Sri D.Ramulu

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 1 A.S.No69/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC):: ONGOLE

PRESENT: D.RAMULU

III-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE.

Thursday, this the 27th day of March, 2025.

Appeal Suit No.69/2015

Between:

1.Gorrepati Audilakshamma W/o.Nageswara Rao, aged about 70 Years, Hindu, House Wife, Resident of Ongole.[DIED]

2.Gorrepati Ravindra Kumar S/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 40 Years,….Appellants/ Business, Residentof Anjaiah Road, Ongole.Plaintiff [2 nd appellant is added as per the Orders in I.A.No.278/2022 dt.18.01.2023]

AND

Adapala Satyanarayana S/o.Ramaiah, Hindu, Aged about 52 Years, Hindu, Sairam General Stores, Sridevi Complex,

North Bye-pass Road Junction, Ongole.....Respondent/

Defendant

APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

04.03.2015 IN O.S.No.308/2005 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT, ONGOLE.

Between: Gorrepati Audilakshamma…. Plaintiff AND Adapala Satyanarayana … Defendant

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 2 A.S.No69/2015

This Appeal is coming on 07.11.2024 for final hearing before me and the arguments of Sri.M.Ajoy Babu, Learned Advocate for Appellants/Plaintiff; and of Sri. P.L.Govindaiah, learned Advocate

for Respondent/Defendant, and on perusal of material available on

record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

1.This Appeal Suit is filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff and prays to allow the appeal, by setting aside the Judgment and Decree dt.04.03.2015 in O.S.No.308/2005 on the file of Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Ongole and to decree the suit and for costs.

2.The facts of the original suit in nut shell:- the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she let out the schedule premises to the defendant on a monthly rental basis. The lease period commended from 1.4.1995. The plaintiff and defendant have entered into written unregistered lease agreement on 29.04.1995 and the original lease agreement is with the defendant.

3.The lease period of 2 years is ie., from 1.4.1995 to 31.03.1997. The rent is fixed at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and the rent shall be payable by the defendant to the plaintiff within 5 days after completion of the month. The defendant paid an advance of

Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff and the same was received. The plaintiff

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 3 A.S.No69/2015 shall return the advance amount to the defendant without interest, when the defendant handing over the schedule premises to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has to pay the municipal house tax to the schedule premises. The defendant shall not give the schedule premises or part of the premises to sub lease. If the defendant desires to continue in the schedule premises even after lease period, he shall enter into another written agreement with with the plaintiff one month prior before expiration of the lease period. After expiry of the lease period, the defendant shall vacate the premises without requiring to issue statutory notices under Rent Control Act. If the defendant vacate the schedule premises in the middle of the agreement period, the defendant has to forfeit the advance amount. In case the defendant commits default in payment of monthly rents the plaintiff is at liberty to take possession of the schedule property from the defendant without any notice.

4.The plaintiff further contended that as per the recitals of the agreement the defendant agreed to pay rent amount of Rs.1000/- per month for the period commanding from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1997. Further the defendant agreed that he hall pay an amount of Rs.1500/- per month for the next two years from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1999, after completion of the additional two years, both parties to the agreement have agreed that the plaintiff shall be continuing at the will of this

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 4 A.S.No69/2015 defendant by enhancing the rent @ 30% for every two years incorporated in the agreement. Accordingly the plaintiff has been paying rent @ Rs.2000/- from 1.4.1999 to 31.03.2001 and Rs.2700/- from 1.4.2001 to 31.03.2003, and Rs.3600/- from 1.4.2003 till he became default. The defendant is not paying rent from 1.1.2004 till today.

5.The plaintiff further contended that the defendant became defaulter and he is not paying the rents. The defendant did not pay single pie from 1.1.2004 and he is liable to pay the rents from that day on-wards with interest. The original lease period is expired long back and the defendant is continuing in possession and he is liable for eviction. As the lease period is expired no need to issue notice u/Sec.106 of T.P.Act. Hence, the suit.

6.The defendant filed written statement contending that he is the tenant of the plaintiff’s shop. He is running provision business in the shop under the name and style of Sri Sai Ram General Stores. He took the shop on lease from the plaintiff in April, 1995. On 29.04.1995 the plaintiff and the defendant entered into lease agreement in writing. It was for the period 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1997 i.e., for two years. As per the condition of the lease agreement this defendant aid Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff towards advance. As per the said agreement the rent was

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 5 A.S.No69/2015

Rs.1000/- per month for the agreement period. This defendant took the possession of the shop on 1.4.1995. In 2003 the plaintiff agreed to continue the lease agreement for 5 years more on rent of Rs.1000/- per month.

7.He further contended that he paid rents to the plaintiff till

August, 2004 regularly. The plaintiff was also a customer of defendant and used to come and purchase provisions. While so, from the month of

August, the plaintiff and her family members are taking provisions from the shop of the defendant highhandedly without any account. While so, in the month of September, 2004 the defendant filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiff and her family members as they are declaring that they will dispossess the defendant without any prior intimation and the same is pending. As the defendant filed injunction suit against the plaintiff she refuse to receive rents. The defendant sent the rent of September, 2014 i.e., Rs.1500/- by demand draft of Andhra Bank, Ongole dt.4.10.2004 through legal notice dt.6.10.2004 and the same was returned. The plaintiff herein being the defendant in that suit contested the same and was dismissed on22.7.2005. The defendant being law abiding citizen deposited rent of

Rs.1500/- per month in his bank account in Andhra Bank, Ongole regularly every month without fail. The plaintiff is at liberty to take that

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 6 A.S.No69/2015 amount and the defendant will cooperate for the same. There is no default much less willful default on the part of this defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8.Based on the above pleadings the following issues were framed by the trial court.

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the schedule property.

2.Whether the defendant is liable to pay arrears of rent of Rs.79,200/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization?

3.To what relief?

9.The trial court answered the Issue No.1 against the plaintiff in O.S.No.308/2005 and reasons stated as follows- It was suggested to

PW1 that a false plea of commencement of rent @ 30% for every period by them to send out the defendant from the suit premises.

During the cross examination PW1 stated that except his oral statement there is no document in writing about his contention regarding the terms of commencement of rent as stated by him in para 3, page 4 of his chief examination affidavit. Considering the admission of PW1 it can be safely concluded that no iota of evidence on record to hold that the enhancement of rent @ 30% for every period is not proved. Admittedly, the defendant is depositing rent in bank vide Ex.B1 and in view of the orders passed by the Court. The plea of plaintiff that the defendant

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 7 A.S.No69/2015 committed default of rent as such she is entitled for eviction is not proved. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for possession of the plaint schedule property. Hence, this issue is answered against the plaintiff in

O.S.No.308/2005.

10.The trial court answered the Issue No.2 against the plaintiff.

After lengthy discussion, the trial court held that evidence of DW1 coupled with admission of PW1 in view of forgoing discussion, the trial court find that the plaintiff is not entitled arrears of rent accordingly, this issue is also answered against the plaintiff.

11.Heard both parties in Appeal.

12.This Court framed the following points for consideration under Or.41 R.31 of CPC, 1908.

1. Whether the defendant is a tenant by sufferance?

2. Whether the lease deed is compulsorily registrable or not?

3. To what relief?

13.POINT No.1:

Whether the defendant is a tenancy by sufferance?

First and foremost to determine whether the lease deed is compulsorily registrable or not and there is no lease deed at all between the plaintiff and the defendant. So, the terms and conditions of the lease deed is enumerated in the plaint and some terms and conditions

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 8 A.S.No69/2015 are agreed by the defendant. That the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property is undisputed. The lease period for two years from 01.04.1995 to 31.03.1996 is also an admitted fact by both parties.

And the rent is fixed for Rs.1000/- per month and rent shall be payable on or before 5th day of every month, is also an admitted fact between the parties. The defendant paid Rs.10,000/- as an advance money on condition that the same shall be returned without an interest when defendant handover the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to pay the municipal house tax to the oral leased scheduled property. The defendant shall not give to sub lease the suit schedule property. If the defendant desires to continuing the suit schedule property even after lease period he shall entered into an another written agreement. At this juncture the original lease period itself is unwritten and unregistered, and the oral agreement contains the extension of lease period shall be in writing is dis-believable and does not inspire the confidence of the Court. And one more condition is inserted in the plaint after expiry of lease period id est 31.03.1997. The defendant shall vacate the premises without requiring to give a statutory notice. If the defendant vacate the premises in the middle of the agreement the defendant forgo advance amount of Rs.10,000/-. But, in the written statement filed by the defendant in para No.4 last two lines he pleaded

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 9 A.S.No69/2015 that on 29.04.1995 the plaintiff and defendant entered into lease agreement in writing. Where is the written lease agreement? If such written agreement is in existence why and how the defendant failed to exhibit and marked the same, is the hundred millions dollars question.

So, the version of the plaintiff that it is only oral lease and there is no written and registered lease is believed by this Court.

14.The plaintiff further contended that as per the recitals of oral agreement the defendant agreed to pay rent amount of Rs.1000/- for the period commencing from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1997, further the defendant agreed that he shall pay an amount of Rs.1500/- per month for the next two years from 1.4.1997 to 31.03.1999, after completion of

additional two years. Both the parties to agreement have agreed that

the plaintiff shall be continuing at the will of the defendant and I remember and I remind myself exclusively that these are the pleadings of the plaintiff that earlier he pleaded that lease period for two years from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1997 and if the defendant wants to continuing the lease schedule property he has to enter into written agreement.

And now the plaintiff himself is pleaded that as per the oral agreement the defendant is at will to continue the lease by enhancing the rent @ 30% for every two years, accordingly the plaintiff has been paying the rent Rs.2,000/- from 1.4.1999 to 31.03.2001 and Rs.2700/- from

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 10 A.S.No69/2015 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2003 and Rs.3600/- from 1.4.2003 till he became default. The defendant has not paying rent from 1.1.2004 till today which means till the date of filing of the suit on 26.10.2005. The pleadings of the plaintiff in (d) the original period is expired long back and the defendant is continuing in possession and is liable for eviction.

As the lease period is expired no need of giving legal notice under

Sec.106 of the T.P.Act, 1882. (c) And in para No.C though there is specific recital that the rent of every month shall be payable within 5 days after completion of a month, but the defendant did not pay a single pie from 1.1.2004 and he is liable to pay the rents from the day on-wards with interest. This Hon’ble Court observed that the original lease period is from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1997. And as per the oral conditions, after the lease period is completed the defendant shall vacate without prior notice then how could he in possession of the suit schedule property till 1.1.2004. Which means the tenant is in the possession of the suit schedule property since 31.03.1997 (after completion of lease period) and he is paying rent and the landlord/plaintiff collecting the rent, thereby the defendants become tenant by sufferance. As rightly pointed by as per Sec.62 of the

Indian Contract Act, 1872: Effect of Novation, Recession and

Alteration of Contract:- If the parties to contract agreed to

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 11 A.S.No69/2015

substitute contract for rescind, alter it, the original contract

need not performed. Illustration is also given in the same

Section is as follows:-

(a) A, owes money to B under a contract. It is agreed

between A, B and C that B shall thenceforth accept C as his

debtor, instead of A. The old debt of A to B is at an end, and a

new debt from C to B has been contracted.

15.According to Lord Selborne who explained in the case of

Scarf Vs. Jardine (1882), the Novation is when a new contract

replaces an already existed one either between the same parties

or between different parties. The key point is that a new

contract takes the place of old one, and as a result, the old

contract is discharged .

16.So, the old contact is extinguished thereby, and the old contract need not be performed. Both parties adduced only oral evidence. The evidence which is confined to the words spoken by mouth is oral evidence. If the oral evidence is worthy of credit, sufficient to prove a fact or a title without any documentary evidence.

However, “verba volant, scripta manent” which means the words fly, writings remain, which is interpreted spoken words of fleeting

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 12 A.S.No69/2015

and easily forgotten why the written words are permanent and

can be revised later.

Oral evidence means making noise, as empty vessels make more noise like coins, but paper currency does not make any noise. So, papers(documents) does not make any noise, but they speak more than the tongue.

Both parties are speaking according to their tongues permits, not according to the printed matter before them.

17.So, as per the original oral rental agreement it ends 31.03.1997. The plaintiff’s case is that in Para No.C of his plaint, though there is a specific recital that of rent paid for every 5 days in month, but the defendant did not pay single pie from 1.1.2004, which means prior to 1.1.2004, the defendant paid and plaintiff has received the rents.

Though, the rental oral agreement is ended on 31.1.1997, which clearly evinced that the tenant is allowed to stay and do the business in the shop of business. The legal jargon used for this kind of contract is called

Tenant at sufferance. The word sufferance means is allowed, tenant at sufferance means tenant is allowed to continue the shop even after expiry of stipulated time by the landlord and landlord continuously collecting his rents. Tenant at sufferance is one who comes into possession of land by lawful title, but who holds it by wrong after

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 13 A.S.No69/2015 termination of the term of expiry of lease by efflux of time. The tenant at sufferance is one who wrongfully continues in possession after extinction of a lawful title. The expression holding over is used in the sense of retaining possession. The distinction should be drawn between the tenant continuing in possession after the determination of the lease without consent of the landlord and a tenant doing so with the landlord consent. The former is called tenant by sufferance in the language of

English law and the later clause of tenants is called tenant holding over or a tenant at will. In the present case the tenant is continuing in the possession of the tenancy by paying the rents and the landlord is taking the rents which means indirectly the tenant is allowed to continue even after expiry of the lease period.

18.The possession of a tenant who has ceased to be tenant is protected by law. Although he may not have right to continue the possession after the termination of tenancy, his possession is judicial, held in case of R.V.Bhupal Prasad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 140.

19.Sec.116. Effect of holding over _ If a lessee or under-

lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the

determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lesser

or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or

under-lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 14 A.S.No69/2015

possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the

contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month,

according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as

specified in section 106.

20.Accordingly, this Point No.1 is decided in favour of the

Appellant.

21.Point No.2:

Whether the lease deed is compulsorily registrable or not?

“verba volant, scripta manent” which means the words fly, writings remain, which is interpreted spoken words of fleeting

and easily forgotten why the written words are permanent and

can be revised later. Both parties are speaking according to their tongues permits, not according to the printed matter before them.

22.As per Sec.4 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:-

Sec.4: Enactments relating to contracts to be taken as

part of Contract Act and supplemental to the Registration Act:-

The chapters and sections of this act which relate to contracts shall be taken as part of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

[And Sections 54, Paragraphs 2 and 3, 59, 107 and 123 shall be read as supplemental to the Indian Registration Act, 1908].

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 15 A.S.No69/2015

23.This Section must be read with Sec.107 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Sec. 107. Leases how made.

A lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument.

All other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession.

Where a lease of immovable property is made by a registered instrument, such instrument or, where there are more instruments than one, each such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and the lessee:

Provided that the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that leases of immovable property, other than leases from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, or any class of such leases, may be made by unregistered instrument or by oral agreement without delivery of possession.

24.The very lease agreement is unregistered as it is unwritten.

So, the foundation is void. If the foundation is void, the superstructure will automatically collapse. Sublato fundamento cadit opus which means upon the removal of the foundation, the superstructures collapses. If the foundation be destroyed, what can the righteous do, is a line from Psalm. 11:3. The line if the foundation be destroyed what can the righteous do, is a question about the starting

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 16 A.S.No69/2015 point of a person and how to correct it. The word foundation can refer to the starting point of a person.

25.State of Punjab Vs., Davinder Paul Singh Bhullar & Ors- the Court held that – 107: It is settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the Or.1 (1996) 11 SCC 557. In such a fact situation, the legal Maxim Sublato fundamento cadit opusmeaning thereby that foundation being removed; structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.

26.A person who wants to built edifice on a sand is a silly and engineer work for that edifice is a stupid. Similarly, both parties sans any agreement as to lease, fighting in the air without any words written and no Judge can judge the unwritten words.

27.If the two parties agree that there is a oral agreement, which is contrary to law, can be judged by a Judge. The law specifically, exclusively in black and white, provides, every lease from year to year, or exceeding one year must be registered, for which there were catena of Judgments that such lease must be registered. If such lease is taken into consideration. Is it legally valid? This court is permitted to give one

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 17 A.S.No69/2015 illustration. A sold the property worth of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to B on a white paper, without any stamp duty and registration. Thereafter dispute arise between them and both of them knocked the doors of the

Court. And both of them agreed before the Court that A and B are the seller and purchaser. Is it legally valid? If so, if every citizen of this country orally agreeing and unregistered the documents, unstamping the documents, what and how it would fill the public purse. If the public purse is empty by act of every citizen of this court, how to run the

Government machinery.

28.Under the above circumstances, the original suit would not have been numbered, as the pleadings of the plaintiff that there is a oral lease, is contrary to law, on such void plea/pleadings, a Judgment is delivered on which the appeal is preferred. As such, once again if the root is rotten the fruit is also rotten. So, the genesis of the original suit itself is contrary to law, thereby the Judgment delivered on such plea, is also contrary to law.

Point No.3:-

To what relief?

29.As per the above discussion, the Appeal Suit No.69/2015 is dismissed with costs and accordingly, the Judgment and Decree passed

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 18 A.S.No69/2015 in Original Suit No.308/2005 on 04.03.2015 on the file of Addl.Senior

Civil Judge, Ongole, is hereby confirmed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, this the 27th day of March, 2025.

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on either side in this appeal)

III A.D.J.

Copy to :The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 1 O.S.No.222/2016

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC) :: ONGOLE

PRESENT: D.RAMULU

III-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of March, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.222/2016

Between:

ValluriVasanthaLakshmi W/o.Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 42 Years, Business, Residing at KovurRoad,KandukurTown, ….Plaintiff Prakasam District.

Vs.

YanamalaMadhaviW/o.Late Lakshmaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 Years, Fish business, Residing near Fish Market of Singarayakonda Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.….Defendant

This suit, coming on 06.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Srinivasulu, Advocate for Plaintiff

and of Sri K.V.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Defendant,

and upon perusal of the material on record, and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.20,39,000/- being the

principal and interest due on a pronote dated 24.08.2013 executed

by the defendant in favourof the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 2 O.S.No.222/2016 at Singarayakonda Village and Mandal agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that - the defendant borrowed an amount fo Rs.15,00,000/- on 24.08.2013 for her business purpose from the plaintiff and became indebted to the plaintiff and in evidence there of the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 12% either to plaintiff or to her order on demand. Later the plaintiff demanded the defendant personally several times for the payment of the above debt but the defendant has been postponing the payment of the some pretext, hence, the plaintiff is filed the suit for recovery of the suit amount.

3.The defendant filed written statement by denying all the allegations in the plaint and submitted that the defendant did not borrow an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on 24.08.2013 from the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendant are members of chit run by

Kalikivaya Malyadri. He issued empty promissory note for chit security purpose to said Kalikivaya Malyadri. After completion of the chit the said Kalikivaya Malyadri handed over the alleged promissory note to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not handed over the

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 3 O.S.No.222/2016 said promissory note. After the death of the said Kalikivaya Malyadri the plaintiff postpone to return the promissory note to defendant.

Finally the plaintiff filed the alleged promissory note for wrongful gain from the defendant. The alleged attestors of this suit promissory note must be the close friends or relatives of the plaintiff who will be ready and willing to speak any falsehood to the dictation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no capacity to give huge amounts to defendant. There are no merits or bonafides or true allegations in the plaint and finally prays the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the suit with the costs of the defendant.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial.

1.Whether the suit pronote dt.24.08.2013 for Rs.15,00,000/- is a forged document?

2.To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

5.To substantiate the case, on behalf of plaintiffs, PW1 and

PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 is marked. On behalf of defendant,

DW1 examined and no documents are marked on behalf of defendant.

6.Heard the arguments on both sides.

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 4 O.S.No.222/2016

7.Issue No.1:-

Whether the suit pronote dt.24.08.2013 for

Rs.15,00,000/- is a forged document?

The defendant never entreated in written statement that the promissory note forged one. My predecessor wrongly framed this issue. In the opinion of the present court, these issues are framed by the Officers of the Court not by the Judge of the Court. If the

Judge of the Court framed this issue it would not be in the manner

as framed in supra, because, the defendant has never beseeched in her written statement that the promissory note is forged one. The defendant pleaded that she issued empty promissory note for chit security purpose to said Kalikivaya Malyadri, after completion of the chit the said Kalikivaya Malyadari handed over the alleged promissory note to the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not handed over the said promissory note to the defendant. After the death of the said Kalikivaya Malyadri the plaintiff postponed to return the promissory note to the defendant, finally, the plaintiff filed the alleged promissory note for wrongful gain from the defendant. Now the issue is Whether the defendant and plaintiffs are parties to the chit transaction which is conducted by Kalikivaya Malyadri and whether the defendant handed over the promissory note as security

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 5 O.S.No.222/2016 for the chit transaction? The issues framed by the Hon’ble trial court are beacons and they are guiding principles to come to the right conclusion is the observation of this Hon’ble Court. However, the plaintiff filed the her examination in chief which is nothing but reiteration of the plaint copy, so it is unnecessary to repeat the chief affidavit and fill the pages of the Judgment. The plaintiff was cross examined. In the cross examination she deposed that she has not shown the promissory note amount in the income tax returns, albeit she is a Income Tax Assessee. The learned counsel for the defence asked the question when the plaintiff deposed that he has given

Rs.15,00,000/- in denomination of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- notes, to disclose the numbers of the currency notes that she has given to the defendant. As per Ex.A1 this transaction took place on August, 24, 2013. The cross examination was conducted on 6.7.2023. Can a witness remember and deposed before the court the number of the currency notes that she has lend to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.

Sec.149 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Questions not to be asked without any reasonable grounds, if asked the procedure enumerated in Sec.150 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the cross examination the witness categorically admitted that she was the one of the member of the chit run by Kalikivai Malyadri, but she does not

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 6 O.S.No.222/2016 know whether the defendant is a member or not? Chit transaction is a small business/partnership firm. All the members of the chit contribute and distribute according to their convenience. Not knowing the member especially the woman member to a woman is a hundred million dollars question in chit transaction. This is the sum and substance of the evidence of PW1.

8.Now the evidence of PW2.

He deposed that he knows the plaintiff and defendant and he knows the facts of the case. He further deposed that the defendant has borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- on 24.08.2013 for her business purpose from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with the interest of 12% per annum either to the plaintiff or her order on demand in his presence. He and Choppara Israel signed as attestors. He was cross examined by learned counsel for the defendant. In the cross examination PW2 deposed that he did not receive any witness summons from the court and he has come to the court at the instance of the plaintiff to give the evidence in this case. The witness further deposed that both the plaintiff and he has come from the same village. The fulcrum of the evidence is that he was in the varandah when the transaction took place. He did not observe the passing of the

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 7 O.S.No.222/2016 consideration under suit transaction from the plaintiff to the defendant. And he also deposed that he signed on the promissory note at the instance of the plaintiff and he does not know who else were present in side the house at the time of transaction. So, the

PW2 is not deposed anything as to transaction that took place in his presence and he has not seen the transaction and he has not signed the promissory note as an attestor in the presence of the executor

Y.Madhavi is crystal clear from the evidence of PW2.

9.At this juncture the Hon’ble Court has sedulously studied the Ex.A1 which is a promissory note. The date of promissory note is 24th day of August, 2013. The figure ‘4’ mentioned in ‘24’ on the top of the promissory note is different from the figure ‘4’ mentioned in ‘24’ below the signature of the scribe, and, figure ‘3’ mentioned in ‘2013’ in the beginning of the promissory note is different from figure ‘3’ mentioned below the signature of the scribe. The ink of the pen that the scribe used to sign his name as a scribe and the scribing of the promissory note is completely and totally different.

With these observations the alleged scribe is not the scribe of the promissory note, is pellucidly clear from these observations. Under

Sec.114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872corroboration between the witnesses is mandatory. Despite the corroboration from the

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 8 O.S.No.222/2016 evidence of PW2 there were contradictions between the evidence of

PW1 and PW2.

10.Now, the evidence of Defendant.

The chief affidavit filed by the defendant is nothing but reiteration and reproduction of her written statement and this court feels that it is unnecessary to repeat the same in the Judgment as already mentioned in the pleadings of the plaintiff and defendant.

She was cross examined at length by learned counsel for the plaintiff. Is that the question arises whether the witness knows the contents of the affidavit filed by him, definitely not, because she has signed as deponent below the chief affidavit and solemnly affirm and executed before the Advocate and how the learned counsel for the plaintiff asked the question whether the defendant knows the contents of her chief examination or not. These are all unreasonable questions, questions which are asked unprepared. The defendant deposed that the plaintiff and defendant were backward class association and moved together. Whereas, the plaintiff specifically deposed that she does not know the defendant. Now a days man has become a vice. If money is given they are ready to deny their parents even their creator/master. If the plaintiff and defendant are not known as a member of the chit, why and how the plaintiff lend

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 9 O.S.No.222/2016 the huge amount as an unsecured debt, is a hundred million dollars question. In the cross examination, the defendant deposed that she joined as a member of the chit as 7th candidate out of 10 chits in total. The defendant is a honest woman and she deposed more clearer than the day light that she has executed an empty promissory note and she never denied it is a fabricated promissory note and she executed a promissory note as security for the suit.

She was busy in the elections as MPTC and forgot take the promissory note from the said Malyadri after the completion of the full and final payment. She has given detailed story of what happened after the death of the said Malyadri. She voluntarily deposed in her cross examination that the said promissory note was executed only for the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which is false. By reading of Ex.A1 it is clear that promissory note was executed to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. Falsus uno falsus in omnibus, the legal maxim has no place on Indian legal landscape. The witness was cross examined for extraneous facts which were jettisoned.

11.Issue No.2:

To what relief? After the full discussion on the evidence of both sides, and arguments ended by both counsels, finally the suit is dismissed.

III-ADJ Court, Ongole 10 O.S.No.222/2016

12.In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me, this the 26th day of March, 2025.

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs : For Defendant :

PW1: Valluri Vasantha Lakshmi DW1: Yanamala Madhavi PW2: K.Krishna Rao

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Ex.A1: Original pronote dt.24.08.2013. NIL

III ADJ

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC) :: ONGOLE

PRESENT: D.RAMULU

III-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of March, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.222/2016

Between:

ValluriVasanthaLakshmi W/o.Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 42 Years, Business, Residing at KovurRoad,KandukurTown, ….Plaintiff Prakasam District.

Vs.

YanamalaMadhaviW/o.Late Lakshmaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 Years, Fish business, Residing near Fish Market of Singarayakonda Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.….Defendant

The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.20,39,000/- being the

principal and interest due on a pronote dated 24.08.2013 executed

by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- at Singarayakonda Village and Mandal agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 23.08.2016 Plaint registered on : 07.09.2016

Valuation and Court fee:The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.20,39,000/- on which a

C.F.of Rs.22,826-00 is payale under Sec.20 of APCF and SV Act by depositing cash in SBI, District Court Branch, Ongole on 23.08.2016 in lieu of Court Fee Stamps and Rs.10/- Court Fee lable affixed.

Cause of Action: Cause of action for filing the suit arose on 24.08.2013 when the defendant executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff at Singarayakonda Village and Mandal, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit, coming on 06.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Srinivasulu, Advocate for Plaintiff

and of Sri K.V.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Defendant,

and upon perusal of the material on record, and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

i)that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; ii)That each party do bear their own costs. (the plaintiff is taxed at Rs.107254-00) (C.M & FC not filed by the defendant)

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 26th day of March, 2025.

III-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

ONGOLE

// TABLE OF COSTS //

For PlaintiffFor Defendant taxed atRs. Rs.

For vakalath2-00(CM & FC not filed)

For Court Fee 22,896-00

Sr.Advocate Fee 62,870-00

Jr.Advocate Fee 20,956-00

Writing charges and600-00 Type charges

Total Taxed at Rs. 1,07,254-00

III ADJ

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

III ADJ Court, Ongole. C.M.A.No.1/20221

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC):: ONGOLE.

PRESENT: D.RAMULU

III-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE

Dated, this the 25th day of March, 2025

C.M.A.No.1/2022

Between:

Chedalawada Ramanamma W/o.Late Subba...Appellant/

Rao, Hindu, aged 58 Years, Employee, R/o.PlotPetitioner/ No.18, Rajiv Nagar, Tangutur Village andPlaintiff Mandal, Prakasam District.

A N D

1.Undella Ravi Babu S/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Aged 45 Years, R/o.Plot No.19, Rajiv Nagar, Tangutur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

2.Undella Madhuri W/o.Ravi babu, Hindu, 39 Years, Rajiv Nagar, Tangutur Village and

Mandal, Prakasam District...Respondents/

Defendants

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order and

decreetal order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge

Court, Ongole. In I.A.No.110/2022 in O.S.No.85/2022 dated

21.02.2022.

Between:

Chedalawada Ramanamma …Petitioner.

A N D

1. Undella Ravi Babu

2. Undella Madhuri …Respondents

III ADJ Court, Ongole. 2 C.M.A.No.1/2022

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is coming on 31.12.2024 for final hearing before this court in the presence of Sri

M.Gangadhara Rao, Advocate for the

Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff and of Sri P.Vengaiah, Advocate

for the Respondents/Defendants, and having stood over for

consideration to this day, this court delivered the following: -

// O R D E R //

1.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (in short ‘C.M.A.’) filed against the Order and decretal Order passed in I.A.No.110/2022 in

O.S.No.85/2022 dated 21.02.2022 by the Principal Junior Civil

Judge Court, Ongole and prays to allow the CMA by setting aside

the above I.A.110/2022 in O.S.85/2022.

2.The brief facts of the petitioner in I.A.No.110/2022 in

O.S.No.85/2022 is that- the petitioner/plaintiff filed the above

suit against the respondents/defendant for permanent injunction.

She further submitted that she is the owner of the Plot No.18 comprises of “A” and “A1” marked site adjacent to Plot No.19, which belongs to Respondents/Defendants. The petitioner further submitted that she constructed RCC Building in “A” marked site and left “A1” marked site as vacant and laid pipe line and put up a door way through her northern side compound wall to reach “A1” marked site and also constructed a septic tank.

3.She further submitted that the defendants are trying to cause obstructions for the enjoyment of the petition schedule

III ADJ Court, Ongole. 3 C.M.A.No.1/2022 property by the petitioner/plaintiff even though they have nothing to do with the petition schedule property. The petitioner further submitted that the mother of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.393/2010 against the petitioner/plaintiff and two others and in the said suit the mother of the respondent

No.1/Defendant No.1 filed a petition in I.A.No.661/2010 for temporary injunction restraining the petitioner/plaintiff and others and which was dismissed on merits by observing that the petitioner is in the possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The petitioner further submitted that the mother fo respondent No.1 preferred CMA No.29/2010 and the same was dismissed on merits by upholding the order of I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge, Ongole by observing that the petitioner herein is in

possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. Later the said suit was dismissed for default on 5.2.2018.

4.The petitioner further submitted that after the death of mother of R1, the respondents bore grudge and trying to interfere with her possession. Ten days back she constructed a bathroom and plastering and paining works are pending and as the respondent are powerful persons she unable to resist their high handed acts. The petitioner further submit that she is having prima facie case and

III ADJ Court, Ongole. 4 C.M.A.No.1/2022 balance of convenience and if temporary injunction is not granted she will be put to irreparable loss and injury and prayed to allow the petition.

5.Per contra, the respondents denied all the material allegations of the petition and submitted that “A”, “A1” and “H” id est properties shown in the plaint plan are endowment properties and the public encroached the same and constructed houses in the said properties, which is situated inSurvey No.1236/1 and 1236/2.

As per the records the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of

Plot No.10 in an extent of a half cent, but not plot No.18 as contended by the petitioner and the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of Plot No.19 even extent of Ac.0.4 ½ cents, but not

Plot No.19 as contended by the petitioner. Further submitted that the petitioner intentionally suppressed the total extent of site which is in her possession and also did not disclose the source of title over the petition schedule property. The further submitted that the petitioner constructed her house bounded by a compound wall in entire 4 ½ cents without leaving any site and present petition schedule property was left by the respondents for the purpose of attending repairs of their house. They further submitted that the petition schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the

III ADJ Court, Ongole. 5 C.M.A.No.1/2022 respondents family and petitioner is never in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property.

6.Further submitted that the mother of the respondent

No.1 preferred an appeal before Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition and Hon’ble Court pleased to hold that the findings of Appellate court and trial court are erroneous, hence, the orders passed in favour of the petitioner

I.A.No.661/2010 and C.M.A.No.29/2010 are no way helpful to the petitioner. They further submitted that the respondent No.1 contesting the suit by impleading himself as Legal Representative of her mother as his mother died during the pendency of the said suit.

They further submitted that taking advantage of ad-interim orders passed in her favour, the petitioner encroached into the plaint schedule property and made constructions. The petitioner has no title over the petition schedule property and interim injunction granted in her favour is causing in convenience to the respondents and in the event of raising the said interim order the petitioner will not sustained any loss, bus substance of the said order causing irreparable loss to the respondents and prayed to vacate ad-interim order passed in favour of the petitioner.

III ADJ Court, Ongole. 6 C.M.A.No.1/2022

7.After hearing the arguments on both sides, the trial court allowed the petition partly in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents not to obstruct the usage of bathroom constructed by the petitioner in the petition schedule property till disposal of the suit and further the petitioner also directed not to obstruct the respondents to use the petition schedule property i.e., vacant site abating to their compound wall, which is adjacent to the bathroom constructed by the petitioner in any manner.

8.Aggrieved with the above said order, the petitioner preferred this CMA.

9.Heard both sides in Appeal.

10.Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether injunction granted in I.A.No. 110/2022 in O.S.No.85/2022 is in accordance with the law?

2. To what relief?

11.Point No.1:

Whether injunction granted in I.A.No.110/2022 in

O.S.No.85/2022 is in accordance with the law?

The application filed under Sec. 94(c) r/w.Or.39 R.1 and 2 CPC, 1908 entreating Hon’ble Court to grant an injunction

III ADJ Court, Ongole. 7 C.M.A.No.1/2022 restraining the respondents, interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property.

12.Admittedly, the property on which the injunction is seeking belongs to neither petitioner nor the respondent. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent filed any piece of paper except oral evidence to show that they are in the possession of the petition schedule property. Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 filed by the petitioner are the different tax receipts, photos, certified copy of orders et cetera relating to the house in which the petitioner is residing. And they are not about the disputed petition schedule property. Under

Sec.41 (j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which provides

“when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the

matter ”. The legal meaning of the word interest means a

right, a title, claim or share in the property. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent has any interest id est right, title, claim or share in the property. The petitioner nor the respondent submitted any documents to prove that they are in the possession of the property. Justice Hardwicke’s (1700) & OMYCHUND Vs

Barker, 1745, is a noteworthy one as he mentioned that “no evidence will be admissible unless it is the best evidence that nature will allow”. The best evidence is the documentary evidence to prove

III ADJ Court, Ongole. 8 C.M.A.No.1/2022 that the petitioner is in the possession of the petition schedule property. Whereas, Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are not relating to the property in the possession in the present CMA, they are relating to the dwelling house in which the petitioner is residing. Oral evidence means making noise, as empty vessels make more noise like coins, but paper currency does not make any noise. So, papers(documents) does not make any noise, but they speak more than the tongue. In this case, no such relevant paper has been filed.

13.The petitioner specifically pleaded and submitted that the mother of the respondent No.1 filed a suit O.S.No.393/2010 against the petitioner/plaintiff and two others. In the said suit mother of the respondent No.1 filed a petition in I.A.No.661/2010 for temporary injunction, restraining the petitioners and others which was dismissed on merits by observing that the petitioner is in the possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The petitioner further submitted that mother of the respondent No.1 preferred CMA.No.29/2010 and the same was dismissed on merits upholding the order in I.A.No.661/2010 by observing that the petitioner herein is in the possession of petition schedule property.

But, the petitioner hide the order of Hon’ble Justice Sri Raja

Elango in Civil Revision Petition No.370 of 2012 in which the

III ADJ Court, Ongole. 9 C.M.A.No.1/2022

Hon’ble High Court held that both the trial court and

appellate court exceeded their limits in observing prima facie

case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. However, instead of setting aside the impugned orders, the Civil Revision

Petition disposed in the following direction-

The First Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole is directed to dispose of O.S.No.393/2010 pending on his file uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the said Interlocutory Application.

14.The petition schedule property is one the same in the present I.A. and in the Civil Revision Petition No.370/2012. Then, how and why? again in the present suit No.85/2022 and

I.A.No.110/2022 filed before the Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Ongole is hundred million dollars question.

15.Since the petitioner not mentioned about in his petition about the final order given by the Hon’ble High Court in the Civil

Revision Petition No.370/2012 it amounts to misrepresentation, which means the petitioner not knocked the doors of the Prl.Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole with clean hands. The principles

governing for grant of injunction are one who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Equity follows the law. So, the injunction

III ADJ Court, Ongole. 10 C.M.A.No.1/2022 order passed in I.A.No.110/2022 in O.S.No.85/2022 is not in accordance with the law.

16.Point No.2:

To what relief?

In the result, the C.M.A.1/2022 is allowed, by setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.110/2022 in O.S.No.85/2022 dt.21.2.2022 by Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. In consequence of allowing this CMA, the petition in I.A.No.110/2022 in

O.S.No.85/2022 is totally dismissed.

Typed dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 25th day of March, 2025.

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

III A.D.J.

III ADJ Court, Ongole. 11 C.M.A.No.1/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC):: ONGOLE.

PRESENT: D.RAMULU

III-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE

Dated, this the 25th day of March, 2025

C.M.A.No.1/2022

Between:

Chedalawada Ramanamma W/o.Late Subba...Appellant/

Rao, Hindu, aged 58 Years, Employee, R/o.PlotPetitioner/ No.18, Rajiv Nagar, Tangutur Village andPlaintiff Mandal, Prakasam District.

A N D

1.Undella Ravi Babu S/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Aged 45 Years, R/o.Plot No.19, Rajiv Nagar, Tangutur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

2.Undella Madhuri W/o.Ravi babu, Hindu, 39 Years, Rajiv Nagar, Tangutur Village and

Mandal, Prakasam District...Respondents/

Defendants

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order and

decreetal order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge

Court, Ongole. In I.A.No.110/2022 in O.S.No.85/2022 dated

21.02.2022.

Between:

Chedalawada Ramanamma …Petitioner.

A N D

1. Undella Ravi Babu

2. Undella Madhuri …Respondents

III ADJ Court, Ongole. 12 C.M.A.No.1/2022

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (in short ‘C.M.A.’) filed against the Order and decretal Order passed in I.A.No.110/2022 in

O.S.No.85/2022 dated 21.02.2022 by the Principal Junior Civil

Judge Court, Ongole and prays to allow the CMA by setting aside

the above I.A.110/2022 in O.S.85/2022.

CMA presented on : 15.03.2022 CMA filed on: 16.03.2022

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is coming on 31.12.2024 for final hearing before this court in the presence of Sri

M.Gangadhara Rao, Advocate for the

Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff and of Sri P.Vengaiah, Advocate

for the Respondents/Defendants, and having stood over for

consideration to this day, this court doth order and decree;

i)that the Civil Miscellaneous Application is ALLOWED; ii)that, accordingly, the order and decretal order passed by Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Ongole in I.A.No.110/2022 in

O.S.No.85/2022 is hereby SET ASIDE; and

iii)that in consequences of allowing this CMA, the petition in

I.A.No.110/2022 in O.S.No.85/2022 is totally

dismissed; and iv)that there be no order as to costs. (CM & FC not filed on either side)

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 25th day of March, 2025.

III Addl.District Judge, Ongole.

//Table of Costs//

NIL

III ADJ

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:: ONGOLE

Present: Sri D.Ramulu, III Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

Dated, this the 24th day of March, 2025.

C.M.A.No.12 of 2023.

Between:

Addagabottu Mahalaxmamma W/o.Venkaiah, Aged about 50 Years, Mason worker, R/o.Vemulapadu Village, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. ….Appellant/Plaintiff

Vs

1. Kommu Prakash S/o.Venkatesh, Aged about 55 Years

2. Kommu Anthony S/o. Venkatesh, Aged about 51 Years

3. Kommu Samuel S/o.Venkatesh, Aged about 40 Years

4. Kommu Marry, Daughter of Venkatesh, Aged about 53 Years.

R1 to R4 are all coolies, R/o.Mattepadu, H/o. Vemulapadu Village, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District, now residing at 3rd street, Dwaraka Nagar, Triplicane, Chennai, Tamilnadu State.

5. Sikha Miriyamma D/o.Devadanam, Aged about51Years,Housewife, R/o.Chinthalapalem Village, Zarugumalli ….Respondents/ Mandal, Prakasam District. Defendants

On appeal against the Decree and decretal order

passed in IA.218/2021 in OS.No.361/2021 on the file of Prl.

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole dt.21.08.2023.

2

Addagabottu Mahalaxmamma….Plaintiff

Vs.,

1. Kommu Prakash

2. K.Anthony

3. K.Samuel

4. K.Marry

5. S.Mariyamma...Defendants

This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred against

Decree and decretal order made in Decree and decretal order

passed in IA.218/2021 in OS.No.361/2021 on the file of Prl.

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole dt.21.08.2023 and prays to set aside the same by allowing the CMA.

This CMA is coming on 24.03.2025 for appearance of both parties for hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Venkata Rao, Advocate for Appellant/Plaintiff and upon perusing the Appeal grounds and material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

// O R D E R //

Both parties and their respective counsels called absent.

Hence, the CMA. No.12/2023 is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of

March, 2025.

III Additional District Judge, Ongole.

//Appendix of Evidence// NIL.

III ADJ

Copy to: The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

3

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:: ONGOLE

Present: Sri D.Ramulu, III Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

Dated, this the 24th day of March, 2025.

C.M.A.No.12 of 2023.

Between:

Addagabottu Mahalaxmamma W/o.Venkaiah, Aged about 50 Years, Mason worker, R/o.Vemulapadu Village, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. ….Appellant/Plaintiff

Vs

1. Kommu Prakash S/o.Venkatesh, Aged about 55 Years

2. Kommu Anthony S/o. Venkatesh, Aged about 51 Years

3. Kommu Samuel S/o.Venkatesh, Aged about 40 Years

4. Kommu Marry, Daughter of Venkatesh, Aged about 53 Years.

R1 to R4 are all coolies, R/o.Mattepadu, H/o. Vemulapadu Village, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District, now residing at 3rd street, Dwaraka Nagar, Triplicane, Chennai, Tamilnadu State.

5. Sikha Miriyamma D/o.Devadanam, Aged about51Years,Housewife, R/o.Chinthalapalem Village, Zarugumalli ….Respondents/ Mandal, Prakasam District. Defendants

On appeal against the Decree and decretal order

passed in IA.218/2021 in OS.No.361/2021 on the file of Prl.

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole dt.21.08.2023.

4

Addagabottu Mahalaxmamma….Plaintiff

Vs.,

1. Kommu Prakash

2. K.Anthony

3. K.Samuel

4. K.Marry

5. S.Mariyamma...Defendants

This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred against

Decree and decretal order made in Decree and decretal order

passed in IA.218/2021 in OS.No.361/2021 on the file of Prl.

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole dt.21.08.2023 and prays to set aside the same by allowing the CMA.

This CMA is coming on 24.03.2025 for appearance of both parties for hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Venkata Rao, Advocate for Appellant/Plaintiff and upon perusing the Appeal grounds and material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:- i.that the CMA.12/2023 is dismissed, as both parties and their respective counsels called absent; and ii.that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 24th day of March, 2025.

III Additional District Judge, Ongole.

// Table of Costs // NIL

III ADJ

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:: ONGOLE

Present: Sri D.Ramulu, III Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

Dated, this the 25nd day of March, 2025.

C.M.A.No.3 of 2019.

Between:

Kandi Chenna Reddy S/o.Pitchi Reddy, Aged 60 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.Inamanamellore Village, Now at Ongole Town, VKB Enclave, A-Block, Plot No.502, Sujatha Nagar, Ongole-523002.….Appellant/Defendant

Vs

DevarapalliVenkataramiReddy, S/o.Krishna Reddy, Aged 45 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, Inamanamellore Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ….Respondent/Plaintiff

On appeal against the Decree and decretal order

dt.31.10.2018 made in IA.65/2018 in OS.53/2018 on the file of

1 st Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole.

Devarapalli Venkatarami Reddy….Petitioner

Vs.,

Kondi Chenna Reddy...Defendant

This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred against

Decree and decretal order made in IA.No.65/2018 in

OS.No.53/2018 dt.31.10.2018 on the file of 1 st Addl. Junior

Civil Judge, Ongole and prays to set aside the same by allowing

the CMA.

2

This CMA is coming on 25.03.2025 for appearance of both parties for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Raghava Rao, Advocate for Appellant/Defendant and of Sri Challa Raja Dhana Varma, Advocate for Respondent, and upon perusing the Appeal grounds and material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

// O R D E R //

Both advocates and their respective parties called absent.

Hence, the CMA. No.3/2019 is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25th day of March,

2025.

III Additional District Judge, Ongole.

//Appendix of Evidence// NIL.

III ADJ

Copy to: The 1st Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:: ONGOLE

Present: Sri D.Ramulu, III Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

Dated, this the 25nd day of March, 2025.

C.M.A.No.3 of 2019.

Between:

Kandi Chenna Reddy S/o.Pitchi Reddy, Aged 60 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.Inamanamellore Village, Now at Ongole Town, VKB Enclave, A-Block, Plot No.502, Sujatha Nagar, Ongole-523002.….Appellant/Defendant

Vs

DevarapalliVenkataramiReddy, S/o.Krishna Reddy, Aged 45 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, Inamanamellore Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ….Respondent/Plaintiff

On appeal against the Decree and decretal order

dt.31.10.2018 made in IA.65/2018 in OS.53/2018 on the file of

1 st Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole.

Devarapalli Venkatarami Reddy….Petitioner

Vs.,

Kondi Chenna Reddy...Defendant

This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred against

Decree and decretal order made in IA.No.65/2018 in

OS.No.53/2018 dt.31.10.2018 on the file of 1 st Addl. Junior

Civil Judge, Ongole and prays to set aside the same by allowing

the CMA.

This CMA is coming on 25.03.2025 for appearance of both parties for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri K.Raghava Rao, Advocate for Appellant/Defendant and of Sri

Challa Raja Dhana Varma, Advocate for Respondent, and upon perusing the Appeal grounds and material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:- i.that the CMA.3/2019 is dismissed, as both the Advocates and their respective parties called absent; and ii.that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 25th day of March, 2025.

III Additional District Judge, Ongole.

// Table of Costs //

NIL

III ADJ