Mr. Daravath Uday Naik

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE, I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SRI. DARAVATH UDAY NAIK

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT L.B. NAGAR.

Thursday, Dated on this the 23rd Day of June, 2022.

OS No. 1581 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Chalamala Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Sri Ch. Ram Reddy,

Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 354

Sagar Housing Complex, Vignanpuri colony, vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad …….. Plaintif

And

Kolan Rajavardhan Reddy, S/o. K. Malla Reddy,

Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no. 1-20/4,

Gurramguda Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

…. Defendant

This suit is coming on 22-06-2022 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. Kiran Kanth Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintif and the

Defendant having remained set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is fled for recovery of money of Rs.16,06,500/- (Rupees

Sixteen lakhs Six Thousand and Five Hundred Rupees only) with costs of the legal notice and costs of the suit along with Interest @24% p.a from the date of due till realization as against the defendants basing on original token advance payment receipt dt:26-01-2021 and agreement/cash receipt dt: 30-01-2021.

The case of the plaintif in brief is as follows:

2.1 The plaintif and defendant are known to each other since past 5 years and with that acquaintance in the last week of January, 2021 the defendant approached the plaintif and ofered to sell the open plot bearing no. 43/ Western part, forming part of Survey no. 91, admeasuring 150 Sq. yards, or 125.41. Sq. Meters, Situated at Turkayamjal Village,

Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by claiming that he is holding an Agreement of Sale, in respect of said property, and possessor of it was Smt. Devarakonda Rama Laxmi W/o. Sri D.S.Prasad, and the same was in force for its performance, and also furnished a xerox copy of Regd.

Sale Deed bearing doc.no. 3371/2008 dt: 30-07-2008, standing in the name of Devarakonda Rama Laxmi, the plaintif by stating that the defendant was in urgent need of amount to meet his business commitments, for a total sale consideration of Rs.55,50,000/- @ Rs.

37,000/- Per Sq.Yard, on believed the defendant words, plaintif has agreed to purchase the said property for the sale consideration and ofer acceptance on 26-01-2021, the plaintif has paid token advance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and on 01-02-2021 , and further paid amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- on 30-01-2021 in total a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- in the presence of witness to defendant towards advance sale consideration out of the total sale consideration of Rs.55,50,000/- and on 01-02-2021 the defendant entered into “Sub- Agreement of sale dt: 01-02-2021 2.2 Plaintif further submits that as per the terms agreed in EX.A1 the plaintif always expressed his ready and willingness to pay remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.42,00,000/- and to get registered sale deed, but the defendant has postponed by saying one pretext to another and avoided to receive the balance sale consideration and to perform his part of contract.

2.3 Plaintif further submits that the plaintif also informed to the defendant about the lifting of Chit bearing no. KHV03T09T-8 for

Rs.50,00,000/- in the month of December, 2020, and further the plaintif had another Chit bearing No. FDVTOIZ-38, of Rs.25,00,000/- which he will going to lift from the KAPIL Chit funds, on fxing of date of execution of sale deed, but every time defendant has stated that he has not yet obtained sale deed in his name from the aforesaid lawful owner and possessor and assured to the plaintif that soon after obtaining the registered sale deed in his name, the defendant will execute and register sale deed in favour of the plaintif 2.4 It is further submitted that despite several oral requests, the defendants evaded payment on one pretext or other, as such on 24-04- 2021, the plaintif got issued demand legal notice to the defendant for repayment of the amount, and again the plaintif issued a legal notice on 11-10-2021, to which defendant failed to comply with the notice. Hence, this suit for recovery of Rs.16,06,500/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the defendants.

3. The suit summons was duly served on the defendants, the defendant failed to appear as such the defendant was set exparte. The case posted for plaintif side evidence. The plaintif himself examined as PW1 and got marked exhibits Exs.A1 to A13 documents.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif and perused the written arguments.

5. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from

the defendant with interest”?

6. POINT:

Perused the averments of plaint, evidence of PW1and the contents of

Ex.A1 to A13. This suit is fled for recovery of sum of Rs.,16,06,500/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Six Thousand Five Hundred Rupees only) according to the plaintif Ex. A1 is the Original Sub-Agreement Sale entered by the defendant in Favour of the plaintif on Dt: 01-02-2021 which establishes that the plaintif has paid a sum of Rs. 13,50,000 by cash to the defendant/vendor towards part sale consideration and the defendant/vendor has admitted and acknowledged the recepit of same and furthet Ex.A2 is the original token advance payment receipt (opandapatram) wherein Rs.3,50,000/- was paid by the plaintif to the defendant on Dt: 26-01-2021 and further Ex. A3 discloses that it is the

Original Agreement/cash Receipt where plaintif has paid an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- on Dt: 30-01-2021 and the same was acknowledged by the defendant. Therefore, total amount paid by the plaintif to defendnat is

Rs. 13,50,000/- . Ex.A4 is the Certifed copy of registered Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney bearing No. 4499 of 2021 stands in the name of defendant Dt: 01-04-2021, Ex.A5 is the Ofce copy of Legal

Notice, dt: 24-04-2021. Though the plaintif had given opportunity to the defendant before fling the suit, he did not choose to avail the opportunity and failed to pay the due amount. Ex. A6 to Ex.A12 are

Original postal receipt, postal cover, Another legal notice, dt: 11-10-2021,

DTDC booking consignment receipt, DTDC delivery report, dt: 14-10-2021 which shows that the summons and legal notice were served to the defendant. Ex.A13 is the certifed copy of Encumbrance certifcate for the period from 01-10-2007 to 23-09- 2021 in respect of the schedule property covered under Sub-Agreement of sale Dt: 01-02-2021

7. The Plaintif fled a citation Dt: 05-06-2013 of Hon’ble High court of

Madras in C B VISHNUDASAN V/S D VIJAYA the relevant para no.18 stipulates that when no relief of specifc performance of the contract was sought for by the plaintif then the court cannot go in to the value of the sale consideration of the agreement for the purpose of court fee payable, when the relief sought by the plaintif is only for return of money paying along with interest and costs. The same point of law is perused by this court.

8. The evidence of Pw 1 is remained un-rebutted by the defendants, by virtue of Exs.A1 to A13 documents. Therefore, the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with future interest, accordingly the point is answered in Favour of the plaintif.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs ffty Thousand rupees only) with costs against the defendant in

Favour of the plaintif. The plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal adjudged amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs ffty Thousand rupees only).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open

Court, on this day of 23-06-2022.

I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

L.B. NAGAR, RR. DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Ch. Srikanth Reddy -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex. A1: Original Sub-Agreement Sale entered by the defendant in favour of the plaintif Dt: 01-02-2021

Ex. A2: Original token advance payment receipt (opandapatram) passed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.3,50,000/-,

Dt: 26-01-2021

Ex. A3: Original Receipt passed the defendant in favour of the plaintif, by acknowledging the receipt of earnest/advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, Dt: 30-01-2021

Ex. A4: Certifed copy of registered Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney bearing No. 4499 of 2021 stands in the name of defendant Dt: 01-04-2021

Ex. A5: Ofce copy of Legal Notice, dt: 24-04-2021

Ex. A6: Original Postal receipt bearing No.RN091586407IN, Dt:03-05-2021

Ex. A7: Original Returned postal cover, Dt: 08-05-2021

Ex. A8: Original ofce copy of legal notice Dt: 11-10-2021

Ex. A9: Original postal receipt bearing No. RN078027505IN Dt:11-10-2021

Ex. A10: Original returned postal cover

Ex. A11: Original DTDC booking consignment receipt No. H25758454,

Dt:11-10-2021

Ex. A12: Online print copy of DTDC delivery report Dt: 14-10-2021

Ex. A13: CC of Encumbrance certifcate for the period from 01-10-2007 to 23-09-2021 in respect of the schedule property covered under Sub-Agreement of sale Dt: 01-02-2021

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

L.B. NAGAR, RR. DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE, I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SRI. DARAVATH UDAY NAIK

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT L.B. NAGAR.

Friday, Dated on this the 1st Day of July, 2022.

OS No. 960 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1. Tabassum Sultana, W/o. Late Mohammed Idriss, Aged : 43 years, Occ: Housewife.

2. Mohammed Tayyab, S/o. Late Mohammed Idriss, Aged: 19 years, Occ: Student.

3. Mahjabeen Sultana, D/o. Late Mohammed Idriss, Aged about: 16 years, Occ: Student. Rep. by Natural Mother Smt. Tabassum Sultana, W/o. Late Mohammed Idriss, Aged about: 43 years, Occ: Housewife

4. Fareen Sultana, D/o. Late Mohammed Idriss, Aged about: 13 years, Occ: Student, Rep. by natural Mother Smt. Tabassum Sultana, W/o. Late Mohammed Idriss, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Housewife,

All are permanently R/o: H.No. 19-4-279/c/148, Jahanuma, M.C.H. Colony, Charminar, Hyderabad

Telangana – 500053 ….. Plaintiffs

And

1. The Tahsildar, Balapur Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. All Concerned. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 27-06-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s. Arvind Kumar Mavoori & AssociatesAdvocate for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants having remained set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying this court to declare them as legal heirs of Late Mohammed Idriss [herein after called as deceased].

The averments in plaint, in brief, are as follows:

2.1 The plaintiff No.1 is the wife and the plaintiff No.2 to 4 are sons and daughters of the deceased Late Mohammed Idriss. Plaintiffs further submit that the deceased died intestate on 14-09-2019, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs.

2.2The plaintiffs further submit that the deceased and plaintiff No.1 are the joint and absolute owners and possessor of House bearing no. 2-63/1, on Plot No.12, admeasuring 500 Sq.Yards or 418.06 Sq.Mts, in Survey No.93, Situated at Pahadi

Shareef, Mamidipally Village, Saroor Nagar, Revenue Mandal, R.R.District which is bounded by: North : Plot No.11, South: Plot No.13, East: 100’ Wide Road,

West: 20’ Wide Road, and the same was purchased by the deceased during his life time through a Registered Sale Deed bearing Doct.No. 6981/2016, Dated: 3-11- 2016 from Syed Zafar Hussain, S/o. Syed Fayyaz Hussain.

2.3The Plaintiff no.1 further submits that the deceased husband had executed a

Gift Settlement Deed vide document No. 2024/2017, dated: 19-05-2017, to the plaintiff no.1 herein due to the real love and affection and agreed to gift the premises bearing House No. 2-63/1 part on plot No. 12 South Part, in survey

No.93, admeasuring 177.5 Sq. yards or equivalent to 148.39 Sq. Meters, having plinth area 100 Sft with Acc Sheets, Situated at Pahadi Shareef, Mamidipally village, Balapur Revenue Mandal, R.R.District, the deceased after executing the gift deed in favour of Plaintiff no.1 to an extent of 177.5 Sq.Yards, the plaintiff was in the possession till his death for the remaining 322.5 Sq yards ie, suit schedule property.

2.4Plaintiffs further submitted that after the death of the deceased the plaintiffs intended to sell the property to third parties and as they insisted for legal heir certificate as the deceased has undivided half share in the suit schedule property, thereafter they have approached the Defendant No.1 on 19-03-2021 for the purpose of Legal heir certificate and advised the plaintiffs to obtained the same from concerned Civil Court for obtaining the same. Hence the suit.

3.Notices duly served on defendant No.1 and a Paper publication was issued to defendant No.2 with respect to ‘All Concerned’. None appeared against the claim of the petitioners, they are called absent, accordingly, D2 set ex-parte on 03-09- 2021 and D1 set Ex-parte on 22-03-2022 and the case is posted for Ex-parte plaintiff’s side evidence.

4.During ex-parte proceedings, the plaintiff No.1 examined as PW1 and got marked Ex: A1 to A11 documents and closed further evidence.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as legal heirs of Late

Mohammed Idriss, as prayed for?

7. POINT:-

P.W.1 reiterated all the averments of the plaint in her chief examination affidavit. Hence the same is not reproduced here to avoid repetition. This court carefully appreciated the evidence of plaintiffs along with the documentary evidence i.e, Ex.A1: Certified copy of Regd Sale deed Doc. No. 624/2008, Dt: 03- 01-2008, Ex.A2: Certified copy of Regd Sale deed Doc.No. 6981, Dt: 03-11-2016,

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Gift Settlement deed Doc. No. 2024/2017, Dt:19-05- 2017, Ex.A4: Original death certificate of deceased Mohammed Idriss, dt: 14-09- 2019, Ex.A5: Original Encumbrance certificate of suit schedule property, Ex.A6 to

Ex.A9 are Aadhar Cards of Plaintiffs no.1 to 4, Ex.A10: Original Market value certificate of suit schedule property, Ex.A11: Original Electricity bill, dt: 04-02- 2021.

8.The plaintiffs in support of their contention with regard to the death of Late

Mohammed Idriss relied on Ex. A4 Original death certificate showing date of death as 14-09-2019 which clearly established that the deceased has died. Ex.A6 to Ex.A9 establishes the relationship of plaintiffs with the deceased.

9. Ex.A1 is the sale deed which clearly shows that the deceased vendor has purchased the property from Mohd Hussain and Mohd Abdul Rehaman represented by their guardian and father Mohd Khaja through a register Sale deed bearing Doc. No. 624/2008, Dt: 03-01-2008. To show that deceased Husband Late

Mohammed Idriss as the absolute owner of House bearing no. 2-63/1, on Plot

No.12, admeasuring 500 Sq.Yards or 418.06 Sq.Mts, in Survey No.93, Situated at

Pahadi Shareef, Mamidipally Village, Saroor Nagar, Revenue Mandal, R.R.District for which Ex. A2 clearly shows that through a Registered Sale Deed bearing

Doct.No. 6981/2016, Dated: 3-11-2016 deceased purchased the property from

Syed Zafar Hussain.

Ex.A3 clearly shows that the deceased husband had executed a Gift

Settlement Deed vide document No. 2024/2017, dated: 19-05-2017, to the plaintiff no.1 herein due to the real love and affection and gifted the premises bearing

House No. 2-63/1 part on plot No. 12 South Part, in survey No.93, admeasuring 177.5 Sq. yards

Ex. A5 which is encumbrance statement clearly showing the name of deceased in the suit schedule property along with plaintiff no.1. Ex. A10 shows market value of the total property purchased by the deceased through a Registered Sale Deed bearing Doct.No. 6981/2016, Dated: 3-11-2016 and Ex.A11 shows that the

Electricity bill of the suit schedule property is in the name of the deceased.

10. The evidence of the plaintiffs, on oath and the documentary evidence remained unchallenged. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to declare as legal heirs of Late Mohammed Idriss in respect of suit schedule property. Accordingly, this point is answered in Favour of the plaintiffs.

11. In the result the suit is decreed, declaring the plaintiffs as legal heirs of deceased Late Mohammed Idriss in respect of suit schedule property. No order as to cost.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this day of 01- 07-2022.

I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

L.B. NAGAR, RR. DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Mohammed Tayyab -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Regd Sale deed Doc. No. 624/2008, Dt: 03-01-2008

Ex.A2: Certified copy of Regd Sale deed Doc.No. 6981, Dt: 03-11-2016

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Gift Settlement deed Doc. No. 2024/2017, Dt:19-05-2017

Ex.A4: Original death certificate of deceased Mohammed Idriss, dt: 14-09-2019

Ex.A5: Original Encumbrance certificate of suit schedule property

Ex.A6: Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.1

Ex.A7: Aadhar card of Plaintiff.no.2,

Ex.A8: Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A9: Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.4.

Ex.A10: Original Market value certificate of suit schedule property

Ex.A11: Original Electricity bill, dt: 04-02-2021

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

L.B. NAGAR, RR. DISTRICT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE, I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SRI. DARAVATH UDAY NAIK

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT L.B. NAGAR.

Wednesday, Dated on this the 22nd Day of June, 2022.

OS No. 1129 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

Bank of India, Mansoorabad Branch,

R.T.C.Colony, Mansoorabad,

Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad,

Rep by is Authorized Officer/Chief Manager &

G.P.A Holder Sri. G.Siva prasad,

S/o. G. Rama Rao, Aged: 53 years.. Plaintiff - Bank

And

Smt. Mudavath Sujatha W/o. Mudavath Narayana,

Aged About 33 years, Occ: Business,

R/o. House No. 11-21-838, Banjara Colony.

L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad – 500074.

…. Defendant

This suit is coming on 22-06-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Saidaiah, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant having remained set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.6,48,600/- (Rupees Six Lakhs

Forty-Eight Thousand Six hundred only) along with Interest @12.20% p.a compounded monthly from the date of the suit till the date of realization as against the defendant.

The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

2.1The plaintiff is a Bank of India, Constituted and functioning under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under takings)

Act, (Act V of 1970), represented by its power of attorney G. Siva Prasad.

2.2 Plaintiff further submitted that Defendant had approached Plaintiff bank for grant of a loan of Rs.7,87,000/- for purchasing of Toyota Etios GD(M) BSIV Car

Vehicle vide application dated 06-07-2016 along with quotation. The plaintiff

Bank sanctioned term loan of Rs.7,87,000/- vide sanction letter dated 20-07-2016 with such acknowledgment the defendant has availed loan vide A/c. No.

“564872310000100” and the loan amount was paid and defendant executed L-434

Demand Promissory notes dt: 20-07-2016 and L-435 Bearer Letter dated: 20-07- 2016 and agreed to repay the loan amount in 84 equal monthly installments of Rs.

13,977-00/- and thereafter the defendant hypothecated Toyota Etios GD(M) BSIV

Car Vehicle with plaintiff's bank vide Vehicle No. “TSA 08 UB 8942”. The defendant has executed all required documents in Favour of the plaintiff bank as security for due repayment of the outstanding amounts.

3

3. The plaintiff further submits that Defendant remitted some amounts in part into the loan account but failed to pay other installments regularly was very irregular, in spite of repeated demands and failed to observe the terms and conditions of the sanctioned loan and committed lawful default in repayment of the loan outstanding as agreed upon, and that defendant acknowledged the debt by way of executing acknowledgment of debt/securities dt: 16-2-2019. Subsequently, the Defendant account has been classified as Non-Performing Asset. On 1-07-2019, the plaintiff bank issued demand notice calling upon the defendant to pay entire loan outstanding amount but defendant failed to comply and the plaintiff bank issued legal notice on 26-11-2019, however defendant did not take any steps to repay the dues, Hence the present suit for recovery of money.

4.The suit summons served on the defendant and as none appeared this court set the defendant ex-parte on 24-02-2020. The case posted for plaintiff’s side evidence. The Credit Manager of the plaintiff bank examined as PW1 and got marked exhibited Ex's. A1 to A14 documents.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the documents available on record.

6. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

defendant with future interest”?

4

7. POINT:

Perused the averments of plaint, evidence of PW1and the contents of Ex. A1 to

A14. The plaintiff’s bank contended that the defendant availed loan of

Rs.7,87,000/- for purchasing of Toyota Etios GD(M) BSIV Car Vehicle vide application dated 06-07-2016 along with quotation. The plaintiff Bank sanctioned term loan of Rs.7,87,000/- vide sanction letter dated 20-07-2016 the vehicle agreeing to repay the loan amount in 84 equal monthly installments of Rs. 13,977/- each, and the plaintiff bank relied on Ex's., A1 to A14 documents, they all are loan application and sanctioned letter, demand promissory note, Installment letter,

Bearer letter, Hypothecation cum loan agreement Dt:20-07-2016, L-434 and L-435 all these documents established that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank and availed loan.

8. The plaintiff bank filed relied on Ex. A14 statement of the account which shows that the defendant is due an amount of Rs. 6,48,600/-. Ex. A11 is the demand notice and Ex. A12 is the legal notice Dt: 26-11-2019 by which the plaintiff bank demanded the defendant for payment of entire loan amount. Though the plaintiff had given opportunity to the first defendant before filing the suit, he did not choose to avail the opportunity and failed to pay the due amount. Ex. A13 is unclaimed return postal covers of the summons that were sent.

9. The evidence of Pw1 is remained unrebutted by the defendant, by virtue of

Exs.A1 to A14 documents. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit 5 amount from the defendant with future interest, accordingly the point is answered in Favour of the plaintiff.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs. Rs. Rs.6,48,600/- with costs against the defendant in Favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with Future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the principal adjudged amount of

Rs.6,48,600/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty-Eight Thousand Six hundred only)

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this day of 22-06-2022.

I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

L.B. NAGAR, RR. DISTRICT

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: K.Srikanth -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Application for sanction of term loan Dt: 06-07-2016

Ex.A2: Sanction letter Dt: 20-07-2016

Ex.A3: Original Demand promissory note for Rs.7,87,000/-, Dt: 20-07-2016

Ex.A4: Original Bearer letter, Dt: 20-07-2016

Ex.A5: Original Installment letter Dt: 20-07-2016

Ex.A6: Original letter of request for grant of credit facilities Dt: 20-07-2016

Ex.A7: Original Composite loan agreement Dt: 20-07-2016

Ex.A8: Original Hypothecation cum loan agreement Dt: 20-07-2016

Ex.A9: Original MCLR Agreement – New loans Dt: 20-07-2016

Ex.A10: Original Acknowledgment of debt/securities, Dt: 16-02-2019

Ex.A11: Office copy of Demand notice dt: 01-07-2019

Ex.A12: Office copy of legal notice Dt: 26-11-2019

Ex.A13: Postal receipt Dt: 29-11-2019

Ex.A14: Certified copy of True Extract of loan account along with certified filed u/ s.2(a)(b) & (c) of Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1981, Dt: 12-12-2019

FOR DEFENDANTS:

NIL

I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

L.B. NAGAR, RR. DISTRICT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE, I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SRI. DARAVATH UDAY NAIK

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT L.B. NAGAR.

Wednesday, Dated on this the 22nd Day of June, 2022.

OS No. 1128 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

Bank of India, Mansoorabad Branch,

R.T.C.Colony, Mansoorabad,

Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad,

Rep by is Authorized Officer/Chief Manager &

G.P.A Holder Sri. G.Shiva prasad,

S/o. G. Rama Rao, Aged: 53 years.. Plaintiff - Bank

And

Smt. Sabavath Gopi Singh,

S/o. Sabavath Reddya Nayak,

Aged: About 30 years,

Occ: Transport Operator,

R/o. House No. 11-21-878,

Banjara colony, L.B.Nagar,

Hyderabad - 500074 …. Defendant

This suit is coming on 22-06-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Saidaiah, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant having remained set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.5,55,015/- ( Five Lakhs Fifty-

Five Thousand Fifteen Rupees only) along with Interest @11.20% p.a compounded monthly from the date of the suit till the date of realization as against the defendant.

The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

2.1The plaintiff is a Bank of India, Constituted and functioning under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under takings)

Act, (Act V of 1970), represented by its G.P.A Holder G. Siva Prasad.

2.2 Plaintiff further submitted that Defendant had approached the Plaintiff bank for grant of a loan of Rs.7,50,000/- for purchasing of Mahindra Xylo Vehicle vide application dated 13-07-2016 along with quotation. The plaintiff Bank sanctioned term loan of Rs.7,50,000/- vide sanction letter dated 04-08-2016, with such acknowledgment the defendant has availed loan vide A/c. No.

“564872310000101” and the loan amount was paid and defendant executed L-434 an Demand Promissory notes dt: 05-08-2016 and L-435 Bearer Letter dated: 05- 08-2016 and agreed to repay the loan amount in 72 equal monthly installments of

Rs. 14,353/- and thereafter the defendant hypothecated Mahindra Xylo Vehicle with Plaintiff bankvide Vehicle No. “TSA 08 UB 9114”. The defendant has executed all required documents in Favour of the plaintiff bank as security for due repayment of the outstanding amounts.

3. The plaintiff further submits that Defendant remitted some amounts in part into the loan account but failed to pay other installments regularly was very irregular, inspite of repeated demands and failed to observe the terms and conditions of the sanctioned loan and committed lawful default in repayment of the loan outstanding as agreed upon, and that defendant acknowledged the debt by way of executing acknowledgment of debt/securities dt: 31-1-2019. Subsequently, the Defendant account has been classified as Non-Performing Asset. on 26-11-2019, the plaintiff bank issued legal notice calling upon the defendant to pay entire loan outstanding 3 amount but defendant did not take any steps to repay the dues, Hence the present suit for recovery of money.

4.The suit summons served on the defendant and as none appeared this court set the defendant ex-parte on 24-02-2020. The case posted for plaintiff’s side evidence. The Credit Manager of the plaintiff bank examined as PW1 and got marked exhibited Ex's. A1 to A14 documents.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the documents avaialble on record.

6. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

defendant with future interest”?

7. POINT:

Perused the averments of plaint, evidence of PW1and the contents of Ex. A1 to

A14. The plaintiff’s bank contended that the defendant availed loan of

Rs.7,50,000/- for purchasing of Mahindra Xylo Vehicle vide application dated 13- 07-2016 along with quotation. The plaintiff Bank sanctioned term loan of

Rs.7,50,000/- vide sanction letter dated 04-08-2016 the vehicle agreeing to repay the loan amount in 72 equal monthly installments of Rs. 14,353/- each commencing from 30-09-2016 the plaintiff bank relied on Ex's., A1 to A14 documents. They are loan application and sanctioned letter, demand promissory note, Installment letter, Bearer letter, Hypothecation cum loan agreement Dt:05- 08-2016, L-434 and L-435 all these documents established that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank and availed loan.

8. The plaintiff bank filed relied on Ex. A13 statement of the account Dt: 12-12- 2019 which shows that the defendant is due an amount of Rs. 5,55,015/-. Ex. A11 is the legal notice Dt: 26-11-2019 by which the plaintiff bank demanded the defendant for payment of entire loan amount. Though the plaintiff had given 4 opportunity to the first defendant before filing the suit, he did not choose to avail the opportunity and failed to pay the due amount. Ex. A12 unclaimed return postal covers of the summons that were sent dt: 29-11-2019

9. The evidence of Pw1 is remained unrebutted by the defendant, by virtue of

Exs.A1 to A14 documents. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with future interest, accordingly the point is answered in Favour of the plaintiff.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs. Rs.5,55,015/- with costs against the defendant in Favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with Future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the principal adjudged amount of

Rs.5,55,015/- (Five Lakhs Fifty-Five Thousand Fifteen Rupees only)

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this day of 22-06-2022.

I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

L.B. NAGAR, RR. DISTRICT

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: K.Srikanth -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Application for sanction of term loan Dt: 13-07-2016

Ex.A2: Sanction letter Dt: 05-08-2016

Ex.A3: Original Demand promissory note for Rs.7,50,000/-, Dt: 05-08-2016

Ex.A4: Original Bearer letter, Dt: 05-08-2016

Ex.A5: Original Installment letter Dt: 05-08-2016

Ex.A6: Original letter of request for grant of credit facilities Dt: 05-08-2016

Ex.A7: Original Composite loan agreement Dt: 05-08-2016

Ex.A8: Original Hypothecation cum loan agreement Dt: 05-08-2016

Ex.A9: Original MCLR Agreement – New loans Dt: 05-08-2016

Ex.A10: Original Acknowledgment of debt/securities, Dt: 31-01-2019

Ex.A11: Office copy of Legal notice dt: 26-11-2019

Ex.A12: Postal receipt dt: 29-11-2019

Ex.A13: Certified copy of True Extract of loan account along with certified filed u/ s.2(a)(b) & (c) of Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1981, Dt: 12-12-2019

Ex.A14: Authorization letter Dt: 15-06-2022

FOR DEFENDANTS:

NIL

I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

L.B. NAGAR, RR. DISTRICT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE, I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SRI. DARAVATH UDAY NAIK

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT L.B. NAGAR.

Tuesday, Dated on this the 21st Day of June, 2022.

OS No. 1764 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1. Miryala Ravi Kumar, S/o. Miryala Shankaraiah,

Age: 47 years, Occ: Business,

2. Miryala Vinay, s/o. Miryala Ravi Kumar,

Age: 17 years, Occ: Student.

3. Mirayala Neha, D/o. Miryala Ravi Kumar,

Age: 16 years, Occ: Student.

All are R/o. House NO. 3-50/2, Plot No.125, Road No.2, Prashanthi Hills, meerpet, Ranga Reddy District (Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are minors represented by Plaintiff NO.1 is being natural guardian)

….. Plaintiffs

And

1. To All Concerned.

2. Tahsildar, Balapur Tahsildar Officer,

Balapur, Ranga Reddy District. … Defendants 1

This suit is coming on 21-06-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Samudrala Srinivasa Rao Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants having remained set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying this court to declare them as legal heirs of Late Miryala Veena Rani, W/o. Miryala Ravi Kumar [herein after called as deceased].

The averments in plaint, in brief, are as follows:

2.1 The plaintiff No.1 is the Husband, plaintiff No.2 is the son and Plaintiff

No.3 is the daughter of the deceased. Plaintiffs further submit that the deceased died intestate on 19-02-2018, leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs.

2.2The plaintiffs further submit that the deceased and plaintiff No.1 are the joint and absolute owners and possessor of House No. 3-50/2, on Plot No. 125 West part, ad-measuring 200 square yards equivalent to 167.23 Sq. meters having plinth area of 1326 sq.feet in Ground Floor and 1326 sq.feet in First Floor total plinth area of 2652 sq.feet with RCC roof, in Survey NO.43, Situated at Prashanthi Hills,

Meerpet village, Balapur Manadal (Old Saroorangar Mandal), Ranga Reddy (Herein after called as suit schedule property) vide registered sale deed document bearing no. 16687 of 2016 and the same was mutated in their names vide proceeding no. A1/231/2016.

2.3. Plaintiffs further submitted that after the death of the deceased the plaintiffs intended to sell the property to third parties and as they insisted for legal heir certificate as the deceased has undivided half share in the suit schedule property, thereafter they have approached the Defendant No.2 on 01-12-2021 for the purpose of Legal heir certificate as they intended to sell the suit schedule property.

However, Defendant No.2 refused to grant the legal heir certificate as the deceased 3 was not a government servant and directed the plaintiffs to approach the competent

Civil Court for obtaining the same. Hence the suit.

2.4Notices duly served on defendant No.2 and a Paper publication issued to defendant No.1 with respect to ‘All Concerned’. None appeared against the claim of the petitioners, they are called absent, accordingly, they were set ex-parte, the case is posted for plaintiff’s side evidence.

3.During ex-parte proceedings, the plaintiff No.1 examined as PW1 and got marked Ex: A1 to A7 documents and closed further evidence.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as legal heirs of Late Miryala

Veena Rani, as prayed for?

POINT:-

6.P.W.1 reiterated all the averments of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit. Hence the same is not reproduced here to avoid repetition. This court carefully appreciated the evidence of plaintiffs along with the documentary evidence ie, Ex. A1 to A7 which shows that the plaintiff no.1 examined as P.W.1, through him following Exhibits were marked ie, Ex.A1: Original Death certificate of Late Miryala Veena Rani, Ex.A2: CC of Regd. Sale Deed Document No.

16687/2016, Ex. A3: Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.1, Ex. A4: Aadhar card of 4

Plaintiff.no.2, Ex. A5: Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.3., Ex. A6: Market value certificate, Ex. A7: Encumbrance certificate.

7.The plaintiffs in support of their contention with regard to the death of Late

Miryala Veena Rani relied on Ex. A1 Original death certificate showing date of death as 19-2-2018 which clearly established that she has died. Ex. A3 to Ex. A5 establishes the relationship of plaintiffs.

8.To show that Late Miryala Veena Rani and Plaintiff No.1 as Joint and absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property, Ex. A2 shows it as a registered sale deed document bearing no. 6687/2016, which was executed on 11- 07-2016, which thereby clearly shows that schedule of property was purchased by the deceased along with plaintiff No.1. Ex. A7 which is encumbrance statement clearly showing the name of deceased in the suit property along with plaintiff no.1.

Ex. A6 shows market value of the suit schedule property

9. The evidence of the plaintiffs, on oath and the documentary evidence remained unchallenged. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to declare as legal heirs of Late

Miryala Veena Rani. Accordingly, this point is answered in Favour of the plaintiffs.

10. In the result the suit is decreed, declaring the plaintiffs as legal heirs of deceased Late Miryala Veena Rani. No order as to cost.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this day of 21-06-2022.

I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

L.B. NAGAR, RR. DISTRICT

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Miryala Ravi Kumar -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Death certificate of Late Miryala Veena Rani,

Ex.A2: CC of Regd. Sale Deed Document No. 16687/2016, dt: 11-07-2016

Ex.A3: Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.1

Ex.A4: Aadhar card of Plaintiff.no.2,

Ex.A5: Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A6: Market value certificate

Ex.A7: Encumbrance certificate.

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

L.B. NAGAR, RR. DISTRICT