. The plaintiff is only having right for partition of the suit schedule property but not for the road margin site and prayed this court to dismiss the suit in respect of the relief of mandatory injunction and the relief in respect of partition can be allowed.

4.The defendants 1, 3 to 10 remained ex parte.

5.On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial on 15.03.2016:

1. Whether the suit schedule property is liable to be partitioned into nine(9) equal shares and plaintiff be entitled one such share by metes and bounds by way of preliminary decree as prayed for ?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get mandatory injunction against D1, D2, D4 and D10 for removing constructed shopping complex the road margin as prayed for ?

3. Whether the court fee paid by plaintiff is correct?

4. To what relief, if any, is plaintiff entitled ?.

5

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 are marked and on behalf of the 2nd defendant, DWs.1 & 2 are examined and no documents are marked. The evidence of PW.2 is eschewed on the memo being filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

7.Heard both the counsel.

8.Issue Nos.1 to 3:

i)All the three issues are taken up together for common determination to avoid repetition of discussion.

ii)The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the father of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under original of Ex.A.2-certified copy of registered sale deed and subsequently died intestate leaving behind him the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4, 8 to 10 and one Satyavathi and Satyavathi died intestate leaving behind her the defendants 5 to 7. He has further contended that from the date of demise

Kurmala Subba Rao, the suit schedule property is in joint and constructive possession of the plaintiff and defendants and even after demands by the plaintiff for amicable partition of the schedule property, the defendants did not respond and defendants 1, 2, 4 & 10 constructed two shops in the road margin of Bapatla-Chirala in front of the schedule property, which is shown as A,B,C and D shown in the rough plaint plan. He has further contended that the defendants 1, 2, 4 & 10 have no right to make construction and the same may be removed by way of mandatory injunction. He has further contended that as per the written statement itself there is no dispute in regard to the partition of the suit schedule property into 9 equal shares and the plaintiff has right to have access to his site from all corners to reach the road. He has further contended that 6 to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff in all examined PWs.1 and 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 and the evidence of DWs.1 & 2 are not supporting the defence taken by the defendant NO.9 and prayed this court to decree the suit.

iii) The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant has contended that the 2nd defendant has no objection for partition as sought but the plaintiff has no right to seek the partition of the road margin site which was included in the plaint schedule site; that for the last 15 years shops have been in existence and doing business which is for their livelihood and the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

iv)These three issues cast burden on the plaintiff. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as

PW.1 who filed her affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief wherein she reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such examination-in-chief of

PW.1 is nothing but replica of the plaint. In addition to that, she exhibited in all Exs.A.1 to A.6.

v)On perusal of the pleadings of the written statement, it seems that the 9th defendant specifically pleaded in his written statement that he has no objection for partition of the plaint schedule property as sought by the plaintiff but he further pleaded that the plaintiff has sought the relief for partition in respect of the road margin site, for which the plaintiff is not entitled. As per the said pleading of the 2nd defendant, there is no objection from the 2nd defendant for partition of the plaint schedule property into 9 equal shares and for allotment of 1/9th share to the plaintiff but the remaining defendants remained ex parte. Even though the 2nd defendant has raised no objection for partition of the plaint 7 schedule property as sought by the plaintiff, it is for the plaintiff to prove that the plaint schedule property is available for partition and she is entitled to share in it as sought.

vi)To prove the ocular evidence of PW.1, P.W.1 exhibited Ex.A.2 certified copy of registered sale deed. On perusal of Ex.A.2, it seems that it is the certified copy of registered sale deed said to be executed in favour of Kurmala Subba Rao vide document No.830/1950 in respect of the schedule property. And as such it is crystal clear that the father of the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under the original of

Ex.A.2. Admittedly there is no dispute in regard to the death of Kurmala

Subba Rao intestate and also purchase of the schedule property under original of Ex.A.2 and as such Ex.A.2 does not require any discussion.

Since Kurmala Subba Rao died intestate, Section 8 of Hindu Succession

Act comes into picture and in such circumstances, all the class I legal heirs of Kurmala Subba Rao are equally entitled to the plaint schedule property and since Satyavathi, who is one of the daughters of Kumrma

Subba Rao, her shall be succeded by her class-I legal heirs i.e, defendants 5 to 7. Admittedly the suit schedule property is a vacant site and in such circumstances the evidence of 2nd defendant as DW.1 that plaintiff has been residing away from the schedule property and it has been in possession and enjoyment of defendants only has no legal substance as the 2nd defendant has also not filed any piece of document before this

Court that he is alone in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is admitted by both the parties that suit schedule property is not partitioned and in such circumstances the schedule property is not partitioned and that the schedule property is a vacant site, it can be safely concluded that the schedule property is in joint and constructive 8 possession of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 10 and in that view of matter, the court fee as paid by the plaintiff is correct.

vii)Ex.A.3 is the office copy of legal notice said to be issued to the defendants 1 to 10 and receipts and acknowledgments of Defendants 1 to 5, 8 & 9 are marked as Ex.A.4 and returned postal covers -2 are marked as Ex.A.5. Postal receipts sent to defendants 6 & 7 are marked as

Ex.A.6.

viii)It is elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.1 that PW.1 does not know the survey number and boundaries of the suit schedule property and she is residing near Sai Baba Temple, Chirala and the plaint schedule property is not in her possession and enjoyment and 2nd defendant is her natural elder brother. It is not at all the examination-in- chief of PW.1 that the suit schedule property is alone in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff only and it is her evidence that the suit schedule property is in joint and constructive possession of her and the defendants 1 to 10 and as such the above elicitation is not helpful to the defence taken by the 2nd defendant. Merely PW.1 does not know the survey number and boundaries, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be washed off as it is the admitted case of the plaintiff and defendants that the schedule property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 and 8 to 10 and the said Kurmala Subbarao died intestate and in such circumstances mere not knowing the boundaries and survey numbers does not diminish the veracity of the evidence of

PW.1.

ix)PW.1 denied the suggestion that during the life time of her father, her father gave properties to all his sons and daughters. It is not at all the defence of the defendants that the father of the plaintiff and 9 defendants 1 to 5 and 8 to 10 and Satyavathi gave the schedule property to all his sons and daughters. It is the defence of the 2nd defendant the schedule property is not partitioned and he has no objection regarding partition of the suit schedule property and as such no legal weightage can be attached to the above said suggestion.

x)PW.1 further denied the suggestion at the time of her marriage, what ever the amount given as para furn-ilia is towards her share and as such she is not entitled to the relief as sought. No legal weightage can be attached to the said suggestion as it is not at all the defence of the defendant the amount given towards para furn-ilia at the time of marriage of PW.1 is to be treated as share of the plaintiff.

Admittedly suit schedule property stood in the name of Kurmala

Subbarao, who died intestate and in such circumstances Sec.8 of Hindu

Succession Act comes into the picture. Nothing worthwhile material is culled out from the cross examination of PW.1.

xi)The evidence of PW.2 is eschewed on being memo filed by the plaintiff.

xii)The plaintiff also examined one P.V.S.D.Satish Kumar as

PW.3, who testified that he is the son of plaintiff; that his mother's father i.e., maternal grand father by name Kurmala Subba Rao, who died intestate leaving 5 sons and 4 daughters. He further testified that during life time of Kurmala Subbarao, Kurmala Subbarao purchased an extent of 256 sq.yards i.e., Ac.0-05 ½ cents in the year 1950; that his mother filed the suit claiming 1/9th share. He further testified that 5 sons and 3 sisters came forward for settlement of disputes during the pendency of the suit; that the plaintiff and her sisters 4 registered a relinquishment deed in favour of (1) Kurmala Rama Chandra Rao (2) Kurmala Venkata 10

Satyanarayana and (3) Kurmala Srinivasa rao on 07.04.2014 conveying their share of extent; that the consideration amount was noticed

Rs.3,00,000/- was given, but in fact, no consideration was paid and they stated that they would be paid whenever the remaining two brothers get registered one more relinquishment deed in their favour and he is 1st attestor and 2nd attestor is Bapanapalli Basaveswara Rao. In his cross examination he testified that his mother did not execute relinquishment deed. He denied the suggestion that on 07.04.2014 his mother executed relinquishment deed by receiving money. It is elicited that he can have access from eastern side for ingress and egress. He does not know whether defendants 1, 2 and 4 occupied the road margin on the south of plaint schedule property about 40 years back and have been maintaining shops. Nothing worthwhile material is culled out from the cross examination of PW.3.

xiii)The 2nd defendant examined himself as DW.1, who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the written statement pleadings. In his cross examination he has categorically admitted that his father purchased 256 sq.yards of site in the year 1950 and died intestate in the year 2005. Except the plaint schedule property, his father is not possessed of any properties, that after demise of his father, the plaint schedule property is not partitioned either orally or in writing. When the father of DW.1 purchased the suit schedule property, who died intestate and the same is not partition, the same is to be succeeded by class I legal heirs of Kurmala Subba Rao i.e., Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 10. He has also admitted that he received the notice issued by plaintiff, but he did not issue reply and no explanation has been offered for not issuing reply. He further stated that he does not know 11 whether all his sisters relinquished their right over the plaint schedule property to their brothers. As per the above said evidence, it seems that there is no relinquishment deed said to be executed by all the daughters of Kurmala Subba Rao. He has categorically stated that he is ready for partition of the plaint schedule property. As per the above said elicitation it is crystal clear that there is no objection from DW.1 for partition of the suit schedule property and that too the remaining defendants set ex parte, which makes this court to come to conclusion that they have no objection as to partition of the suit schedule property into 9 equal shares.

xiv)DW.1 admitted that there is Bapatla-Chirala road passing on the south of plaint schedule property and there is a small gally on the

East of the plaint schedule property. He denied the suggestion that just one month prior to filing of the suit, 4 brothers constructed shops in the road margin. It is elicited that the shops are projecting towards south and his shop is 2nd one from West. The witness has identified the photograph depicting the 2nd shop from west and the said photograph is marked as

Ex.A.7. He also identified the photograph depicting his shop, which is under construction and the same is marked as Ex.A.8. He further stated that after completion of his two shops, which are depicting in Ex.A.7, his brothers constructed two shops by the side of his shop towards east. He further stated that the length of his shop is 25 feet and width is 8 feet and there is 25 feet road margin in between road and his shop; that on the back side of the shop, 256 Sq yards. The witness adds that the vacant site in between the shops and 256 Sq yards of site. As per the above said elicitations, it would make manifestly clear that the road margin is not included in the plaint schedule property and in such circumstances one of the defences of the 2nd defendant that the plaintiff sought partition for 12 road margin site also falls to ground. He further stated that he is not ready to remove the shops if the property is partitioned. As per the above said evidence it is crystal clear that the defendants constructed shops in the road margin in between the Bapatla-Chirala road and the plaint schedule property. Even though merely there is road on the east of the suit schedule property, the shares of the plaint schedule rpoperty are having equal right of having access to reach road towards south also, which is main road and they cannot be deprived of their right of having access to reach the road from their site through road margin to the main road and they are having right of access from all corners of their site and in such circumstances the plaintiff and other defendants cannot be deprived of their right of having access to reach southern side main road from the schedule property and as such circumstances the constructions are to be removed as sought by the plaintiff.

xv)The 2nd defendant also examined one Kurmala Kalyana

Krishna as DW.2, who too testified as testified by DW.1 in his examination-in-chief. In his cross examination he stated that he has no documentary proof that about 15 years he occupied the R & B road margin and raised shops. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is having right of having access to reach road on all sides and as such his shop is to be removed. On perusal of the photograph Ex.A.7, which was taken on 06.07.2012 at 10.10 am and as such the defence of the 2nd defendant about 15 years back the shop was constructed falls to ground.

xvi)In view of the above discussion, this court has come to an indomitable and inescapable conclusion that the plaint schedule property is to be partitioned into 9 equal shares and plaintiff is entitled to 1/9th share and defendants 1 to 4 and 8 to 10 are entitled to 1/9th share each 13 and defendants 5 to 7, who are legal heirs of Satyavathi who is one of the daughters of Kurmala Subba Rao, are entitled to 1/9th share and the plaintiff is also entitled for mandatory injunction for removal of constructions shown as A,B,C and D in the road margin of the plaint plan.

These three issues are answered accordingly.

9.ISSUE NO.4:- In the result, suit is decreed with costs granting Preliminary Decree partitioning the plaint schedule property into 9 equal shares and the plaintiff is allotted 1/9th share; defendants 1 to 4 and 8 to 10 are allotted 1/9th share each and the defendants 5 to 7 are allotted 1/9th share in the plaint schedule property and also granted mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1, 2, 4 & 10 to remove the constructed and constructing shopping rooms in road margin shown in plaint plan as A B C and D within three months from today.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1: Penugonda Mahalakshmi DW.1 : Kurmala Venkateswarlu

PW.2: B. Basaveswararao(eschewed) DW.2: Kurmala Kalyana Krishna

PW.3: P.V.S.D.Satish Kumar

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:- Ex.A.1 : Genealogy table of late Kurmala Subba Rao. Ex.A.2 : Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt.14.04.1950 vide document No.830/1950 executed in favour of Kurmala Subba Rao. Ex.A.3: Office copy of legal notice, dt.14.06.2012 sent by plaintiff to defendants 1 to 10. Ex.A.4 : Postal acknowledgments-7 in number.

14

Ex.A.5 : Returned registered post covers-2 in number. Ex.A.6 : Postal receipts – 2 in number. Ex.A.7 : Photograph. Ex.A.8 : Photograph.

For Defendants:- N I L -

Sd/- Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

P.J.C.J.

CHIRALA.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri Ch. Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Monday, this the 6th day of August, 2018.

O.S.No.191 of 2016

Between:

1. Dasari Suvartha W/o Late Daniel, aged 55 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Johnpeta Village, Perala, Ward No.31, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Dasari Ratna Raju S/o Late Daniel, aged 35 years, Hindu, R/o Johnpet Village, Perala, Ward No.31, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Dasari Bhanu Kumar S/o Late Daniel, aged 30 years, Hindu, R/o Johnpet Village, Perala, Ward No.31, Chirala Mandal,

Prakasam District. ... Plaintiffs.

And

1. Dasari Ratnam S/o Late Appaiah, aged 63 years, Hindu, Retd.Employee, R/o Johnpeta Village, Perala, Ward No.31, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Badugu Yesudayamma W/o Koteswara Rao, aged 55 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Johnpeta Village, Perala, Ward No.31, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Tummala Klaramma W/o Babu Rao, aged 40 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Johnpeta Village, Perala, Ward No.31, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Pathipati Pavani W/o Rama Rao, aged years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Johnpeta Village, Perala, Ward No.31,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Defendants.

This suit came before this Court on 01.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.Chalapathi Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri

B. Srinivasulu, Advocate for Defendants 1 to 3, and the 4th defendant remained ex parte, upon hearing the arguments on both the sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into 4 equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 4th 2 defendant(3/20 + 1/20) with separate possession by metes and bounds and for costs of the suit.

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

The 1st Plaintiff is the wife and 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are sons and the 4th defendant is the daughter of late Dasari Daniel S/o Appaiah of

Johnpeta of Perala. The father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff and grand father of plaintiffs 2 & 3 and 5th defendant is Dasari Appaiah S/o Bangaru is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, who purchased the said property jointly along with Gunturu Pothuraju and others on 25.04.1955 from Goli Samba Murthy under a Registered Sale deed vide document

No.471/1955 some-extent and on 10.04.1961 they purchased the property under Registered Sale deed vide document No.709/1961 from

Akurathi Vijaya Lakshmi and comprising single plot. Subsequently oral partition in between Dasari Appaiah and Gunturu Pothuraju took place in the year 1983 and the said Appaiah had been in possession and enjoyment of the same till his demise as intestate in the year 2001. The wife of Appaiah namely Rojanamma also died intestate. The said Appaiah had 4 sons (1) Dasari Ratnam(D.1) (2) Dasari Seemonu (D.2) (3) Dasari

Daniel (4) Dasari Prakash and two daughters by name Badugu

Yesudayamma(D.3), Tummala Klaramma (D.4). Dasari Prakash died unmarried and intestate. The husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of

Plaintiffs 2 & 3 and 5th defendant namely Dasari Daniel S/o Appaiah died in the year 1996 leaving behind them as his legal heirs. The plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.0-14½ cents of vacant house site in

S.No.144/3 of Perala Village of Chirala Municipality and the same is succeeded from Dasari Appaiah and has been in joint and constructive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4.

Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 4th defendant got 1/4th share in the plaint schedule 3 property. The defendants with mala fide intention to avoid share of the plaintiffs and defendants are trying to alienate the plaint schedule property without consent of the plaintiffs and 4th defendant, for which, they have no right to do so. The plaintiffs also got issued registered legal notice dt.08.07.2009 through their advocate to the defendants to cooperate for amicable partition but the defendants did not cooperate for the same. Hence, the suit.

3.The 1st defendant filed his written statement admitting the relationship between the parties inter se and denying the rest of the plaint allegations and contending that there is no joint family property yet to be divisioned among plaintiffs and defendants. The husband of 1st plaintiff i.e., Dasari Daniel separated from his father in the year 1980 and orally relinquished all his rights. The said Daniel never looked after his father Dasari Appaiah and his mother Dasari Rojanamma. Dasari Daniel died on 11.04.1996. Dasari Rojanamma sold the schedule property to one

Darsi Nagendramma under agreement of sale dt.08.02.2006 with delivery of possession for her medical and health expenses for consideration of

Rs.45,000/-. At the request of this 1st defendant, mother and 1st defendant and defendants 3 & 4 and 2nd defendant executed the said agreement of sale dt.08.02.2006 i.e., Darsi Nagendramma insisted 1st defendant and defendants 2 to 4 to execute registered sale deed in her favour. To give respect to the death of 1st defendant's mother Dasari

Rojanamma, the 1st defendant and the defendants 2 to 4 executed

Registered Sale Deed on 30.06.2010 without any sale consideration. The 1st defendant brother Dasari Seemonu(D.2) died on 14.03.2015. After death of Dasari Seemonu, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 5th defendant hatched up a plan to grab money from the defendants, filed this false suit for partition and prayed to dismiss the suit.

4

4.The defendants 3 & 4 in the original plaint (4th defendant is shown as 3rd defendant in the amended plaint) filed a memo adopting the written statement of the 1st defendant. The 5th defendant in the original plaint who is subsequently shown as 4th defendant in the amended plaint is remained ex parte and the 2nd defendant shown in the original plaint is subsequently deleted.

5.On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial on 17.07.2017:

1. Whether the plaint schedule property is liable for partition into the equal shares ?

2. Whether the plaintiffs and 5th defendant are entitled for one such share?

3. To what relief ?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, Pws.1 & 2 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 are marked and on behalf of the contesting defendants, the 1st defendant examined himself as DW.1 and no documents are marked.

7.In view of the amendment to the plaint by deletion of the 2nd defendant in the original plaint and in view of the powers vested with the

Court U/O.XIV Rule 5 of C.P.C, Issue No.1 is amended as “Whether the plaint schedule property is liable to be partitioned into 4 equal shares ?

and Issue No.2 is re-casted as “Whether the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the 4th defendant are entitled to one such share ?.

8. Heard both the counsels.

9.Issue No.1:

i) The learned counsel for plaintiffs has contended that the 1st plaintiff is the wife, plaintiffs 2 & 3 are the sons and 4th defendant is the daughter of one Dasari Daniel, who is one of the sons of late Appaiah; late Appaiah had 4 sons and 2 daughters, they are (1) Dasari 5

Ratnam(D.1) (2) Dasari Seemonu(D.2), (3) Dasari Daniel (4) Dasari

Prakash and 2 daughters namely (1) Badugu Yesudayamma(D.3) (2)

Tummala Klaramma(D.4), out of them Dasari Prakash died un-married and Dasari Seemonu (who was originally shown as 2nd defendant, who died un-married) and as such the question of dismissal of suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, the said persons died un- married and Dasari Rojanamma, who is said to be the wife of Dasari

Appaiah had no right to execute registered sale deed over the entire schedule property; that the plaintiffs, the 4th defendant and other defendants are also having right over the property and the evidence of

PWs.1 & 2 are consistent throughout and ocular evidence of PW.1 is well proved by exhibiting Ex.A.1 to A.3 and prayed this court to decree the suit ii)The learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 3 has contended that the legal heirs of Dasari Seemonu are not added as parties to the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground. He has further contended that after demise of Dasari Appaiah, the wife of Appaiah namely Rojanamma executed an agreement of sale in favour of one Darsi

Nagendramma and that too Daniel left the family in the year 1980 and orally relinquished his share over the property and as such the plaintiffs and 4th defendant are not entitled to the share in the property and the evidences of PWs.1 & 2 are not consistent and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

iii)This issue casts legal burden on the plaintiffs. To substantiate the case of plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff examined herself as PW.1, who filed her affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief wherein she reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such examination-in-chief of PW.1 is nothing but replica of the plaint. In addition to that, P.W.1 exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.3.

6

Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dt.25.04.1955 vide document No.471/1955 executed by Goli Samba Murthy in favour of

Dasari Appaiah and others. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dt.10.04.1961 vide document No.709/1961 executed by Akurathi

Vijaya Lakshmi in favour of Dasari Appaiah and others. Admittedly there is no dispute in regard to the original ownership of Dasari Appaiah, who got it along with others along with Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 and subsequently partitioned the same and plaint schedule property fell to his share.

Admittedly there is no dispute in regard to the relationship of the parties inter-se iv)PW.1 stated in her cross examination that her husband died about 23 years back and she does not know whether she filed the death certificate of her husband before this court or not. Admittedly, there is no dispute in regard to the death of Dasari Daniel and as such the above said elicitation does not come in aid of the defendants. It is also elicited that she does not know whether she filed the death certificate of

Rojanamma before this court or not. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the death of Dasari Rojanamma intestate and in such circumstances the above said elicitation is not useful to the defendant. She further stated that Dasari Prakash and Dasari Seemonu are no more and Dasari

Seemonu died 3 years back, and by the time of filing this suit Seemonu was alive. PW.1 denied the suggestion that by the time of filing this suit,

Dasari Seemonu was not alive and as the L.Rs of Seemonu are not impleaded in this suit, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

The above said suggestion does not come in aid of the defendants 1 to 3 as pending suit the plaintiffs filed petition U/O.VI Rule 17 of C.P.C for deletion of the name of Dasari Seemonu as 2nd defendant and for consequential amendment also and the said application was allowed and 7 the learned counsel for the defendants reported no objection to allow the application and as such this court allowed the said petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application plaintiffs have specifically mentioned that the 2nd defendant already died prior to filing the suit as un-married, but due to over-sight the 2nd defendant was added as party to the said suit and to that effect there is no objection from the defendants 1 to 3. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and in his cross- examiantion, he has candidly admitted that Dasari Seemonu and Dasari

Prakash are his brothers died un-married and the remaining all the persons were shown as parties to the suit. The above said admission would suffice to disbelieve the suggestion made in the cross examination of PW.1 that legal heirs of Dasari Seemonu are not added as necessary parties to the suit and is liable to be dismissed. As per the said elicitation it is crystal clear that Dasari Seemonu and Dasari Prakash died un- married and all the remaining persons were shown as parties to the suit and the question of additing the legal heirs of Seemonu does not arise.

v)P.W.1 further stated that to her knowledge Darsi

Nagendramma did not purchase the property and she did not add her as one of the defendants. NO document has seen the light o the day that the plaint schedule property was purchased by Darsi Nagendramma and that too the suit cannot be dismissed due to non-joinder of subsequent purchaser as at best the property that fell to the share of the executants of the registered sale deed will be given to the purchaser.

vi)PW.1 denied the suggestion that in the year 1980 itself her husband Daniel left his parents and as such he was no way concerned to the plaint schedule property. Mere leaving the family would not be a ground to deprive the share of Daniel.

8 vii)PW.1 further denied the suggestion that she has no right over the plaint schedule property and that in the year 2006 itself Rojanamma sold away the schedule property to Darsi Nagendramma by way of agreement and that the defendants in this suit and their sisters executed a registered sale deed in favour of Nagendramma. As per Hindu

Succession Act, Rojanamma alone will not get right over the schedule property and she too got share over the schedule property on par with the other legal heirs of the Dasari Appaiah and in such circumstances the alleged agreement of sale said to be executed by the Rojanamma will not get any legal credence and the defendants 1 to 3 and Rojanamma had no right to deprive the share to Dasari Daniel. As admittedly there is no dispute that Dasari Appaiah died intestate. Nothing worthwhile material is culled out from the cross examination of PW.1.

viii)The 3rd plaintiff examined himself as PW.2, who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such examination-in-chief of PW.2 is nothing but true replica of the plaint. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that his father separated from his father in the year 1980 by relinquishing his properties orally. But there is no oral relinquishment in the Registration Act and if a person relinquishes his share in immovable property if it exceeds Rs.100/-, it shall be in writing and shall be a registered one as per Sec.17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act and as such no legal weightage can be attached to the pleadings of the written statement as to the relinquishment. PW.2 denied the suggestion that in the year 2006 Rojanamma sold the plaint schedule property to one Darsi

Nagendramma by way of an agreement of sale to meet her medical expenses. But in fact there is no pleading in the pleadings that

Rojanamma sold the schedule property to Darsi Nagendramma to meet 9 her medical expenses. Even though for medical expenses also,

Rojanamma alone had no right to convey the entire property to Darsi

Nagendramma and that too alleged agreement of sale has not seen the light of the day. Nothing worthwhile material is culled out from the cross examination of PW.2 also.

ix)The 1st defendant examined himself as DW.1, who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the written statement pleadings and as such examination-in-chief of DW.1 is nothing but true replica of the written statement of the first defendant. In his cross examination he stated that the legal heirs of Dasari Daniel, who is his younger brother filed this suit. He further stated that Dasari Daniel predeceased his father. In his cross examination, he stated that his father died intestate. He has also admitted that in the year 2009 the plaintiffs issued a notice for partition the plaint schedule property. He did not issue any reply to the notice. No explanation has been offered by DW.1 for not issuing any reply. He has categorically admitted that his father died intestate and all the legal heirs of his father are equally entitled to the property left by him. The above said admission would suffice to come to conclusion that the the plaintiffs and 4th defendant are entitled to one such share along with the defendant 1 to 3. When the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 4th defendant are equally entitled to share on par with the defendants 1 to 3, the right of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 4th defendant cannot be taken away by the defendants 1 to 3 and if really they executed registered sale deed in the name of the Darsi Nagendramma in respect of the plaint schedule property, the same cannot be valid in respect of the share of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the 4th defendant and it can be valid up to the extent of the share of defendants 1 to 3. In view of the above discussion, this court has come to conclusion that plaintiffs successfully proved that the 10 plaint schedule property is to be partitioned into 4 equal shares and the defendants 1 to 3 have miserably failed to substantiate their defence.

Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

10.Issue No.2:- In view of answering Issue No.1 the plaint schedule property is liable to be partitioned into 4 equal shares and plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 4th defendant are entitled to 1/4th share, the defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to 1/4th share each and as such schedule property is to be initially partitioned into 16 equal shares and the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled to 1/16th share each and the 4th defendant is entitled to 1/16th share and the defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to 4/16th share each equally. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

11.Issue No.3:- In the result, Preliminary Decree is granted with costs partitioning the plaint schedule property into 16 equal shares and plaintiffs 1 to 3 are allotted 1/16th share each, 4th defendant is allotted 1/16th share and the defendants 1 to 3 are allotted to 4/16th share each.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 6th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants: PW.1: Dasari Suvartha DW.1: Dasari Ratnam

PW.2: Dasari Bhanu Kumar

Documents Marked

For Plaintiffs:- Ex.A.1 : Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt.25.04.1955 vide document No.471/1955. Ex.A.2 : Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt.10.04.1961 vide document No.709/1961. Ex.A.3: Office copy of legal notice dt.08.07.2009.

For Defendants:- N I L.

Sd/-Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

P.J.C.J.

CHIRALA.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri Ch. Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Monday, this the 6th day of August, 2018.

O.S.No.191 of 2016

Between:

1. Dasari Suvartha W/o Late Daniel, aged 55 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Johnpeta Village, Perala, Ward No.31, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Dasari Ratna Raju S/o Late Daniel, aged 35 years, Hindu, R/o Johnpet Village, Perala, Ward No.31, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Dasari Bhanu Kumar S/o Late Daniel, aged 30 years, Hindu, R/o Johnpet Village, Perala, Ward No.31, Chirala Mandal,

Prakasam District. ... Plaintiffs.

And

1. Dasari Ratnam S/o Late Appaiah, aged 63 years, Hindu, Retd.Employee, R/o Johnpeta Village, Perala, Ward No.31, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Badugu Yesudayamma W/o Koteswara Rao, aged 55 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Johnpeta Village, Perala, Ward No.31, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Tummala Klaramma W/o Babu Rao, aged 40 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Johnpeta Village, Perala, Ward No.31, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Pathipati Pavani W/o Rama Rao, aged years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Johnpeta Village, Perala, Ward No.31,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Defendants.

This suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into 4 equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 4th defendant(3/20 + 1/20) with separate possession by metes and bounds and for costs of the suit.

Plaint Presented on : 25.02.2016 Plaint filed on : 23.06.2016.

Cause of Action : Cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintiffs and *4th defendant succeeded the plaint schedule property from Dasari Appaiah S/o Bangaru as legal representatives and having joint and constructive possession and enjoyment and when the defendnts are trying to execute a sham and nominal documents to defeat the rights of the plaitniffs 1 to 3 and 4th defendant illegally without having no right and when the plaintiffs are requested severl times and got issued registered legal notice dt.08.07.2009 demanding for amicable partition and where the plaint schedule property is situated at Chirala Municipality, Chirala Mandal is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court.

Valuation : The relief of Partition as per the market value certificate issued by S.R.O, Chirala the suit schedule property is valued at Rs.8,71,200/-, the value of plaintiffs 1 to 3 & 4th defendant's 1/4th share value is Rs.8,71,200/- x 1/4th =Rs.2,17,800/- x 3/4th (Plaintiffs 1 to 3) - 1/4th (4th defendant)=1,63,350. The value of plaintiffs 3/4th market value is Rs.1,63,350/- x ¾ = Rs.1,22,512-50 ps, on which plaintiff has to pay a court fee of Rs.3726/-. The plaintiffs and defendants shares of the plaint schedule property is in joint and constructive possession and enjoyment, a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid U/s.34(2) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act. The Jurisdiction value is Rs.1,22,512-50 ps. Total court fee paid is Rs.200/-.

This suit came before this Court on 01.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.Chalapathi Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri B. Srinivasulu, Advocate for Defendants 1 to 3, and the 4th defendant remained ex parte, upon hearing the arguments on both the sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. that the plaint schedule property be divided into 16 equal shares and plaintiffs 1 to 3 are allotted 1/16th share each;

2. that the 4th defendant is allotted 1/16th share;

3. that the defendants 1 to 3 are allotted 4/16th share each;and

4. that the defendants do pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.202/- towards institution costs of the suit, bearing their own costs of Rs.NIL. (No CM & FC is filed on either side) (Plaint schedule is herewith attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 6th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHIRALA.

Table of Costs

ParticularsForFor For D.4. Plaintiffs Defendants 1 to 3 Stamp on Vakalat2.00

Stamp on Plaint200.00 Stamps on Process - Advocate's fee -No CM & FC is filed- -No CM & FC is filed - -Exparte - Writing charges- Total Institution costs202.00

Sd/-Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

PJCJ.Chirala.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri Ch. Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Tuesday, this the 14th day of August, 2018.

O.S.No.123 of 2017

Between: Goli Siva Nageswara Rao S/o Anjaneyulu, aged about 49 years, Hindu, business, residing at Door No.12-175, Akkalavari Street,

Epurupalem Village, Chirala Mandal. ... Plaintiff.

And

Chakka Venkateswarlu S/o Late Jalaiah, aged about 49 years, Hindu, R/o Door No.12-180, Main Road, Epurupalem, Near Pothurajusila, Epurppalem Village,

Chirala Mandal. ...Defendant.

This suit came before this Court on 07.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri T.

Srikanth, Advocate for Defendant, upon hearing the arguments on both the sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the court to permit the plaintiff to deposit the admitted exceeding monthly rents as per the oral agreement in between the plaintiff and defendant herein since the month of September 2016 including future rents for monthly exceeding rent of

Rs.2,900/- relating to plaint schedule property as the Defendant herein refused to receive the same as tendered by the plaintiff herein including the exceeding monthly rents for every two years at 10% and for costs.

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

The plaintiff entered into oral lease agreement with the defendant on 15.04.2012 for a period of 20 years @ Rs.2,350/- per month with a condition to enhance the rent at 10% for every two years. The plaintiff has been paying the said rent without any default. At the time of taking 2 the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff paid Rs.50,000/- to the defendant towards good will and that the plaintiff used the plaint schedule property as godown and subsequently made construction of basement upto 4 feet , latrine , bath room, kitchen room , laying bore pump for water , ceiling , wall plastering including colours and obtained two electric meters with the consent of the defendant by spending

Rs.4,00,000/- and above. About 2½ years back, the plaintiff vacated the house and has been using plaint schedule premises for shop exclusively.

The plaintiff is statutory tenant. From 04.03.2014, the plaintiff paid

Rs.2,600/- per month as revised rent and from 30.04.2016 the plaintiff paid Rs.2,900/- per month as revised rent. On 06.09.2016, the defendant issued legal notice to the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff is a willful defaulter of rent of Rs.2,900/- from 01.05.2016 with false allegations. On 19.09.2016, the plaintiff got issued a rough and suitable reply with real facts. Again on 27.09.2016, the defendant got issued another legal notice to the plaintiff by setting up his wife demanding the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule premises. On 04.10.2016, the plaintiff got issued reply with real facts. On 03.10.2016, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant by sending monthly exceeded and admitted rent of Rs.2,900/- per month of September, 2016 vide D.D.No.552804 for the plaint schedule property and the same was received by the defendant.

Subsequently the defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff on 05.10.2016 stating that the D.D is not served on him. The plaintiff got issued a proper reply on 13.10.2016 and as such the defendant has been willfully refusing to receive the monthly rents relating to the plaint schedule property and he is also not intimating the bank account number; that the plaintiff filed

RCC, which is not yet numbered, U/s.8 of A.P. Buildings (Lease Rent and

Eviction) Control Act, seeking to permit the plaintiff to deposit the 3 admitted monthly rents on 07.11.2016 to the Hon’ble court and the court returned the same to file a civil suit by quoting the publication in its dt.28.04.2015. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations in toto and inter alia contending that the plaintiff gave wrong schedule and boundaries of the plaint schedule. The defendant let out only an extent of approximately Ac.0-02 cents covered under the following boundaries:

East: Chakka Dhana Lakshmi boundary.

South: Chakka Rajya Lakshmi and defendants joint gally.

West: GBC road.

North: Chakka Venkateswarlu i.e., defendants remaining property.

The plaintiff had shown the suit schedule including the property of the defendant’s wife by name Chakka Dhanalakshmi, which is the subject matter of RCC.1/2016 on the file of this court and without impleading her in the suit, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party. There is no oral lease for 20 years as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff never paid

Rs.50,000/- to the defendant towards advance or good will and never spent Rs.4,00,000/- as pleaded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff took the defendant property and the property of Chakka Dhanalakshmi on oral lease for two years in the year 2012 subject to enhancement of rent after completion of every two years for a period of 10 years, which is terminable on the notice of the defendant. The plaintiff paid the monthly rents regularly to the defendant and wife of the defendant over the plaint schedule property separately on every month upto 30.04.2016 and subsequently failed to pay the rent of Rs.2,900/- to the defendant and

Rs.1600/- to the wife of defendant namely Chakka Dhanalakshmi for her portion. The plaintiff took the defendant’s portion for shop purpose earlier 4 and took the defendant’s wife property for residential purpose. The plaintiff maintained the shop in the defendant’s portion and used the defendant’s wife’s portion for cooking and living. The defendant property and the defendant’s wife property are separate and they are having two electricity service connections separately. The plaitniff did not pay rents to the defendant to his portion from 01.05.2016 and even after issuance of notice, the plaintiff failed to deposit rents into the bank account or failed to send the rent through money order, which shows the plaintiff is a chronic defaulter. The defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.362/2016 on the file of this court against the plaintiff for eviction and possession of his premises and in the said suit, the defendant also filed an application to permit him to deposit the rents in his bank account. The wife of the defendant also filed a petition against the plaintiff herein in

RCC.No.1/2016 for eviction of the plaintiff herein from her portion and also filed a petition to direct the plaintiff herein to deposit the rent into her bank account and the same are pending. The defendant never received demand draft of Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff and the plaintiff sent only a blank cover with a letter that he is sending DD for Rs.5000/- but the said cover does not contain any DD for which the defendant also issued notice and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

4.On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial on 06.10.2017:

1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties to suit ?

2. Whether the plaint schedule is wrong ?

3. Whether there exists oral lease ?

4. Whether the plaintiff has complied legal formalities filing the suit?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to deposit rent as sought ?

6. To what relief?

5

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 are marked and on behalf of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and no documents are marked.

6.Heard both the counsels.

7.Issue No.1 & 2:

i) Both these issues are taken up together for common determination to avoid repetition of discussion.

ii)The learned counsel for plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff took the plaint schedule property on oral lease from the defendant @ Rs.2,350/- on 15.04.2012 subject to enhancement of 10 % over it after for every two years and paid the said rent and also paid

Rs.2,600/- from 03.04.2014 and Rs.2,900/- from 30.04.2016, but surprisingly the defendant issued legal notice under Ex.A.1 stating that the plaintiff committed default and demanded to vacant the suit schedule property, for which the plaintiff issued reply under Ex.A.2 and again issued another notice by the wife of the defendant under Ex.A.3 and plaintiff issued reply under Ex.A.4. He has further contended that the plaintiff sent the rent for the month of September, 2016 by way of D.D vide 552804 to the defendant under Ex.A.5 letter and counter foil is marked as Ex.A.6, but the defendant sent a notice under Ex.A.7 that no demand draft was sent for which the plaintiff issued reply under Ex.A.8 and the copy of returned unnumbered RCC is marked as Ex.A.9. He has further contended that the defendant took a false stand and to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and his entire evidence is consistent throughout. He has further contended that the plaintiff took the plaint schedule property from the defendant only but not 6 a portion from the wife of the defendant and the same is only set up with false defence and the plaint schedule is correctly shown.

iii)On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant has contended that he let out his portion to the plaintiff on oral lease at rate of Rs.2,350/- per month subject to enhancement of 10% over it after completion of every two years; that subsequently the plaintiff took separate portion from the wife of defendant namely Chakka

Dhanalakshsmi on monthly rent of Rs.1200/- per month with the same conditions of the above, but the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant alone by including the portion of the wife of the defendant also and as such Chakka Dhanalakshmi is proper and necessary party to the suit and the plaint schedule is also wrong. He has further contended that the plaintiff did not senf any D.D. as alleged and no document is filed to that effect and to prove the defence of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 but the plaintiff failed to cross examine DW.1 and as such examination-in-chief of DW.1 has been in tact and unchallenged.

iv)To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such examination-in-chief of PW.1 is nothing but replica of the plaint. In addition to that, PW.1 in all marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. PW.1 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that the property of Chakka

Dhanalakshmi, who is the petitioner in RCC No.1/2016, and the property of the defendant herein are different and that he took the properties of the defendant and also Chakka Dhanalakshmi separately but falsely deposing that he took the properties of the Dhanalakshmi and defendant as one property. PW.1 stated that the question of mentioning in Ex.A.2 7 that he took the properties of the defendant and Chakka Dhanalakshmi at a time does not arise when the learned counsel for the defendant has suggested to witness that Ex.A.2 does not contain any recital that he took the property from Dhanalakshmi and he stated that he saw the document in RCC.1/2016 and as per the said document Dhanalakshmi is the owner of the property. As per the above said elicitation, it is manifestly clear that certain portion of the plaint schedule property belongs to Chakka

Dhanalakshmi, for which she filed RCC No.1/2016 and that too PW.1 has seen the document of Dhanalakshmi also, but the plaintiff has not taken any steps to add Chakka Dhanalakshmi as defendant in this suit when the property of the Chakka Dhanalakshmi is also included in the plaint schedule property, but the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant alone.

v)Ex.A.1 is the legal notice got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff committed default in payment of agreed rent of Rs.2,900/- of the notice schedule property. The said notice schedule property is part and parcel of the suit schedule property and the same is also mentioned in the written statement. In reply to it the plaintiff got issued reply notice stating that he has not committed any default in payment of rent. Certain part of Ex.A.2 reads as follows:

“… On 03.04.2014 the monthly rent is revised as Rs.2,600/- per month and since then our client has been paying the said agreed exceeded rent to your client relating to notice schedule property without any default. Subsequently since 30.04.2016 the monthly rent was revised and exceeded upto Rs.2,900/- per month and our client has been paying the exceeded monthly rent of Rs.2,900/- since 3004.2016 so far in the village elders.

8

The entire transaction between your client and our client relating to notice schedule premises is oral agreement.”

As per the above said recitals, the rent at Rs.2,900/- is for the notice schedule property under Ex.A.1 and the notice schedule property under Ex.A.1 is part and parcel of the suit schedule premises and in the suit schedule premises as per the elicitation in the cross examination of

PW.1 is also included and in such circumstances the wife of the defendant namely Chakka Dhanalakshmi is proper and necessary party to the suit and the suit schedule is also wrong as the plaintiff has shown the property of the defendant and also the wife of the defendant as one property.

vi)The defendant examined himself as DW.1, who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the written statement pleadings and as such examination-in-chief is nothing but true replica of the written statement of the defendant but the learned counsel for the plaintiff has failed to cross examine DW.1 and as such this court closed the cross examination of DW.1 and as such the entire examination in chief of DW.1 has been intact and unchallenged and as such this court has come to conclusion that the wife of defendant is proper and necessary party to the suit and the plaint schedule is also wrong. Hence, these two issues are answered accordingly.

8.Issue No.3:- Admittedly there is no dispute as to letting out the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on oral lease by the defendant and the wife of the defendant, but the period of lease is disputed and the same cannot be decided in the nature of the suit on hand and the same will be decided in the RCC No.1/16 filed by the wife of the defendant against the plaintiff on the file Rent Controller, Chirala and also the suit in 9

O.S.No.362/2016 on the file of this court filed by the defendant herein

against the plaintiff herein. Hence, the issue is answered accoridngly.

9. Issue No.4:- It is the evidence of PW.1 that he sent

Rs.2,900/- by way of Demand Draft vide bearing No.552804 along with letter under Ex.A.5 and also filed a counter foil and the same is marked as

Ex.A.6 and filed the reply by the defendant under Ex.A.7. As per Ex.A.5, the plaintiff sent DD of Rs.2,900/- vide bearing No.552804 and the same was denied by the defendant by issuing reply under Ex.A.7. But the plaintiff has not taken any steps to call for the account statement of the defendant to prove that the defendant has withdrawn the said DD and that too the evidence of D.W.1 that he did not receive the demand draft as alleged by the plaintiff has been in tact and un-rebutted as such the plaintiff has failed to substantiate of his stand of sending the DD and it appears that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he sent rent by way of

DD and complied legal formalities before filing the suit. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE No.5:

In view of answering Issues 1 to 4 against the plaintiff, and since there is dispute revolves around the rate of rent for the plaint schedule property, it is for the plaintiff to file RCC for fixation of rent but not filing the suit on hand and thereby the plaintiff is not entitled to deposit the rents as sought. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

11.ISSUE NO.6:- In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA

10

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1: Goli Siva Nageswara Rao DW.1: Chakka Venkateswarlu

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1 : Legal notice issued by the defendant to the plaintiff dt.06.09.2016. Ex.A.2 : Office copy of Reply notice dt.19.09.2016. Ex.A.3: Legal notice dt.27.09.2016. Ex.A.4 : Office copy of reply notice dt.04.10.2016. Ex.A.5 : Letter sent by the plaintiff to the Defendant by sending the DD dt.03.10.2016. Ex.A.6 : Counter foil of SBI, Epurupalem Branch in favour of defendant. Ex.A.7 : Letter from defendant. Ex.A.8 : Office copy of reply notice, dt.13.10.2016. Ex.A.9 : Returned unnumbered petition, schedule and sworn affidavit relating to plaint schedule property.

For Defendant:- N I L.

Sd/-Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

P.J.C.J.

CHIRALA.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri Ch. Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Tuesday, this the 14th day of August, 2018.

O.S.No.251 of 2017

Between:

Gudiseva Ratna Kumari W/o Late S.V.S.P.Murthy, aged 48 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Door No.22-15-16-1, Wood Nagar,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ... Plaintiff.

And

Amaresam Subba Rao @ Peda Subbaiah S/o Anjaiah, aged 56 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Vadde Sangham, H/o Kothapeta Panchayat, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District, Present Pro. of Eagal Bar & Restaurant,

Near Clock Tower Centre, Chirala. ...Defendant.

This suit came before this Court on 01.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.Chalapathi Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri

R.Venkateswara Reddy, Advocate for Defendant, upon hearing the arguments on both the sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2,57,900/- along with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. basing on promissory note and costs of the suit.

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

On 25.10.2014 , the defendant borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff for his business purpose and executed a promissory note on the self same day in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. On demands towards discharge of the promissory note debt, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.000021 dt.09.06.2016 for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on bank of India, Chirala in favour 2 of the plaintiff towards part payment of the promissory note amount; on presenting the same by the plaintiff with his banker, the same was returned as in-sufficient funds, for which, the plaintiff filed a private complaint against the defendant under Sec.138 of NI Act. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to pay the amount.

Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations in toto and inter alia contending that he has been running a liquor business under the name and Style Eagle Bar and Restaurant,

Chiralal, from 1996. Previously the plaintiff did money lending as well as chit business at chirala. One Koppolu Ravi Kumar S/o Luies, who is an employee in the defendant’s bar and restaurant, was in urgent need of money for his family expenses and at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff gave money to the said Koppolu Ravi Kumar, who borrowed

Rs.1,00,000/- with 60% interest on 25.10.2014 and at the request of the plaintiff, as business custom, the defendant mentioned on the suit promissory note by putting date as 25.10.2014, amount and signature on revenue stamp respectively and the plaintiff obtained the said promissory from the defendant without passing any consideration to the defendant towards security of the debt of the said Koppolu Ravi Kumar and on the self same day the plaintiff also obtained blank cheque from the defendant towards security of the debt of Koppolu Ravi Kumar. The defendant is contesting the CC.No.627/2016 on the file of Addl. Junior

Civil Judge, Chirala. Except, that there is no debtor and creditor

relationship between the defendant and plaintiff and that the defendant did not execute the suit promissory note or receive any consideration from the plaintiff relating to the suit promissory note and hence the suit promissory note is devoid of consideration and it is neither binding nor 3 enforceable against the defendant. Subsequently some disputes arose between Koppolu Ravi Kumar and the plaintiff in regard to the chit traction which is un-authorisedly conducted by the plaintiff and due to that the plaintiff developed grudge against Kopplu Ravi Kuamr and basing on the blank cheque got filled up them and filed this suit and also the said

CC and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

4.On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial on 15.02.2018:

1. Whether the suit pronote is given by the defendant towards security ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim ?

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 are examined and Ex.A.1 is marked and on behalf of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and also examined the said Ravi

Kumar as D.W.2 and no documents are marked.

6.Heard both the counsels.

7.Issue No.1:

i)The learned counsel for plaintiff has contended that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff under

Ex.A.1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. He has further contended that the defendant issued a cheque for

Rs.1,50,000/- towards part payment on demands but the same is returned with an endorsement in-sufficient funds, for which the plaintiff filed private complaint against the defendant before the Hon'ble Addl.

Junior Civil Judge, Chirala. He has further contended that to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and also examined attestor of Ex.A.1 as PW.2 and scribe of it as PW.3 and the evidences of Pws.2 & 3 are supporting the evidence of PW.1 in toto and 4 nothing worthwhile material is culled out from their cross examinations.

He has further contended that D.W.2 in his cross-examination has admitted that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff and the same is sufficient to come to conlcusion that the defendant has failed to discharge his burde.

ii)On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant has contended that one Koppolu Ravi Kumar, who is working under the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff; that at the request of the plaintiff, the defendant signed promissory note with date and amount towards security and also obtained a blank signed cheque and due to the differences cropped up in between the plaintiff and Koppolu Ravi Kumar, the plaintiff got filed a private complaint U/s.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act and the evidences of Pws.1 to 3 are not corroborating with each other and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

iii)This issue casts burden on the defendant. To discharge the burden, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the written statement pleadings. The defendant also examined one Koppolu Ravi

Kumar as DW.2. DW.1 admitted in his cross examination that the signature on the vakalat, written statement and the pronote when the same are confronted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and also admitted that the plaintiff filed a private complaint against him on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Chirala for the offence U/s.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. The defendant also examined Koppolu Ravi

Kumar as DW.2 who also deposed on the similar lines as deposed to by

DW.1 in his chief affidavit. But it is elicited from his cross-examination that he knew that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- amount from the plaintiff. As per the evidence of DW.1, the defendant has never borrowed 5 any amount from the plaintiff whereas as DW.2 in his cross examination stated that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and the said part of evidence would suffice to come to conclusion that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and the said elicitation falsifies the defence taken by the defendant. DW.2 also stated in his cross examination that the disputes involved in the suit relates to chit and the suit is filed to that effect.

iv)The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, who filed his affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief wherein she reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such examination-in-chief of PW.1 is nothing but replica of the plaint. PW.1 in her cross examination has admitted that the signatures across the revenue stamp in Ex.A.1 and beneath of the the signature and the date column and amount column are written by the defendant and the remaining body of Ex.A.1 is written by Ramisetty

Ramesh Babu. PW.1 denied the suggestion that due to differences cropped up between Ramisetty Ramesh Babu and the plaintiff pertains to chit transaction, taking advantage of having the pronote of the defendant, he filed this false suit. If really the differences cropped up between the plaintiff and Ramisetty Ramesh Babu, the plaintiff would have filed a suit against Ramisetty Ramesh Babu but not against the defendant. As per the cross examination of DW.2, there is acquaintance between the plaintiff and the defendant. When there is acquaintance between the plaintiff and the defendant, it cannot be expected that the plaintiff filed false suit against the defendant, Except putting suggestions in the cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, nothing worthwhile material is culled out from the cross examinations. PW.1 stated in his cross examination that the defendant business turnover is crores of rupees and he has no need to borrow amount from plaintiff. It is not at all elicited 6 from the cross examination of PW.1 that the defendant did not borrow any amount from her and she stated that the defendant has no need to borrow any amount from her and DW.2 has categorically stated that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and as such the above said elicitation from the cross examination of PW.1 does not come in aid of the defendant to discharge the burden.

v)The plaintiff also examined one Asadi Dasaradha Rami Reddy as PW.2, who testified that in his presence the defendant borrowed

Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.10.2014 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note and he attested Ex.A.1.

vi)The plaintiff also examined one Ramisetty Ramesh Babu as

PW.3, who also testified on similar lines as testified by PW.2. He further testified that he scribed the promissory note. PW.2 & 3 are stick on their statements that the denomination of the consideration is Rs.1000/- notes.

The entire cross examination of Pws.2 & 3 are full of suggestions by the learned counsel for the defendant and denials by Pws.2 & 3.

vii)In view of the above discussion, this court has come to conclusion that the plaintiff has successfully proved her case and the defendant has miserably failed to prove his defence or disprove the stand taken by the plaintiff and as such this court has come to an indomitable conclusion that the defendant did not give suit pronote towards security and that suit promissory note is duly executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and it is supported by consideration. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

8.Issue No.2:- In views of answering Issue No.1 in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and it is not at all the defence of the defendant that he discharged the amount due under Ex.A.1 promissory note to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim.

7

9.Issue No.3:- In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs.2,57,900/- along with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the principal amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1: Gudiseva Ratna Kumari DW.1 : Amaresam Pedda Subbaiah @

PW.2: Asadi Dasaradha Rami Reddy Subbaiah

PW.3: Ramisetty Ramesh Babu DW.2 : Koppolu Ravi Kumar

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1 : Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/- dt.25.10.2014.

For Defendant:- NIL .

Sd/-Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

P.J.C.J.

CHIRALA.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA

Present: Sri Ch. Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Tuesday, this the 7th day of August, 2018

Original Suit No.55 of 2018

Between: Tadiboyina Sudhakar S/o Prabhakara Rao, aged 37 years, Hindu, Doctor, R/o D.No.12-8-2, Mutyalapet, Perala, Chirala,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ... Plaintiff.

Vs.,

Konanki Usha Sri W/o Hanumantha Rao, D/o Gumma Koteswara Rao @ Babu, aged about 39 years, Hindu, House-wice, R/o Maseed bazaar, Ganjipalem, Chirala,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ... Defendant.

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.40,400/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 01.08.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.25,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for costs.

This suit came before this court on 07.08.2018 in the presence of Sri K. Venkata Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri A. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the defendant, the counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that matter is adjusted out of court and suit may be dismissed, suit is dismissed as adjusted out of court, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed a memo stating that the matter is adjusted out of court and sought to dismiss the suit without costs. Memo is recorded. In view of the memo, the suit is dismissed as adjusted out of court without costs.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Chirala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- N I L -

Sd/-Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

Prl.J.C.J. Chirala. // True Copy //

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chirala.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA

Present: Sri Ch. Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Tuesday, this the 7th day of August, 2018

Original Suit No.55 of 2018

Between: Tadiboyina Sudhakar S/o Prabhakara Rao, aged 37 years, Hindu, Doctor, R/o D.No.12-8-2, Mutyalapet, Perala, Chirala,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ... Plaintiff.

Vs., Konanki Usha Sri W/o Hanumantha Rao, D/o Gumma Koteswara Rao @ Babu, aged about 39 years, Hindu, House-wice, R/o Maseed bazaar, Ganjipalem, Chirala,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ... Defendant.

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.40,400/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 01.08.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.25,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for costs.

. Plaint presented on: 26.02.2018 Plaint filed on: 05.03.2018.

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose on 01.08.2015 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff for her family expenses and the defendant executed a promissory note with her own hand writing on the same day itself, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and inspite of oral and written demands the defendant failed to discharge the debt due and at Chirala where the suit transaction took place and where both parties residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court.

Valuation: For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs.40,400/-, on which a court fee of Rs.2146/- is paid U/s.20 of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act. This suit came before this court on 07.08.2018 in the presence of Sri K. Venkata Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri A. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the defendant, the counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that matter is adjusted out of court and suit may be dismissed, suit is dismissed as adjusted out of court, this Court doth order and decree;

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as adjusted out of court; and

2. that each party do bear their own costs (No CM & FC is filed on either side)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 7th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chirala.

TABLE OF COSTS

- N I L -

Sd/-Ch.V.N.Srinivasa Rao,

Prl.J.C.J. Chirala.