Smt D.Durga Kalyani

Junior Civil Judge

Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka) · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Smt D.Durga Kalyani, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,223 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

1,223

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/3/2012

M.Tirumala Naidu vs M.Sankar Naidu

28 Feb 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NAGARI

PRESENT:: Smt.D.Durga Kalyani,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

Friday, the 28th (Twenty Eighth ) day of February, 2020.

O.S.No. 03 OF 2012

Between:

1. M.Tirumala Naidu (died), S/o M.Narasimhulu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 89 years, cultivation,

2.M.Manohar Naidu, S/o M.Tirumala Naidu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, cultivation (Amended as per orders in I.A.No. 113/2018)

Both are residing at Venganna Kandriga village, C.N.Kandriga Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Plaintiffs

And

1. M.Sankar Naidu, S/o M.Rama Naidu, Hindu, aged about 50 years, cultivation,

2. M.Anasuya , W/o M.Sankar Naidu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Cultivation,

Both are residing at Venganna Kandriga village, C.N.Kandriga Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District.

3.D.Parvathi, W/o D.Babu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, House wife, residing at Netham Kandriga village, near Nagari Railway Station, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District.

(3rd defendant added as per orders in I.A.No.210/2016, dt. 18.07.2018)

... Defendants.

This suit is coming before me this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.G.Prabhakar, Advocate for plaintiffs, and of Sri B.Raveendra & Sri U.S.Rayudu, Advocates for defendants and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having reserved this matter till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by M.Tirumala Naidu at first against M.Sankar Naidu and

M.Anasuya to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to execute and registered regular sale deed in favour of this plaintiff M.Thirumala Naidu in respect of plaint schedule property after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs. 9000/ and to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to deliver the possession of plaint schedule property to this plaintiff.

Fair Judgment 2

2. The Contents of the plaint are as follows:

This is a suit filed by M.TIrumala Naidu against M.Sankar Naidu and M.Anasuya at first. Subsequently, the said M.TIrumala Naidu died and accordingly, his son M.Mohan

Naidu came on record as per orders in I.A.No. 113/2018. Further D.Parvathi D3 also came on record as per orders in I.A.No. 210/2016, dt.18.07.2018. Subsequently, after completion of all formalities neat copy of plaint is filed on behalf of plaintiff submitting as follows.

That the 1st plaintiff Tirumala Naidu and 1st defendant Sankar Naidu are sons of own brothers. While so, on 31.03.2000 the defendants 1 and 2 entered into agreement of sale with the 1st plaintiff agreeing to sell plaint schedule property for Rs. 1,00,000/ and thereby received sum of Rs. 31,000/ from the 1st plaintiff towards advance and executed agreement of sale in favour of 1st plaintiff on the very same day. As per the terms of agreement of sale the first plaintiff has to pay Rs. 20,000/ out of balance consideration of

Rs. 69,000/ on or before 30.05.2000 and he has to pay the remaining balance of sale consideration of Rs. 49,000/ on or before 30.07.2000 and he has to obtain a regular and registered sale deeds from defendants 1 and 2. Accordingly, on 28.05.2000 the 1st plaintiff paid Rs. 20,000/ towards balance sale consideration to defendants 1 and 2 and endorsed the same on the back of the 1st page of the said agreement of sale. Subsequently on 14.07.2000 the plaintiff has paid Rs. 40,000/ to the defendants 1 and 2 towards balance sale consideration and endorsed the same on the back of 2nd page of agreement of sale on 14.07.2000 itself. According to the said endorsement dt. 14.07.2000 the 1st defendant agreed to discharge the entire sugar loan amount pending in Indian Bank, Nagari on or

before 30.04.2001 and to receive the balance consideration Rs. 9000/ from the plaintiff

after producing the receipt and thereby defendants 1 and 2 should execute a regular sale deed in favour of 1st plaintiff whenever plaintiff demands.

While so, the 1st plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and has been demanding the defendants 1 and 2 to clear the sugar cane loan and to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 9000/ and to execute a regular sale deed in favour of 1st plaintiff as per the terms of agreement of sale deed dt. 31.03.2000. But the defendants 1 and 2 have been postponing the same on one or the other pretext and since the defendants are close relatives to this 1st plaintiff he waited with the belief that the defendants will perform their part of contract. But the defendants did not perform their part of contract and hence, 1st plaintiff has issued legal notice dt. 11.10.2011 to the defendants 1 and 2 with acknowledgement due and inspite of the said legal notice , the

Fair Judgment 3 defendant did not execute any sale deed in favour of this plaintiff. Hence, the 1st plaintiff has filed this suit seeking relief of specific performance of contract. Subsequently, the 1st plaintiff died and his son came on to the record. Further, the 3rd defendant is also came on the record and added as per orders in I.A.No. 113/2018. It is submitted that though she is having knowledge of agreement of sale filed in this suit colluded with the defendants 1 and 2 and created nominal registered sale deed dt. 27.05.2013. Thus, he prays the court to pass a decree and judgment in favour of this plaintiffs against D1 to D3 directing the defendants 1 and 2 to execute regular sale deed in favour of 2nd plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property after receiving balance of sale consideration of Rs. 9000/ and also to direct the 3rd defendant to join the 1st and 2nd defendants and to execute and register sale deed in favour of this 2nd plaintiff besides directing them to deliver the possession of plaint schedule property to the 2nd plaintiff.

3.On the other hand, written statement is filed on behalf of 1st defendant where the 2nd defendant also adopted the same written statement filed by 1st defendant.

Further 3rd defendant also filed written statement denying the averments of plaint.

It is submitted by the 1st and 2nd defendant that the allegations mentioned in para no. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of plaint are all false and baseless allegations and the plaintiff has to prove the same strictly. It is further submitted by them that the suit is barred by limitation and on that ground itself the suit is liable for dismissal. It is also submitted that the agreement of sale endorsements are false, fabricated and forged one and plaintiff did not pay any amount mentioned in the plaint even on the date of agreement of sale or later.

The plaintiff committed breach of contract though consideration was not paid within stipulated time of three years as mentioned in the agreement of sale. In fact there is no sugar cane loan pending as alleged by plaintiff. But plaintiff violated the principle as time is essence of contract as stipulated period is the condition as per the notice. Therefore , they sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.The contents of the written statement of 3rd defendant reads as under.

She also denied the allegations of plaint averments in para wise from para no. 4 to 7.

It is further submitted by her that defendants 1 and 2 executed an agreement of sale in favour of 3rd defendant on 01.12.1999 for valid consideration of Rs. 51,000/ and basing on the said agreement of sale the defendants 1 and 2 executed registered sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant on 27.05.2013. In fact there was mistake occurred in the boundaries of the said sale deed dt. 27.05.2013 and thereby the defendants 1 and 2 again executed rectification deed in favour of 3rd defendant on 11.07.2013. Since then, the 3rd

Fair Judgment 4 defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and recognition of the same, Tasildhar, issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of this 3rd defendant.

Moreover Tasildhar also issued EPass book in favour of 3rd defendant and it is deposited in primary agricultural cooperative society , Nagari as she obtained loan under KCC 2720 account. Thus, she submits that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

While so, the defendants 1 and 2 colluded with the plaintiff and not envisaging any interest to contest the matter as they lost their interest after sale in favour of this 3rd defendant.

Since she has interest in the subject matter and to protect her interest she is added as party in this suit. It is also submitted that the 1st plaintiff is not bonafide purchaser and he has got knowledge about the previous agreement executed by D1 and D2 in favour of this 3rd defendant. Moreover the sale agreement relied by plaintiff is barred by limitation and the 1st plaintiff was not at all ready and willing to perform his part of contract within time.

Further the reasons mentioned in the plaint are invented for filing the suit only in order to knock away the 3rd defendant's property. The 1st plaintiff even knowing about the sale agreement in favour of this 3rd defendant he did not add 3rd defendant intentionally at the time of filing this suit. Therefore she came to know about the pendency of suit and filed petition under order 1 rule 10 C.P.C to implead her as third defendant in the above suit and the same is allowed. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs did not approach the court with clean hands and suppressed the above facts with malafide intention to knock away the valuable property of this 3rd defendant. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed: i. Whether 2nd plaintiff is entitled for specific performance in respect of suit property that is to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to execute and register a regular sale deed in favour of him?

ii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover suit schedule property ?

iii. Whether 2nd plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance that is to direct the 3rd defendant to execute and register a regular sale deed in his favour?

iv. if so, to what relief?

6. During the course of trail, the 2nd plaintiff as PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit & reiterated the same contents as mentioned in his pleadings. In addition to that he executed Ex.A1 to A7. Further he also examined one T. Gopala Mandadi, R.Rmaesh and

R.Kesavulu Naidu the 3rd parties as PW2 to PW4.

(a) On the other hand, the 3rd defendant is examined as DW1 and exhibited

Ex.B1 to B5 and he also examined one K. Subramanyam and M.Kuppan as DW2 and DW3.

Fair Judgment 5

7.On perusal of evidence of both parties it is observed that both the parties filed their chief examination affidavits reiterating the same facts as contended in their plaint and written statement. Hence, I am not incorporating the same contents here in order to avoid repetancy.

8.The documents relied by both the parties are noted below.:-

Exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiffs Exhibits marked on behalf of defendants

Ex.A1Agreement of sale dt. 31.03.2000 Ex.B1 Original sale agreement dt. 01.12.1999 executed by M.Sankar Naidu and his wife in favour of 3rd defendant. Ex.A2The payment endorsement dt.Ex.B2 Original registered sale deed dt. 28.05.2000 for Rs. 20,000/ on the27.05.2013 executed by M.Sankar next page of agreement of sale.Naidu and his wife in favour of 3rd defendant Ex.A3Another payment endorsement dt.Ex.B3 Original registered rectification deed 14.07.2000 for Rs. 40,000/ on thedt. 11.07.2013 executed by 4th page of agreement of sale.M.Sankar Naidu and his wife in favour of 3rd defendant. Ex. A4Office copy of legal notice dt.Ex.B4 Original patta pass book issued by 11.10.2011the Tasildhar, Nagari in favour of 3rd defendant. Ex.A5Registered Will dt. 04.02.2012Ex.B5 Original title deed issued by Tasildhar, Nagari in favour of 3rd defendant. Ex.A6Office copy of legal notice dt. 17.06.2013 issued to Tasildhar Ex. A7Office copy of legal notice dt. 16.01.2014 along with postal receipts.

9.Heard arguments on both sides. In addition to that both the parties relied upon the following decisions.

S.No.PlaintiffsDefendants. 12008 AIR SC page 12052010 (2) ALD 480 2AIR 2007 SC page 26632012 (2) ALD 123 3ALT 2004 (3) page 6652006 (1) ALD (NOC 30) 4SAR 2019 (CIVIL) page 681S.A.No. 69/2013 Rajendran and others Vs S.V.Natarajan and others. 5ALT 2005 (5) page 275 61996 SCALE (6) 59 71982 (3) SCC page 508 82005 (2) ALT page 215

Fair Judgment 6 9AIR (HP ) 1, 2007 102008 AIR SC, 1997 111996 (6) ALT, page 605

Perused the decisions relied by both parties. But with due respect I found that these are not relevant to the case on hand as the facts and circumstances are different from the case on hand.

10.Issue Nos. 1 & 2 :

In order to establish his version, the 2nd plaintiff as P.W.1 submits that , 1st plaintiff is his father and originally suit was filed by his father for specific performance of contract against D1 and D2. After filing of this suit, his father died on 05.03.2012 and on that he came on record as 2nd plaintiff as per orders of this court in I.A.No. 236/2012 dt.

14.10.2015. It is submitted by him that the 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant are sons of own brothers and 2nd defendant is wife of 1st defendant. While so, on 31.03.2000 the defendants 1 and 2 entered into agreement of sale with 1st plaintiff agreeing to sell plaint schedule property for Rs. 1,00,000/ and defendants received a sum of Rs. 31,000/ from the 1st plaintiff as advance and executed agreement of sale in favour of 1st plaintiff on the very same day. The said agreement of sale is marked under Ex.A1 in his evidence. It is also averred by him that as per the terms of the said agreement of sale the 1st plaintiff has to pay Rs. 20,000/ out of balance sale consideration on or before 30.05.2000 and again the 1st plaintiff has to pay the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs. 49,000/ on or

before 30.07.2000 and thereby he has to obtain regular and registered sale deed from

defendants D1 and D2 after meeting the expenditure for execution and registration of sale deed. In furtherance of the same on 28.05.2000 the 1st plaintiff has paid Rs. 20,000/ towards balance sale consideration to D1 and D2 and endorsed the same on the back page of agreement of sale which is marked under Ex. A2. Subsequently, again on 14.07.2000 the 1st plaintiff has paid Rs. 40,000/ to the defendants D1 and D2 towards balance sale consideration who inturn endorsed the same on the back of 2nd page of agreement of sale on 14.07.2000 and in addition to that the 1st defendant agreed to discharge the entire sugar cane loan amount pending in Indian Bank , Nagari on or before 30.04.2001 and thereby he shall receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 9000/ from the 1st plaintiff after production of receipt for discharge of sugar cane loan. The said another payment endorsement was marked under Ex A3. Thus, the 1st plaintiff was always ready and willing perform his part of contract and has been demanding the defendants D1 and D2 to clear the sugarcane loan and to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 9000/ and to execute a regular registered sale deed dt. 31.03.2000. But the defendants D1 and D2 have

Fair Judgment 7 been postponing the same on some or the other pretext and since the defendants are close relatives, the plaintiff waited for some period and later he issued legal notice dt.

11.10.2011 to the defendants 1 and 2 under Ex. A4. Inspite of receipt of the said notices , the defendants 1 and 2 kept quite and on that 1st plaintiff i.e., father of this P.W.1 has filed this present suit.

11.It is also submitted by him that the 1st plaintiff died on 05.03.2002 and on 04.02.2012 he executed a registered will in his favour to conduct the suit proceedings after his demise. On that this P.W.1 filed a petition in I.A.No. 236/2012 to permit him to come on record as 2nd plaintiff and the said petition was allowed and accordingly, he came on record as 2nd plaintiff. It is also submitted by him that 3rd defendant was also impleaded in the above suit as per orders of this court in I.A.No. 113/2018. In fact , the 3rd defendant is sister of this P.W.1 and she has no knowledge of suit agreement of sale and filing of suit , but even though she colluded with the defendants 1 and 2 and created nominal registered sale deed dt. 27.05.2013 in her favour as if she purchased the suit schedule property from

D1 and D2. Therefore the alleged agreement of sale dt. 01.12.1999 & sale deed dt.

27.05.2013 are created documents in collusion with defendants 1 and 2. It is also submitted by him that the 3rd defendant influenced the then Tasildhar, and obtained pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour. For that he issued legal notices to

Tasildhar, calling him not to issue pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of 3rd defendant. In addition to the above said oral testimony , P.W.1 also exhibited Ex. A1 to Ex.

A7.

12.P.W.2 said to be one of the attestors of Ex. A1 deposes that on 31.03.2000 the defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell plaint schedule property to 1st plaintiff for Rs.

1,00,000/ and received Rs. 31,000/ as advance and executed agreement of sale in favour of 1st plaintiff, wherein he impressed his left thumb impression as 1st attestor and one

R.Kesavulu Naidu signed as 2nd attestor. He also deposed that the said agreement of sale

dt. 31.03.2000 was scribed by one document writer J.Gopi Nath. He further submits that

on 28.05.2000 this 1st plaintiff has paid Rs. 20,000/ to the defendants 1 and 2 towards balance consideration who inturn received the same and endorsed on the back of 1st page of agreement of sale dt. 31.03.2000. He further deposes that on 14.07.2000 the 1st plaintiff has paid another amount of Rs. 30,000/ to defendants 1 and 2 towards balance of sale consideration who inturn received the same and endorsed the same on the back side of second page of agreement of sale where this P.W.2 also affixed his left thumb impression .

Thus, he submits that he along with one Kesavulu Naidu acted as 1st attestor and 2nd attestor for both payment endorsements. Hence, he submits that the defendants D1 and D2

Fair Judgment 8 received the payments and signed in the agreement of sale and payment endorsements in their presence.

13.P.W.3 said to be one of the attestor of Ex. A5 i.e., Registered will dt.

04.02.2012 deposes that he know the plaintiff and defendant and also about the facts of this case. He also submits that the 1st plaintiff M.Tirumala Naidu executed registered will on 04.02.2012 in favour of 2nd plaintiff in good state of mind by bequeathing his right to continue the above suit proceedings after his demise in which this P.W.3 and one M.Vasu signed as attestors whereas one K.Ramesh scribed the said registered will in their presence.

It is also submitted by him that he along with other attestor M.Vasu saw the 1st plaintiff impressing his thumb impression and both of them signed as attestors at the time of registration of will at SubRegistrar office on 04.02.2012 in between 3 .00 to 4.00 p.m.

14.P.W.4 R.Kesavulu Naidu being another attestor of agreement of sale i.e., Ex.

A1 also deposes that on 31.03.2000 the defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to deceased 1st plaintiff for Rs. 1,00,000/ and accordingly, they received Rs. 31,000/ towards advance and executed agreement of sale in favour of 1st plaintiff in which he signed as 2nd attestor along with P.W.2. The said agreement of sale was scribed by document writter J.Gopi Nath. It is also submitted that on 28.05.2000 the 1st plaintiff has paid another amount of Rs. 20,000/ towards balance sale consideration to defendants 1 and 2 who inturn received the said consideration and endorsed on the back side of 1st page of agreement of sale dt. 31.03.2000. Again on 14.07.2000 the 1st plaintiff has paid another Rs. 40,000/ to the defendants 1 and 2 towards balance consideration and defendants D1 and D2 endorsed the said payment on the back of 2nd page of agreement of sale, in which this P.W.4 also attested as 2nd attestor. He also deposed that the said document is scribed by one J.GopiNath. Thus, by examining himself as P.W.1 coupled with evidence of P.W.s 2 to 4 and exhibition of Ex.A1 to Ex. A7 , the 2nd plaintiff submits that he is entitled for relief of specific performance of contract to direct the defendants 1 and 2 along with D3 to execute a register sale deed in his favour and delivery of suit schedule property to him as per the said agreement of sale exhibited under Ex. A1.

15.To buttress the version of plaintiff, the 3rd defendant as D.W.1 deposes that defendants 1 and 2 offered to sell suit schedule property for an amount of Rs. 51,000/ to her and she accepted the said offer and accordingly, D1 and D2 executed agreement of sale

dt. 01.12.1999 in her favour and on the same she paid sum of Rs. 20,000/ to defendants

and remaining balance with the condition that she would pay the remaining balance of Rs.

31,000/ on the date of execution of sale deed in her favour. Basing on the said agreement

Fair Judgment 9 of sale dt. 01.12.1999 the defendants D1 and D2 executed registered sale deed in her favour on 27.05.2013. Subsequently as mistake is occurred in the boundaries of the said sale deed dt. 27.05.2013 the defendants 1 and 2 again executed rectification deed in her favour on 11.07.2013 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and in recognition of the same, the Tasildhar issued pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour. She also obtained Epass book standing in her favour and she obtained agricultural loan on the said pass book. Thus, she submits that she is absolute owner of suit schedule property.

16.While so, the defendants 1 and 2 colluded with the plaintiff and not envisaging the any interest to contest the matter as they lost their interest after sale in favour of this D.W1. It is also submitted by her that 1st plaintiff is not bonafide purchaser and he has got knowledge about the previous agreement of sale executed by D1 and D2 in favour of this D.W.1. Further it is submitted that the sale agreement which is marked under Ex. A1 is barred by limitation and the 1st plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract within time and moreover in order to knock away the property the 1st plaintiff intentionally not added this D.W.1 as defendant at the time of filing of this suit. Later she came to know about pendency of suit and filed this petition under order 1

Rule 10 petition to implead herself and accordingly, she was impleaded and hence, she submits that the plaintiff did not approach the court with clean hands and she sought for dismissal of the suit.In addition to her oral testimony , she also exhibited Ex.B1 to

Ex.B5.

17.Further she examined one K.Subramanyam third party on her behalf who deposed that the 3rd defendant purchased the suit schedule property from D1 and D2 under sale agreement dt. 01.12.1999 for valid consideration and basing on that agreement of sale D1 and D2 executed regular registered sale deed dt. 27.05.2013 in favour of 3rd defendant and at the time of execution of registered sale deed he along with one Gopi, D1,

D2 and D3 were present and in their presence 3rd defendant paid balance amount of Rs.

31,000/ to the defendants 1 and 2 and accordingly, the defendants 1 and 2 received sale consideration. Further this K.Subramanyam and Gopi signed as attestors in the said sale deed and since then the 3rd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of schedule property till today. It is also submitted by him that defendants D1 and D2 executed rectification deed on 11.07.2013. Where this D.W.3 and Gopi also signed as attestors in the said documents. Therefore he submits that the plaintiff have no right , title over suit schedule property and they are not in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property at any time.

Fair Judgment 10

18.On careful perusal of submission made by both parties it is observed that this is a suit filed by 1st plaintiff at first seeking specific performance of contract basing on agreement of sale dt. 31.03.2000 i.e., Ex. A1 against D1 and D2. Later he died and thereby his son i.e., 2nd plaintiff came on record and subsequently, the 3rd defendant also came on record contending that she purchased suit schedule property from D1 and D2 and since then she is in possession and enjoyment i.e., under Ex. B1. Admittedly, the 1st plaintiff is father of 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant and in the same way the 2nd and 3rd defendant are own brother and sister.

19.It is submitted by the 2nd plaintiff that on 31.03.2000 D1 and D2 entered into agreement of sale with 1st plaintiff by virtue of Ex. A1 and according to the said agreement of sale the 1st plaintiff paid Rs. 31,000/ towards advance with the condition that he has to pay the remaining balance consideration i.e., Rs. 20,000/ on or before 30.05.2000 and another balance consideration of Rs. 49,000/ on or before 30.07.2000. Subsequently, the 1st plaintiff again paid the said balance consideration on 28.05.2000 and another amount of

Rs. 40,000/ on 14.07.2000 . The said endorsements were executed by D1 and D2 on the back side of Ex. A1 by virtue of Ex. A2 and Ex. A3. According to the said Ex. A3 a condition was prescribed where the 1st plaintiff has to pay remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.

9000/ when D1 clears his loan pending in Indian Bank and gives receipt to that effect. But subsequently, the defendants D1 and D2 did not comply the said condition prescribed in

Ex. A3 and thereby the 1st plaintiff filed this suit against D1 and D2 seeking specific performance of contract. Subsequent to his death, the 2nd plaintiff son of 1st plaintiff contested the matter.

20.On this aspect, the 3rd defendant disputes the version of plaintiff’s stating that she purchased the suit schedule property from D1 and D2 in the year 1999 itself, by virtue of Ex.B1 and subsequently, she got it registered in her favour and hence, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance. Whereas the 1st and 2nd defendant did not enter into witness box to contest the matter though they adopted the same cross examination of P.W.1 done by D3.

21.Before parting to point it is very apt here to refer the recent decision of

Hon'ble Apex Court, dt. 07.01.2019 that held between KamalKumar Vs Premlatha Joshi

and others 2019 Law suit SC 12, wherein it was settled that grant of relief of specific performance the material questions are required at first it should be seen whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale or purchase of suit property, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his contract, whether

Fair Judgment 11 he is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract as mentioned in the contract , whether the plaintiff has in fact performed his part of his contract and if so, as how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit schedule property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and if so , how and in what manner the extent of such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff and lastly whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief namely refund of earnest money etc., if so on what ground. So, the above requirements have to be property pleaded by parties in their respective pleadings and has to be proved with the aid of evidence.

22.In the case on hand, the plaintiff in order to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, he relied upon Ex. A1 to Ex. A7. Among them,

Ex. A1 is agreement of sale dt. 31.03.2000. Ex.A2 is payment endorsement dt. 28.05.2000 for Rs. 20,000/, Ex.A3is another payment endorsement dt. 14.07.2000 for Rs. 40,000/,

Ex. A4 is office copy of legal notice dt. 11.10.2011, Ex. A5 is Registered will dt. 4.2.2012 ,

Ex. A6 is office copy of legal notice dt. 17.06.2013 issued to Tasildhar, Ex. A7 is office copy of legal notice dt. 16.01.2014 along with postal receipts.

23.As per the recitals existed in Ex. A1 it is describable that the 1st plaintiff , D1 and D2 entered into agreement of sale on 31.03.2000 where D1 and D2 agreed to sell suit schedule property for Rs. 1,00,000/ and thereby received sum of Rs. 31,000/ towards advance from 1st plaintiff. Further the terms therein also prescribes time limitation for payment of remaining balance consideration as that 1st plaintiff has to pay Rs. 20,000/ on or before 30.05.2000 and the remaining balance of Rs. 49,000/ on or before 30.07.2000.

Accordingly, on 28.05.2000 the 1st plaintiff paid Rs. 20,000/ and the same was endorsed by D1 and D2 by virtue of Ex. A2. Again on 14.07.2000 the 1st plaintiff paid another Rs.

40,000/ to D1 and D2 and made endorsement on agreement of sale by virtue of Ex. A3.

24.Here it would be relevant to extract the exact vernacular language used in Ex. A3 which reads as follows; 2000 ? ???????? ???? ??? 14 ? ????? ? ?????????? ??????? ???? ???????? 40000/ ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ???????????????, ??????? ????????? ?????? 9000/ ??????? ???????? ???? ???????? ???? ????? 30.04.2001 ? ???? ???? ???? ???? (???? ?????? ) ????

??????? ??????? ???? ????????? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ???????????? ???? ?? ???? ???????? 9000/ ???????? ????

?????????????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????? ??????? ????????????.

So , according to Ex. A3 indisputedly the payment endorsement between 1st plaintiff and D1 and D2 the time is stipulated as 30.04.2001 for performance of contract subject to

Fair Judgment 12 the condition stated supra. Therefore, by 30.04.2001 the 1st plaintiff has to pay the remaining balance consideration for performance of contract. On this aspect, the learned counsel appearing for plaintiff states that he has to pay the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs. 9,000/ only when the defendant D1 clears of his loan and gives receipt to that effect. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for D3 strenuously argues that the date prescribed in Ex. A3 clearly cannotes that the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiff did not pay the balance consideration within the said date i.e., 30.04.2001.

25.Though plaintiff i.e., P.W.1 contended in the above manner, admittedly, in order to show his father’s readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract which is essential element deposes that his father approached D1 and D2 for several times to clear the loan as prescribed under Ex. A3. Moreover he also issued notice under Ex. A4 dt.

11.10.2011 to the defendant calling upon to execute sale deed in his favour. As seen from

Ex. A1 it is showing the date as executed on 31.03.2000. According to the conditions therein it is clear that time is essence of contract for the said Ex. A1. Later the 1st plaintiff paid balance considerations by virtue of Ex. A2 and Ex. A3. Even on perusal of Ex. A3 also the time is prescribed stating that balance of sale consideration should be paid on or before 30.04.2001. Here it would be relevant to note that the date under Ex. A4 is 11.10.2011 i.e., after ten years from the date of agreement of sale under Ex. A1 to Ex. A3. On this aspect there is no explanation offered by either 1st plaintiff during his life time or 2nd plaintiff during his evidence except stating bold statement that his father demanded the defendants orally. But there is no material to indicate and exemplify as to what prevented either 1st plaintiff or 2nd plaintiff from issuing at least the lawyer notice or personal letter to the defendants calling them to perform their part of contract at least after one or two years.

So, in the absence of clinching evidence it cannot be taken that even before limitation of three years, the plaintiff tried to perform his part of contract by showing his readiness and willingness. Thus this is the situation where the original agreement of sale as well as subsequent endorsements under Ex. A3 also fixed a date of performance with a condition prescribed therein. This was accepted by the 1st plaintiff by his act of forbearance and not insisting performance forthwith. All these years the plaintiff kept quite and issued notice under Ex. A4 after lapse of nearly ten years. Thus, by relying upon the above decision stated supra it is clear that 1st plaintiff failed to prove the material requirement to seek specific performance of contract. Further as seen from Ex. A3 there is a condition prescribed in respect of a loan payment. On this aspect , the plaintiff did not envisage any interest to file any document to know as to what that loan was. Thus, there is ambiguity in the said endorsement. So, the plaintiffs failed to establish readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract.

Fair Judgment 13

26.Next to that it is contended by the defendant No. 3 that the suit is barred by limitation. On this aspect , the plaintiff avers that suit is not barred by limitation as the defendants violated the condition prescribed under Ex. A3. On this aspect it is better to have a reference to article 54 of limitation act. A bare perusal article 54 of limitation act it would show that the period of limitation begins to run from the date of on which the contract was to be specifically performed. Thus, coming to the case on hand, it is the situation where the original agreement of sale dt. 31.03.2000 had fixed a date for performance and by subsequent endorsements also under Ex. A2 and Ex. A3 the time has been fixed. According to Ex. A3 also the time is fixed for payment of balance consideration on or before 30.04.2001. Even counting from that date, in terms of the above said articles, a suit for specific performance of contract is required to be filed within three years.

27.So, coming to the case on hand, the plaintiff ought to have file suit for specific performance within three years from the date of Ex. A3. But he did not do so and filed this suit in the year 2012 after lapse of limitation period. However there is no dispute that no date for performance is fixed in Ex. A3. But it is contended by the plaintiff that he is entitled for payment of balance consideration if at all defendant clears the loan in Indian

Bank. Thus, the contract itself under Ex. A3 appeared to be inconsistent and ambiguity.

However the plaintiff also failed to raise his little finger in calling upon the defendants to discharge the said loan amounts in all the ten years. Thus taking all the circumstances together it is clear that the plaintiff failed to establish his version with probable evidence.

Accordingly, the point is answered against the plaintiff.

28.Issue No.3:

In view of Issues 1 and 2 answered against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants, the plaintiffs is not entitled for this relief .

29.Issue No. 4:

In the result, suit is dismissed.

Typed to dictation by the Addl. Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th day of February, 2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF:

Fair Judgment 14

PLAINTIFF:DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1:M.Manohar NaiduD.W.1:D. Parvathi P.W.2:T.Gopala Mandadi D.W.2:K.Subramanyam P.W.3:R.Ramesh.D.W.3:M.Kuppan P.W.4:R.Kesavulu Naidu

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiffs Exhibits marked on behalf of defendants

J.C.J. NAGARI.

Fair Judgment 15

Fair Judgment -2-

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NAGARI

PRESENT:: Smt.D.Durga Kalyani,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

Friday, the 28th (Twenty Eighth ) day of February, 2020.

O.S.No. 03 OF 2012

Between:

1. M.Tirumala Naidu (died), S/o M.Narasimhulu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 89 years, cultivation,

2.M.Manohar Naidu, S/o M.Tirumala Naidu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, cultivation (Amended as per orders in I.A.No. 113/2018)

Both are residing at Venganna Kandriga village, C.N.Kandriga Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Plaintiffs

And

1. M.Sankar Naidu, S/o M.Rama Naidu, Hindu, aged about 50 years, cultivation,

2. M.Anasuya , W/o M.Sankar Naidu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Cultivation,

Both are residing at Venganna Kandriga village, C.N.Kandriga Post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District.

3.D.Parvathi, W/o D.Babu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, House wife, residing at Netham Kandriga village, near Nagari Railway Station, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District.

(3rd defendant added as per orders in I.A.No.210/2016, dt. 18.07.2018)

... Defendants.

PLAINT PRESENTED ON: 05.11.2011 FILED ON: 06.01.2012

Cause of action arose for the above suit on 31.03.2000 the date of agreement of sale on 28.05.2000 the date of endorsement for Rs. 20,000/ , on 14.07.2000 the date of endorsement for payment of Rs. 40,000/ on 11.10.2011 the date of legal notice and on all the dates of demand in the Veganna Kandriga village, Nagari Mandal, within the jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble Court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION

Sale consideration under the agreement of sale deed dt. 31.03.2000 ... Rs. 1,00,00000

Court fee paid U/sec. 39 of APCF and S.V.Act.... Rs. 346200

This is a suit filed by M.Tirumala Naidu at first against M.Sankar Naidu and M.Anasuya to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to execute and registered regular sale deed in favour of this plaintiff M.Thirumala Naidu in respect of plaint schedule property after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs. 9000/ and to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to deliver the possession of plaint schedule property to this plaintiff.

-2-

This suit is coming before me this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri

K.G.Prabhakar, Advocate for plaintiffs, and of Sri B.Raveendra & Sri U.S.Rayudu, Advocates for defendants and upon hearing the arguments, and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having reserved this matter till this day, this

Court's doth order and decree as follows: 1that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed 2that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 28th day of February, 2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

SCHEDULE

Chittoor District Nagari Sub District No. 8, Nagari Mandal , No. 87, Mudipali village accounts Dry. Sy.No. 151/1 , extent Ac. 1.00 cents within these boundaries; to the East of : Vanka to the North, South and West of : the land of M. Tirumala Naidu ( plaintiff )

STATEMENT OF COSTS.

Table of Costs

For plaintiffs For defendants

1. Stamp on VakalathRs. 200 200

2. Stamp on PlaintRs. 346200

3. Stamp on PetitionRs. 1000

4. Process of ServiceRs. 10000

5. Advocate feeRs. 300000 300000

6. Type ChargesRs. 10000 100 00

7. Writing ChargesRs. 10000 10000

Total: Rs. 677400 Rs. 320200

JCJ

NOTE: “The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after 3 years from this date.” -2-

CC/219/2019 Acquitted

Inspector of Police, Nagari vs M. Amrutha Raj @ T.R.S

11 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NAGARI.

PRESENT : Smt.D.Durga Kalyani,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nagari.

Wednesday, the 11th day of March, 2020.

C.C.No. 219 OF 2019

The State rep by the Inspector of Police, Nagari Urban Police Station. (Crime No. 101/2019 of Nagari U.P.S)

.. .. Complainant

Versus

M.Amrutha Raj @ T.R.S., age 50 years, S/o late Mariyadas, D.No. 5/111, S.V.Koil Street, Pudupeta, Nagari Municipality, Chittoor District.

... Accused.

This case is presented before me this day for final hearing in the presence of the

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri P. Udaya Bhanu, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01. The State, rep by Inspector of Police, Nagari Urban P.S., has filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No. 101/2019 for the offences punishable under Section 379 & 411

IPC and under Sec.21 (4) MM (D&R) Act, 1957.

02.The brief facts of the charge sheet, are as follows :

This is a case of illegal possession of silica sand by accused having no valid permission at Jor and Joy hotel, Nagari. That being so, the Assistant Director of Mines and

Geology Department, Chittoor namely Venkatakrishna received complaint from Smt

R.K.Roja, MLA of Nagari about illegal storage of silica sand in the premises of Jor and Joy

Hotel, Keelapattu village. Then the said Asst. Director has instructed his sub ordinate to enquire the matter. Accordingly, his sub ordinates as well as Revenue officials visited jor and Joy hotel premises and found illicit silica sand. Moreover they also seized the said sand by virtue of seizure mahazarnama and handed over to Revenue officials for safe custody. Subsequently, P.W.1 after taking charge of office of Asst. Director of Mines and

Geology , verified the concerned file and forwarded the complaint to S.H.O of Nagari.

Basing on that a case in Cr.No. 101/2019, U/Sec. 379, 411 of IPC & Sec. 21 (4) M.M. (d &

R) Act was registered. During the course of investigation, L.W.9 P.Sai Prasad, Inspector of 2

Police, arrested the accused i.e., owner of Jor and Joy hotel and recorded his confession statement by virtue of mahazaranama. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under section 379 , 411 of

IPC & Sec. 21 (4) of M.M. (D & R) act.

03.This Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sec.379 IPC and Sec.21 (4) MM (D&R) Act against accused.

04.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents as required U/sec.

207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to him.

05. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby charge U/Secs. 379 of IPC and Sec. 21 (4) of MM(D&R) Act was framed, read over and explained to him. He denied the charges.

06.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and exhibited Exs.P1 to Ex.P9.

07.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/sec.313

Cr.P.C. Accused denied the incriminating evidence found from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no evidence on his behalf. No witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

08.Heard both sides.

09. Now, the point for determination is :

"Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec. 21 (4) MM (D &R) Act 1957 beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise?" 10. POINT:

In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 6 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.Among them, P.W.1 being Assistant Director of Mines and

Geology deposes that on 05.07.2019 his predecessor Venkata Krishna received complaint from Smt. R.K.Roja, MLA about illegal storage silica sand in the premises of Jor and Joy hotel. Thereby the said Venkata Krishna instructed his sub ordinates i.e., Poli Reddy,

Sankaraiah, Y . Ashok along with Mandal Revenue Officer, Munikrishna to enquire the matter. Then all of them along with L.W.3 Beemaiah , L.W.4 Hari and one Amala V.R.A and mediators namely Ravi, Sudha and Manigandan proceeded to the spot and found storage of sand in 34.78 cubic meters. On that they seized the said silica sand and handed over the 3 same to Revenue Officials. After verification of the said file, this P.W.1 has given complaint to police under Ex.P1.

11.In corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 being Revenue Inspector deposes that on 05.07.2019 his Tasildhar, instructed him to meet Mines and Geology officer and accordingly, he along with L.W.3 Beemaiah, L.W.4 Hari went to Jor and Joy hotel and observed the employees of Mines Department. Later the said employees seized sand by virtue of panchanama. He also deposes that he himself drafted panchanama on the dictation of mines department employee. Later he also handed over the sand to L.W.4 Hari by virtue of possession letter. The said Panchanama and possession letter were marked under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

12.P.W.3 is V.R.A deposes that on 05.07.2018 P.W.2 made a phone call to him to come to one hotel situated at byepass road, Nagari. Then he went to the said hotel and was informed by P.W.2 that they seized some sand. He also deposed that he did not see the seizure of the said sand. Thus, learned APP declared him as hostile as he turned hostile stating that he do not know the contents of the seizure mahazarnama , though he admitted his signature in Ex.P3.

13.P.W.4 being independent witness also deposes that on 05.07.2019 Revenue

Officials made a phone call to him to come one hotel situated at Nagari. There they have shown him the seized sand loaded in two lorries and drafted panchanama to that effect.

Later they obtained his signature along with signatures of L.W.6 Sudha and L.W.7

Manigandan in panchanama which is already marked under Ex.P2.

14.P.W.5 being V.R.O deposes that on 08.08.2019 when he was present in his office, S.I of Police, Nagari called him to come to police station upon which he along with

P.W.3 went to police station and they were informed by police that they arrested the accused and to sign in mahazarnama. Accordingly, both of them signed in mahazarnama

dt. 08.08.2019. At this stage the learned APP declared P.W.5 as hostile since he turned

hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

15.P.W.6 being Inspector of Police deposes that on 03.08.2019 he received complaint through post from P.W.1 basing on which he registered a case and issued FIR under Ex.P6 for the offence punishable under section 379 , 411 of IPC & sec. 21 (4) of

M.M. (D & R) Act., Immediately on 04.08.2019 he visited to mines and geology office ,

Chittoor examined P.W.1 and again visited M.R.O office, Nagari , examined P.W.2, L.W.2

Munikrishna , L.W.3 B.Beemaiah and L.W.4 D.Hari and recorded their statements and again visited Keelapattu village secured the presence of L.W.6 Sudha and L.W.7 4

Manigandan examined them, visited Jor & Joy hotel and there he prepared rough sketch under Ex.P3. He also deposed that he also prepared scene observation report on 08.08.2019 and he arrested the accused and recorded his confession under Ex.P9 . After that he issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to accused as he was suffering from ill health after getting him medically examined. Later after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under section 379, 411 of IPC & sec. 21 (4) of

M.M. (D & R) Act.

16.The case of the prosecution is that the accused being owner of Jor and Joy hotel was in possession of silicon sand illegally without having valid permit. On this aspect

Smt. R.K.Roja has given a complaint against accused to Mines and Geology department.

Thereby the employees of Mines and Geology department visited Jor and Joy hotel and found the silica sand in the premises. Thereby a complaint was registered against accused for the illegal possession of the sand. Hence he is liable for the offence punishable under section 379, 411 of IPC & Sec. 21 (4) of M.M. (D & R) Act.

17.To substantiate the said allegation against accused the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 6. Among them, P.W.1 is Assistant Director, Mines and

Geology Department who has given complaint to police under Ex.P1. P.W.2 is Revenue

Inspector who visited the premises of Jor and Joy hotel along with employees of Mines and

Geology office, P.W.3 is V.R.A who also visited to premises of Jor & Joy hotel along with

P.W.2, P.W.4 is independent mediator, P.W.5 is V.R.O said to be mediator for arrest of accused, and P.W.6 is Inspector of Police.

18.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 it is deposed by him that Smt. R.K.Roja,

M.L.A of Nagari has given complaint to his predecessor Venkata Krishna about illegal storage of silica sand in the premises of Jor and Joy hotel , Keelapattu village. After due enquiry made by Revenue Officials through the said Venkata Krishna this P.W.1 verified the file and forwarded the complaint to S.H.O , Nagari under Ex.P1. Though he deposed in the above manner, there is no complaint of the said R.K.Roja placed before this court which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Moreover prosecution also did not offer any explanation as to what prevented it in not examining the said Smt. R.K.Roja , M.L.A. of

Nagari to state that , on what basis she gave complaint to this Mines and Geology

Department. Moreover it is deposed by P.W.1 that his predecessor Venkata Krishna has instructed his subordinates to accompany Revenue officials to enquire the matter who inturn visited to scene of incident. Whereas in the cross examination of P.W.1, he admitted that no police came and examined him. Moreover Ex. D1 is also marked in his cross examination stating that he along with Revenue Inspector Munikrishna , V.R.O

Beemaiah, V.R.A Hari went to Jor and Joy hotel for checking the silica sand on rweceiving 5 information about this offence. Further another contradiction under Ex.D2 is also marked in his cross examination where P.W.1 also stated before police that he seized the said silica in the presence of Revenue officials as no one came forward to act as mediator. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire the confidence about his veracity. However it is admitted by him that he did not visited scene of incident and he did not see the accused in possession of silica sand. Therefore the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be considered.

19.Coming to the evidence of P.W.2 the Revenue Inspector though deposed elaborately that the employees of mines and geology department has seized sand in his presence and panchanama was drafted by him , he admitted in his cross examination that he did not sign in the said panchanama under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 as a scribe. Thus there arises a doubt in the mind of court about his presence at the time of preparation of panchanama.

20.Coming to the evidence of V.R.A he admits that he do not see the seizure of the said sand. Moreover he admits the signature present on Ex.P3 is that of him. Thus,

P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution and hence, his evidence cannot be relied upon.

21.Next to that P.W.4 also deposed elaborately that Revenue officials have shown the seized sand loaded in two lorries and drafted panchanama to that effect. On one stand he states that Revenue officials has shown seized sand loaded in two lorries and another stand he states that Revenue officials seized the sand in his presence. Thus, there arises a doubt about his presence at the time of seizure of sand.

22.Coming to the evidence of P.W.5 the V.R.A, he deposed that on 08.08.2019

S.I of Police, Nagari called him to police station and informed that they arrested the accused and shown him to sign in panchanama. From where it is clear that the alleged confession of accused recorded by P.W.6 is highly doubtful. Thus, P.W.5 also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

23.Now remains only, the evidence of P.W.6 Inspector of Police, who deposed elaborately about the registration of crime and examination of witnesses. Further he deposed that he arrested the accused at Jor and Joy hotel and recorded his confession in the presence of P.W.5 and one Hari. Though he deposed in the above manner his evidence not supported by P.W.5 and hence there arises a doubt as to whether it was recorded in the presence of mediator or not. Accordingly, all the above circumstances, goes to show that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

25.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 379 IPC and under Sec.21 (4) MM (D&R) Act, 1957 and thereby acquitted under

Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Addl. Personal Assistant and after his transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11th day of March, 2020.

Sd/ D.Durga Kalyani,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nagari.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of: Prosecution:Defence:

PW1 G.Venkateswarlu NIL PW2 M.Munikrishna PW3 D.Hari PW4 S.Ravi PW5 M.Kesavulu PW6 P.Sai Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF : PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Panchanama . Ex.P.3: Possession letter Ex.P4: Signature of p.W.3 in Ex.P3. Ex.P5: Signature of P.W.5 in mahazarnama dt. 08.08.2019 Ex.P6: First Information Report in Cr.No. 101/2019 of Nagari P.S. Ex.P7: Rough sketch Ex.P8: Scene observation report Ex.P9: Confessionnama

DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil Ild/ D.D.K J.F.C.M, Nagari. // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Nagari 7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NAGARI.

Calender in C.C.No. 219 OF 2019

Date of offence: Prior to 03.08.2019 Date of complaint: 03.08.2019 Date of Arrest: 08.08.2019 Date of release: 41A crpc notice served Date of taken on file : 05.11.2019 Date of apprehension of accused: 28.11.2019 Date of commencement of trial: 27.12.2019 Date of close of trial : 06.03.2020 Date of Judgment : 11.03.2020 Explanation for Delay: Complainant : The State Rep by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nagari U.P.S. (Crime No. 101/2019) Particulars of accused: Name of Father NameAge Calling Religion Residence accused M.Amruthalate Mariaya Das 50 yrsBusiness HinduD.No. 5/111, S.V.Koil Street, Raj @ T.R.S Pudupeta,Nagari Municipality, Chittoor Dist, owner of M/s Jor & Joy, Nagari.

Nature of offence: theft of sand without valid permission

Section of law: Under Sec.379 of IPC and Sec. 21 (4) of MM and (D&R) Act. Finding of the Court: Accused is found not guilty for the above offences. Sentence or Order: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and under Sec.21 (4) MM (D&R) Act, 1957 and thereby acquitted under

Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAGARI.

OS/40/2019

P. Dorai Raju vs M.Ganeshan

28 Feb 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NAGARI

PRESENT:: Smt.D.Durga Kalyani,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

Friday , the 28th (Twenty Eighth) day of February, 2020.

O.S.No. 40 OF 2019

P. Dorai Raju, S/o late Paradesi, Hindu,aged about 52 years, residing at D.No. 5 119, Perumal Gudi Street, Nagari , Chittoor district.

... Plaintiff

Versus

M. Ganeshan, S/o late M.Munaswamy, Hindu, aged about 56 years, residing at Keelapattu D/wada, Nagari Municipality, Chittoor District.

.. Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Chiranjeevulu, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri. K.Velayudham, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record and this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. This is a suit filed for recovery of sum of Rs.1,71,736/ being the principle and interest on the foot of promissory notes dated 18.02.2016 & 20.02.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.50,000/ & Rs. 50,000/ agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest per annum.

02.Brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

That on 18.02.2016 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/ from the plaintiff for his necessities and executed A marked demand promissory note , acknowledging the same and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., either to plaintiff or to any one on his demand. Further the defendant again borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/ from the plaintiff on 20.02.2016 for his family necessities and executed B marked promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a..

Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by plaintiff, the defendant did not discharge the pronote debt and has been postponing the same on some or the other grounds. Hence, the plaintiff has constrained to file this suit praying this court to direct the defendant to pay the suit amount.

03.On the other hand, written statement is filed on behalf of defendant denying the averments of the plaint in para wise. He further submits that the defendant is illiterate person and he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time and never executed the said two promissory notes in favour of plaintiff. He further submits he never saw the plaintiff and defendant and never received legal notice and the plaintiff has created the suit promissory note by tampering his signature. Hence, he prays this court to dismiss the suit.

Fair Judgment 2

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

1. Whether A & B noted promissory notes are true , valid & binding on the defendant?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount ?

3. If so, to what relief?

05.To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 by filing chief examination affidavit and reiterated the same contents as stated in his plaint. To support his version, he also examined one G.K.Mohan as P.W.s 2 besides exhibiting Ex.A1 &

Ex. A2.

The description of the documents are:

1. Suit promissory note dated 18.02.2016 for Rs. 50,000/

2. Promissory note dt. 20.02.2016 for Rs. 50,000/

(a) On the other hand, defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 by filing chief examination affidavit and reiterated the same contents as mentioned in his written statement and no documents were marked on his behalf.

06.Issue No. 1 :

In a suit for promissory note, it is well settled principle that initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the pronote and once the execution is proved, then the statutory presumption under Sec.118 of N.I Act comes into operation in favour of plaintiff basing on the consideration as on the date. But, the defendant may also dislodge the statutory presumption. Even by circumstances or preponderance of probabilities itself is sufficient to dislodge the legal presumption attached to defendant. Further, it has to be noted as to what the word "execution" signifies. In Shaik Ibadat Ali v. Mohammed Farid, reported in AIR 1916 Patna 2006, it was held that word "execution" consists in signing a document written out, read over and understood and does not consists of merely signing a blank paper. So, it has to be determined whether the execution of promissory note was proved by plaintiff and the same is admitted by the defendants.

07.In order to establish his version, the plaintiff as P.W.1 has filed chief examination affidavit stating that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/ from this plaintiff under Ex. A1 on 18.02.2016 and executed Ex. A1 in his favour promising to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a., He also submits that the defendant again borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/ on 20.02.2016 and executed Ex. A2 in his favour promising to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a., Subsequently, the defendant failed to pay the debts due under Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 and inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit praying this court to pass a judgment in favour of this plaintiff directing the defendant to pay the suit amount. In addition to his evidence, he exhibited Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 i.e., suit promissory note under ex. A1 and Ex. A2 along with oral evidence of P.W.2.

Fair Judgment 3

08.P.W.2 being one of the attestor of Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 deposes in the same lines as that of P.W.1 about defendant borrowing money from plaintiff and executing Ex. A1 and

Ex. A2 in his presence. He also deposes that the suit promissory notes are scribed by one

N.Ramu and C.Karthik in which he along with one Sreekanth has attested the said pronotes as attestors. It is also deposed by him that the plaintiff paid cash consideration in their presence to the said defendant and after passing of consideration the defendant signed in the said promissory notes. Therefore the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 clearly goes to show that the plaintiff has discharged his burden by examining himself along with P.W.2 coupled with Ex. A1 and Ex. A2.

09.Now the burden shifts on to the defendant to discredit the version of plaintiff.

To buttress the evidence of P.W.1, the defendant as D.W.1 filed his chief examination affidavit stating that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time and he never executed the said two promissory notes and he never saw the plaintiff and scribe and plaintiff created this promissory note by tempering his signature. Thus, he submits that he is not entitled to pay the suit amount.

10.On careful perusal of evidence on the record, though the defendant denied the version of plaintiff stating that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, as seen from his cross examination he states that generally he will sign his signature in Tamil language and the signature shown to him on Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 are not belonged to him.

Though he stated in the above manner, he did not envisage any interest in sending the said

Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 to expert opinion to know whether really his signatures are forged or not. Though he claimed in the above manner, as seen Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 they goes to show that the signature present on the Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 are also in Tamil language. However it is claimed by the defendant that the signatures present on Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 are not belonged to him. When such is the case, he did not envisage any interest to send the said

Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 to expert opinion to know whether really his signature was forged or not. Further he also admitted that one Karthik is his son. But he states he do not know whether his son has signed in Ex. A1 and Ex. A2. If really his son has not signed in the said

Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 he ought to have denied the said suggestion. But he stated that he do not know whether his son Karthik has signed in Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 as attestor. Further in the cross examination of P.W.1 it is suggested by the defendant that he never borrowed any money from this plaintiff and defendant obtained Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 from defendant with regard to unloading of bricks transactions. From the said admission, it can be clearly inferred that he executed Ex. A1 and Ex. A2. Why because defendant admitted that this plaintiff obtained Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 from this defendant. Thus, from the above admission it is clear that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and executed Ex. A1 and

Ex. A2. Further the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 could not be discredited in any manner except stating that he did not borrow any amount and he did not execute Ex. A1 and Ex.

A2.

Fair Judgment 4

Further it is also admitted by D.W.1 that he borrowed money from P.W.2 and he is due of

Rs. 50,000/ to P.W.2. From where it can be clearly inferred that he also did not give any police complaint against plaintiff even after receiving summons from this court. Though he is alleged that he borrowed money from P.W.1. Thus, it is clear that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption raised against him and accordingly, this court is not inclined to believe the version of defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

11.Issue No. 2:

In view of issue No. 1 being answered in favour of plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount.

12.Issue No.3:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.171,736/ with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree on principle amount of Rs.1,00,000/ ( 50,000 + 50,000) on A and B marked pronotes and thereafter at 6% p.afrom the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28th day of February, 2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF:

PLAINTIFFDEFENDANT

P.W.1 P. Dorai Raj D.W.1: M.Ganesan P.W.2 G.K.Mohan

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF: PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dated 18.02.2016 for Rs. 50,000/ Ex.A2: Promissory note dt. 20.02.2016 for Rs. 50,000/

DEFENDANT: NIL

J.C.J. NAGARI.

Fair Judgment 5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NAGARI

PRESENT:: Smt.D.Durga Kalyani,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

Friday , the 28th (Twenty Eighth) day of February, 2020.

O.S.No. 40 OF 2019

P. Dorai Raju, S/o late Paradesi, Hindu,aged about 52 years, residing at D.No. 5 119, Perumal Gudi Street, Nagari , Chittoor district.

... Plaintiff

Versus

M. Ganeshan, S/o late M.Munaswamy, Hindu, aged about 56 years, residing at Keelapattu D/wada, Nagari Municipality, Chittoor District.

.. Defendant.

This is a suit filed for recovery of sum of Rs.1,71,736/ being the principle and interest on the foot of promissory notes dated 18.02.2016 & 20.02.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.50,000/ & Rs. 50,000/ agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest per annum. . Plaint presented on : 25.07.2019 Plaint filed on : 13.08.2019

Cause of Action :

Cause of action for the suit arose on 18.02.2016, when the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff and executed "A" marked pronote and on 20.02.2016 when the defendant again borrowed amount from the plaintiff and executed B marked pronote and continues dediedium at Nagari Municipality, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

Valuation :

Principle amount due under A marked pronoteRs. 50,000/ Interest at 24% pa from 18.02.2016 to 15.02.2019Rs. 35,900/ Court fee paid u/sec.20 of APCF & SV ActRs. 3,106/

Principle amount due under B marked PronoteRs. 50,000/ Interest at 24% p.a., from 20.02.2016 to 15.02.2019 Rs. 35,835/ Court fee paid thereon Rs. 3,106/

This suit is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence ofThis suit is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Chiranjeevulu, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri. K.Velayudham, Advocate forSri P.Chiranjeevulu, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri. K.Velayudham, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material available ondefendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court's doth order andrecord, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court's doth order and decree as follows:decree as follows:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs,

2. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,71,736/ with subsequent interest at 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree on principle amount of Rs.1,00,000/ ( Rs.50,000/ + 50,000/) on A and B marked pronotes and thereafter at 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization; and

Fair Judgment 6 2

3. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 12,966/ towards costs of the suit;

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 28th day of February, 2020.

Junior Civil Judge, Nagari.

Table of Costs

For plaintiffFor defendant

Cost memo not filed. Hence, Cost not certified.

1. Stamp on VakalathRs. 200

2. Stamp on PlaintRs. 6,21200

3. Stamp on ProcessRs. 10000

4. Advocate feeRs. 645200

5. Type ChargesRs. 10000

6. Printing chargesRs. 10000

Total:Rs.12,96600Rs.

J.C.J, Nagari

Note: The exhibited documents and non exhibited documents which are marked have to beNote: The exhibited documents and non exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking totaken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the court.produce the same as and when required by the court.

Fair Judgment

CC/217/2019 Acquitted

K.P. Jayaprakash vs M. Bhaskar

06 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: NAGARI.

PRESENT: Smt.D.Durga Kalyani, Junior Civil Judge Nagari.

6th day of March, 2020.

C.C.No. 217 /2019

K.P.Jayaprakash, s/o K.V.Pandurangan, resident of D.No. 3155, M.G.Road, Ekambarakuppam, Nagari Municipality.

...Complainant

Vs.

M.Bhaskar, S/o M. Vasu Naidu, resident of D.No. 238, Mitta Indlu, Kakavedu, Nagari Municipality.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri

P.Chiranjeevulu , Advocate for complainant, and complainant absent and no representation, insptie of giving opportunities, failed to pay batta for execution of NBW and this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Complainant absent & no representation. Process not paid for execution of NBW against accused. Hence complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 06th day of March, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nagari.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nagari.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Smt.D.Durga Kalyani, Junior Civil Judge Nagari.

20th day of October, 2017.

STC 29/2013

N.Arunachalam.

...Complainant

Vs.

1. M.s Emeth Trading Company Pvt., Ltd.,

2. Mrs. Elizabeth Charles.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Srinivasan, Advocate for complainant and of Sri A.Rajendrudu, advocate for accused, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

Both parties present. the complaint filed petition under Sec.257 Cr.P.C stating that the matter is settled out of Court and the same is allowed. Hence, complaint is dismissed as withdrawn and accused is acquitted.

Typed as per docket order dated 20th day of October, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Smt.D.Durga Kalyani, Junior Civil Judge Nagari.

6th day of July, 2017

STC 3/2011

N.Hari Goipal.

...Complainant

Vs.

E.Dilli Babu.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri E.Somasundaram, Advocate for complainant and NBW pending against the accused, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

Complainant called absent. petition filed and allowed. Batta not paid for continuation of execution of NBW against accused. Hence, complaint is dismissed.

Typed as per docket order dated 6th day of July, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Smt.D.Durga Kalyani, Junior Civil Judge Nagari.

14th day of June, 2017.

STC 25/2014.

Share Micro Fin Ltd., Nagari, rep by its Authorized person Branch Manager D.Ravindra Babu.

...Complainant

Vs.

B.Ravi Kumar.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Chiranjeevulu, Advocate for complainant and NBW pending against the accused, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

Complainant present and filed. Petition under Sec.257 Cr.PC withdrawing the complaint.

Hence complaint is dismissed as with drawn. NBW pending against accused is hereby cancelled.

Typed as per docket order dated 14th day of June, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Smt.D.Durga Kalyani, Junior Civil Judge Nagari.

14th day of June, 2017.

STC 31/2014

S.M.Sekhar.

...Complainant

Vs.

T.Malleswara Rao.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Sreenivasan, Advocate for complainant and NBW pending against the accused, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

NBW pending against accused. Batta not paid for continuation of extention of NBW. Hence, complaint is dismissed.

Typed as per docket order dated 14th day of June, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Smt.D.Durga Kalyani, Junior Civil Judge Nagari.

31st day of October, 2018.

D.V.C 01/2013.

T.Madhavi, W/o T.Mahendra, age 23 years, Estakameswarapuram Village, Pannur Post, Vijayapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

...Complainant

Vs.

1. T.Mahendra, S/o T. Subramanyam, age 28 years,

2. T.Indrani, S/o T.Subramanyam, age 48 years,

3. T.Govindan @ T.Subramanyam, S/o Late Kuppaiah.

Respondents 1 to 3 are residents of Estakameswarapuram village, Pannur Post, Vijayapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

4. Buvaneswari, W/o Sekar,

5. Sekhar, S/o not know to the complainant, Muniyappa Kandriga, Arakonam Taluq, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu State.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri T.Kumara Raja and Sri D.Sesachalam, Advocates for complainant and of Sri T.Narahari and M.Dharani, Advocates

for accused and having stood over consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Petitioner called absent and no representation. Inspite of given conditional order to proceed with enquiry. Hence, complaint i.e. DVC is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31st day of October, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Smt.D.Durga Kalyani, Junior Civil Judge Nagari.

6th day of July, 2017.

STC 20/2014.

Share Micro Fin Ltd., Nagari, rep by its Authorized person Branch Manager D.Ravindra Babu.

...Complainant

Vs.

C.Nagaraju Reddy.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Chiranjeevulu, Advocate for complainant and NBW pending against the accused, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

Complainant called absent. No representation. NBW pending against accused. Process not paid for continuation of execution of NBW pending against accused. Hence, complaint is dismissed.

Typed as per docket order dated 6th day of July, 2017.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

Fair Judgment

Draft Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Sri C.MURALIDHAR Junior Civil Judge, Nagari.

Friday, the 31st (Thirty-First) day of October, 2014.

O.S.No. 32 OF 2014

K.Venkatamuni, S/o Late K.Munaswamy Chetty, age 52 years, resident of D.No. 10-6-271, Gandla Street, Nagari, Chittoor District. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1. A. Prabhakar, S/o A.Krishnama Naidu, age 55 years, resident of Arjunappa Kandriga (v), Bugga Agraharam Post, Nagari Mandal.

2. A. Dhananjayulu, S/o A. Krishnama Naidu, age 53 years, resident of Janapa Lane,

Nagari, Chittoor District. ... Defendants

Suit filed by the plaintiff granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees or anybody claiming under them from in any way interfering with the peaceful posession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property , and for costs of the suit.

This suit is presented before me this day for batta in the presence of Sri. K. Somasundaram, Advocate for plaintiff and defendants batta not served, and the plaintiffs having filed memo, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff present. Plaintiff filed a memo. The case is settled out of court. Hence, the suit is dismissed as settled out of court.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31st day of October, 2014.

Sd/-C.Muralidhar

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Sd/-C.Muralidhar,

J.C.J. NAGARI.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Sri C.MURALIDHAR Junior Civil Judge, Nagari.

Thursday, the 11th (Eleventh) day of December, 2014.

O.S.No. 22 OF 2012

M.Narasimhulu, S/o M.Munaswamy Mandadi, age 75 years, resident of Gundrajakuppam (V)&(p), Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1. M.Ramaswamy Reddy, S/o Kuppi Reddy, age 75 years,

2. M.Lokanadham Reddy, S/o Ramaswamy Reddy, age 50 years,

Both are residing at Kuppireddy Kandriga Village, Kundrajakuppam post, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor Dist.

... Defendants

Suit filed by the plaintiff granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees or anybody claiming under them from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property , and for costs of the suit.

This suit is presented before me this day for trial in the presence of Sri. D. Raveendra and U.S.Rayudu, Advocates for plaintiff and K.G.Prabakar,Advocates for defendants, and the plaintiff having called absent and no representation, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff called absent. No representation. It may be called at 4.00 P.M. Again called at 4.00

P.M. plaintiff called absent. No representation. Hence, the suit is dismissed dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of December, 2014.

Sd/-C.Muralidhar

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Sd/-C.Muralidhar,

J.C.J., NAGARI.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Sri C.MURALIDHAR Junior Civil Judge, Nagari.

Wednesday, the 29th (Twenty - Ninth) day of July , 2015.

O.S.No. 40 OF 2011

1. B.Achamma, W/o B. Govindaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, r/o at Nedambaram AAW, Tiruthani Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

2. P.Nagamma, W/o P. Venkatesh, Hindu, aged about 52 years, r/o Kesavapuram AAW, Kosalanagaram post, Vijayapuram Mandal, Chittoor District. … Plaintiffs

Vs.

1. Munemma, W/o S. Mathaiah, Hindu, aged about 52 years,

2. S. Srinivasulu, S/o Late S. Mathaiah, Hindu, aged about 37 years,

3. Nagamani, W/o Gopi, Hindu, aged about 34 years,

All are residing at Muthu Lakshmipet @ Jaderi Arundhati Colony Village & post, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District.

4. S. Subbaramaiah, S/o S. Veera Raghavaiah, Hindu, aged about 52 years,

5. S. Jayaramaiah, S/o Late S.Veera Raghavaiah, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Cultivation,

6. M/s Gem Granites, a pertnership Firm, Rep by it spartner Mr. S.R. Asai Thambi, S/o Late Rangasami, aged about 60 years, office at NO. 78, Cathedral Road, Chennai.

... Defendants 1 to 6

Suit filed by the plaintiff for granting permanent injunction directing the defendants, their men, agents, nominees, servants etc., from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and for costs of the suit.

This suit is presented before me this day for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Rajendrudu and Manivasakam, Advocates for plaintiffs, and of Sri T.Muralidhar, Advocate for D.1 to D.5 and K. Subramanyam Reddy, Advocates for D.6, and the plaintiffs having called absent and no representation, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiffs absent. No representation call at 4.00 p.m., Plaintiff called again at 4.00 p.m., plaintiffs called absent, no representation. Several adjournments plaintiffs called absent. The plaintiff not shown the interest on the suit for trial. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of July, 2015.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

J.C.J., NAGARI.

OS/15/2019 Transferred Disposal Date: 18-05-2020 Junior Civil Judge

Minor R. Jyosnasri vs R. Tharakaramudu

18 May 2020

Order Record 1,206 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/15/2019	Minor R. Jyosnasri vs R. Tharakaramudu	18 May 2020	Judgment	Transferred Disposal Date: 18-05-2020 Junior Civil Judge
EP/2/2019	A. Madhava Reddy vs C. Varadharajulu	12 Mar 2020	Order	—
CC/219/2019	Inspector of Police, Nagari vs M. Amrutha Raj @ T.R.S	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/217/2019	K.P. Jayaprakash vs M. Bhaskar	06 Mar 2020	Judgment	Acquitted
OS/3/2012	M.Tirumala Naidu vs M.Sankar Naidu	28 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/40/2019	P. Dorai Raju vs M.Ganeshan	28 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/8/2020	The Sub Inspector of Police, Nagari vs N. Laasar	28 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/8/2020	M. Kannamma vs Kamala	25 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/11/2016	A.K.Giri vs V.Babu	25 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/160/2019	The Inspector of Police, Nagari vs T. Suresh @ Hittu	25 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/63/2019	K. Kalavathi vs M.D. Siddique	24 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/23/2018	Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Nagari vs G. Munirathnam	22 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/42/2018	M.R. Jagannadham vs M. Kumar	20 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/53/2017	K.Manjula vs A.Latha	20 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/33/2020	Sub Inspector of Police, Vijayapuram P.S vs D. Vishal	19 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/164/2019	Inspector of Police, Nagari Urban P.S. vs Arjun Reddy @ Magesh	19 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/2/2018	V Gangamma vs D Maniyamma	18 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/1/2018	P Balakrishna vs P. Ramakrishna	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/42/2016	D.Munirathnam vs D.Varadarajulu	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/74/2017	KGopi vs K. Baskar Naidu	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/211/2019	Sub Inspector of Police, Vijayapuram vs T. Thangam	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/22/2019	Aluru Narasaiah vs A. Indiramma	12 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/29/2015	A.E.Velayudham vs K.Govinda Reddy	12 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/35/2019	A. Chenchamma vs Kata Jagadamba	12 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/54/2019	A. Sathish vs T. Chilakamma	12 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/15/2018	Jayaram Nail, Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Nagari vs P.Veeraswamy Reddy	11 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/42/2019	S. Ramamoorthy vs K.J. Ganesh	11 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/172/2019	The Inspector of Police, Nagari vs P.S. Syamlal	11 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/173/2019	The Inspector of Police, nagari vs P.S. Syamlal	11 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/31/2019	K. Damodharam Naidu vs T. Bhagavan	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
OS/32/2019	K. Umapathi Naidu vs T. Bhagavan	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
OS/67/2019	Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Nagari vs P. Madhu	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
OS/71/2019	N. Hemamalini vs D. Sampoornamma	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/2/2020	Sub Inspector of Police, Nagari vs G. Vamsi Krishna	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/11/2020	Sub Inspector of Police vs K. Kiran Kumar	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/17/2017	V.N.Elumalai vs D.Kuppuswamy	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/23/2020	The prohibiton and Excise Inpspetor , Nagari vs B. Anandraj	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/24/2020	The prohibiton and Excise Inpspetor , Nagari vs K. Ravi	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/25/2020	The prohibiton and Excise Inpspetor , Nagari vs Radhapathi Purushotham	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/26/2020	Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Nagari vs Muduru Subramanyam	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/27/2020	Prohibition and Excise sub Inspector, Nagari vs A. Doraswamy	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/30/2020	E. Munikrishna Reddy vs D. Leela Krishna @ L.K. Naidu	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/141/2018	K.Srihari vs T. Nagaraju	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/158/2019	Sub Inspctor of Police, Vijayapuram vs P. Srinivasulu @ Seenu	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/201/2019	Sub Inspector of Police, Vijayapuram vs S. Murali	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/206/2019	S. Raja vs V. Harish	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
MC/4/2019	K. Prema vs P.V. Chittibabu	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/78/2016	M.Manjula vs M.D.Jabbar Ansari	07 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/220/2019	Sub Inspector of Police, Nagari vs S. K. Vinod Kumar	06 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/16/2020	Sub Inspectgr of Police, Nagari vs R. Nagaraju	05 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/224/2019	Sub Inspector of Police, Nagari vs B Surendranatha Reddy	05 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
PRC/1/2020	The Sub Inspector of Police, Nagari vs K.G. Mani @ Subramani	05 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/28/2018	O. Samantha Kumari vs P. Kodandan	03 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/47/2015	R.Elumalai Reddy vs S.M.T.Murthy	30 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
CC/180/2019	Inspector of Police, Nagari vs T. Manikanta	30 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/34/2019	M.S. Kumar vs P. Janakiraman	29 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/36/2019	Sompalli Narayanamma vs A. Munirathnam	29 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/58/2014	A. Giri Babu vs Dr. Jabar Chand Jain	29 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/4/2010	Smt.P.Savithri vs Smt. A.Mohana	27 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/23/2014	M.Sudhakar vs P.Syamalamma	27 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
CC/145/2019	Sub Inspector of Police, Vijayapuram vs S. Sathyavelu	24 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
EP/31/2018	G.Venkata Swamy vs T. Subramanyam	23 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/155/2019	Inspector of Police, Nagari vs Amol Kadam	23 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
CC/221/2019	Inspector of Police, Nagari PS vs S. Shanmugavel	23 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/12/2015	G Madhu vs M Neeraja	22 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/13/2015	M Krishnama Raju vs M Neeraja	22 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/54/2014	I. Antony Swamy vs P. Saravana	22 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
CC/191/2019	The Inspector of Police, Nagari vs M. Sadham Hussain	10 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
CC/213/2019	Inspector of Police, Nagari P.S. vs T. Thangam	10 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
CC/222/2016	SHO OF NAGARI PS vs M Rajendran	10 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
CC/190/2017	K V Muniraj vs S Madhu	08 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
MC/2/2019	K. Mugambigai vs K. Srinivasulu	08 Jan 2020	Order	—
EP/1/2016	J.Malleswari vs Thalari subramanyam	31 Dec 2019	Other	—
OS/7/2013	N.Amavasai alias Veeraiah vs N.Sabapathy	31 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/26/2018	A.Narasaiah vs A.Narasimham	31 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/54/2010	Baddula Ramadevi vs The State Of A.P.Rep.by the District Collector	31 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/81/2019	The Inspector of Police, Nagari vs V.S. Thanikachalam	31 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/142/2019	Inspector of Police, Nagari vs K.Ganesh	31 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/156/2019	Inspector of Police, Nagari vs A. Dheeraj	31 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/202/2019	Sub Inspector of Police, Nindra P.S vs N.Sai Kumar	31 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/247/2018	SHO, Nagari vs R. Raja	31 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
DVC/2/2018	V. Tamil Selvi vs V. Varada Reddy	31 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/82/2019	The Inspector of Police, Nagari vs V.S. Thanikachalam	30 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/120/2019	The Sub inspector of Police, Nindra vs K.V. Narasimhulu Naidu	30 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/166/2012	SHO Nagari PS vs Rakesh Kumar Saket	30 Dec 2019	Other	—
CC/68/2018	S.H.O. Nagari P.S. vs A.M.Annadorai	20 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/70/2018	S.H.O.Nagari P.S vs S.Revathi	20 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/208/2017	VKS Vasudevan vs Dr P.T.Komala	20 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/215/2019	Sub Inspector of Police, Nindra vs Y.Ramu	20 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/41/2018	S.H.O. Nagari P.S. vs P.Panjaksharam	19 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/80/2019	The Inspector of police, Nagari vs A.S. Selva Kumar	19 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/61/2019	Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Nagari vs M. Munirathnam	18 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/146/2019	Inspector of Police, Nagari vs P. Abdul Khadar	18 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/203/2019	Sub Inspector of Police, Nagari vs S. Suresh	17 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/222/2019	Sub Inspector of Police, Vijayapuram P.S vs S. Subramani	17 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
PRC/9/2019	The Inspector of Police, Nagari vs S. Rajesh	16 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/6/2018	G.Desamma vs P.Ravi Naidu	14 Dec 2019	Order	—
OS/11/2019	A. Manjula vs K. Chiranjeevulu	14 Dec 2019	Order	—
OS/18/2019	K. Srinivasulu vs K. Ravi	14 Dec 2019	Order	—
OS/24/2019	V.Gunasekhar vs K.S. Abdhul	14 Dec 2019	Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,206 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2020		1
Mar 2020		3
Feb 2020		49
Jan 2020		19
Dec 2019		56
Nov 2019		18
Oct 2019		35
Sep 2019		54
Aug 2019		20
Jul 2019		53
Jun 2019		48
May 2019		19

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt D.Durga Kalyani handled?

Smt D.Durga Kalyani has handled 1223 court orders since 2017 at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 32 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt D.Durga Kalyani hear?

Based on available records, Smt D.Durga Kalyani primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka).

Where is Smt D.Durga Kalyani currently posted?

Smt D.Durga Kalyani is posted as Junior Civil Judge at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt D.Durga Kalyani available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt D.Durga Kalyani are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt D.Durga Kalyani dispose cases?

Smt D.Durga Kalyani disposes approximately 32 cases per month, based on 1223 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka).

Since when is Smt D.Durga Kalyani serving?

Smt D.Durga Kalyani has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka) since 2017.

Case Types

CC 67%

OS 20%

EP 4%

STC 4%

MC 3%

PRC 2%

DVC 1%

RCC 0%

Posting History

May 2017 — Jul 2020

Junior Civil Judge · 1,223 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 2

Transferred Disposal Date: 18-05-2020 Junior Civil Judge 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Challa Janaki

Junior Civil Judge

224 orders

← View all judges at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka)