Sri D.Balakrishnaiah

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT:­SRI D.BALAKRISHNAIAH,

VI ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Tuesday, this the 17 th day of March, 2020

O.S.No.1600/2014

Between:

Vennapusa Sankara Reddy, s/o.Konda Reddy, Hindu, aged 50 years, business & properties, residing at Flat No.402, Apurupa Elegancy, Balkampet, Hyderabad­16. …Plaintiff

And 

1.Kuchipudi Namaiah, s.o.Dakshinamurthy, Hindu, aged about 66 years, properties, residing at D.No.33­13­2, Kadiyalavari Veedhi, Sitaramapuram, Vijayawada.

2.Smt.Kuchipudi Saraswathi, w/o.Kuchipudi Namaiah, Hindu, aged about 66 years, properties, residing at D.No.33­ 13­2, IKadiyalavari Veedhi, Sitaramapuram, Vijayawada.

3.Smt.Ghanta Jaya Lakshmi, w/o.Eswara Prasad, Hindu, aged about 43 years, properties, residing at 19100A1, Shivneni Kavitha Housing Society, Caranzlem, Tiswadi Panaji, Goa­403 001.

4.Maganti Purna Chandra Rao @ Siva Purna Chandra Rao, s/o.Babu Rao, Hindu, aged about 35 years, properties, residing at D.No.74­14­69, Flat No.FF4, Mega Town Ship, New RTC Colony, Vijayawada. …Defendants

This suit is having come before me for final hearing on 11.03.2020 in presence of Sri Mohammad Aarif, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Sistla Hanumath Prasad, advocate for the defendants 1 to 3 and of the 4th defendant remained exparte, and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T.

The plaintiff filed this suit for (a) mandatory injunction against the defendants to remove the compound wall in the plaint schedule – ABCD rough sketch of the plaintiff’s 2 property; (b) for any reason if the defendants failed to remove the compound wall order the plaintiff to remove and to collect the costs and damages from the defendants; (c) for consequential relief of recovery of his property by the plaintiff to an extent of (50 x 2 feet 11 inch) i.e. 16.20 sq.yards; and (d) for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property admeasuring 249 sq.yards or 207.120 sq.mtrs of vacant house site, situated at Plot

No.116, R.S.No.364/4, Sri Ramachandra Nagar, Gunadala

Vijayawada and within the sub­registry of Gunadala,

Vijayawada. The property purchased by the plaintiff on 10.05.2003 in E.P.No.2126/OSD/2002, dt.10.05.2003,

Certificate of Sale, issued under Rule No.52(14)(V) of

A.P.Cooperative Societies Rules 1964. Therefore, since the date of his purchase, the plaintiff is the owner and the same is in his peaceful possession and enjoyment with absolute rights, title, interest and ownership over his property. The plaintiff is a civil contractor and he is having his office at

Sanjiv Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad. It is further submitted that the plaintiff purchased the property, much prior to a decade of the defendant’s purchase of their property. The defendants had purchased the property bearing plot Nos.115 & 114, admeasuring 268 sq.yards and 239 sq.yards respectively and they are adjacent owners of the plaintiff’s property and 3 purchased very recently and constructing residential usage building, consisting of stilt, ground, first, second, third and fourth floors of RCC building by bname “Kuchipudi Homes

Apartments”. The defendants submitted their file for approval of plan to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, they shown the measurements four boundaries of their property as East: 86 feet, South:89.6 feet, North:91.9 feet, West: 86 feet, as per the measurements of the total extent of the defendants property is came to 867 sq.yards, but they shown either in the plan or in proceedings as 870 sq.yards. It is further submitted that the defendants for the purpose of their apartment building applied for approved plan from Vijayawada Municipal

Corporation and the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation approvedtheplanunderB.A.No.249/2013/G6, dt.03.04.2013 for the construction of RCC roofed stilt, GF+4 residential Apartment Building. According to the approved plan the net site area is shown by the defendants 870 sq.

yards or 725.29 sq.mtrs. and shown the around open space or the set backs, East:4.50 mtrs., South:3.50 Mtrs.,

West:2.50 mtrs. and North:3.00 Mtrs. road side. The defendants had shown, as per approved plan the s et back on the eastern side at 4.50 mtrs., but the other set backs of the remaining boundaries are shown less on comparison with the eastern side setback. Therefore, the defendants are not making the construction as per the approved plan and failed 4 to made the construction within the net site area of 870 sq.yards of their property and in violation of the approved plan, they failed to leave the 1 mtr. width of greenery, shown on the eastern side, according to the approved plan and projected their compound wall on the western side of property of the plaintiff. The defendants failed and violated the rule that they have to intimate the neighbours regarding the approval of the plan for the construction.

3.It is further submitted that the plaintiff is being absentee owner and he is in belief and in impression that the defendants should made construction within the boundaries of their property and raised pillars, making slabs and later came to construction of boundary walls. It is came to the plaintiff’s knowledge that the defendants encroached his property to a width of 2 feet 11 inches on eastern side of the defendants’ property i.e. on the western side of the plaintiff’s property to a depth of 50 feet, in total to an extent of (50 x 2 feet 11 inch) = 16.20 sq.yards. According to the documents, on the Northern side of the road, the width of both the plots i.e. 115 & 114 is at 50 feet and 40 feet respectively, but they shown on the northern side, in the plan for approval the extent 91.9 feet, but in existence and on the ground, on the northern side the measurements are 92.11 feet. Therefore, the defendants encroached the plaintiff’s property to the width of 2.11 feet, as stated above. Therefore, at the time of 5 construction of the boundary wall only, it is came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendants encroached the property of the plaintiff to an extent of (50 feet depth x 2 feet 11 inch width) = 16.20 sq.yards. Immediately the plaintiff approached the defendants to remove the compound wall constructed by them from north to south on eastern side of their property. The defendants did not heed the requests of the plaintiff and gave a deaf ear and thereupon the plaintiff was advised that to take the measurements with the help of surveyor. Therefore, the plaintiff measured the entire area of the three plots bearing Nos.116, 115 and 114. After taking the measurements, it is clear that the defendants encroached the plaintiff’s property to an extent of (50 x 2 feet 11 inch) = 16.20 sq.yards, as mentioned above. Thereafter, the plaintiff obtained the copy of approved plan with proceedings in

B.A.No.249/2013/G6, dt.03.04.2013 under Right to

Information Act, dt.18.10.2014 by paying the prescribed fee of Rs.5,000/­ and came to know the above facts, similarly, the plaintiff obtained the certified copies of the title deeds of the defendants on 30.10.2014 and 31.10.2014 of their plots

Nos.115 and 114. By considering all the above documents, the plaintiff came to a firm conclusion that his property admeasuring 16.20 sq.yards of site was encroached by the defendants. Hence, he filed this suit.

6

4.The 1st defendant filed written statement and the 2nd and 3rd defendants adopted the same. The 1st defendant denied the material allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non­ impleading the co­owners of this defendant who are having equal title and right along with this defendant including the possession over the plaint schedule property. It is further submitted that to the knowledge of this defendant, the plaintiff purchased the property adjoining to his property.

The d1 is not aware about the extent of the property purchased by the plaintiff. The property in possession of the plaintiff on the date of filing of the suit is the property purchased by him. It is admitted by D1 that the defendants being the owners of their own property constructed residential usage building in the name of Kuchipudi Homes Apartments, after obtaining necessary plans from the Municipal

Corporation. It is submitted that these defendants shown the extent of the property under their actual possession on ground within their own compound walls.

5.It is further submitted that the Eastern Wall of these defendants is an old compound wall that was made much prior to the purchase of the property by these defendants. It is submitted that there is no question of encroachment of the plaintiff’s property by these defendants which is beyond the existing compound wall. The plaintiff is aware of the fact that 7 by removing the existing wall they constructed a new wall in the place of the old wall. The plaint schedule itself is incorrect and it is against to the recitals of the plaintiff’s own documents. As per the recitals of the document No.1 and 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff’s property is in a depth of 56.9 ft. and 56.6 ft., but in the schedule it is shown as 50 and measured the alleged encroachment. It is submitted that in terms of the recitals made in the documents filed with plaint the alleged encroachment must have been made by the owners of the property towards south of the plaint schedule, but not the owners of the property towards west of the plaintiff’s property.

The rough sketch filed by the plaintiff is also made to his imagination without any documentary support. The plaintiff intentionally did not mention the extent of the property of plot

No.116, 115 and 114 from its north to South, likewise from east to west and its rear side. As per the rough sketch measurements, the total extent of the plaintiff’s property is only 219.4 sq.yards but not 249 sq.yards. Further, if the alleged encroachment if any is true, even then his total property comes to 235 sq.yards, but not 249 sq.yards.

Knowing the same and knowing that these defendants made their own constructions in their own property, with a view to harass and to effect the rights of the purchasers of flats constructed by these defendants in their own property, he filed this suit for his unlawful gains. The plaint is not 8 maintainable for non impleading the present owners i.e. the purchasers of flats from these defendants who are having equal rights in the property. The compound wall on the rear side of the plaintiff’s property is an old wall belonging to

Reshma apartments. From the said compound wall upto the road on the north, the width of the property is only 50 sq.feet, but not 56.9 or 56.6 sq.ft. Even the width of the plaint schedule property cannot be fixed without measuring the plots from 113 to 120 with the help of their own documents to fix the alleged encroachments if any. The plaintiff with an intention to grab money and to defame these defendants in the public got filed this suit, with all false allegations. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed by the then II Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada on 16.12.2015.

1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Mandatory Injunction as prayed for ?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for ?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of recovery of property as prayed for ?

4)To what relief ?

7.During trial the Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and

Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. In support of the case of plaintiff, 9 the father­in­law of plaintiff was examined as PW2 and Ex.A8 was marked. The Urban Land Ceiling Officer was examined as

PW3. The 1st defendant was examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff purchased the property on 10.5.2003 in E.P.2126/OSD/2002 and sale certificate was issued by the A.P.Co­Operative Registrar. The plaintiff purchased the property much prior to the purchase made by the defendants. The defendants purchased property vide plot Nos.115 and 114 admeasuring 268 sq. yards and 239 sq. yards respectively. The defendants are adjacent owners of the plaintiff’s property and purchased recently and constructed residential usage building consisting of stilt, ground, G+4 floors of RCC building by name Kuchipudi

Homes Apartments. The defendants obtained approved plan under B.A.No.249/2013/G6, dt.3.4.2013.

ISSUE NO.1:­ 1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Mandatory Injunction as prayed for ?

10.The contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff obtained the proceedings of approved plan under Right to

Information Act on 18.10.2014 and came to know that the defendants encroached his property to a width of 2 feet 11 10 inches in eastern side of the defendants property i.e. on the western side of the plaintiff’s property to a depth of 50 feet in total 16.20 sq.yards. The plaintiff immediately approached the defendants to remove the compound wall constructed by him from North to South on Eastern side of their property, but they did not heed the request of the plaintiff. The plaintiff measured the entire area of the 3 plots i.e. 116, 115 and 114 and it is clear that the defendants encroached the plaintiff’s property as mentioned above. Therefore, prayed to grant

Mandatory Injunction against the defendants to remove the compound wall i.e. ABCD portion of the plaint plan. Per contra, the defendants submitted that the plaint schedule is incorrect and it is against the recitals of own documents. As per the documents relied by the plaintiff, the depth is 56.9 feet and 56.6 feet, but in schedule shown as 50 feet and measured the alleged encroachment. As per the recitals of documents relied by the plaintiff, the encroachment must have been made by the owners of the property towards south of the plaint schedule property, but not the owners of the west of the plaintiff property. The rough sketch also made to his imagination without any documentary support. As per the rough sketch, the total extent of plaintiff property is 219.4 sq.yards, but not 249 sq.yards. The compound wall on the rear side of the plaintiff property is an old wall belonging to

Reshma Apartments. The width of the property is only 50 11 sq.feet from compound wall upto the road on the north side, but not 56.9 or 56.6. So, the width of the plaint schedule property cannot be fixed without measuring the plots from 113 to 120 with the help of documents.

11.Basing on the above contentions, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove the encroachment made by the defendants while raising the apartment. The plaintiff, to substantiate his version got examined himself as a PW1 by filing his chief examination affidavit reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 were marked.

During cross examination, the PW1 testified that the plaint plan do not reveal the linear measurements except north of his property and plaint schedule do not disclose the linear measurements on East. The Ex.A7 which is a notarized copy of sale certificate issued by Special Category Deputy

Registrar, Central Co­operative Bank, dt.10.5.2003 was not registered before S.R.O. in 2003, but it was registered about one year back and the original sale deed of Ex.A7 was with the plaintiff. PW1 also categorically admitted that Ex.A7 do not disclose the recital of delivery of possession after measurement of the land and the Sub Registrar did not make endorsement on original of Ex.A7. PW1 specifically stated that it was mentioned as estimated extent. The PW1 specifically testified that the defendant’s property situated on

West and the linear measurement on the West towards 12 defendant’s side is 56.6 feet and on his East 56.9 feet. He also testified that the length under occupation was shown as 50 feet. Again he stated that he has no land on the South of the dotted portion shown in plaint plan and there is a compound wall on South belongs to Reshma Apartments.

Therefore, the length of the plaint schedule site is 56.6 feet and it is towards North. There is a road situated on the

North. Therefore, the portion of the property under plots 114, 115 and 116 might be merged into the Road on North. The plaintiff is claiming the encroached portion as 50 feet length X 2 feet 11 inches width which comes to 16.20 sq.yards by confining the length as 50 feet.

12.The PW1 further testified that the property of Chaganti

Venkata Suryanarayana was purchased under Ex.A1 on the west of plaint schedule and the property is on the East of the compound wall. Therefore, there was a compound wall existed on the West of Plot No.116 which is a property covered under Ex.A7. He also stated that the age of the house shown in Ex.A1 is more than 20 years as on date of Ex.A1. The property covered under Ex.A2 is the West of Property under

Ex.A1 and it is vacant site and the compound wall of Reshma

Apartment on the South of his property was constructed long back and the length of site from compound wall of Reshma

Apartment to the Road is 56.6 feet and the length was shown

as 50 feet and the remaining 6.6. feet is on the North towards

13 road. Therefore, if length of the site is taken into consideration of 56.6 feet and breadth is taken into consideration as 40 feet, the total extent comes to 251.55 sq.yards. Ex.A7 which is a notarized copy of sale deed through which the plaintiff purchased the property in the open auction conducted by the Krishna District Co­Operative

Central Bank Limited, executed by Special Categorically

Deputy Registrar, KDCC Bank, Machilipatnam discloses that the estimated extent is 249 sq.yards vacant site having boundaries on East: 56.9 feet, Plot No.117, on South:Nalluri

Sitaravamma, on West:56.6 feet, Plot No.115 and on North:30 feet wide road. The Western Boundary supposed to be 56.6 feet length, whereas the plaintiff claiming that 50 feet length and 2 feet.11 inches width site on the West was encroached by the defendants. The Northern boundary linear measurement was not shown, but the plaintiff is claiming 40 feet width towards the road on North as per the plaint plan.

Taking into consideration of above measurements and the statement made by the plaintiff that on the Southern side, the compound wall of Reshma Apartments was already in existence as on date of his purchase under Ex.A7 and the 6.6 feet length was towards the Road on North, so the extent under occupation of plaintiff came 251.55 sq.yards.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim that the defendants encroached the dotted portion in the plaint plan vide ABCD 14 portion. Thus, the court can safely draw inference that there is no encroachment made by the defendants.

13.The plaintiff/PW1 also stated that there are compound walls on south and West by the date of his purchase under

Ex.A7. It is also one of the indicating factors that the compound wall on the Western side was already in existence

before purchasing the site under Ex.A7, hence there is no

scope for encroaching the site on the West of the plaintiff property. He also admitted that as per Ex.A5 photos the compound wall visible on the west. The PW2 who is the father­in­law of the plaintiff and original owner of the property covered under Ex.A7, who mortgaged the property to the

Krishna District Central Co­Operative Bank also deposed that he purchased the property under Ex.A8 on 10.05.1979, thereafter the Apartment came up with compound walls on

West and South. He also admitted the topography shown in

Ex.A5 photo is true and it revealed that the compound wall is in straight and it joins in middle with the defendant’s compound wall on South. The PW2 further testified that there are no measurements taken by the KDCC Bank while handing over the property to plaintiff and the house of one

Raju and compound wall were in existence as on the date of purchase by the plaintiff in auction. The evidence of the PW2 also clinches the issue that there is no encroachment on the 15

West of the property of plaintiff as the compound wall was in existence as on date of purchase under Ex.A7.

14.The summoned witness was examined as PW3 who is

Urban Land Ceiling Officer presently and he was worked as

Mandal Surveyor and accompanied the Advocate­

Commissioner and stated in his chief examination that on the western side site of the plaintiff was reduced by 1 foot 6 inches on North and 7 inches width on South and he prepared Ex.A6 sketch and handed over to Advocate­

Commissioner. During cross examination, the PW3 testified that as per the direction he has to inspect and measure the properties of plaintiff and defendants as per their documents, but he measured the site physically available on the ground, but not basing on the documents placed by the parties before the Advocate­Commissioner. PW3 specifically testified that

Ex.A7 was not placed before him while measuring. He also testified that there is no scope to mention in his rough under

Ex.A6 that the actual extent and encroached extent. The

Ex.A6 revealed that the Plot No.116 having breadth 40 feet on the north and 39 feet on the South. Even if the linear measurements of site of the plaintiff taken into consideration as on East:56.9 feet, South:39 feet, West:56.6 feet and on

North:40 feet. The total area comes to 249 sq.yards.

Therefore, as per Ex.A7 the estimated extent purchased by the plaintiff is 249 sq.yards, but not more.

16

15.In view of above testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, coupled with

Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A5, Ex.A6 and Ex.A7, the court can safely draw inference that the defendants not encroached any portion of the site covered under Ex.A7 and the ABCD portion shown in the plaint plan is a myth and illusory. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for Mandatory Injunction as prayed. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.2:­ 2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for ?

16.In view of finding in Issue No.1 that the plaintiff failed to establish the encroachment of portion vide ABCD in the plaint plan and the relief of Mandatory Injunction is negative, so the plaintiff is not entitled for damages as prayed. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.3:­ 3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of recovery of property as prayed for ?

17.The plaintiff contended that the defendants encroached the site of 16.20 sq.yards and sought for consequential relief of recovery of encroached property. The plaintiff failed to prove the encroachment alleged in the plaint and on the other hand the property purchased under Ex.A7 by the plaintiff was intact as per the linear measurements and the admission 17 made by the plaintiff that some of the portion of the site on

North is towards road and there are compound walls existed on South and West prior to his purchase. So, there is no relief granted for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the compound wall on the West of the property of the plaintiff covered under Ex.A7. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of recovery of possession as prayed. Accordingly, the issue is answered. 

ISSUE NO.4:­

To what relief ?

18.In the result, the suit is dismissed. In the special circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­I of this Court,

transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of March, 2020.

VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW1:Vennapusa Sankara Reddy 18

PW2:Alla Koti Reddy

PW3:S.Sivarama Prasad

FOR DEFENDANTS:

DW1:Kuchipudi Namayya

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Meeseva copy of the Link Document, dt.2.2.2012 For document No.5444/12

Ex.A2:Meeseva copy of the Sale Deed, dt.25.10.2012

Ex.A3:Proceedings of the Municipal Commissioner dt.03.04.2013

Ex.A4:Approved plan issued by City Planner, VMC., Vijayawada(marked subject to objection)

Ex.A5:9 Photographs along with C.D.

Ex.A6:Rough Sketch prepared by Mandal Surveyor filed along with advocate­commissioner’s report

Ex.A7:Notarized copy of sale certificate issued by Special Category Deputy Registrar, Central Co­operative Bank, dt.10.5.2003.

Ex.A8:C.C. of Sale Deed, dt.10.5.1979

FOR DEFENDANTS:­ ­ N I L –

VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

VIJAYAWADA.

19 20

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL SENOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT:­SRI D.BALAKRISHNAIAH,

VI ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC IV ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,VIJAYAWADA

Monday this the 23 rd day of December, 2019

O.S.No.79/2008

Between :

Borugadda Samiyelu, s/o.Yesobu, Hindu, 48 years, service and properties,R/o.SatyanarayanapuramRailwayQuarters, Vijayawada. …PLAINTIFF

And 

1.Borugadda Baby, w/o.late Govindu, Hindu, 50 years, housewife, r/o.Kasaranenivaripalem, Meduru Post, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Borugadda Srinivasa Rao, s/o.late Gocindu, 36 years, Agriculturist, R/o.Meduru Post, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. 

3.M.Jayamma, w/o.Anjaneyulu, Hindu, aged 38 years, housewife, R/o.Kasaranenivaripalem, Meduru Post, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

4.Borugadda Vijayalakshmi, w/o.late Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, housewife, R/o.Kasaranenivaripalem, Meduru Post, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

5.Borugadda Krupa Raju, s/o.late Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 32 years, R/o.Kasaranenivaripalem, Meduru Post, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

6.Borugadda Salman Raju, s/o.late Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 28 years, Homeguard, R/o.Kasaranenivaripalem, Meduru Post, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

7.Namathoti Santhosham, w/o.late Subba Rao, Hindu, aged 67 years, housewife, R/o.Gundimeda, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District.

8.Sarihaddu Damayanthi, w/o.Mukunda Rao, Hindu, 65 years, housewife, r/o.China Arjuna Wada, Mustabada, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District.

2 9.Kondaparla Bhuvanqa Sundari, w/o.Lakshmana Rao, Hindu, aged about 64 years, housewife, r/o.Flat No.9, IInd Floor, Tulasi Apartments, Jojinagar, Autonagar, Vijayawada.

10.Busi Papa, w/o.Prasada Rao, Hindu, aged about 60 years, housewife, resident of D.No.1­44, Kalasamalapalli, 1st Block, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District. …DEFENDANTS

This suit is having come before me for final hearing on 22.11.2019 in presence of Sri Y.V.Kishore Babu,advocate for the Plaintiff and of the 1st defendant remained exparte, and of Sri T.V.Nava Kumar, advocate for the defendants 2 to 4, Sri M.Ramnath, advocate for the D5 and D6 and of Sri M.Aarif, advocate for D7 and D8 and of Sri B.Rama Rao, advocate for the D9 and D10, subsequently, they remained exparte and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T.

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 7 equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and grant possession of the same and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff, late

Govindu and Ananda Rao are the brothers and sons of late Yesobu.

The said Yesobu acquired an extent of Ac.0­74 cents which is a plaint schedule property. The D1 to D3 are the legal heirs of deceased Govindu. The defendants 4 to 6 are the legal heirs of deceased Ananda Rao. On 25.5.1993 the father of the plaintiff by name Yesobu died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and D1 to

D6. The plaintiff has been demanding the defendants for partition and allotment of his share. The plaintiff was learnt that the D1 to

D6 conspired together and are trying to alienate the plaint schedule 3 property with an intention to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. Therefore, prayed to grant preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property.

3.The D2 filed written statement and the same was adopted by

D3 and D4, denying the material allegations and submitted that the

Yesobu not acquired the property, plaintiff suppressed the real facts and show it is a joint family property to grab illegally. The said

Yesobu has got 3 sons and two daughters and plaintiff is the youngest and Govindarao and Ananda Rao are the elders brothers to the plaintiff. The Govindarao died 30 years back, the D1 married another man immediately after death of Govindarao about 30 years back and settled with her husband and got children through him.

D2 and D3 were brought up by their grandfather Yesobu and

Anandarao. The plaintiff is residing away from the family since his childhood and did petty jobs and secured permanent job in railways prior to 1980 and he acquired agricultural and other properties. He never in joint and there is no joint family property. An extent of

Ac.0­74 cents was purchased by Yesobu and his two elder sons in 1985 and sale deed was obtained in the name of Yesobu. The plaintiff has no role in purchasing the property. The pass books also issued in the name of D2 for Ac.0­37 cents and to Ananda Rao for remaining half share. The said Yesobu died in 1993 and the balance of debts to be discharged. The plaintiff visited the village by that time, but he never taken any responsibility to spend any 4 amount to the funerals of his father and the D2, D4 to D6 discharged the debts and spent the expenses for funerals. The plaint schedule property is not joint family property and not liable for partition as the plaintiff executed relinquishment deed in the year 1999. The plaintiff filed the suit due to disputes between him and D2. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.The D2 filed additional written statement and the same was adopted by D3 and D4. They submitted that the D7 to D10 are no way concerned with the plaint schedule property and they are not proper and necessary parties to the suit as they are living separately for the last several decades. The plaintiff, with an ulterior motive and dishonest intention, added them as parties to the suit. The D2 is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of half share in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff submitted in the relinquishment deed dt.17.8.1999 that he has been living separately for the last 20 years and residing at Musthabad of

Gannavaram Mandal. The plaintiff and D7 to D10 are colluded and filed this suit.

5.The D5 filed written statement and the same was adopted by

D6 denying the material allegations and submitted that the grandfather by name Yesobu died on 25.5.1993. The D1 is no way concerned with the family. The fathers of the D5 and D2 are agricultural coolies and used to cultivate the lands on lease and assist their father Yesobu and they lived jointly. The plaintiff 5 employed in South Central Railway and resided in Musthabada of

Gannavaram and acquired properties. The plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of the plaint schedule property as he never constituted as joint family along with the father and brothers.

Father of D5 obtained pattadar pass book for an extent of Ac.0­37 cents i.e. half share in the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff admitted that he has no objection to issue the pass book. After demise of father of D5 on 20.10.2001, D5, D6 and the D3 are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff is nothing to do with the plaint schedule property as the remaining share i.e.

Ac.0­37 cents is in the name of D2. The plaintiff is not having any lawful right and as such he is not entitled to file this suit for partition and separate possession and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

6.The D5 filed additional written statement and the same was adopted by D6. They submitted that the D7 to D10 are no way concerned with the plaint schedule property and they are not proper and necessary parties to the suit as they are living separately for the last several decades. The plaintiff, with an ulterior motive and dishonest intention, added them as parties to the suit. The D2 is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of half share in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff submitted in the relinquishment deed dt.17.8.1999 that he has been living separately for the last 20 years and residing at Musthabad of 6

Gannavaram Mandal. The plaintiff and D7 to D10 are colluded and filed this suit. So the suit is not maintainable.

7.D8 filed written statement and the same was adopted by D7.

They denied the material allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the father of D2 was agriculturist and lived with his father and used to cultivate the land on lease by assisting his father and they lived jointly. The plaintiff employed in South Central

Railway and resided in Musthabada of Gannavaram Mandal and purchased properties. The husband of the D4 and another brother

Govindu have contributed amounts to the plaintiff for the purchase of immovable properties at Musthabada. The husband of D4

Ananda Rao lived jointly and Govindarao died at an early stage and

Yesobu brought up D2 and D3 as their mother got married with another person and out of joint earnings, they purchased the plaint schedule property in the name of their father Yesobu. The plaintiff is not entitled to seek for partition as he never constituted as a joint family. The D2 obtained pass book for an extent of Ac.0­37 cents by admitting no objection from plaintiff, likewise the pattadar pass book also issued in the name of Ananda Rao who is father of D5.

The plaintiff approached the court with all suppression of facts and without impleading D7 and D8 filed suit. The D9 was separated from the family of Yesobu at the age of 2 years as she was brought up by one Ravuri Gannaiah who is no other than maternal uncle of mother of D8. So she is adopted daughter of Gannaiah and her 7 daughter was given in marriage with the plaintiff. D9 and D10 are no way concerned with the suit proceedings and share in the property.

8.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed by my predecessor on 17.06.2009.

1)Whether father of D2 and others purchased the suit property Jointly in the name of Yesobu ?

2)Whether the relinquishment deed is true ?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek partition of suit property ?

4)To what relief ?

The following addl. issue framed on 7.12.2015

Whether the suit filed is not maintainable for nonjoinder of necessary parties ?

9.During trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 and

A2 were marked. The 1st defendant was examined as DW1 and

Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. In support of the case of defendants 2 and 3, one Srimannarayana was examined as DW2. The D5 was examined as DW3, Exs.B6 to B8 were marked. The 8th defendant was examined as DW4.

10.Heard arguments on both sides.

11.The admitted facts are that one Borugadda Yesobu has got 3 sons by name Govindu, Anandarao and plaintiff. The Govindu died long back and his wife/D1 married another man and lived separately with her children born through her second husband.

8

The D2 and D3 who are sons of deceased Govindu were brought up by the grandfather Yesobu. D4 is the wife of Ananda Rao who also died long back. D5 and D6 are the sons of said Ananda Rao. D7 to

D10 are the daughters of Yesobu. The said Yesobu purchased an extent of Ac.0­74 cents of agricultural dry land under Ex.A1/Ex.B1.

The said Yesobu died intestate on 25.5.1993 vide Ex.A2 death certificate.

ADDL.ISSUE:­

Whether the suit filed is not maintainable for non­joinder of necessary parties ?

12.The contention of the defendants is that the said Yesobu has got 4 daughters out of which two daughters were impleaded as D7 and D8. So, the suit is not maintainable for non­joinder of necessary parties. Thereafter, the relevant issue was framed and the plaintiff taken steps to implead all the daughters by impleading

D9 and D10. The D9 and D10 came on record by engaging counsel and remained exparte without filing their written statement.

However, their relationship with the defendants and plaintiff was not disputed and by impleading them the defect was cured.

Therefore, the suit is not bad for non­joinder of necessary parties.

Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.1:­ 1)Whether father of D2 and others purchased the suit property jointly in the name of Yesobu ?

9

13.The contention of the D2 to D6 is that the elder sons of Yesobu by name Govindu and Anandarao are agriculturists and they cultivated the lands on lease along with their father Yesobu and with their earnings they purchased an extent of Ac.0­74 cents under Ex.A1/Ex.B1 in the name of their father Yesobu and they have been jointly enjoying the said Ac.0­74 cents. It is further contended that the plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.0­60 cents which was purchased by his father Yesobu under Ex.A1/B1, so after his death the sons and daughters are entitled for partition of the plaint schedule property. Per contra, the plaintiff submitted that his father Yesobu exclusively purchased the plaint schedule property in his name and he died intestate. When the D2 to D6 took plea that the property was purchased by D2 and others in the name of their father Yesobu, the burden lies upon them to prove that the said property was purchased in his name. The defendants, to substantiate their version got examined D2 as DW1 by filing his chief examination affidavit reiterating the averments of the written statement and got marked Ex.B1 Certified Copy of registered sale deed, dt.23.3.1985. During cross examination, D2/DW1 testified that the plaint schedule property was purchased by his grandfather in 1985 under Ex.B1/Ex.A1 and died intestate. So, the children of grandfather/Yesobu have rights over the property covered under

Ex.A1/Ex.B1. In support of the case of the defendant, the neighbour was examined as DW2. During cross examination DW2 testified that his deposition was got prepared by D2 and he signed 10 on it. The DW2 further testified that the father of the plaintiff died in 1999 without executing any document in respect of his properties.

14.The D5 was examined as DW3 by filing his chief examination affidavit, the contents are nothing but replica of averments of written statement. During cross examination, DW3 testified that his paternal grandfather purchased the property under Ex.B1, but he was nor born by that time. The D8 was examined as DW4 by filing her chief examination affidavit. The contents are nothing but the written statement filed by her. During cross examination, the

DW4 testified that she was told by the Govinda Rao and Ananda

Rao that they purchased plaint schedule property in the name of their father Yesobu, but she has not seen the Ex.B1 and she does not know the date of purchase and by the date of purchase of the plaint schedule property, the Govinda Rao is no more. There is no useful evidence brought on record that the plaint schedule property under Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 was purchased by the father of D2 and others in the name of deceased Yesobu. A perusal of Ex.A1/B1 clearly shows that the property purchased in the name of Yesobu, so he is the owner of the plaint schedule property. A careful and meticulous perusal of Ex.A1 which is a certified copy of sale deed dt.23.3.1985, it revealed that the deceased Yesobu purchased an extent of Ac.0­74 cents. However, the suit is filed for an extent of

Ac.0­60 cents. Therefore, the version of D2 to D6 that plaint 11 schedule property was purchased by the father of D2 and others jointly in the name of Yesobu is false. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.2:­ 2)Whether the relinquishment deed is true ?

15.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff executed relinquishment deed on 17.8.1999 relinquishing his share of property and ratified the possession and enjoyment of Ac.0­37 cents each by D2 and husband of D4 which was partitioned during lifetime of Yesobu. The husband of D4 and D2 obtained pattadar and title deed books in their names for Ac.0­37 cents each and enjoying their respective extents by paying the water Cess in the concerned authorities. Per contra, the plaintiff submitted that as his father Yesobu died intestate, he is entitled for partition of the plaint schedule property. The defendants though took specific plea about relinquishment deed and filed the said document into court, but not admitted for want of requisite stamp duty and registration.

16.The plaintiff, during cross examination, specifically testified that he joined in the job in Indian Railways in October, 1979 and have been living in Musthabad of Gannavaram Mandal. The PW1 further testified that he got landed property as well as house site at

Musthabad. He also stated that he married daughter of 9th defendant who is his elder sister. The PW1 categorically testified that he is thumb mark holder and learn the signature through his 12 children, but he don’t remember whether he put signatures on any occasion during his employment. The PW1 further testified that he joined in 1979 and married in 1980 and settled in Musthabad. The plaint schedule property under Ex.A1/Ex.B1 was purchased in the year 1985. There is no evidence that he contributed any amount to purchase the plaint schedule property.

17.The PW1 categorically testified that his elder brothers Govindu and Ananda Rao attended to agricultural cooli works besides helping their father in agriculture. He also stated that his elder brothers are illiterate and used to attend the agricultural cooli works since their childhood. The PW1 studied 1st Class and used to attend cooli works along with his mother. He also specifically admitted that from the hard earnings of his elder brothers, his father performed the marriages of his sisters. He further admitted that his father used to act as head of the joint family consisting of himself and his two elder brothers. The PW1 categorically stated that the D2 and father of D5 and after his demise D5 have been cultivating their respective shares in the plaint schedule property since 1994. He further deposed that his sisters were given the amounts towards their respective shares at the time of their marriages, as such nothing was remained to be given to them by their father. So, it is quite evident that the plaint schedule property was divided between D2 and father of D5 i.e. Govindu and Ananda

Rao. The PW1 further deposed that he was not aware about issuing 13 of pattadar pass books to D2 and father of D5 for an extent of Ac.0­ 37 ½ cents each. The above evidence clinches the issue that the plaint schedule property for an extent of Ac.0­74 cents was divided between Ananda Rao and Govindu during life time of their father

Yesobu and they were issued with pattadar and title deed books under Ex.B2, B6 and B7 and D2 is paying the Water Cess under

Ex.B3 to B5. The plaintiff was aware of above facts and it is inferred that the plaintiff waived his right in the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff relinquished his rights, but not by executing the deed as the said deed was not admitted in evidence.

Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.3:­ 3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek partition of suit property ?

18.In view of discussions supra, the court is of opinion that the plaintiff left the parents house in the year 1979 and joined in the

Indian Railways as an employee and married in the year 1980 and settled with his family in Musthabad, Gannavaram Mandal.

Admittedly the plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.0­74 cents was purchased by his father under Ex.A1/B1 on 23.3.1985.

By the date of purchase of the property, the plaintiff was not in the joint family of said Yesobu and his elder sons Govindu and Ananda

Rao. The plaintiff specifically admitted that his elder brothers

Govindu and Ananda Rao attended the agricultural cooli works besides helping their parents in the agricultural works and their 14 father Yesobu performed the marriages of his daughters who are elders to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also admitted that the said

Ananda Rao and Govindu partitioned the Ac.0­74 cents covered under Ex.A1/B1 equally and they enjoyed their respective shares by cultivating the lands since 1994 and Govindu died in the year 1999 and Ananda Rao also died after 1999. The said Ananda Rao obtained pattadar pass book in his name in the year 2000 whereas

D2 after death of his father Govindu, obtained pattadar and title deed books in the year 2000 in his name. The above facts were known to the plaintiff, but did not choose to object the same.

19.The contention of the D8 and D7 is that after demise of

Ananda Rao his sons i.e. D5 and D6 and D4 are in possession and enjoyment of their half share of Ac.0­37 cents. The 9th defendant in the suit was separated at her age of two years and was brought up by Ravuri Gannaiah who is maternal uncle of mother of D7 and D8.

The D9 and D10 were no way concerned to the suit sought for dismissal of the suit. The above contention was not countered by the plaintiff at any stage of the suit. The D9 and D10 also not contested the matter by adducing any evidence. The plaint schedule property wrongly mentioned as Ac.0­60 cents instead of

Ac.0­74 cents. The plaintiff also did not choose to pay the court fees under section 34(1) of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act knowing pretty well that the property was purchased after his departed from the joint family and the property was partitioned between Govindu and 15

Ananda Rao and have been enjoying since 1994. Thus, the suit for partition is not maintainable on those grounds. The entire plaint pleadings do not reveal that he demanded for partition of plaint schedule property at any point of time and no notice was given by the plaintiff demanding the defendants to co­operate for partition.

So, it also indicates that the plaintiff have no cause of action to file the suit for partition. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the partition of the plaint schedule property as prayed.

ISSUE NO.4:­ 4)To what relief ?

20.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­I of this Court,

transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rd day of December, 2019.

VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC IV ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PLAINTIFF: PW1:B.Samiyelu

FOR DEFENDANT:

DW1:B.Srinivasa Rao DW2:P.Srimannarayana DW3:B.Raju DW4:S.Damayanthi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

16

Ex.A1:Registration Extract of Sale Deed vide document No.410/1985 Ex.A2:Death Certificate of plaintiff father

FOR DEFENDANTS:­ Ex.B1:Certified copy of registered sale deed, dt.23.3.1985 Ex.B2:Pattadar Pass Book Ex.B3:Tax receipt, dt.13.12.1998 Ex.B4:Tax Receipt, dt.31.7.1999 Ex.B5:Tax Receipt,dt.2.4.1998 Ex.B6:Pattadar Pass Book Ex.B7:Title Deed Book Ex.B8:Tax Receipt (Exs.B1 to B5 marked through DW1 Exs.B6 to B8 marked through DW3)

VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC IV ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT:­SRI D.BALAKRISHNAIAH,

VI ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Wednesday, this the 18 th day of March, 2020

O.S.No.584/2016

Between:

Pasupuleti Pushpavathi, w/o.Nageswara Rao(late), Hindu, aged about68years,Housewife,R/o.D.No.48­6/2­7/1, Opp.E.S.I.Hospital, Gunadala, Vijayawada­04.…PLAINTIFF

And 

1.Sri Sri Ganganamma Devasthanam Committee, rep. by its

President Kolli Swamy, Ravichettu centre, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada­12.

2.Kolli Swamy, s/o.late Kanakaiah, Hindu, aged about 64 years, R/o.GanganammaDevasthanam,RavichettuCentre, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada­12.

3.Tagore Ajay Varma, father’s name not known, Hindu, aged about 41 years, R/o.Ganganamma Devasthanam, Ravichettu Centre, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada­12. 

4.Karni Prasad, father’s name not known, Ganganamma Devasthanam Committee, Ravichettu Centre, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada­12. …DEFENDANTS

This suit is having come before me for final hearing on 11.03.2020 in presence of Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Vemuri Ravi Sankar, Advocate for the defendants and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T.

The plaintiff filed this suit (a)for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and consequential relief of Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to remove the concrete cement pillars on the southern and eastern side of the plaint schedule property of plaintiff; (b)for

Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, 2 agents, henchmen etc., from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff; and (c) for costs of the suit. 

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff was in occupation of site an extent of 64 sq.yards, subsequently it was assigned by sale of plot 392 for nominal price at Rs.1/­ per square yard vide LP No.12/82 in N.T.C.No.387/23 in Ward No.1, Block

No.7. The plaintiff raised the tiled house and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The government also granted patta on 28.10.1982. The plaintiff is also paying the taxes and electricity charges to the concerned authorities. In the year 2006 the plaintiff seriously fell sick and residing with her son by letting out the tiled house to one Muthureddy Achita, wife of Durga

Prasad till 2010. The mother of said Achita also died on 27.7.2009 in the plaint schedule house. The tenant vacated the said house due to its old and dilapidated condition. The house was fell down in the year 2011. The plaintiff also obtained loans from the Durga Co­ operative Urban Bank Limited by mortgaging the plaint schedule property and discharged the said loan and the bank authorities issued a clearance certificate.

3.The plaintiff further submitted that due to her health problems, she could not construct the house. The plaint schedule plot No.392 is situated on the Eastern Side of plot No.393 which belongs to Ganganamma Gudi. In the year 2005, some of the people gathered and conducted Jathara in the Ganganamma Temple under 3 the cover of Jathara one Vadlamudi Adiseshu and the defendant with an evil intention to grab the surrounding properties to the plot

No.393, made an application in the year 2006 before pre­litigation counsel forum. The application was closed by observing that plaint schedule plot 392 and tiled house situated on the Eastern side of the plot 393 belongs to plaintiff.

4.The D1 is the self styled committee represented by its

President D2, Vice President D3 and Secretary D4 with a malafide intention to grab the properties around the temple made an attempt, but failed. The defendants tried to demolish the shed in plot No.394 belongs to Gude Venkata Ramana and he filed

O.S.259/11 on the file of II AJCJ Court against D2 and D3 for

permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed on 13.2.2012.

The D2 and D3 preferred O.S.83/12 on the file of II Addl. District

Judge, Vijayawada and it was dismissed on 7.4.2014. Thereafter

said Venkata Ramana constructed his house. The defendants 2 to 4 illegally laid cement concrete pillars on south and eastern side boundaries of the plaint schedule property and dumped the construction material in plot No.392. On 13.7.2016 the plaintiff visited the plaint schedule property and came to know the said illegal acts of the D2 to D4. She immediately gave report to the

Police Commissioner, but no action was taken and advised to register the complaint by the concerned police. On the complaint

No.2016 07141144, the Inspector of the Bhavanipuram P.S. called the defendant and questioned them. On the influence of the 4 defendant, the Inspector of the Bhavanipuram P.S. stated that the original patta of the plaintiff is the fake document and the matter is civil nature and advised to approach the civil court. The D2 to D4 are having money and muscle power and backed by the ante­social elements and political influence. The defendants have no right and title in the plaint schedule property. The D2 to D4 erected the cement pillars on the south and eastern side of the plaint schedule property. The D1 Ganganamma Devasthanam situated in the plot

No.393 on the West of the plaint schedule plot 392. Therefore the plaintiff approached the Hon’ble Court for the relief of declaration and for consequential relief of Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to remove the concrete cement pillars on the south and eastern side of the schedule property and for the relief of permanent injunction.

5.The defendants jointly filed written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff suppressed the real facts. The plaintiff made allegations relating to other plots which are not related to the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff and the defendants. It is further submitted that the 1st defendant Sri Sri Ganganamma devasthanam was constructed more than 100 years ago. The Ex­President of the

Sri Sri Ganganamma Devasthanam viz. Sri Vadlamudi Adiseshu filed PLC No.460/2006 dated 30.1.2006 against the plaintiff. At that time the Municipal City Planner Surveyed the Plot Numbers in

L.P.No.12/82 and identified the Plot Nos.392 i.e. the plaintiff and 5

Plot No.393 i.e. 1st defendant Devasthanam and issued a report along with sketch to the PLC Authorities. The PLC Authorities closed the matter. Since then the plaintiff not interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1stdefendant

Devasthanam. As per the report of the City Planner the 1st defendant constructed a compound wall to the temple in the year 2007. It is further submitted that the plaintiff vacated the premises long back and the property was kept vacant since long time. The documents filed by the plaintiff are old documents. On the basis of said old documents, the plaintiff is making false claims. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is also not in a position to identify his property and making false claims over the others property. As such the suit is not maintainable under law and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that after survey by the

Vijayawada Municipal Corporation the house tax of the plaintiff was cancelled, as no house belongs to the plaintiff is existing. If any doubt in previous survey report in the year 2007 issued by City

Planner and Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, the plaintiff may conduct a fresh survey through court with the assistance of qualified surveyor. In that survey report if the plaint schedule property is covered within the 1st defendant Devasthanam site, the defendants have no objection to deliver the same.

6.It is further submitted that the A.P.Government demolished the houses at Vidyadharapuram for the purpose of construction of 6

Flyover and the Government also paying the compensation for the owners of the Properties acquired by them @ Rs.52,000/­ per

Sq.Yard. For the purpose of getting compensation from the

Government, the plaintiff filed this false suit against the defendants with false claims. If really the plaintiff having any right, title over the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff has to submit the same to the Government for any of compensation etc, but not claiming false rights over others properties. There is no cause of action of the suit and the alleged cause of action is not true and correct and invented and improvised for the maintainability of the suit. This suit is absolutely misconceived, ill­motivated, intended to harass to cause wrongful loss to the defendants and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs against the defendants. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit not only with costs, but also with compensatory costs.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed on 07.12.2018.

1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of her title over the plaint schedule property ?

2)Whether plaintiff is entitled for grant of Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to remove pillars ?

3)Whether plaintiff is in possession of plaint schedule property as on date of suit ?

4)Whether plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction against defendants as prayed ?

5)To what relief ?

7

8.During trial the Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to

A16 were marked. In support of the case of plaintiff, PW2 was examined. On behalf of defendants, the 3rd defendant was examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on their behalf.

9.Heard arguments on both sides.

10.The admitted facts are that the plaintiff purchased the plot

No.392 from the government for nominal price of Rs.1/­ per square yard for an extent of 64 sq.yards in which the plaintiff raised tiled house and allotted with door No.1­1­131 in Ward 1, Block No.7 in

Ganganamma Gudi Street, Ravichettu Centre, Vidyadharapuram,

Vijayawada. The D1 temple is situated in plot No.393 which is on the western side of plot No.392/plaint schedule property. The tiled house of plaintiff was removed in the year 2011 due to its dilapidated condition. There is no dispute with regard to Ex.A1 patta and identity of the plaintiff and also Ex.A2 challan for payment of land cost, dt.4.11.1982.

ISSUE NO.1:­ 1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of her title over the plaint schedule property ?

11.It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule Plot No.392 from the government for the nominal price for

Rs.1/­ per sq.yard for an extent of 64 sq.yards under Ex.A2 challan and in pursuance of the payment of nominal price, the Ex.A1 patta was issued. Admittedly the D1 temple is located in Plot No.393 8 which is abutting to plaint schedule plot No.392. The plaint schedule property discloses that South and West boundaries are roads and on East property of Kilaru Gopalam and on North property of Pittala Manikyam. The boundaries shown in the plaint are contra to the Ex.A1 patta. Further, the plaint schedule property discloses that the house bearing Door No.1­1­131 was existed. The plaintiff admitted that the said house was demolished in the year 2011 itself. The filing of the suit showing the existence of the house bearing Door No.1­1­131 as on date of suit is improper. However, the plaintiff is declared to be the owner of Plot No.392 only in pursuance of Exs.A1 and A2. Accordingly, issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.2:­ 2)Whether plaintiff is entitled for grant of Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to remove pillars ?

12.The contention of the plaintiff is that the D1 temple represented by D2 to D4 raised pillars in the plaint schedule property to grab the same by taking advantage of the property being vacant on the southern and eastern side boundaries of the plaint schedule property. Per contra, the defendants submitted that after survey by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, the house tax of the plaintiff was cancelled as no house belongs to the plaintiff is existed. The defendants further submitted that the plaintiff may conduct a fresh survey through court with the assistance of the qualified surveyor and the plaint schedule property is covered 9 within the D1 Devasthanam site the defendants have no objection to deliver the same. Basing on the above contentions, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish the fact that the D1 temple raised the pillars in the site of the plaintiff.

13.The plaintiff, to substantiate her contention got examined herself as PW1 by filing her chief examination affidavit reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A16. During cross examination, PW1 testified that the Ganganamma temple was in existence for more than 100 years and the houses came up around the temple subsequently and her house fallen about 10 years back. The PW1 further testified that the Municipal City

Planner measured the site and Town Planning Surveyor gave certificate that her site is located on the East of the Temple. So, the plaint schedule property shall be located on the West of the plaint schedule site. The plaint schedule discloses that the Western boundary was shown as Road. The plaintiff contended that the D1 temple raised pillars on Southern and Eastern side boundaries of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule discloses that the

Southern boundary is a Road and the Eastern boundary is property of Kilaru Gopalam. So, the claim of the plaintiff is that the D1 temple raised the pillars in the site of plaintiff i.e. Plot No.392 is false.

14.The PW1 categorically testified that the house tax was abandoned as no house was existed. When there is no house then showing the existence of house and its Door Number in the plaint 10 schedule is utterly false. The PW1 further deposed that the wall was raised by the temple committee in 2007 after closure of Pre

Litigation Case No.460/2006. Therefore, when the wall was raised by separating the D1 temple site, then there is no scope to encroach the site of the plaintiff and raise the pillars. Therefore, the version of the plaintiff that the D1 temple occupied the site of plaintiff and raised the pillars is falsified.

15.One Muthureddy Achuta, wife of Durga Prasad said to have been a tenant in the plaint schedule house before demolition was examined as PW2 by filing her chief examination affidavit stating that the defendants illegally laid Cement Concrete Pillars on

Southern and Eastern side boundaries of the plaint schedule property in the year 2016. During cross examination, the PW2 testified that she with her family resided in the plaint schedule property till 2010 on rent, subsequently the said house was collapsed. The PW2 categorically testified that the Goddess

Ganganamma Temple was in existence for more than 100 years in an extent of 305 sq. yards belongs to the temple and the Temple

Committee raised the compound wall within the temple site and the pillars raised in the year 2010. The version of the PW2 that the D1 temple raised the pillars in the year 2010 is contradicting the plea raised by the plaintiff that the house was collapsed in the year 2011 and in the year 2016 the pillars were raised by the D1 temple in the site of the plaintiff. It is not the case of the plaintiff and PW2 that the compound wall was raised by encroaching the site of the 11 plaintiff. The compound wall was raised within the temple site.

When the compound wall was raised within the site of the temple, then there is no scope to encroach the site of the abutting site owners.

16.In view of above factual circumstances, the court can safely draw inference that the D1 temple and its Committee represented by D2 to D4 did not raise the pillars within the site of plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of Mandatory

Injunction directing the defendants to remove pillars. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.3:­ 3)Whether plaintiff is in possession of plaint schedule property as on date of suit ?

17.The contention of the plaintiff is that she is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on date of suit. Per contra, the defendants submitted that the plaintiff vacated the premises long back and it was kept vacant since long. The documents filed by the plaintiff are old documents and the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Basing on the above contentions, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish her possession over the plaint schedule property as on date of suit.

18.Admittedly the plaintiff raised house bearing Door No.1­1­131 and leased out to PW2 and the said house was collapsed in the year 2010. Since then the Plot No.392 was kept vacant. There are no 12 documents brought on record by the plaintiff to show her possession over the plaint schedule property since 2010 till filing of the suit in the year 2016. The plaintiff relied the documents under

Ex.A3 to A15 which are pertaining to prior to the year 2009. The plaintiff/PW1 admitted that the house tax was not levied since 2010 as there is no existence of the house. In view of above circumstances, the court is of considered view that the plaintiff was not in physical and actual possession of the plaint schedule property as on date of suit. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.4:­ 4)Whether plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction against defendants as prayed ?

19.The contention of the plaintiff is that when the plaintiff visited the plaint schedule property on 13.7.2016 and came to know the illegal acts of the D2 to D4 under the cover of D1 Temple Committee and they laid concrete cement pillars on the southern and eastern side of the plaint schedule boundaries and dumped the sand and gravel in the plaint schedule property. Per contra, the defendant submitted that the Andhra Pradesh Government demolished the houses at Vidyadharapuram for the purpose of construction of Fly

Over and the government also paying the compensation to the owners of the properties acquired @ Rs.52,000/­ per sq.yard. The plaintiff filed suit with false allegations for the purpose of getting compensation and if the plaintiff having right, title over the schedule property, the plaintiff has to submit the same to the 13 government for compensation, but not claiming false rights over the other properties.

20.Admittedly the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property bearing house Door No.1­1­131 as on date of suit. The plaintiff/PW1 and PW2 stated in their oral testimonies that the cement pillars on the Southern and Eastern side of the plaint schedule property were erected by the D2 to D4.

Admittedly on the East of the plaint schedule property, the property of Kilaru Gopalam and on South the road were shown.

Further, the D1 Temple was not shown on any of the boundaries.

However, the contention of the plaintiff and the oral testimony of the plaintiff clearly revealed that the Plot No.393 is covered with D1

Temple and it is abutting to the Plot No.392 which was purchased by the plaintiff, but the temple was not shown on any of the boundaries. The boundaries always prevail over the extent and survey numbers. The plaintiff while seeking equitable relief of

Permanent Injunction must approach the court with clean hands free from blemish­worthy. The house which was not in existence as on date of suit was shown as plaint schedule property, for which the equitable relief of permanent injunction was sought. Moreover, when the plaintiff raising the plea that the defendants encroached the site and raised the cement pillars in Plot No.392, then the plaintiff ought to have sought for recovery of encroached site without seeking for permanent injunction which is based on actual and physical possession and enjoyment over the property.

14

21.In view of findings in issues 2 and 3 that the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of Mandatory Injunction for the reasons mentioned supra, and the plaintiff failed to establish her enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on date of suit and by filing the suit by showing the wrong boundaries. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of Permanent Injunction against the defendants for their interference as prayed. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.5:­

To what relief ?

22.In the result, the suit is partly decreed with proportionate costs.

The plaintiff is declared as absolute owner of plot No.392.

Rest of the suit claim is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­I of this Court,

transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of March, 2020.

VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW1:Pasupuleti Pushpavathi

PW2:Muthureddy Atchuta 15

FOR DEFENDANTS:

DW1:Thakur Ajay Varma

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Patta, dt.28.10.1982

Ex.A2:Challan for payment of land cost, dt.4.11.1982

Ex.A3:House Tax Demand Notice, dt.13.10.2009

Ex.A4:Identity Card issued by Durga Co­operative Bank, dt.11.12.1990

Ex.A5:Identity Card issued by Durga Co­operative Bank, dt.16.2.2001

Ex.A6:Bank Account Pass Book No.1435

Ex.A7:Auction Notice in E.P.22/DR/83­94

Ex.A8:Public Auction Notice in E.P.22/DR/93­94

Ex.A9:Payment Challans( 4 in number)

Ex.A10:House Tax Demand Notice for the house bearing D.No.1­1­ 131

Ex.A11:House Tax Payment Receipts (5 in number)

Ex.A12:Revised Special Notice, dt.27.09.2001

Ex.A13:Electricity Bills(7 in number)

Ex.A14:Photos with C.D. (7 photos with 2 C.Ds.)

Ex.A15:Copy of complaint to the Commissioner of Police and others

Ex.A16:Clearance Certificate, dt.18.7.2016

FOR DEFENDANTS:­ ­N I L –

VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

VIJAYAWADA.

16 17

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT:­SRI D.BALAKRISHNAIAH,

VI ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Thursday, this the 19 th day of March, 2020

O.S.No.780/2016

Between:

Jakka Ravi Kumar, s/o.Veera Vara Prasad, Hindu, aged 40 years, R/o.D.No.41­24­58, Ganganamma Gudi Veedhi, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada. …Plaintiff

And 

Valipalli Venkateswara Rao, s/o.Yerakaiah, Hindu, aged about 66 years, R/o.D.No.17/253, Mandapadu Village, Gudivada, Krishna District. …Defendant This suit is having come before me for final hearing on 12.03.2020 in presence of Sri Naqeeb Ahmed, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Arun Kumar, advocate for the defendant, and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T.

The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of suit amount of

Rs.9,75,800/­ with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. on the

principal amount of Rs.7,00,000/­ from the date of filing of

the suit till realization and for costs of the suit. 

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that on 26.02.2015 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/­ from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed a promissory note at Vijayawada on the even date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the promissory note 2 amount except to postponing the repayment on one pretext or other and on the other hand the defendant alienated his immovable property in collusion with his kith and kin in order to defeat the debts of his creditors like the plaintiff herein. As the defendant failed to pay the debt covered under the above promissory note, the plaintiff obliged to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of the debt under the suit promissory note. The defendant is not an agriculturist and he is not entitled to any benefits under any of the Debt Relief

Acts passed by the Government of A.P. including Madras act 4 of 1938.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. Originally one Kollipara

Krishna Prasad who is the family friend of the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ from one Kolavennu

Gopala Krishna and that at that time Kolavennu Gopala

Krishna insisted the defendant to sign on one blank promissory note and qalso demanded his son to sign on one blank promissory note and also demanded the defendant and his son to sign on blank stamped papers worth of Rs.100/­ and also to deposit the title deeds of the defendqant and his son. Due to the family friendship with the said Kollipara 3

Krishna Prasad, the defendant yielded to the dictates of thesaid Kolavennu Gopala Krishna and signed by the defendant and his son on two blank promissory notes and also on two blank stamped papers and also deposited the original title deeds with the said Kolavennu Gopala Krishna.

Subsequently the said Kollipara Krishna Prasad repaid the entire amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ with agreed rate of interest to the said Kolavennu Gopala Krishna and requested him to return the blank signed promissory notes and blank signed stamped papers and the original title deeds of the defendant.

At that time the said Kolavennu Gopala Krishna represented that the said promissory notes, stamp papers and title deeds were kept in locker and that he promised that he will return them later. Reposing confidence in the said Kolavennu

Gopala Krishna the said Kollipara Krishna Prasad did not press for the same. Subsequently also the said Kollipara

Krishna Prasad requested Kolavennu Gopala Krishna for return of the said two blank promissory notes and original title deeds, but he used to give evasive replies and postponing the same from time to time.

4.Subsequently, the said Kollipara Krishna Prasad who is the family friend of the defendant and Kolavennu Gopala

Krishna colluded together and got filed a suit in

O.S.No.83/2013 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge

Court, Gudivada against the defendant’s son and 4

O.S.No.75/2013 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge

Court, Gudivada against the defendant through Gaddam

Mataji and obtained a decrees in the said suits.

Subsequently, the plaintiff brought the property for sale and that the defendant’s son became the successful bidder in the auction held by the Hon’ble Court. As such the plaintiff again realized the amount from the defendant. Again the plaintiff filed the present suit by forging the signature of the defendant on the suit promissory note, with a malafide intention o gain wrongfully himself and to cause wrongful loss to the defendant. As such the suit promissory note is rank forged and that the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. As such the suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The alleged attestor and scribe on the promissory note are kith and kin of the plaintiff and

Kolavennu Gopala Krishna. There is no cause of action to file the suit and the alleged cause of action is false. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed on 06.06.2017.

1)Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2)Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from defendant as prayed ?

3)To what relief ?

6.During trial the Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and 5

Exs.A1 was marked. In support of the case of plaintiff, one

Kesineni Veera Venkata Satyanarayana attestor of Ex.A1 was examined as PW2. The defendant was examined as DW1 and

Ex.A2 was marked.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

ISSUE NO.1:­ 1)Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ on 26.02.2015 under

Ex.A1 and failed to pay inspite of repeated demands. Per contra, the defendant submitted that one Kollipara Krishna

Prasad who is the family friend of the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/­ from Kolavennu Gopala Krishna and said Gopala Krishna insisted this defendant to sign on one blank promissory note, one blank promissory note by his son and insisted to sign defendant and his son on the blank stamped papers worth of Rs.100/­ and also demanded to deposit the title deeds of the defendant and his son. Due to the family friendship with the said Kollipara Krishna Prasad, the defendant and his son yielded to the dictates of the said

Gopalakrishna. The said Krishna Prasad discharged the amount, but the Gopalakrishna did not return those blank signed papers and title deed on the ground that those were kept in locker. Subsequently, the said Krishna Prasad who is 6 a family friend of defendant and Gopalakrishna colluded together and got filed O.S.83/13 and O.S.75/13 on the file of

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Gudivada. Subsequently, the property was brought for sale and the son of the defendant became successful bidder. The plaintiff realized the amount from the defendant and again the plaintiff filed present suit by forging the signature of the defendant on the suit promissory note. So, the suit promissory note is rank forged. When the said plea was raised by the defendant, the initial and legal burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove the transaction under Ex.A1.

The plaintiff, to substantiate his version got examined himself as PW1 by filing his chief examination affidavit reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 suit promissory note. During cross examination it was elicited that he is working as Mechanic of two wheelers since 20 years in Krishnalanka of Vijayawada besides cultivating the lands and having Ac.3­00 of mango garden in the name of his wife and he is getting income of Rs.20,000/­ per month by mechanic shop and Rs.50,000/­ per annum from the agriculture and income from the mango garden. PW1 testified that he does not know Kollipara Krishna Prasad and

Kolavennu Gopala Krishna and borrowing of Rs.1,50,000/­.

He also stated that the signature of defendant on Ex.A1 is similar to the signatures on Vakalat and written statement.

7

The plaintiff pleaded ignorance that whether the defendant borrowed Rs.1.5 lakh from Kolavennu Gopalakrishna through

Kollipara Krishna Prasad at Gudivada and the said Gopala

Krishna obtained blank promissory note and N.J.Stamp Paper from the defendant and his son and the said Gopala Krishna filed O.S.75/13 and O.S.83/13 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge Court, Gudivada against defendant and his son. The

above version of the defendant is diagonally opposite to the plea raised in the written statement. The defendant pleaded in the written statement that Kollipara Krishna Prasad is the family friend of the defendant and he borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/­ from the Gopala Krishna for which the defendant and his son signed on the blank promissory notes and also signed on the blank N.J.Stamp Papers worth of

Rs.100/­ and delivered the title deeds of the defendant to the

Gopala Krishna. The PW1 also stated that at the time of transaction one K.V.V.Satyanarayana was present.

The attestor by name K.V.V.Satyanarayana was examined as PW2 by filing his chief examination affidavit stating that the defendant Valipalli Venkateswara Rao received consideration of Rs.7,00,000/­ from Jakka Ravi

Kumar and executed Ex.A1 promissory note on 26.2.2015 which was scribed by D.V.Lakshmana. During cross examination, the PW2 testified that he is working as driver of private bus and he know the plaintiff since 14 years and he 8 do not know the friends of plaintiff by name Gopala Krishna and Krishna Prasad and the plaintiff is running the bike mechanic workshop and having white Ration Card. He also testified that the plaintiff is earning Rs.1000/­ per day. The

PW2 pleaded ignorance that Krishna Prasad and Gopala

Krishna filed suits against the defendant in II Addl. Senior

Civil Judge Court, Gudivada. The learned counsel for the

defendant suggested that the PW2 was not available on 26.2.2015 and he was away due to his driving profession,

Krishna Prasad, Gopala Krishna, PW2 colluded with plaintiff and filed this suit and they all created Ex.A1 by forging the signature of defendant and there is no transaction between plaintiff and defendant. The above suggestions were denied by the PW2. The above oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly shows that the plea raised by the defendant is not supported by any material evidence and it implied that the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendant was examined as DW1 by filing his chief examination affidavit, the contents are nothing but replica of averments of the written statement. During cross examination, the DW1 stated that he got prepared his written statement on 26.2.2016 which is false. Valipalli Lakshmi is his wife and she filed I.P.6/13 on the file of Subordinate Court at Gudivada, but he pleaded ignorance about the names of 9 respondents except Kollipara Krishna Prasad and Kolavennu

Gopala Krishna. He also stated that he has got two sons by name Naveen and Pavan Kumar and the defendant and his sons jointly sold the property to one Derangula Srinivas on 5.8.2016 for which the plaintiff filed I.P.18/16 against defendant and his vendee on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Gudivada basing on the sale deed and admitted the contents of Ex.A2. The DW1 specifically testified that he handed over his original documents to the Derangula Srinivas on the day of sale under Ex.A2. Therefore, the plea raised by the defendant that the title deeds handed over to Kolavennu

Gopala Krishna along with blank signed promissory notes and

N.J.Stamp Papers is utterly false. He also stated that he did not file any case against anybody at Gudivada. Again he stated that he filed C.C.5/16 against one Vallabhapurapu

Aruna on the file of Judicial I Class Magistrate, Gudivada,

O.S.6/17 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada

against Chinta Raghu Babu. The conduct of the defendant shows that he speaking false and again admitting the facts.

The DW1 further deposed that Derangula Srinivas is one of the Respondents in I.P.6/13 filed by his wife and he sold property under Ex.A2 after disposal of I.P.6/13. The DW1 specifically testified that he did not issue legal notice demanding to return the blank signed promissory notes, cheques and N.J.Stamp Papers and also not lodged police 10 report against Kolavennu Gopala Krishna. The DW1 categorically testified that he is running workshop under the name and style of Kumar Engineering Works. The learned counsel for the plaintiff suggested that the filing of suits by

Krishna Prasad and Gopala Krishna have no concerned with the plaintiff and those people have no concerned with the plaintiff in this suit and the original property documents were handed over to Derangula Srinivas as on date of filing of written statement and took false plea of forgery to avoid the liability. The above suggestions were denied by the

DW1/defendant. The above oral evidence of defendant/DW1 clearly shows that he raised pleas in the written statement are not coincidence with his deposition as there are serious and gross contradictions. The defendant failed to examine the close family friend by name Kollipara Krishna Prasad to lend support to his version. Moreover, the Kollipara Krishna

Prasad and Kolavennu Gopala Krishna and Derangula

Srinivas are the respondents in the I.P.6/13 filed by the wife of defendant. The plaintiff filed I.P.18/16 against the defendant and his vendee Derangula Srinivas. The defendant also filed Civil Cases as well as cheque dishonour cases against third parties.

A close perusal of Ex.A1, it revealed that one

D.V.Laxmana scribed it and PW2 signed as a witness on 26.2.2015 on which the defendant borrowed Rs.7,00,000/­ 11 from the plaintiff by duly executing it. The defendant made an attempt to get the opinion of the handwriting expert, but he could not produce the signatures in English for contemporaneous period. A careful and meticulous comparison of signature of defendant on Ex.A1 with the signatures available on record i.e. on suit summons, vakalat and written statement and also in the chief examination as well as cross examination, it resembles and appeared to be the defendant subscribed the same. The version of the defendant is not tenable and he speaks falsehood with regard to transaction as well as the other transactions which are not relevant to this case. It is not the case of the defendant that the defendant gave blank signed promissory note to the plaintiff. The oral testimony of PW1, PW2, DW1 coupled with

Ex.A1 it clinches that the defendant borrowed Rs.7,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 on 26.2.2015 and failed to repay the amount. Therefore, the suit promissory note is proved to be true, valid and binding on the defendant.

Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.2:­ 2)Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from defendant as prayed ?

In view of finding in issue No.1 that the Ex.A1 promissory note is proved to be true and binding on the defendant, so the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount.

12

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit from the defendant as prayed. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.3:­

To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs.

The defendant is directed to pay an amount of

Rs.9,75,800/­ with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. from

the date of suit to date of decree and @ 6% p.a. from the

date of decree to till realization on the principal amount

of Rs.7,00,000/­ to the plaintiff.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­I of this Court,

transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 19th day of March, 2020.

VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: PW1:Jakka Ravi Kumar

PW2:Kesineni Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

FOR DEFENDANT: DW1:Valipalli Venkateswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1:Suit Promissory Note, dt.26.02.2015 Ex.A2:Photostat copy of sale deed, dt.5.8.2016 (Marked subject to objection).

FOR DEFENDANT:­ ­ N I L – 13

VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

VIJAYAWADA.

14

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE: VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT:­SRI D.BALAKRISHNAIAH,

VI ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC V ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,VIJAYAWADA

Friday, this the 28 th day of February, 2020

C.C.No.235/2016

Between:

Mudda Ashok, s/o.M.Bhaskar Rao, aged about 42 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Flat No.208, Sangamithra Apartments, Entrenchment Road, East Maredpally, Secunderabad.

…Complainant

And 

G.Gopal Yadav, s/o.late G.Kistaiah, aged about 45 years, Occ:Business, H.No.2388/7/2, Satyanilayam, Opp:Water Tank, Anand Bagh X Road, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. …Accused

This Case is having come before me for final hearing on 24.02.2020 in presence of Sri Gogusetty Venkateswara Rao, advocate for the Complainant and of Sri B.N.R.P.Bhargava, advocate for the accused, and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T.

The Complainant filed this complaint against the accused for the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to punish the accused and to grant compensation out of fine amount to the complainant from the accused.

2.The brief averments of the complaint are that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/­ from the complainant on 27.10.2011 to meet the accused urgent business commitments and to evidence the same the accused has executed a demand promissory note in favour of complainant on the same day 2 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to complainant or to his order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by and on behalf of the complainant, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.000021 for

Rs.1,00,000/­ dt.18.08.2014 drawn on Bank of Baroda,

Malkajgiri Branch, Hyderabad in favour of complainant towards the part payment of above said promissory note. At the time of issuing the cheque, the accused has promised the complainant that the said cheque will be honoured without fail on its presentation. Believing the words of accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for collection through his banker i.e.,

Andhra Bank, Balajinagar Branch, Vijayawada, but to the utter surprise of complainant the said cheque was returned dishonoured as unpaid as the return memo, dt.24.09.2014 for the reasons “funds insufficient” and the same was informed to the complainant by his banker. After receipt of the said dishonor cheque, the complainant got issued legal notice dt.14.10.2014 to the accused through registered post with ack. due on 14.10.2014 to the address of the accused and the same was received by the accused. By the notice dt.14.10.2014 the accused was calling upon to pay the above said cheque due amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/­

The accused issued the above cheque knowingly well that there is no sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque, thus he committed the offence u/s.138 of N.l.Act. Hence, the complaint.

3

3.The complainant was examined on sworn statement and the offence was taken on cognizance against the accused u/s.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons to the accused.

Accused present, copies were furnished to the accused on which the complainant relied in this case u/s.204(3) Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. and read over the accusations to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the complainant was examined as PW1 and

Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. In support of the case of complainant,

PW2 was examined.

6.After closure of complainant evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. He categorically denied the incriminating evidence against him and reported no evidence in defence. The evidence on both sides closed. 

7.Heard both sides. Written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant and accused.

8.Upon considering the averments of the complaint, documents and oral evidence let in by the complainant, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, the point for determination is“whether the complainant

established the guilt of the accused for the offence

4

punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act beyond the

reasonable doubt ?”

POINT:­

9.The contention of the complainant is that the accused borrowed Rs.7,00,000/­ on 27.10.2011 under Ex.P1 and after repeated demands the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque on 18.8.2014 for Rs.1,00,000/­ towards the part payment and the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and the accused failed to pay upon receipt of Ex.P4 notice got issued by the complainant demanding to pay the cheque amount. Per contra, the accused submitted that the complainant has no financial capacity to lend

Rs.7,00,000/­ and the mandatory notice was not issued to the accused and the Ex.P5 postal acknowledgment was brought on record after filing the complaint in 2015 as if the acknowledgment was evidencing the receipt of Ex.P4 legal notice. Basing on the above contentions, the initial and legal burden lies upon the complainant to establish the transaction under Ex.P1 and issuing of the cheque under Ex.P2 and dishonor of Ex.P2 cheque.

10.The complainant, to substantiate his version got examined himself as PW1 by filing the chief examination affidavit reiterating the averments of the complaint. During cross examination, PW1 testified that he did not file suit to recover the amount basing on

Ex.P1 and he did not file Income Tax Returns as on 27.10.2011.

5

It was elicited that the accused paid Rs.5,00,000/­ on 120.5.2013 through bank of Baroda as he borrowed Rs.5,00,000/­ each on three occasions on 15.6.2009 from company account on 8.1.2010 through cheques drawn from HDFC Bank and he closed above transactions in May, 2013, June,2013 and November, 2013 by way of Rs.4.5 lakhs through cheques and Rs.50,000/­ by way of cash. The PW1 further testified that he don’t have any document except bank statement for settlement. The PW1 categorically testified that he received Rs.2,00,000/­ on 20.2.2015 through bank of Baroda towards part payment under Ex.P1 and there is no endorsement made on Ex.P1 with regard to payment of Rs.2 lakhs. The learned counsel for the accused suggested that the

Ex.P2 cheque was not valid in the eye of law, as the statutory notice was not received by the accused, so there is no cause of action to file the complaint and there is no debt and no issue of cheque and the contents of Ex.P1 are not valid. The above suggestions were categorically denied by the PW1. There is no explanation offered by the accused why the contents of Ex.P1 are not valid and Ex.P2 cheque is not valid. Without assigning any reasons, the making of suggestion is of no use.

11.In support of the case of the complainant, the attestor was examined as PW2 by filing his chief examination affidavit stating that he witnessed the transaction under Ex.P1 and the complainant informed him about issuing of Ex.P2 cheque for 6

Rs.1,00,000/­ towards part payment and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. During cross examination, the PW2 pleaded ignorance about the documentary evidence to show the complainant had

Rs.7,00,000/­ as on 27.10.2011 cases pending between complainant and accused in both Telugu States and showing

Rs.7,00,000/­ as an asset in the Income Tax Returns. The above facts are though not in the knowledge of PW2 and the ignorance of PW2 is not going to the root of the case. The learned counsel

for the accused suggested that there is no transaction between

the complainant and accused and the accused did not give cheque to him and the PW2 is deposing false to help the complainant basing on the fabricated promissory note. There is no useful evidence elicited from PW2 to lend support to the version of the accused as well as to impeach the case of the complainant.

12.The Ex.P1 is the promissory note dt.27.10.2011 in which the signature of the accused was found and dated as 27.10.2011. On 20.7.2014 the accused made part payment endorsement for

Rs.5000/­. The oral testimony of PW1 and 2 corroborate to each other with regard to transaction under Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the cheque dt.18.8.2014 also return and signed by the accused with the same pen as it appears. The bank issued a memo with an endorsement that funds insufficient vide Ex.P3. It clearly shows 7 that the Ex.P2 cheque was drawn from the bank by the drawer and issued the same to the complainant towards discharge of part liability. When the bank did not mention any reason except insufficient of funds, it amounts that the cheque was issued by the drawer. Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice dt.14.10.2014 got issued by the complainant to the accused. The accused did not deny the address mentioned in the notice. The said notice was sent to the accused under registered post on 14.10.2014 evidencing the postal receipt. If the person posted the letter under registered post did not get any postal acknowledgment or reply from the addressee within 30 days, it deemed that the notice was duly served upon the addressee. However, the complainant filed postal acknowledgment vide Ex.P5 which bears postal mark of Malkajgiri, Rangareddy District dt.23.2.2015. The Ex.P5 also shows that it pertaining to C.C.684/15 which was written on it.

So, the court is of opinion that the said Ex.P5 is not pertaining to the receipt of notice under Ex.P4. The legal notice was issued on 14.10.2014 and the complaint was filed on 20.11.2014. So, the complaint is within the limitation after the grace period.

13.During examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C. the accused specifically stated that he received the notice and stated that he repaid the entire amount received on interest, but the complainant without returning the promissory note and cheque, filed this case after 3 years. The above statement is relevant to the facts of the case. No doubt, the accused did not choose to 8 lead any evidence, but he has got an opportunity to state the facts while examining under section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the court believe that the accused borrowed amount under Ex.P1 and issued Ex.P2 cheque. The complainant stated in his cross examination that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ was paid by the accused in respect of debt due under Ex.P1, but there is no endorsement on the Ex.P1. The non­filing of suit for recovery of amount basing on the Ex.P1 and issuing of Ex.P2 cheque for

Rs.1,00,000/­ is an indicating factor that as on date of Ex.P2 cheque, the accused is due to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­.

14.The learned counsel for the complainant stated in his written arguments that the cause of action arose when the accused issued the cheque on 18.8.2014 and it was dishonoured on the ground of “insufficient of funds” and legal notice issued by the complaint was received by the accused and failed to pay the cheque amount as demanded and the accused is liable for conviction. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the complainant has to prove his capacity to lend such huge amount and amount lent to be shown in the income tax returns.

In those circumstances, the complainant failed to establish the transaction. In support of above version he relied the authority reported in 2017(2) ALT Criminal 279 A.P. R.Chennakesava

Rao, Hyderabad Vs. P.Lakshminarasaiah, Hyderabad and

another. The Lordship held that when the conduct of accused is 9 highly improbable. The court is entitled to take note of the conduct of the parties. The Lordship further held that when accused could rebut the presumption u/s.139 N.I.Act, the burden shift on to the complainant and he has to prove that the cheques were issued towards legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused stated in examination u/s.313 Cr.P.C. that he repaid the debt borrowed under Ex.P1 and the complainant failed to return the Ex.P1 and P2, but the accused did not place any reliable and acceptable evidence in support of the said version. Therefore, the court is of opinion that the Ex.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of part liability. The learned counsel for the accused also relied the another authority reported in 2017(1) ALT

Criminal 320 A.P. K.Ashok Kumar Goud Vs. Sriramulu and

another. The Lordship held that accused may not lead any direct evidence and can rely on the circumstances in the case of the complainant to disprove his case. The Lordship further held that non production of any bank statements coupled with non­ mention of amounts in the Income Tax Returns makes the claim of the complainant as doubtful. Admittedly, the accused did not enter into witness box, but stated about the execution of Ex.P1 and issuing of the cheque. There is no material evidence elicited to impeach the credibility of testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 with regard to borrowing of amount under Ex.P1 and issuing of Ex.P2 cheque. Further, the complainant/PW1 stated that as on date of 10

Ex.P1, he was not an Income Tax Assessee. So, there is no question of showing the amounts in the Tax Returns.

15.The learned counsel for the accused also relied the authority reported in 2015(1) S.C.C.Criminal 576. K.Subramani Vs.

K.Damodara Naidu. The Lordship held that the complainant and accused in the decided case were working as Lecturers in government college at the relevant time of loan of Rs.14,00,000/­ and both of them were governed by conduct rules. The source claimed by the complainant is savings from his salary and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ derived by him from sale of site belonging to him. The sale deed was not produced. Though the complainant was an income tax assessee, he has not shown the income from sale. On the contrary the complainant has admitted in his evidence that in the year 1997, he had obtained loan of

Rs.1,49,205/­ from LIC and the loan of Rs.14,00,000/­ is claimed to have been disbursed in the year 1997 to the accused. In those circumstances, the complainant failed to establish the transaction. The case facts on hand are otherwise such as the complainant is not income tax assessee as on date of Ex.P1 and he stated that the accused repaid certain amounts and on the other hand the accused himself admitted the borrowing of amount and issuing of the cheque. So, the above authority has no application to the facts on hand.

11

16.In the above factual matrix the complainant established the transaction under Ex.P1 and also issuing of the cheque for

Rs.1,00,000/­ to discharge the part liability beyond any doubt.

Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction u/s.255(2) Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, typed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of February, 2020.

VI ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC V ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE,VIJAYAWADA.

17.Upon questioning on the quantum of sentence, the accused pleaded mercy on the ground that he has got college going children and whole family is depending upon the earnings of the accused. Further, stated that his business is in financial crisis.

18.Upon considering the above statement made by the accused, the court is not inclined to take lenient view.

19.In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence punishable u/s.138 N.I.Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,10,000/­, I.D.S.I. for 3 months.

The complainant shall be compensated with Rs.1,00,000/­ i.e. cheque amount out of the fine amount u/s.357 Cr.P.C.

The accused appraised of right of appeal.

12

The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of February, 2020.

VI ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC V ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN 

MAGISTRATE,VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

COMPLAINANT: ACCUSED

PW1:Mudda Ashok­ NONE –

PW2:G.Chakramani

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

COMPLAINANT

Ex.P1:Pronote,dt.27.10.2011 Ex.P2:Cheque, dt.18.08.2014 Ex.P3:Cheque return memo, dt.24.09.2014 Ex.P4:Office copy of legal notice, dt.14.10.2014 Ex.P5:Postal acknowledgment 

FOR ACCUSED:­ ­ N I L ­

VI ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC V ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN 

MAGISTRATE,VIJAYAWADA.