Smt. Divi Geetha Rani

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: SMT D.GEETHA RANI

I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this 7st day of May, 2025.

O.S.No.726/2018

Between:

Smt.Battula Ramana, W/o.Battula Late Poliah, Indian, aged about 65 years, D.No.11-13, Ibrahimpatnam, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.

Plaintiff

And

Battula Philip, S/o.B.Late Poliah, Indian, aged about years, D.No.11-13, Ibrahimpatnam, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.

Defendants

This Suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Rampilla Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.K.Rajasekhar, Advocate for defendants and upon hearing both sides, this court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against Defendant for Cancellation that the Registered Gift Deed dated 17.06.2016 bearing Document

No.3131/2016 on the file of Joint Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam, is non-est and not binding upon the Plaintiff and therefore, the same is to be cancelled, rescinded and revoked and for consequential relief of Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendant from ever alienating the Plaint Schedule Property, belonging to the Plaintiff either by way of sale, lease, mortgage, Gift, exchange 2 or otherwise under the guise of the above alleged Registered Gift Deed dt.17.06.2016, bearing Document No.3131/2016 on the file of Joint Sub-

Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam and for costs of the suit.

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

The plaintiff submitted that, the Plaintiff and one Battula Poliah are the Wife and Husband they blessed with 1) Battula Prasad, 2) Defendant (Bathula Philip), 3) One Mariamma, W/o. Orussu Govindu. The Plaintiff with her Sthridhan property purchased the Plaint schedule property and other property from one Koneru Kasturi under Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1376/1995, on 07.06.1995 registered on the file of Sub-

Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam which is vividly and specifically described in the

Plaint Schedule. Since then she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by developing the property and constructing RCC building as ground and first floors constructing RCC building as ground and first floors “ in part of the property and only ground floor in other part of the property” by paying property tax to the concerning authorities. The husband of plaintiff and father to the defendant by name Battula Poliah died long back.

Since, then she has been maintaining the family with her folds since the childhood of the defendants and the other two children. When the defendant grown up and became earning he used to neglect the Plaintiff leaving her to her fate by harassing her to the maximum in physical and mental torturing to get the property registered in the name of the Defendant for which the Plaintiff 3 did not oblige and tried to convince him stating that the property would be shared and distributed to all the children according to her wish and therefore the Defendant have developed aversion and ill will cruel towards Plaintiff and hatched a grim and grimy as he had a greedy eye upon the property of the

Plaintiff.

Further submitted that the Plaintiff is aged about 72 years and she has been suffering with several old age aliments she used to swallow medicines regularly. While so she performed marriage to all the children with their respective spouses and they are living with their spouses happily. As she is the elder member and earned member in the family before the children grow from childhood to younger and as there is no male elder, the Plaintiff is constrain to perform the marriage of her daughter by name Mariyamma with one Orusu Govind and at the time of the marriage of the daughter the Plaintiff promised her daughter to gift her some property from and out of her self acquired property and as such the same was intimated to the defendant and his brother who are sons to plaintiff as the elder son of the plaintiff by name

Bathula Prasad is constrained to went out of station and as such the

Defendant only accompanied the Plaintiff and made believed her to help her in executing a gift deed in favour of the daughter of the Plaintiff therefore as there is no other go the plaintiff is constrained to believe the defendant in good faith and as such she signed the documents by way of thumb impression with an 4 impression that she signed with her thumb impression is the gift deed executed in favour of her daughter only.

Recently the Plaintiff came to know that the defendant have malafide intention with an evil intent to have wrongful gain by taking advantage of illiteracy and innocence of the plaintiff he has mislead the Plaintiff as if the thumb impressions of the Plaintiff obtained only on the registered Gift Deed bearing No.3132 of 2016 executed in favour of the daughter of the Plaintiff

Orsu Mariyamma but obtained the thumb impressions of Plaintiff in the

Registered Gift deed bearing Document No.3131/2016 also by managing the things without the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff which is sham nominal and invalid as it is not willfully and knowingly executed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and the Plaintiff not intended to alienate any Property in the name of the Defendant. The defendant fraudulently, illegally without the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff and without knowing that the defendant is getting the signatures in the alleged Gift deed bearing No.3131 of 2016 in his favour and as such the same not valid and not binding the Plaintiff.

Therefore as the defendant has obtained the Thumb impressions of the

Plaintiff in the alleged gift deed bearing No.3131/2016 fraudulently, dishonestly illegally by cheating the Plaintiff as if the defendant has putting the Thumb impressions of her in the gift deed bearing No.3132/2016 only but not on the alleged gift deed bearing No.3131/2016 and as such the alleged gift deed bearing Document No.3131/2016 is invalid Non-est not binding on the Plaintiff.

5

Therefore, it is submitted that the above submitted alleged

Registered Gift Deed dated 17-06-2016 bearing document No: 3131/2016 on the file of Joint Sub Registrar Ibrahimpatnam allegedly executed by the Plaintiff in favor of defendant is non-est, not binding, not maintainable, sustainable, tenable and therefore, it is assailable. It is further submitted that the above submitted alleged Registered gift Deed dated 17-06-2016 bearing document

No: 3131/2016 on the file of Joint Sub Registrar Ibrahimpatnam allegedly executed by the Plaintiff in favor of the defendant will not invest any rights in the Plaint schedule Property of the Plaintiff to the defendant and as such the alleged Registered Gift Deed dated 17-06-2016 bearing document No:

3131/2016 on the file of Joint Sub Registrar Ibrahimpatnam, will not divest any of the rights of the Plaintiff in Plaint schedule property and therefore the alleged Registered Gift deed bearing No 3131/2016 is a sham, nominal invalid document and therefore it is not binding on the Plaintiff as it is assailable, rescinded and cancelled as it got by the defendant by playing a fraud against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, in the above circumstances, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for cancellation of the alleged Registered Gift Deed dated 17-06- 2016, bearing document No: 3131/2016 on the file of Joint Sub- Registrar

Ibrahimpatnam, is to be cancelled, rescinded and revoked and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant from ever alienating the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff either by way of 6 sale, lease, mortgage, gift, exchange or otherwise under the guise of the above submitted alleged Registered Gift Deed dated 17-06-2016, bearing document No: 3131/2016 on the file of Joint Sub Registrar Ibrahimpatnam. It is submitted that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession, enjoyment and management of his plaint schedule property in the capacity of absolute owner and landlady.

“The Plaintiff while got issuing the notice a typographical mistake crept in the notice with regard to structures that may be read as rectified”.

(Amended as per the orders in IA.No.116/2021 dt.17.01.2022).

Further submitted that the plaintiff has approached the Hon'ble

Court with clean hands, with clean mind, with clean heart and with a clean objective. It is further submitted that the plaintiff have got prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in her favor. Moreover, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession, enjoyment and management of her plaint schedule property in the capacity of land lord and owner as the defendant manipulated things by managing the authorities concern by showing the sham and nominal registered

Gift deed bearing document No.3131/2016 mutated in his name therefore the fact is came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff as the defendant by illegally, unlawfully using and utilizing the above said sham and nominal Gift Deed thereby causing loss and inconvenience including hurdle to the plaintiff.

Hence, the suit.

7

3. Defendants filed his written statement and denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that the allegations made in the plaint that the alleged registered gift deed dated 17.06.2016 bearing document No.

3131/2016 allegedly executed by the plaintiff infavour of defendant is non-est, not binding, not maintainable, sustainable, tenable and therefor it is assailable and the alleged gift deed dated 17-06-2016 bearing document No. 3131/2016 on the file of Patamata Joint SRO executed by the plaintiff infavour of the defendant will not invest any rights in the Plaint schedule property of the plaintiff to the defendant and as such the alleged Regd. Gift deed will not divest any of the rights of the plaintiff and therefore the said alleged gift deed is sham, nominal invalid document and therefore it is not binding on the plaintiff as it is assailable rescinded and cancelled as it got by the defendant by playing a fraud against the plaintiff and is to be cancelled, rescinded and revoked and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from ever alienating, mortgage, gift, exchange or other wise under the guise of the above submitted alleged gift deed and the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment and management of his plaint schedule property in the capacity of absolute owner and landlady and the plaintiff approached the Honourable

Court with clean hands, with clean mind, with clean heart and with a clean objective and the plaintiff have got prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in her favour and moreover the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and management of her plaint schedule property are all not true 8 and correct and are baseless allegations and all are created and concocted by the plaintiff for unlawfull gain in collusion with the others and to harass this defendant.

Further submitted that though the plaintiff bequeathed the property, due to love and affection title was transferred, document was handed over to this defendant, and the Gift Deed was accepted by this defendant and later this defendant and plaintiff have acted upon on the gift deed and got the name of this defendant mutated in the panchayat records and since the property tax is being paid in the name of this defendant

Further submitted that due to the pressure form the rivals of the this defendant the plaintiff was made to sign and filed this false and frivolous suit claiming the property though gifted to this defendant as per her will and pleasure but under the coercion and that threat of the other of this defendant, the suit was filed.

Further submitted that there is no fraud, misrepresentation much less Gift Deed bearing document No. 3131/2016 on the file of Patamata Joint

SRO executed by the plaintiff infavour of the defendant on 07.06.2016. and the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without obstruction from anybody as absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the said came to know all the relatives, well-wishers and villagers and the Gift

Deed was properly explained, having expressed by the plaintiff to give the 9 property and having satisfied with the contentions only the Gift Deed was executed by the plaintiff infavour of defendant.

Further submitted that there is no cause of action for filing the present suit and the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff approached the

Honourable Court with unclean hands with a malafide intention to cause

wrongful loss and to gain wrongfully.

Hence, Defendants prays the Hon'ble court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1 Whether the Plaintiff established that the defendant,

fraudulently and dishonestly obtained her thumb impression on registered gift deed vide Doc.No.3131/2016

without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff?

2 Whether the gift deed registered under document

No.3131/2016 dt.17.06.2016 is sham, nominal and invalid not binding on the plaintiff?

3 Whether the registered gift deed vide document

No.3131/2016 dt.17.06.2016 is liable for cancellation?

4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent

injunction as prayed for ?

5 To what relief?

5.The counsel for plaintiff filed written arguments at length and orally argued that the pleadings of reply notice contradicts the pleasings in

Written Statement. PW.1 and PW.2 were examined. PW.1 is plaintiff herself,

PW.2 is daughter of PW.1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. On behalf of 10 defendants, DW.1 to DW.3 were examined. Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.

Plaintiff purchased the Plaint Schedule Property from Koneru Kasturi dt.07.06.1995, Bearing Doc.No.1376/1975 i.e., Ex.A1. Husband of Plaintiff

B.Poliah is died when the children of plaintiff are minors. Plaintiff is having two sons and daughter. Defendant is younger son. Elder son B.Prasad. Daughter is O.Mariyamma i.e., PW.2. Plaintiff by selling old clothes and grownup the children and purchased plaint schedule property. The marriages of children were performed by plaintiff only. Plaintiff intends to give part of plaint schedule property to her daughter under Ex.A1. As the elder son is not in city, she requested defendant to accompany her in giving property to her daughter under registered Gift Deed. By taking advantage of illiteracy and innocence the defendant got prepared two gift deeds marked Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. One is in favour of daughter and another one in favour of defendant, i.e., not with the intent of plaintiff and not with consent i.e., Document No.3131/2016 (Ex.A2).

Prior to issuing of notice whether plaintiff came to know the malafide and evil intention played fraud against the plaintiff by defendant in getting registered the gift deed i.e., Ex.A2 in his favour. The gift deed is sham and nominal and not binding on plaintiff. Plaintiff case is proved by oral and documentary evidence with regard to ocular evidence, the evidence of plaintiff is supported by evidence of PW.2. Even the evidence of defendant, DW.2 and

DW.3 were also by contradicting the defence of the defendant corroborated and supported the evidence of the defendant. Admittedly as on the alleged 11 date of gift deed in favour of defendant the defendant is not residing in the schedule property. With regard to documentary evidence Ex.A1 proves that the plaint schedule property has been acquired by the plaintiff, through its registered sale deed No.1376/1995 executed by one Koneru Kasturi in favour of plaintiff, but not as gift by her mother in favour of the plaintiff as pleaded by the defendant. The document filed by defendant is Demand Notice issued by the Panchayat Secretary dt.20.03.2018 and also filed another document, dt.24.07.2023, paid tax from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 what about the remaining tax receipts. Meanwhile when the plaintiff objected the authorities concern, not allowed him to pay the taxes from 2018 to 2023 March. Because the defendant nowhere mentioned about the non payment of taxes from 2018 to March 2023. With regard to the possession all the witnesses DW.1 to DW.3 admitted that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by developing the same, since her purchase to till date. Even according to DW.2 the defendant is not residing in the plaint schedule property and it is in the possession of the plaintiff. Since, coming out of his mother’s house the defendant is residing in a rented house from 2016. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not having any source of income at present. The defendant got scribed the Ex.A2 stating that he will look after the welfare of the plaintiff.

DW.3 also stated except the plaint schedule property the plaintiff is not having any other property. The defendant is residing in a rented house as the property 12 was not registered in his hame wilfully and finally prayed this court to decree the suit.

6.The counsel for defendant argued that the allegation of plaintiff is that the gift deed was obtained by defendant fraudulently. The plaintiff executed two gift deeds on the same day. One is in favour of daughter and 2nd one is in favour of defendant. But suit is filed for cancellation of gift deed in favour of defendant when the plaintiff takes plea that fraud, cohercion etc.

Then the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the fraud was occurred and how the fraud was committed. When two gift deeds are registered. On the same day and the two attestors were present and they were examined before this court, why only this gift deed was committed fraud and why the other document is genuine. Only some exceptions mentioned in the law. If the conditions were not complied. Fraud must be proved specifically and finally prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the suit.

7.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself is examined as PW.1 and her daughter examined as PW.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. On behalf of defendant, Defendant herself examined as DW.1 and on behalf of defendant, DW.2 and DW.3 were examined and Ex.B1 marked.

8. ISSUE Nos.1 to 3: Since all the issues are inter-related, for the

sake of brevity and for better appreciation, the issues are taken up together.

13

The plaintiff filed her chief affidavit and reiterated the contents of plaint during her cross-examination she deposed that, she is aged about 75 years. She filed this suit as her younger son intentionally registered the property on his name without her knowledge. She know the documents filed

before this court. Her elder son and daughter are illiterates. Her younger son

studied 5th class. Her son in law is also an illiterate. Herself and her children lived together prior to their marriages. Her elder son lived along with her after his marriage. At first she along with two other members went to Registrar office, later her younger son called his brother-in-law and one of his friend to the Sub-Registrar office for registration. At the time of registration there are no disputes with defendant. Except this suit dispute, there are no suits pending between herself and defendant. PW.1 further stated that the defendant always disputed with her earlier to this suit also. She is paying house tax since the beginning. In the year 2018, she came to know the property was registered on her son’s name and as she is not getting house tax receipts on her name. She did not gifted any property to her elder son. PW.1 further stated that she went to Registrar office to register the property on her daughter name. She know the attestor of Ex.A2 Mallikarjun who is brother-in-law of her younger son. At the time of registration, her daughter is present there and she did not ask why they are obtaining her thumb impressions on two documents and her daughter also not questioned about the two registrations. She do not know whey they have obtained two thumb impressions on two documents. She denied the 14 suggestion that the entire suit schedule property was developed by defendant.

She, herself performed the marriages of her children. Her younger son performed two marriages on his own and he left the house. After the property was registered intentionally on his name, he left the house. She had informed to Municipal authorities why she is not getting house tax receipts on her name.

She did not gave any letter to Municipal authorities to change house tax receipts on her name. The electricity bill is also coming on the name of defendant. She orally requested electricity authorities to change the electricity bill on her hame, but she did not gave any letter to them. She gave police complaint about the cheating done by defendant. She did not file any proof

before this court to show that she gave complaint to police station. She did not

mentioned in her plaint or in the chief affidavit that she gave police complaint against defendant. She denied the suggestion that as defendant not cheated as such she did not gave any written letter to Municipal authorities or electricity department to change her name. Except the suit schedule property there are no other properties on her name. At the time of registering the gift deed i.e.,

Ex.A2 her elder son is not in the Town. She denied the suggestion that her elder son Prasad intentionally filed this suit by her against the defendant as he did not get any share in the property and that she registered Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 on her younger son and daughter with her own interest. At present, herself and her elder son are residing in the suit schedule property. After the marriage of younger son only the registration was done. She denied the suggestion that 15 she intentionally registered the property on the name of defendant and by hearing the words of her elder son she filed this false suit against the defendant. She denied the suggestion that as there are no quarrels between herself and defendant as such, she registered the property on his name and that only to harass and to cause loss to defendant, she filed this false suit against him and that no cheating was done in execution of Ex.A2.

9.Prior to purchase of the land they used to stay in rented house at

Ibrahimpatnam. Her elder son age is 47 years. Her younger son age is 43 years. Her elder son used to do tyre puncture while he was young. Later he used to run auto. She denied the suggestion that her elder son is in habit of drinking and had affairs with ladies as such sold out the one ace of land. Her mother-in-law gave one acre of land to her. After selling the land she gave amount to both the sons for establishing shop. The Government gave loan for construction of the house at Ibrahimpatnam and land belongs to her. The

Government gave one cent land near Ibrahimpatnam and later it was sold by her. She denied the suggestion that the amount was took by her elder son and that due to consumption of alcohol he sold out the puncture shop. Prior to one month of filing of this suit she lodged complaint against her younger son at

Ibrahimpatnam. On the date of registration, she along with her younger son and daughter went to Registrar’s office. On behalf of her younger son, his brother-in-law by name Mallikarjuna Rao and Naresh friend of her son. On the same day, she had registered house on the name of her daughter and 16 witnesses are Mallikarjuna Rao and Naresh. She and her daughter are sitting out side the Registrar’s office and she do not know whether the Registrar was present or not in the office. She went to Registrar’s office at 12 Noon and the process was completed by 4.00 PM and obtained thumb impressions and signatures. The officer asked her to put her thumb impression. She denied the suggestion that after the officer informing her about the registration of two documents later she had put her thumb impression. After registration was completed they gave her documents. At present she is staying with her elder son. She denied the suggestion that her daughter Mariyamma lodged complaint against her elder son by alleging that he beat her. She admitted that her younger son (defendant) repaid the gold mortgage amount from Muthoot

Finance and Union Bank. Further deposed that her younger son mortgaged her gold and her daughter gold and obtained loan. She admitted that her younger son constructed the house and further deposed that she only gave amount to defendant and he constructed the house. Since beginning her elder son is staying along with her. She denied the suggestion that her elder son never stayed with her but after filing this suit he came and staying along with her. She sold out 5 cents of land at Ibrahimpatnam. She denied the suggestion that she sold out her entire land and house property and gave that amount to her elder son. She denied the suggestion that she had registered two registered documents in favour of her daughter and defendant on the same day. She denied the suggestion that at the instance of her elder son, she filed 17 this suit as he is staying along with her and that the suit filed by her is not maintainable.

10.PW.2 who is daughter of PW.1 and during her cross-examination deposed that the defendant falsely got gift deed to himself by plaintiff as such, plaintiff filed this suit for cancellation of gift deed. She do not know when the gift deed/Ex.A2 was executed and also the date of registration. She know the contents of her chief affidavit. In the year 2016 her mother got registered gift deed on her name. At the time of registration, the defendant along with his brother-in-law went to Registrar office at first, after some time she along with her mother went to Registrar office. She admitted that at the time of registration the Registrar enquired her mother which property is registered on her name. She denied the suggestion that the property which was registered on the name of defendant and the property registered on her name by her mother are different. The Registrar did not questioned her mother about the property which she registered. She denied the suggestion that her mother with her whole conscious registered the property on her name and also on the name of her brother. She denied the suggestion that as defendant is younger son of plaintiff and looking and looking after the welfare of the plaintiff as such, plaintiff registered the property on the name of defendant and also on her name. She denied the suggestion that due to some internal disputes the plaintiff insisting for cancellation of gift deed but at the time of registration she willfully registered the property on the name of defendant. She admitted that 18 the defendant mutated his name in the Panchayat records and paying taxes to the Panchayat. She denied the suggestion that already gift deed was registered in the name of defendant and the plaintiff is not having any right for cancellation of gift deed and she is deposing false to support PW.1 as she is her mother.

11.DW.1 filed his chief affidavit and reiterated the contents of his written statement and during his cross examination he deposed that at present he is a lorry driver. Previously he had tyre puncture shop. This suit is filed by his mother. He know the pleadings of the suit. He know the contents of his written statement. His mother filed this suit for cancellation of gift deed which was registered on his name. He know the contents of gift deed. He denied the suggestion that the contents of gift deed was prepared by him. Except this plaint schedule property his mother is not having any other property on her name. The plaint schedule property and the property given to his sister are the properties of his mother. He denied the suggestion that the plaint schedule property his sister property are self acquired property of his mother. The plaint schedule property and his sister property was given by his grand mother

Sakkubayamma.

In the year 1995 his grand mother registered the property in the name of his mother. He did not mentioned in his chief affidavit that his grand mother registered the property in the name of his mother. He admitted that prior to filing of this suit he received legal notice (Ex.A4) from advocate and he 19 know the contents of Ex.A4 legal notice. He got issued reply notice through his Advocate under Ex.A6. He do not know the contents of reply notice. He denied the suggestion that there is variation in the contents of reply notice and contents of written statement. He admitted that he got first marriage with one

Nagamani of Tiruvuru and that on the next day of the marriage itself she went away to her parents house. He admitted that Nagamani filed divorce petition with an allegation of cruelty. He studied only 5th class. He denied the suggestion that the costs of divorce petition and also the alimony given to

Nagamani were paid by his mother. He denied the suggestion that his mother gave amount for running tyre puncture shop. He got prepared the contents of

EX.A2. There is no mention in Ex.A2 why the property was not given to his brother by his mother. He admitted that he had not mentioned in written statement or in his chief affidavit why the property was not given to his brother by his mother. He denied the suggestion that in the year 2014 he left the home by taking loans of Rs.10,00,000/- from several persons. He know one Thota

Venkateswara Rao, Adda Anjaneyulu, Ravi, Chukkam Srinu and Pastor

Sanjay. He denied the suggestion that he took loans from above said persons.

He admitted that in the year 2016 his sister’s daughter marriage was performed. He denied the suggestion that from 2014 to 2016 for about one year he stayed in Nellore and for about one year he stayed Y.S.R Colony,

Vijayawada. He admitted that his mother sold away AC.1.25 cents situated at

Cherukumpalem. The said land is on the name of his father. He did not filed 20 any proof before this court to show that the land is on his father name and subsequently his mother sold away that land. His brother also runs puncture shop. After selling the land his mother gave Rs.18,000/- to his bother for keeping tyre puncture shop. He denied the suggestion that by the time he became major his mother gave Rs.25,000/- to him to keep tyre puncture shop.

Further stated that his mother gave only Rs.15,000/-. He admitted that

Government gave one cent of land to his mother at Ibrahimpatnam. He denied the suggestion that his mother sold away that one cent of land for Rs.10,000/- and gave that amount to his sister to resolve her family disputes. He denied the suggestion that his mother gave Rs.50,000/- to him for purchasing bike by name TVS Victor.

During further cross examination he deposed that his mother is not having any income source. At present his mother is not having any property in her name except the plaint schedule property. He do not remember whether in the Ex.A2 it was mentioned or not, that he had to take care of his mother. He did not mentioned in the Ex.A2 that he will take care of his mother and her maintenance. He denied the suggestion that Ex.A2 is registered without knowledge of his mother by fraudulently, dishonestly by knowing that she is not capable of understanding the consequences, for which he got not mentioned in as if he had look after her.

During further cross-examination he deposed that the name in the house tax receipts were changed after 2 years of getting registering in gift 21 deed in his favour. He admitted that after registering the gift deed he mortgaged the said property to one Puppala Hemanth. He look loan of

Rs.3,00,000/- of Puppala Hemanth. He borrowed amount for his sister. He admitted that he had not mentioned in his chief affidavit or in the written statement that he had borrowed an amount for his sister. He denied the suggestion that to repay his personal loans he got registered the gift deed in his favour and later mortgaged the said property to Puppala Hemanth. He deposed that he is not having any enemies. He denied the suggestion that after shifting the house he never came to the suit schedule property. In the year 2018 he went to the suit schedule property for last time.

He had filed house tax receipts before this Court. The plaint schedule house D.No.11-13 later it was changed to D.No.11-16. He had filed house tax receipts pertaining to year 2018 (Ex.B1). He admitted that Ex.B1 is not house tax receipts but it is house tax demand notice. He admitted that other than plaint schedule property his mother is having another property which was given to her sister which is also part and parcel of the property of his mother purchased by her. The door number in demand notice is 11-13. He did not see which house number is there in the house tax receipts after demand notice is issued. He had filed house tax receipts before this court pertaining to year 2018 to 2013. He denied the suggestion that he filed receipts pertaining to year 2021 to 2024. He did not remember whether 2 was added to the door number i.e., 11-13 and 11-16. He do not know at present 22 the door number of plaint schedule property. He do not know whether his mother lodged a complaint to the Revenue department stating that his son trying to mutate his name instead of his name for which she got objection. He denied the suggestion that intentionally, he is deposing that the house tax receipts is for the year 2023 – 2024 but his mother lodged a complaint to the

Revenue Department about the mutation of his name instead of her name.

He denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property is not situated in 7th ward. After leaving the house he never took his mother to hospital. He admitted that his mother is suffering with liver problem and heart problem. He admitted that his sister not put her signature when he got registered the plaint schedule property in his favour. He denied the suggestion that he intentionally got registered the plaint schedule property in his favour without the knowledge and consent of his mother and sister. At present he is not living in the plaint schedule property as such he is not having any right to claim for getting injunction in his favour. He do not know whether the suit is filed within limitation or not. He denied the suggestion that he got registered the plaint schedule property in his favour without knowledge and consent of his mother, as such the registered document is null and void and not binding on him. He denied the suggestion that his mother is having right for cancellation of gift deed through court as he got registered the same without her knowledge and consent in his favour and that all the contest in reply notice, written statement and his chief affidavit are false.

23

12.On behalf of DW.1, DW.2 was examined on his behalf and he deposed that defendant is his brother in law. His sister was married to defendant in the year 2007. It is 2nd marriage to defendant. Defendant is not staying in his house and he is residing two lanes after his house and he never resided in his house. He do not know how many houses the defendant changed after coming out from his mother’s house (plaintiff). He know the contents of his chief affidavit. He is illiterate. Since 2004 he know defendant.

There is no cordial relation between defendant and his family. The defendant is not residing in the plaint schedule property and it is in the possession of plaintiff. The plaintiff is not having any other own house. The defendant is residing in a rented house. Since coming out of his mother’s house the defendant is residing in a rented house from 2016. The distance between his house and plaint schedule property is about two furlongs. He denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property and his house are very near. He admitted that the plaint schedule property is situated in separate ward and his house is situated in separate ward.

The defendant sister name is Orchu Mariyamma. He know that the defendant sister’s surname is Orchu but not Orsu. He admitted that he had mentioned in his chief affidavit that he completed the construction of the house, which was subsequently handed over to Orchu Mariyamma. In the year 2006 he handed over the house to Orchu Mariyamma. He denied the suggestion that by 2007 defendant brother Prasad and his wife and children 24 are residing in the same house. He cannot file any proof before this court to show that Prasad his wife and children are not residing in the said house by 2007. He admitted that by the year 2007 the plaintiff used to sell old clothes on road side. He admitted that the plaintiff used to earn money for her livelihood.

He admitted that prior to marriage of his sister he do not know about the family issues of plaintiff and defendant and that at present the plaintiff is having only the plaint schedule property. He went to registration office after Mariyamma called him over phone to come there. As per his version at first the plaintiff and Mariyamma went to registrar office and subsequently he went to registration office. He admitted that he and plaintiff not went to registrar office at a time. There are nearly 5 members when he went to registrar office. He along with Naresh put signatures on document and also plaintiff signed on it.

He cannot say the contents of the document (Ex.A2) as he is illiterate. The plaintiff is also illiterate. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff doesn’t know the contents of Ex.A2 as she is an illiterate. The plaintiff is not having any income source at present. In Ex.A2 it was mentioned that the defendant will look after the welfare of plaintiff. The defendant got scribed the Ex.A2 stating that he will look after the welfare of plaintiff. The defendant informed him about the same. He admitted that he do not know about the facts of the suit.

He do not know whether the plaintiff mentioned in the plaint that without any force she executed Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. He denied the suggestion that the defendant executed the Ex.A2 without the knowledge of plaintiff fraudulently 25 but not voluntarily accepting the same. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false at the instance of defendant as he is his brother in law. In the year 2016 Ex.A3 was registered in favour of Mariyamma. He admitted that on the same date of registration the property was handed over to Mariyamma.

He denied the suggestion that he did not constructed house in the year 2006 and not handed over to Mariyamma.

13.DW.3 who is examined on behalf of DW.1 during his cross- examination deposed that he know the contents of his chief affidavit. On his dictation only chief affidavit was prepared. He admitted that defendant is not residing in the schedule property since registration and that except the plaint schedule property the plaintiff is not having any other property. He further admitted that the defendant is residing in a rented house since registration and that the defendant is residing in a rented house as the property was not registered in his name willfully. The name of the plaintiff daughter is Orsu

Mariyamma. He denied the suggestion that since childhood Prasad who is brother of defendant is residing in the schedule property along with her mother (plaintiff). Since 2004 Prasad is residing in the plaint schedule property till today.He admitted that the plaintiff is living by selling old clothes on roads.

Since 2010 plaintiff is not selling old clothes. The plaintiff is not having any other source of income. He admitted that the plaintiff is having only the plaint schedule property. Prasad is not having any property. At the request of plaintiff and Mariyamma on phone he went to registrar office. The defendant 26 not called him. He admitted that the defendant not informed him that he is going to register the gift deed. He along with one Malleswara Rao went to

Registrar Office. Malleswara Rao is one of the attestor of Ex.A2. The defendant not requested Mariyamma to sign as witness in Ex.A2. He had signed two signatures. The Plaintiff also signed as witness in Ex.A2. He further deposed that plaintiff put her thumb impression. He do not know the contents of Ex.A2. The plaintiff stated that the property has to be registered to defendant and her sister. He was not present when the plaintiff stated about the same. He know the facts of this suit. The plaintiff filed this suit against defendant to register the property on her name. He denied the suggestion that the defendant registered Ex.A2 fraudulently for wrongful gain and that he along with DW2 helped defendant to register the Ex.A2 fraudulently. He went to the registrar office at about 11.00 am. The registration took place at about 1.00 pm. He along with defendant, DW2, plaintiff and Mariyamma were present at registrar office.

He admitted that the plaintiff registered the property in the name of Mariyamma under Ex.A3 and the same was handed over on the same day.

He denied the suggestion that the defendant intentionally went away from the schedule property to suppress the registration under Ex.A2 and that as the property was not handed over to defendant as such he is living in a rented house. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing false to help defendant as he is his friend.

27

14.The main contention of the plaintiff is that Ex.A2 i.e., Registered

Gift Deed bearing No.3131/2016, dt.17.06.2016 got registered by defendant without her consent by fraud and misrepresentation. To prove the same though she examined herself and PW.2 who is daughter on her behalf and

PW.1 clearly stated that she along with her daughter went to Registration office to register the Gift Deed to her daughter and one of the witness is brother-in-law of defendant. PW.2 who is daughter stated during her cross- examination at the time of registration the registrar enquired her mother for which property is registered on her name. Though she denied the suggestions put forth by the counsel for defendant thather mother with her whole conscious registered the property on her name and also on the name of her brother she denied the same. Further she deposed at the time of registration her brother-in-law went to registrar office at first after some time he along with his mother went to registrar office. But DW.2 deposed that he went to registration office after Mariyamma called her over phone to come there. As per his version the plaintiff and Mariyamma went to Registrar Office and subsequently he went to Registration office. He admitted that he and plaintiff not went to Registration office at a time. So it is clearly that at the request of

Mariyamma only PW.2 went to Registration office. But plaintiff failed to examine any of the witnesses, who are scribe of Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 to prove that fraud took place in the Registration of Ex.A2. There is a cloud, cast upon the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 as both Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 documents were 28 registered on the same day, at same time. But plaintiff is not seeking cancellation of the Ex.A3. Even though they were registered at the same time and on same day.

The plaintiff since beginning stating that Ex.A2 is registered by fraud and colluding. But to prove the same no one were examined on her behalf, except PW.2 who is her own daughter. As such the plaintiff failed to prove that the document No.3131/2016, dt.17.06.2016, is registered dishonestly and obtained her thumb impression without her knowledge and consent, as such these issues are answered in favour of defendant against plaintiff and document No.3131/2016 is not sham, nominal and invalid not binding on the plaintiff.

15. ISSUE No.4:

As the plaintiff failed to establish that the document No.3131/2016, dt.17.06.2016 is registered fraudulently and defendant dishonestly obtained her thumb impression and registered document is not proved and said document is valid and binding on the plaintiff, as such she is not entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of defendant against plaintiff.

29

16. ISSUE NO. 5. To what relief?

In the result, the suit is dismissed and no costs.

Dictated to Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, this the 7st day of May, 2025.

Sd/- D.Geetha Rani

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT :

PW.1: Battula RamanaDW.1: Battula Philip

PW.2: Orsu MariyammaDW.2: D.Mallikarjuna Rao

DW.3: Seelam Naresh

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1:Certified copy of Sale Deed No.1376/1995 dt.07.06.1995.

Ex.A2:Certified Copy of Gift Deed No.3131/2016, dt.17.06.2016.

Ex.A3:Certified Copy of Gift Deed No.3132/2016, dt.17.06.2016.

Ex.A4:Office copy of notice issued on behalf of Smt. Battula Ramana, Dt.23.07.2018.

Ex.A5:Postal receipt dt.25.07.2018.

Ex.A6:Reply notice issued by D.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate on behalf of Battula Philip, Dt.10.08.2018.

Ex.A7:Valuation Certificate.

30

FOR DEFENDANT :

Ex.B1:Original House Tax demand notice 3 in number in the name of defendant issued by Ibrahimpatnam Grama Panchayat and Kondapalli.

Sd/- D.Geetha Rani

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

VIJAYAWADA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: SMT D.GEETHA RANI

I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada.

Friday, this 31th day of October, 2025.

O.S.No.351/2018

Between:

Donepudi Apurupa, D/o.Donepudi Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 23 years, R/o.Door No.15-86, Mailurai Centre, Ummaiah Street, Gollapudi Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District.

Plaintiff

Vs

Doppalapudi Revathi, Wife of Chinna Rosaiah, Hindu, aged about 68 years, R/o.Door No.4-36, BC Muslim Area, Siripuram, Guntur, Guntur District.

Defendant

This Suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.B.Sada Siva Sastry, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing both sides, this court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendant to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, B) For consequential relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property , c)

A Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever and for costs of the suit.

2

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

The plaintiff submitted that, she is the absolute owner of the property of an extent of 284 sq. yards of site in RS.No.589/2 and layout plan No.6/98 of

Gollapudi Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. The plaintiff purchased the said property on 20.07.2015 from Aluri Srinivasa Rao, Son of Uma

Maheswara Rao, under Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.3516/2015 of SRO Ibrahimpatnam. Since then, the plaintiff has been in Peaceful Possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights having title over the said property until the Defendant encroached the plaint schedule property as mentioned below.

Further submitted that the vendor of the plaintiff Aluri Srivasa Rao,

Son of Uma Maheswara Rao purchased the said property from Velagapudi

Radhika, Wife of Madhu, D/o.Ghali Srinivasa Rao on 05.12.2012 vide document

No.6006/2012 of SRO Ibrahimpatnm. The said Radhika got the said property by virtue of a sale deed executed in her favour on 10.07.1989 bearing document

No.5983/1989 of SRO, Vijayawada. Her father Ghali Srinivasa Rao, purchased the property as her guardian while she was minor from Ambati Punnaiah and others. The said Ambati Punnaiah and his father purchased the said property and other properties by virtue of the sale deed bearing document No.37/1932 of SRO,

Vijayawada and that the father of the said Ambati Punniah died and that the said

Punnaiah got the total property and he and his sons sold the said property to the said Radhika. As such, the said property is having source of title since 1932. The 3 linear measurements of the said property are 60.9’ ft x 42.0’ ft and the same was mentioned in the sale deed.

The Defendant is the owner of the property on the Eastern side of the plaint schedule property. It was alleged by the defendant that her father,

Kolakaluri Venkaiah died on 01.04.1995 and she got the property by virtue of the

Will executed by her father on 28.09.1993. It was further alleged that the said

Kolakaluri Venkaiah, son of Veeraiah purchased the property on 19.07.1982 from

Ambati Punnaiah and others vide document No.8119/1982 of SRO Vijayawada, to an extent of 330.81 Sq. yards in RS.No.589/2 of Gollapudi Village, being bounded by:

East:Property of Digumarthi Anasuya 60 Ft.

South:40 Ft Panchayat Road. 49.3 ft.

West:Property of vendor 60 ft.

North:Property of Kottamasu Venkata Seshagiri Rao 50 Ft.

Further submitted that the said K.Venkaiah Purchased the property of an extent of 304 Sq. yards in R.S.No.589/2 of Gollapudi Village on 27.07.1982 vide Registered Document No.8298/1982 of Vijayawada SRO is being bounded by:

East:Property of Kolakaluri Venkaiah 60 Ft.

South:40 Ft Panchayat Road. 45.6 ft.

West:Property of vendor (Ambati Punnaiah & others) 60 Ft.

North:Property of vendor (Ambati Punnaiah & others) 45 Ft.

4

As such the said Kolakaluri Venkaiah purchased the total extent of 634.81 sq. yards by the time of purchase of the said land the Layout plan was not approved by any competent authority and that the above said land purchased by him was covered under Non-Lay Out plan approved by the competent authority.

The purchaser has to abide by the condition of the Lay Out Plan. As per the Lay

Out plan the measurements of each plot is 60 feet x 42 feet i.e., 284 Sq. Yards each.

Further submitted that the defendant is the owner of the proprty of the Eastern side plot. It was alleged that her father Kolakaluri Venkaiah, Son of

Veeraiah, executed a Will on 28.09.1993 and bequeathed the said property to her of an extent of 634.81 Sq. yards in R.S.No.589/2 of Gollapudi Village bounded by:

East:Property of Digumarthi Anasuya. 60’ Ft.

South:Panchayat Street 93’ ft. 9 inches

West:Site of ambati Punnaiah & others 60’ ft.

North:Site of Ambati Punnaiah & Konatam Seshagiri Rao 95’ Ft.

The property of the plaintiff and the neighbouring defendant property are subject matter of Layout plan No.26/1982. The land is R.S.No.589/2, 586/2, 589/3 are the subject matters of the said layout plan. The Urban Development authority approved the said lay out plan. As per the said Plan i.e.,

L.P.No.26/1982, the property of the plaintiff was mentioned as Plot No.25.

Subsequently the layout plan was revised in the year 1986 vide L.P.No.6/86. By 5 virtue of the revised plan, the plot no of the property of the plaintiff was changed as Plot No.24. Again the said plan was revised in the year 1996 by the UDA by virtue of L.P.No.6/96 and subsequently, L.P.No.10/1996 and the property of the plaintiff was changed as Plot No.22 in both the plans. Some plots were sub- divided. Finally the said plan was again revised in the year 1998, by virtue of

L.P.No.6/1998 and in the said plan the property of the plaintiff was shown as Plot

No.22. The said layout plan and revised plan are approved by the UDA. The serial numbers of the plots were changed as some plots were divided into two parts. The actual property is one and the same but numbers were changed.

Further submitted that when the above said Lay out plans were approved the size of the Plots of the defendant have diminished and it was clearly mentioned in the plan that the size of the plot is 60 ft x 42 ft. the extent of each plot is 284 Sq. yards. As such, each plot contains 284 Sq. yards only, even as per the contention of the Defendant, if proved correct. She is entitled for 586 Sq.

yards only. But the defendant took advantage of her husband’s previous position, and highhandedly and illegally occupied 11 x 60 sq. ft. i.e., 73.33 Sq. yards on the

Eastern side of the Plaintiff’s property. The said property is clearly marked in the sketch as ABCD attached to the plaint and clearly described in the schedule and the same is herein as referred to plaint schedule property. The defendant obtained approved plan on 16.01.2013 from the concerned authorities for construction of an apartment complex in the property as though she is entitled for 634 Sq. yards of site and started construction in month of November, 2015 6 encroaching upon the plaint schedule property. The defendant presented a plan for the construction of the building and the same was approved vide Plan

No.C51621/2011, dt.19.01.2013. The said plan was prepared for the measurements of 60 ft x 95 ft i.e., 635.004 Sq. yards equivalent to 530.944 Sq.

mts. Even as per the linear measurements mentioned in the said plan the actual extent is not correlated with the said measurements and it is higher. The said plans were drawn as though the defendant is the owner of the land an extent of 633.3 Sq. yards. The defendant suppressed the fact that she purchased the property prior to the approval of the lay out plan and that subsequently, her property and the surrounding properties are subject matter of Layout plans and that the size of her plots were diminished and that she has to follow the measurements as per the approved plan.

The defendant encroached upon the plaint schedule property and constructed building by showing the plaint schedule property as setbacks on their

Western side.

The plaintiff applied for the copies of the approved plan of the said apartment complex and the documents relied on by the defendant for getting approval of the plan to the CRDA under Right to Information Act and that in the said documents, it clearly establishes that the Defendant misrepresented the facts and obtained the plan. The defendant highhandedly and illegally encroached upon the plaint schedule property. Under said circumstances the plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.86 of 2017 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, 7

Vijayawada. As some mistakes cropped up regarding to the extent of encroached property by the Defendant and other aspects the plaintiff filed a petition in

IA.No.367 of 2017 under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, to permit her to withdraw the suit

and to file a fresh suit. The Hon’ble II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court,

Vijayawada was pleased to allow the said petition and permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the said suit with a right to file fresh suit. The said suit was dismissed on 31.01.2018 by virtue o the orders in the above said interim application. The defendant opposed the said application and it was allowed on merits.

Further submitted that the defendant is not entitled to encroach upon the plaint schedule property and her acts are highhanded and illegal. The measurements in the title deed and the approved layout plan are not one and the same and that the land owners are bound to follow the measurements as per the layout plan only. But the defendant without producing approved Lay out plan to any authority and by concealing them, encroached upon the property of the plaintiff. Under the said circumstances the Plaintiff is obliged to file the suit for

Declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule property to the 3rd parties in any manner whatsoever. Hence, the suit.

3. Defendant filed her written statement and denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that the relief claimed in the suit by the plaintiff for a 8 declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property for a consequential relief of recovery of possession of he plaint schedule property, for a Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule property in any manner is not only tenable but misleading. The plaint schedule property according to the plaint pleadings comprises of 73.3 Sq. yeards out of total extent of 284 Square Yards of Plot No.22 of L.P.No.6/1998.

Further submitted that the Plaintiff herein filed OS.No.86 of 2017 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada for a relief of

Permanent Injunction and after the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application the plaintiff withdrew the suit with permission of the Court. The said fact is also mentioned in the present plaint. Thus, the plaint pleadings made in

OS.No.86/2017 in respect of the Plot owned by the plaintiff will be binding on the

plaintiff. In the earlier suit the plaintiff therein pleaded in paragraph No.3 of the said plaint that eve since the date of purchase the plaintiff has been and is in possession and enjoyment of the site with absolute rights. Adjacent to the above said site of the plaintiff, on the Eastern side the defendant has got vacant site shown as plot No.2 in the plaint plan. Both the plaintiff and defendant have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective sites. In the said suit

OS.No.86/2017 a plaint schedule was enclosed to the plaint and in the plaint

schedule of the said suit it was stated that “an extent of 11 square yards of vacant site which was under the encroachment of the defendant shown as ABCD in the plaint schedule situate in RS.No.589/2 of Gollapudi Gram Panchayat area, 9

Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District bounded by East – Site of Defendant,

South – 40 feet Road, West – Site belongs to the Plaintiff, North – Site of Guntaka

Lakshmi Prasad. The said plaint and schedule was presented before the II

Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court on 30th January, 2017.

Further submitted that in OS.No.86/2017 the contesting defendant

D.Revathi the defendant herein also filed the orders passed by the Secretary,

Gollapudi Grama Panchayat in Roc.No.86/2016 dt.24.04.2015 addressed to Aluri

Srinivasarao which establishes that the said Aluri Srinivasa Rao the admitted plaintiff’s vendor herein was informed that the plaintiff’s vendors have fraudulently obtained a building approved plan and on enquiry the said plan was cancelled and the same was informed to the plaintiff’s vendor. The contesting defendant in the said suit also filed building permit order obtained by her in C5-1621/2011

dated 05.11.2015 in which it was clearly stated that by the APCRD Authority

Vijayawada that the total extent of the constructed area is 529.33 square meters which falsifies the contentions of the plaintiff herein. For better appreciation the contesting defendant is obliged to file the certified true copy of the plaint in

OS.No.86/2017, written statement got filed by the defendant in OS.No.86/2017,

Counter-Affidavit filed in IA.No.31/2017 in OS.No.86/2017 as part and parcel of this written statement and craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to permit the contesting defendant to read the same as part of this written statement which incidentally happen to be the proceedings between the same parties in 10

OS.No.86/2017 before a competent Court of Law having jurisdiction to decide the

Civil dispute involved in OS.No.86/2017.

Adverting to the allegations made in the plaint, the plaintiff is put to strict proof that the plaintiff is in Peaceful Possession and enjoyment of the property covered by document No.3516 of 2015 on the file of SRO Ibrahimpatnam till allegedly encroached by this defendant. The plaintiff is further put to strict proof of all the allegations made in paragraph No.4 in respect of the anterior title of the plaintiff’s vendor. It is pertinent to notice that when document No.37 of 1932 was executed the question of there being a lay out plan will not arise at all.

The linear measurements given in the said document will not bind the defendant herein and the said document or its certified copy is not filed by the plaintiff in this suit. In so far as the allegations in respect of paragraph Nos.5, 6, 7, and 8 of the plaint about purchase of the property by the defendant and her predecessors-in- title there is no dispute and infact this defendant purchased, as admitted by the plaintiff, an extent of 634.81 square yards of site from her predecessors-in-title.

The allegation in paragraph No.7 of the plaint that the purchaser of the non-lay out plots has to abide by the condition of the lay-out plan and as per the lay-out plan, the measurement of each plot is 60 x 42 feet is not true and correct. A casual look at the certified copy of L.P.No.26/1982 filed as suit document No.1 by the plaintiff will disprove the allegations of the plaintiff as the measurements of certain plots is shown as 74 x 48 feet, 60 x 45 feet, 60 x 44 feet in the said plan itself. Thus the specious contention of the plaintiff that as per L.P.No.28/1982 11 which was approved in 1982, each plot is of the size 60 x 42 feet is to be rejected as false and misleading. The other allegations of the plaintiff to the effect that every purchaser has to abide by the condition of the lay-out plan is subject to a clause that any diminution in the size of the plot is to be specifically made in the lay-out and the authority concerned shall acquire the property which is more than plots approved in the lay out after initiating proceedings under Land Acquisition

Act and after payment of compensation, if any to the land-holder whose land has been taken over for reconstitution of plots, under A.P.Town Planning Act 1920 read with the provisions of A.P. Land Development (Lay Out and Sub-Division)

Rules 2017. The plaintiff appears to have lost sight of the statutory provisions of the aforementioned Act and made pleadings which are absolutely inconsistent with the statutory provisions of the above Act and the Rules made there under.

The allegations made in paragraph No.9 of the plaint in so far as they relate to the subsequent renumbering is to be proved by the plaintiff at trial. The allegations in paragraph No.10 of the plaint to the effect that the lay-out plans were approved and size of the plots of the defendant have diminished is not at all true and correct.

It is preposterous for the plaintiff to allege that after approval of

L.P.No.6/1998 each plot comprises of 284 square yards only appears to be the fertile imagination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not place on record any such proceedings of the competent authority which reduces the extent of land covered by the sale deeds or sale deed obtained by the defendant. In any event, if the 12 plot size were to be reduced the provisions of A.P Town Planning Act 1920 read with A.P.Land Development (Lay-Out and Sub-Division) Rules 2017 are to be strictly followed and there should be an order by the competent authority reducing the extent of the plots held by the defendant after observing the legal provisions under the said Act. The allegation that the defendant is entitled to 568 square yards only instead of 634.81 square yards is not at all true and correct and appears to be the imagination of the plaintiff. The allegation that the defendant took advantage of her husband’s previous position and highhandedly and illegally occupied an extent of 73.33 square yards of site of the plaintiff’s property on the

Eastern side is false. The sketch allegedly attached to the plaint is not served on the defendant and the defendant reserves right to file additional written statement if required after service of the alleged sketch as ABCD said to have been enclosed to the plaint. Even the list of documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff along with the plaint does not contain the alleged sketch which is stated to have been filed along with the plaint. It is no doubt true that the defendant has obtained an approved plan from the competent authority in respect of the site purchased by her and it is incorrect to allege that the defendant had encroached upon the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff. There is no allegation at least in the plaint as to how the plaintiff is entitled to an extent of 73.33 square yards of site shown in plaint schedule. When the plan was approved by the competent authority it is not open for the plaintiff to file the present suit without impleading the competent authority who approved the plan. Thus, the suit is bad for non-joinder of 13 necessary party in view of the allegations made in the plaint. The further allegation that the linear measurements mentioned in the said plan and actual extent is not correlating is also false. Since the defendant is the absolute owner of site measuring about 634.81 square yards as admitted by the plaintiff, the defendant applied for plan and after obtaining approved plan started constructions and completed the constructions in accordance with the approved plan. The allegation that the property of the defendant was diminished and that the defendant has to follow the measurements as per the approved plan is not correct. The approved plan dated 15.11.2015 clearly says that the constructed area is 529.33 Sq. Mts. with stilt, ground floor and four upper floors. The approved plan refers to plot No.20 and 21 of Gollapudi village in R.S.No.589/2, LP.No.6/98.

The allegations in paragraph No.11 of the plaint that the defendant encroached upon the plaint schedule property is absolutely false besides being untenable.

Further submitted that the allegations in the plaint in paragraph

No.12 and 13 to the effect that this defendant misrepresented the facts to the authorities of CRDA and obtained the plan is not correct. The further allegations that the defendant highhandedly and illegally encroached upon the plaint schedule property is equally false. If the pleadings made in O.S.No.86/2017 between the same parties are juxtaposed with the present pleadings the hollowness of the plaintiff's illegal claim will come out and disprove the contentions of the plaintiff. The earlier proceedings between the parties operate as estoppel against the plaintiff in so far as the admissions made there under are 14 concerned. Thus the plaintiff is estopped from making the present pleadings in view of the admissions made in the earlier legal proceedings. The plaintiff, in view of her earlier proceedings made this defendant to believe the pleadings made in the earlier suit as correct and now it is not open to the plaintiff to make inconsistent pleadings with that of the pleadings made in O.S.No.86/2017 where it was specifically stated that this defendant encroached the plaintiff's alleged property in an extent of 11 square yards. The allegations in paragraph No.13 of the plaint that the defendant encroached upon the plaint schedule property and the measurements in the title deed and approved plan are not one and the same and that the land owners are bound to follow the measurements as per the lay-out plan is not correct besides being false. The allegation that the defendant, without producing approved lay-out plan and by concealing facts and by encroaching upon the plaintiff's property illegally and highhandedly obtained the approved plan for construction is per se false besides being misleading. The plaintiff is not entitled for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule property to third party in any manner. The plaintiff miserably failed to plead as to how the plaintiff is entitled to the plaint schedule property. Thus, the suit is not maintainable either at Law or on facts.

The suit is also not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties particularly the authorities of CRDA. This defendant further submits that ignoring the statutory 15 provisions of A.P. Town Planning Act 1920 read with A.P. Land Development Lay- out and sub-division) Rules 2017 particularly with reference to Sec.4, Sec.5, Sec.

15, 16, 18 and Sec.20 the plaintiff has approached this Hon’ble Court. The statutory provisions of the aforementioned Acts disentitle the plaintiff to the present relief and the suit eminently deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs under section 35-A of C.P.C., to this defendant in view of compelling the defendant to contest the present proceedings.

Hence, the defendant prayed the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the suit awarding compensatory costs to the defendant 4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief

of recovery of possession as prayed for?

3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent

injunction as prayed for?

4 Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties.

5 To what relief?

5.Counsel for the plaintiff argued that this suit is filed for declaration and the plaintiff is owner of 73.3 sq. yards. Both plaintiff and defendant are neighbours. Both parties are having own title deeds. The plaintiff contention is that the defendant occupied 73.3 Sq. yards. In the year 1982 the land was agricultural land, later it was approved layout plan. The crux of the point, after the 16 layout the land was changed. They have to follow layout plans but not title deeds and finally prayed this court to decree the suit.

6.The defendants filed written arguments at length and further orally argued that declaration with regard to plaint schedule property of 73.3 Sq. yards which is under the encroachment of the defendant. The declaratory relief with regard to declaration that the plaintiff is the owner. The defendant has encroached the property. There is no clear prayer with regard to encroachment. In this behalf the approved plan was marked on behalf of plaintiff i.e., Ex.A5. LP.No.98, but the number was missed in Ex.A5. CRDA is bound by AP Town Planning Land

Development and Layout and Sub-Division Rules-2017 and it was published on 19.07.2017. The property comes under Panchayat of Gollapudi Panchayat. All the earlier notifications were superceded by this 2017 notification. The defendant plan was approved on 09.11.2015 and finally prayed this Court to dismiss the suit.

7.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s father is examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked and on behalf of Plaintiff,

PW.2 was examined. On behalf of defendant, the Defendant herself was examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked.

8. ISSUE Nos.1 to 4: Since all the issues are inter-related, for the

sake of brevity and for better appreciation, the issues are taken up together.

9.To prove the contention PW.1 filed his chief affidavit and reiterated the contents of plaint during his cross-examination he deposed that he did not read over the written statement filed by the defendant. He admitted that his 17 daughter Apurupa filed another suit in OS.No.86/2017 before II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Vijayawada and one IA filed in that suit for injunction and in that IA it

was mentioned the defendant in this case has occupied 11 sq. yards of plaintiff site. Later the said injunction petition was dismissed. He admitted that after dismissal of the injunction order his daughter withdrawn OS.No.86/2017 with the permission of the court and his daughter appointed one K.B.Sundar as Advocate for filing OS.No.86/2017. The certified copy of plaint wherein along with plaint plan, affidavit petition and order thereon in IA.No.31/2017 of OS.No.86/2017, written statement filed by the defendant and also judgment dt.31.01.2018 are filed herewith. Ex.D1 marked. All the pleadings made in the plaint and other applications about the measurements are wrongly mentioned by the concerned advocate, as such his daughter has withdrawn the said suit. His daughter filed this present suit to get back 73 sq. yards of site. He did not get any document from CRDA stating that the defendant land has diminished due to layout approval.

He do not know whether the construction of the defendant was made prior to the approval of final layout by CRDA. He did not made CRDA as party in this suit. He denied the suggestion that already there is a multi stored building prior to approval final layout by CRDA.

He know the contents of written statement. He enquired his counsel with regard to the applicability of Town Planning Act 1920 and he answered that it is applicable to their case. He do not know whether the government gave compensation for the reduction of size of plot. Even prior to the filing of this suit 18 the defendant started construction. He admitted that his daughter i.e., plaintiff filed injunction suit against the defendant and she withdraw the same. He did not show the plan approved by CRDA. He did not gave any notice to CRDA that the plan is not according to the size of the plot and size of plot is reduced and the building is to be demolished. He denied the suggestion that as per Andhra

Pradesh Town Planning Act and he is not having right to approach CRDA and to file this suit. He admitted that approved plan was cancelled by Gollapudi

Panchayati Authority. He denied the suggestion that before final approval of the layout plan the defendant commenced construction and already using the land, as such the suit is not maintainable. He did not enquired Town Planning Authority whether any compensation was given to defendant or not. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff i.e., his daughter filed OS.No.86/2017 and she appeared in that case and given her evidence and apprehending that she will be confronted with the earlier pleadings as such she intentionally avoiding to come into the witness box of this case and she gave General Power of Attorney to him.

He denied the suggestion that he is not having right to file this suit as per Town

Planning Act and defendant praying this court for compensatory costs as per 35A of CPC.

During further cross-examination he deposed that his daughter gave affidavit for filing document receive petition. He had no idea when the defendant purchased the property. In the year 1989 the 1st layout was approved. He had no idea how the defendant got the suit schedule property and he had no idea that the 19 defendant got the property from her father by name Kolakaluri Venkaiah through a registered Will. He had no idea whether the Kolakaluri Venkaiah purchased the property in the month of July, 1982 under the registered sale deeds bearing

No.8119/1982 and 8298/1982. He had no idea whether the defendant has joined as party in the layout application in 1989. He denied the suggestion that the suit is not maintainable and Ex.A14 is not valid as the defendant purchased the property in the year 1982.

10.On behalf of Plaintiff, PW.2 is examined and during his cross- examination he deposed He is not an income tax acessee. He did not obtained any license from Commercial Tax Department and Municipal Corporation for doing real estate business. He is 10th class failed student. The contents of his chief affidavit were read over and explained to him by counsel. He had seen the approved layout plans which were mentioned by him in his chief affidavit in para

No.5. He got knowledge through one Mahesh about the layout plans. He did not noted the layout numbers any where. When the defendant purchased the two plots at that time there is no layout. When the plaintiff purchased the plot there is layout. In Ex.A13/Sale Deed it is mentioned as LP.No.26/1982. He do not know when the defendant purchased two plots but he was informed that it was obtained through a Will. He do not know whether the executant of the Will had layout plan when he purchased the plot. He never seen the Andhra Pradesh Town Planning

Act, 1920 being a Real Estate Business person. He had no idea whether the

Government will pay compensation if any land is acquired. The extent mentioned 20 in Ex.A13 is 284 Sq. yards. He came to know through Vuda Plan the extent of plots will be reduced whenever there is a change in layouts. He do not know whether the plaintiff vendor’s approved plan was cancelled by the Panchayat

Authority. The layout plans were not drawn by CRDA. He do not know who approved the layout plans. He did not verified the approved plan filed by defendant before this court. The defendant encroached 73 sq. yards as per his knowledge. In his presence only measurements were obtained by surveyor. He do not know whether the plaintiff filed any suit previously or not. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false at the request of plaintiff as he is running real estate business even though he do not know any facts of the case.

11.Defendant herself examined as DW.1 and filed her chief affidavit and reiterated the contents of written statement and during her cross-examination she deposed that her husband worked as Secretary Revenue A.P State for about 3 years. She got the plaint schedule property through her father. Her father registered gift deed in her favour but she did not remember in which year he registered the gift deed in her favour. She do not remember in which year her father purchased the plaint schedule property. Her father purchased 634.81 Sq.

yards. She did not remember the R.S number. She is in possession of the documents for the property purchased by her father. When her father purchased the plaint schedule property is agricultural land. She further deposed that she cannot say the nature of the property. She cannot say the boundaries of the plaint schedule property when her father purchased. She cannot say the 21 boundaries of the property which her father registered on her name. She do not know about the vendors how they acquired the property. About 6 years back they constructed building in the plaint schedule property. At the time of construction of the building they took the measurements. But she do not remember they had called the neighbors at the time of taking measurements. After getting the layout plan they started constructing building. She cannot say the layout plan number.

She cannot say who had approved the layout plan. She is in possession of layout plan. They had mentioned the linear measurements of their land in the said plan.

At present she cannot say the measurements.

They had enquired about the existing area layout plan. She cannot say the name of the department who gave building approval plan. At present she is having building approval plan. She cannot say exactly on which side the plaintiff having property to the plaint schedule property. She came to know that the plaintiff filed this suit as they had occupied their property. But she do not know exact details. Her husband inspected all the layout plans with respect to the area where the plaint schedule property is situated. She do not know whether the layout plan approval number is 26/1982. She do not know the subsequent revision approval numbers i.e., L.P.No.10/1996 and 6/1998, She admitted that the layout plans were divided into plots by mentioning the measurements. She do not know after layout plans she is only entitled for only 568 sq. yrds. She cannot say the present boundaries also.

22

She denied the suggestion that they had occupied 73.33 sq. yds of neighbouring land and constructed the building in plaint schedule property. She is not having any objection to appoint surveyor to measure the plaint schedule property and fix the boundaries of plaintiff and herself. She did not filed any documents before this court. She do not know whether advocate commissioner was appointed in injunction suit or not. She is not expecting any property of plaintiff. She denied the suggestion that all the contents of her chief affidavit were drafted without her knowledge and she is deposing false.

12.The main contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant has encroached an extent of 73.33 square yards of her land. The present suit is filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the encroached portion, along with permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule property in any manner.

In support of her case, the plaintiff has filed Exs.A1 to A14. Exs.A1 to

A4 are copies of layout plans pertaining to the years 1982, 1986 and 1996. Ex.A5 is the approved building plan. Exs.A6 and A7 are registered sale deeds. Ex.A8 is the Will executed by Kolakaluri Venkaiah Ex.A9 is the judgment copy in O.S.

No.86 of 2017. Exs.A10 and A11 are certified copies of registered sale deeds.

Ex.A12 is the valuation certificate of the property. Ex.A13 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 20.07.2015. Ex.A14 is the layout plan showing the plaintiff’s property as Plot No.22.

23

13.On the other hand, the main contention of the defendant is that

CRDA was not made a party to the suit. Though such a plea was taken, the defendant failed to file any documentary evidence to substantiate the same.

During cross-examination, the defendant’s evidence reveals that she had no personal knowledge about the particulars of the property, stating that all matters were looked after by her husband. She remained silent regarding the R.S. number and admitted that she did not know how her vendors acquired the property.

In the present case, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he submitted his report. As per the title deeds of the plaintiff and L.P. No.6 of 1998, the plaintiff’s land was found to be short by 11 feet, whereas the defendant’s land was found to be in excess to the said extent. The Commissioner observed that the boundaries were fixed as per the approved layout plan under

L.P. No.6 of 1998.

Thus, it clearly establishes that the defendant has encroached upon 73.33 square yards of the plaintiff’s land and constructed a building thereon.

Accordingly, all the issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

14. ISSUE No.4: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

24

The Defendant is directed to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within two (2) months from the date of this judgment.

The Defendant is further permanently restrained from alienating or encumbering the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever.

Dictated to Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court, this the 31th day of October, 2025.

Sd/- D.Geetha Rani

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT :

PW.1:Donepudi Venkateswara RaoDW.1: Doppalapudi Revathi

PW.2:Gorantla Narayana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1:Copy of L.P.No.26 of 1982 showing the property of plaintiff as Plot No.25 (obtained under RTI Act).

Ex.A2:Copy of L.P.No.6 of 1986 showing the property of plaintiff as Plot No.24 (obtained under RTI Act).

Ex.A3:Copy of L.P.No.06 of 1996 showing the property of plaintiff as Plot No.22 (obtained under RTI Act).

Ex.A4:Copy of L.P.No.10 of 1996 showing the property of plaintiff as Plot No.22 (obtained under RTI Act).

Ex.A5:Copy of approved building plan for construction of apartment complex obtained by defendant (Obtained under RTI Act).

25

Ex.A6:Copy of Regd. Sale deed executed in favour of Kolakaluri Venkaiah bearing document No.8298 (Obtained under RTI Act), dt.27.07.1982.

Ex.A7:Copy of Regd. Sale deed executed in favour of Kolakaluri Venkaiah bearing document No.8119 (Obtained under RTI Act), dt.19.07.1982.

Ex.A8:Copy of Will executed by Kolakaluri Venkaiah (Obtained under RTI Act), dt.28.09.1993.

Ex.A9:Certified copy of Judgment in OS.No.86/2017 on the file of II

Additional Junior Civil Judge Vijayawada, dt.31.01.2018.

Ex.A10:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.5983/1989 executed in favour of Velagaudi/Ghali Radhika.

Ex.A11:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.6006 of 2012 executed in favour of Aluri Srinivasa Rao, dt.05.12.2012.

Ex.A12:Certified copy of valuation certificate of property of the plaintiff.

Ex.A13:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.3516/2015 executed in favour of the plaintiff, dt.20.07.2015.

Ex.A14:Layout plan bearing No.6/1998 showing the property of plaintiff as plot No.22.

FOR DEFENDANT :

NIL

Sd/- D.Geetha Rani

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt D.Geetha Rani, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge.

Tuesday, this the 31st day of January, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 558/2018

Between: Kallam Maheswara Reddy, S/o Late Veera Raghava Reddy, Hindu, aged about 53 years, Properties, R/o Door No.4­41, Kallamvaripalem, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District.

..Plaintiff

 And

Kallam Phani Bhushan Reddy, S/o Late Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Business, R/o D.No.122, Sree Gokulam, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, PR Layout, Munnekolala, Marathahalli, Bangalore ..Defendant

This Suit is coming finally before me in the presence of Sri P.Mohan Ram Prasad, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.M.S.Sastry, Advocate for defendant, the defendant remained ex parte and the same is having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8,58,000/­. with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of Suit till realization and for costs.

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

The plaintiff and defendant are the same villagers and childhood friends. The defendant is doing granite business in Bangalore, he is having a residential house in

Kallamvaripalem village, where his mother is residing, the defendant is also having landed properties in Kallamvaripalem village. Therefore, he used to visit

Kallamvaripalem frequently and used to maintain friendly and cordial relations with the plaintiff. Out of friendship and on the request made by the defendant in the presence of common friends Kallam Ramanjaneya Reddy, S/o Basivi Reddy, Kallam

Abhinav Reddy, S/o Maheswara Rao and others for advancement of money for his business requirements and on the promise made by the defendant to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. On believing the promise made by the defendant, the plaintiff herein remitted by RTGS a sum of Rs.10 lakhs along with remitting charges Rs.56/­ on 28.02.2015 from his savings bank account lying in

State Bank of India, Penamakuru Branch, to the saving bank of the defendant lying in State Bank of India, Bangalore Branch vide RTGS SBINR52015022810943317.

OS.558 of 2018

I ASCJ, VJA.

2

On repeated demands made by on behalf of the plaintiff for the repayment of the said sum, the defendant have remitted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/­ on 29.12.2016 to the plaintiff’s bank account ie., SBI Penamakuru branch by RTGS through Andhra Bank

UTR No.ANDBR52016122900201560 and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/­ on 29.12.2016 to the plaintiff’s bank account ie., SBI, Devarapalli Branch through his Andhra Bank by UTR NOANDBR52016122900201520 and acknowledged the debt and promised to pay the balance soon.

It is further averred that inspite of oral demands made by and on behalf of plaintiff for the repayment of balance payable amount along with interest @ 24% per annum upto date, the defendant evaded the repayment by giving vague and evasive replies. On that, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.02.05.2018 calling upon the defendant to repay the entire amount due under the above transaction upto date with interest within one week from the date of receipt of the notice. The defendant though received the said notice on 08.05.2018, he failed neither to reply nor comply the demand therein till date. Hence, this suit.

3.The averments of Written Statement filed by defendant in brief are that:

The material allegations made in the plaint are false, frivolous and vexatious and submitted that there is no relationship of lender and borrower between the plaintiff and the defendant and as such the suit is misconceived and not maintainable. He was in requirement of an amount of Rs.10 lakhs during the year 2015. In the month of January, 2015 he has requested Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy,

R/o Kallamvaripalem, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District to arrange that money to him. The said Kiran Kumar Reddy arranged the amount through plaintiff in the month of February, 2015. The plaintiff is only a name lender. The money of

Rs.10,00000/­ routed through the account of the plaintiff to him does not belong to the plaintiff at all. The said amount was arranged by the Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy through the account of the plaintiff has taken place during the 1st week of February, 2015 and accordingly, the amount was arranged by the plaintiff to him on or about 28.2.2015 through his bank account at Bangalore. He received the said amount in the aforesaid process has to discharge the said loan to Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy.

The said Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy has required him to make the payment through the account of the plaintiff. Accordingly, he has arranged repayment of

Rs.5,00,000/­ on 29.12.2016 through Andhra Bank, Bangalore to the Bank account of plaintiff ie., State Bank of India, Penamakuru branch, Krishna Diostrict and another amount of Rs.3,00,000/­ on 29.12.2016 through Andhra Bank, Bangalore,

OS.558 of 2018

I ASCJ, VJA.

3 to the bank account of the plaintiff ie., State Bank of Hyderabad, Devarapalli

Branch, Krishna District as desired by Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy. He is in due to pay the balance amount of Rs.2 lakhs. There was no stipulation to pay any interest with reference to the transaction.

i)It is further submitted that the plaintiff and the above said Kallam Kiran

Kumar Reddy all belong to the same caste group and the family with the surname “Kallam” who are all residents of Kallamvaripalem and closely related to one another. The plaintiff has mooted out the proposal of constructing a temple for the family Deity of the Kallam group of families viz., Renuka Ankamma Devi at

Kallamavaripalem, prior to the year 2014 and for that purpose proposed to raise donations/subscriptions from the village elders and particularly from the family members with the surname “Kallam”. The plaintiff wished to be the Chairman of the

Ankamma Devi Mandir Committee and himself, Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy, Kallam

Koti Reddy, Kallam Sambi Reddy, Kallam Krishna Reddy have agreed for the proposal. The donations were collected from the village persons to a tune of

Rs.20,84,783/­ . The amount was lying in the hands of the plaintiff as he happened to intiate the proposal. The elders including him requested the plaintiff to open an account for the amount and to issue receipts to all the individuals who have made subscriptions, apart from maintaining accounts for the funds collected so as to make the matter as much transparent as possible. The plaintiff was not willing for such proposal and claimed that such measure would make him to lose control over the affairs. The differences have started between the plaintiff and the members of families having Kallam as surname. In that connection notice dt.19.9.2016 was issued by M/s K.Koti Reddy and others of Kallamvaripalem to the plaintiff and another by name Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy of Vijayawada requiring them to show the accounts of the amounts collected for the Mandir. The said notice issued by M/s K.Koti Reddy to the plaintiff and another was replied on 27.9.2016 through the counsel of Kallam Maheswara Reddy (Plaintiff) and Kallam Satyanarayana

Reddy, denying the creation of the Forum (Committee) for Sri Renuka Ankamma

Devi Mandir and the office (Chairman and Member) held by the plaintiff and his friend Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy. Infact a bank account bearing

No.36124128991 was opened (on 26.9.2016) by the plaintiff (Kallam Maheswara

Reddy), with State Bank of India, Penamakuru Branch, Krishna District, without involving the consent and consensus between the donors and other prominent members of Kallamvari family group. The plaintiff inspite of the legal notice has not

OS.558 of 2018

I ASCJ, VJA.

4 furnished the accounts, produced the transactions of the deposit, withdrawal etc., concerning the donations collected and with reference to the bank account.

ii)It is further submitted that the plaintiff took the matter as a prestige issue and has falsely filed a suit in OS.No.124/2016, dt.31.8.2016 on the file of Junior

Civil Judge/J.F.C.M.,Vuyyuru through Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy against Kallam

Koti Reddy, Kallam Phani Bhushan Reddy and Kallam Rami Reddy, falsely claiming the relief of permanent injunction restraining them (defendants in that suit) from ever offering animals/slaughtering (bali) to the Deity Renuka Ankamma Devi Mandir (Temple) at Kallamvaripalem, Krishna District without there being such incident or proposal whatsoever by the defendants in that suit or any person in the village

Kallamvaripalem. The plaintiff felt that the defendant in this suit is a close associate of Kallam Koti Reddy and two others referred in that suit and took it as a prestige issue for him and started creating false liabilities on the basis of the donations given to him for safe custody and use for the requirements of construction of Renuka

Ankamma Devi Mandir and started creating false liabilities against the prominent persons of Kallamvaripalem.

iii)It is further submitted that the bank account was not opened associating the other prominent persons concerned in the temple construction and without formulating Rules, Regulations or Bye­laws for the Committee and get it registered.

The plaintiff did not furnish the statement of donations received, utilized, deposited or otherwise spent consisting of the amounts collected from the villagers. He, Kallam

Kiran Kumar Reddy, Kallam Sambi Reddy, Kallam Koti Reddy and other local elders have approached the plaintiff to disclose the particulars and show the record of the

Trust, the documents used for opening the account, the cash collected available in hand and deposited in the bank, the plaintiff became wild and refused to furnish any details to them and also started claiming that the amounts collected for the temple constructions are his exclusive amount and that the committee is his proprietary establishment and the local people have no say in the matter and he is not obliged to answer anybody. The suit filed through Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy by the plaintiff is pending before the Junior Civil Judge, Vuyyuru. 

iv)It is further submitted that in the interest of one and all and to protect the interests of Sri Renuka Ankamma Devi Mandir, Kallam Phani Bhushan Reddy, has filed a private complaint under CF.No.3347/2016, dt.23.11.2016 before the JFCM

Court, Vuyyuru against the plaintiff in the present suit and Kallam Satyanarayana

Reddy in OS.No.124/2016, complaining the commission of the offences under

OS.558 of 2018

I ASCJ, VJA.

5 sections 420, 426, 468, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC which has been forwarded to the

Law & Order, Thotlavalluru PS. Krishna District, registered as crime No.41/2017, dt.16.5.2017 and being enquired into by the police. The plaintiff in the suit and his proxy Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy are afraid of exposure of their mis­deeds, misappropriation, falsification of accounts and other acts committed by them and their eventual accountability before the Kallam surname family group, the “Reddi” community and the other devotees of Renuka Ankamma Devi in the village of

Kallamvaripalem and Thotlavalluru Mandal Area, Krishna District. In the above said circumstances, the plaintiff filed this false suit in the month of June, 2018 which has been taken on file and posted for first appearance on 10.10.2018 for filing written statement in the said suit. The alleged suit advancing of money does not come within the provisions of the NI Act and no relationship of lender and borrower are created between the parties to the suit. The plaintiff is only a proxy of Kallam

Kiran Kumar Reddy and the amount does not belong to them. The plaintiff has no independent right to institute any proceeding without the permission and consent by Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy. At any rate, he is not due to pay more than Rs.2 lakhs to Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy. The plaintiff had no capacity to raise and advance amount to him. After the institution of the suit, he has contacted the above said Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy and asked him as what he should do in the matter for that he has been instructed not to interact or transact with the plaintiff and that to directly deal with him and pay the amount as and when required by him. The said Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy has promised that he would make his appearance

before the court and expose the false claims on the part of the plaintiff. In view of

the above circumstances, the plaintiff cannot claim to pursue the suit any long even if he contends that he is bonafidely representing Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy. 

v)It is further submitted that at any rate the claim for interest and making the suit claim of Rs.8,58,000/­, as set out in the suit claim is highly irregular and unsustainable. The plaintiff cannot appropriate the payments made towards interest as there was no stipulation to pay any interest between him and Kallam Kiran

Kumar Reddy. The plaintiff did not produce any document evidencing the understanding for the levy and collection of interest. The notice was not replied by him anticipating in good faith that the plaintiff would relent in the matter and would not precipitate them further. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to institute this suit against him. He does not admit the valuation of the suit. He does not admit the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble court to try the suit. The suit is bad for the non

OS.558 of 2018

I ASCJ, VJA.

6 impleadment of Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy who is necessary party for the just and equitable adjudication of the matter. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

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

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for ?

2) To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and one third party examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.B1 to B3 marked through

PW.1. The defendant himself examined as DW.1 and one Kallam Kiran Kumar

Reddy, who is third party also examined as DW.2 and no documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defendant.

6.Heard arguments and also heard reply arguments on both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

7.Heard plaintiff’s arguments and requested to decree the suit with costs. The defendant argued that without any document only bank statement itself is filed by plaintiff. There is no written agreement to pay interest. The bank transaction itself

Rs.8,00,000/­ out of Rs.10,00,000/­. DW.2/Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy requested to him to arrange money. DW.2 gave amount to defendant and utilized the account of plaintiff, hence prays to dismiss the suit.

8. ISSUE No. 1:

The plaintiff is claiming that the recovery of an amount of Rs. 8,58,000/­ with costs and subsequent interest. The main contention of the plaintiff is that due to friendship between the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant requested the plaintiff for advancement of money for his business requirements in the presence of common friends Kallam Ramanjaneya Reddy, S/o Basivi Reddy, Kallam Abhinav Reddy, S/o

Maheswara Rao and others and promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. On believing the promise made by the defendant, the plaintiff herein remitted by RTGS a sum of Rs.10 lakhs along with remitting charges Rs.56/­ on 28.02.2015 from his savings bank account lying in State Bank of India,

Penamakuru Branch, to the saving bank of the defendant lying in State Bank of

India, Bangalore Branch vide RTGS SBINR52015022810943317. On repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant have remitted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/­ on 29.12.2016 to the plaintiff’s bank account ie., SBI Penamakuru branch by RTGS

OS.558 of 2018

I ASCJ, VJA.

7 through Andhra Bank UTR No.ANDBR52016122900201560 and a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/­ on 29.12.2016 to the plaintiff’s bank account ie., SBI, Devarapalli

Branch through his Andhra Bank by UTR NOANDBR52016122900201520 and acknowledged the debt and promised to pay the balance soon. Inspite of oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant evaded the repayment by giving vague and evasive replies. On that, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.02.05.2018 calling upon the defendant to repay the entire amount due under the above transaction up to date with interest within one week from the date of receipt of the notice. The defendant though received the said notice on 08.05.2018, he failed neither to reply nor comply the demand therein till date. 

9.The plaintiff to substantiate his claim got examined himself as PW.1 and PW.2 examined on his behalf and Ex.A1 to A.6 and Ex.B1 to B3 are marked through

PW.1. During cross examination PW.1 deposed that he is doing agriculture in 12 acres and getting annual Income of Rs. 30,000/­ per acre after deducting expenses.

In their village, 3/4th of population are having sumame "Kallam". His name was shown as Chairman of the Committee. He did not maintain bank account for the collection of funds in respect of construction of the said temple. He admitted that on 19.09.2016 a legal notice was issued to him and one Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy on behalf of K. Kotireddy and others through their advocate Sri Putta Ramakrishna and others. Ex.B.1 is legal notice dated 19.09.2016 issued by K. Kotireddy and others to the plaintiff and another. He admitted that on 27.09.2016 issued a reply notice through their counsel Kallam Maheswar Reddy and another. Copy of the said notice shown to the witness and he admitted the same. Ex.B.2 is reply notice dated 27.09.2016 issued by plaintiff herein and another to the notice issued under Ex.B.1.

He admitted that the defendant herein was the second person in Ex.B.1 who issued notice to him and the defendant herein filed a private complaint against him before

Judl. Magistrate of | Class­cum­Junior Civil Judge. Vuyyuru and basing on the same a case in Crime No.41/2017 of Thotlavalluru Police Station was registered against him on 16.05.2017. Ex.B.3 is attested copy of FIR in Crime No.41/2017 of

Thothavalluru Police Station along with Sworn statement and complaint and admitted that Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy filed suit in O.S.No. 124/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge. Vuyyuru against Kallam Kotireddy, Kallam Phani Bhushan

Reddy (defendant herein) and Kallam Ramireddy and further stated that since this said Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy was the donor of site given to temple he filed the said suit. He admitted that the said suit was dismissed for default on 13:02.2020

OS.558 of 2018

I ASCJ, VJA.

8 and he filed the present suit after exchange of notices, after filing of private complaint and civil suit mentioned above and he did not mention about the suit transaction either in reply notice or in the civil suit filed at Vuyyuru Court. He gone through the contents of written statement filed by defendant and he know it's contents. He admitted that there is no mention in his legal notice, in his plaint and in his chief examination affidavit on which date and at what time the defendant requested him to pay the amount and if any amount lent there should be execution of document and further submitted that out of friendship defendant requested to transfer the amount and he did not demand the defendant to execute any document in respect of the amount lent to him and also not demanded in his legal notice issued to defendant. There is no documentary proof stipulating payment of interest to the amount lent to the defendant. Källam Kiran Kumar Reddy is resident of their village and he know him.

10. He denied the suggestion that the defendant asked the said Kallam Kiran

Kumar Reddy to arrange an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/­ Since the said Kallam Kiran

Kumar Reddy had no knowledge about sending amount through online he sent the said amount through his bank account through online process to the defendant and the said amount is not relating to him and the said amount relating to said Kallam

Kiran Kumar Reddy and without his permission or independent right he is not entitled to file the present suit. He denied the suggestion that there is no borrower and lender relationship between him and defendant in terms of Negotiable

Instruments Act and he has no capacity to lend the huge amount of Rs 10,00,000 to the defendant. He is not an income tax assessee. He gone through the contents of counter flied in IA No.529/2018. He denied the suggestion that the property shown in the said IA are not belonging to the defendant and the said properties belonging to Smt Kallam Sivamma, hence his petition seeking attachment is not maintainable.

The said Kallam Sivamma had two daughters and one son Phani Bhushan Reddy.

He admitted that the entire properties shown in the petition schedule belongs to

Subba Reddy, husband of Kallam Sivamma and he did not file any supporting document that Phani Bhushan Reddy is having 1/4th share over the said properties. He denied the suggestion that due to groupism in the village and due to filing of the cases against him, he fled the present suit with false claim and the amount lent to the defendant is not belonging to him and the present suit is not maintainable for non­joinder of necessary party and in order to cause damage to the

OS.558 of 2018

I ASCJ, VJA.

9 reputation of the family of defendant filed petition seeking attachment and the present false suit.

11.PW.2 who is third party, during his cross examination admitted that Kallam

Abhinav reddy is second son of plaintiff. Plaintiff is his friend. On 29.2.2015.

himself, plaintiff and defendant discussed together. No documents were reduced in writing on that day. He did not visit the bank on the said date. He do not know about the transactions took place in between the bank accounts. He admitted that there is no specific mention about the date of transaction in his chief examination affidavit. He do not know the survey number of the properties of defendant. He had no documentary proof relating to the properties of defendant as mentioned in his chief examination affidavit. He do not know about the cases pending between the plaintiff and defendant relating to temple issue at their village and admitted that except his oral statement there is no proof with regard to lending of amount by the plaintiff and receipt of the amount by defendant. He denied the suggestion that since the plaintiff is his friend and he is deposing false and due to pendency of cases between plaintiff and defendant in order to take revenge against the defendant the present suit was filed and he do not know the date when the defendant transferred the amount to the account of the plaintiff and to which account and also the name of the bank.

12.The defendant filed his written statement by denying the transactions between himself and plaintiff. The 1st defendant himself examined as DW.1 and DW.2 examined on behalf of defendant and no documents were marked on his behalf.

During cross examination DW.1 deposed that his surname is Kallam and in that village most of the families surname is Kallam. There are nearly 90 families in their village by surname Kallam. He admitted that the plaintiff transferred an amount of

Rs.10 lakhs from his bank account State Bank of India, Penamakuru Branch to his

Andhra Bank Account, Bangalore on 28.2.2015 under Ex.A1 and admitted that on 29.12.2016, he repaid Rs.5 lakhs to plaintiff account ie. State Bank of India,

Penamakuru from his Andhra Bank account, Bangalore under Ex.A2. On the same day i.e., on 29.12.2016, he transferred an amount of Rs.3 lakhs to plaintiff account ie State Bank of India, Devarapalli Branch under Ex.A3. He admitted that he received Ex.A4 legal notice from plaintiff with regard to payment of balance amount with interest and he did not gave any reply notice to Ex.A4. He admitted that he filed his written statement by pleading that he requested Kallam Kiran Kumar

OS.558 of 2018

I ASCJ, VJA.

10

Reddy to arrange money of Rs.10 lakhs and he promised him that he will arrange money of Rs. 10 lakhs and admitted that Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy not arranged

Rs.10 lakhs to him and not transfered any amount to him. He admitted that he repaid amount of Rs. 8 lakhs to plaintiff account only but not to Kallam Kiran

Kumar Reddy. He further stated that he repaid balance amount to Kallam Kiran

Kumar Reddy. Further he admitted that he did not mention in his Written statement nor in his Chief Affidavit that he repaid balance amount to Kallam Kiran Kumar

Reddy. He did not made Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy as party in this suit nor he sent any legal notice to him after filing this suit. He want to examine Kallam Kiran

Kumar Reddy as witness on his side. Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy might have bank account. He admitted that if Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy had amount with him he might have went to bank and remit the money through bank officials and he and plaintiff are not having talking terms as they had disputes with regard to Renuka

Ankamma Temple. He admitted that fore fathers of Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy donated land to Renuka Ankamma Temple and he along with Kallam family members constructed the Temple by donations. He admitted that Kallam

Statyanarayana Reddy filed suit against him and others vide OS No 124/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vuyyuru for permanent injunction restraining them from animals slaughter. He also obtained Interim orders in that suit vide

IA.No.757/2017. He admitted that he along with others sent notices to plaintiff and

Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy alleging that they failed to render accounts with regard to donations collected by them with regard to temple constructions under

Ex.B1, dated 19.9.2016. He admitted that the plaintiff and Kallam Stayanarayana

Reddy sent reply notice to him under Ex.B2. He denied the suggestion that as

Kallam Statyanarayana Reddy filed suit against him and others as such he kept grudge against plaintiff and Kallam Stayanarayana Reddy and he along with others filed private complaint against them for misappropriation of funds and that he took loan from plaintiff in the presence of PW2 and one Kallam Abhinav Reddy and promised to pay amount with interest at 24 % pa., and he repaid amount of Rs.8 lakhs to plaintiff and not paid remaining balance amount with interest at 24% pa., and he intentionally not repaying the amount in view of disputes with regard to

Temple and he created false defence through Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy as if he lent money to him and he is deposing false and he is liable to repay the suit amount with costs.

OS.558 of 2018

I ASCJ, VJA.

11

13.DW.2, who is third party, during his cross examination deposed that his surname is Kallam and his village name is Kallamvaripalem. The defendant Phani

Bhushanreddy is his friend. He is having bank accounts in State Bank of India,

Penamakuru branch and he know the transactions in between plaintiff and defendant. He do not know whether the plaintiff is having SBI Account in

Penamakuru branch. He do not know how to do bank transactions. As on the date ie.,28.02.2015, he is not having Rs.10 lakhs balance amount in his account. He know that the plaintiff informed him that he transferred cash of Rs.10 lakhs to defendant bank account on 28.2.2015. He, himself arranged amount of Rs.10 lakhs to plaintiff. Except his oral evidence, there is no document to show that he only arranged amount of Rs.10 lakhs to plaintiff. He did not gave any notice to plaintiff as he received amount of Rs.8 lakhs from plaintiff in the month of September, 2016.

There is no document to show that he received amount of Rs. 8 lakhs from plaintiff.

He admitted that all the villagers in their village contributed donations and constructed Renuka Ammavari temple. He do not know whether the temple was constructed in the site of one Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy and also admitted that the villagers in the village had dispute with regard to animal slaughter in the temple.

He is not in any group with regard to animal slaughter. He do not know whether

Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy filed injunction suit with regard to animal slaughter

before Junior Civil Judge’s court, Vuyyuru in OS.No.124/2016. He is not party to

that suit. He know the contents of his chief affidavit. The defendant filed a private complaint against plaintiff and one Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy under various sections of IPC. The above said case is still pending. He denied the suggestions that due to the disputes with regard to temple and keeping that in mind the defendant made only part payment to the plaintiff and avoided payment of remaining balance and that as he is close associate of defendant as such he is deposing false. He denied the suggestion that he is no way concerned with the transaction and defendant avoided remaining payment to plaintiff and that plaintiff is entitled for suit claim and he is deposing false.

14.Admittedly, there are disputes between plaintiff and defendant and cases are pending in between both parties. On perusal of the evidence both DW.1 and DW.2 admitted that the transaction in between the plaintiff and defendant and also PW.1 in support of his case filed Ex.A1 to A3 statement of account of his branch and the plaintiff/PW.1 issued legal notice ie.,Ex.A4. But there is no reply notice by the defendant. Even though the defendant claiming that the plaintiff

OS.558 of 2018

I ASCJ, VJA.

12 transferred the amount through Kallam Kiran Kumar Reddy and he got examined him but no document is there in support of his case. After careful examination of the evidence of witnesses and documents filed by plaintiff, the defendant is in due an amount of Rs. 8,58,000/­ and did not repay the amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. 

15. ISSUE No. 2:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.8,58,000/­ together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a, from the date of filing of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree to till the date of realization on due amount of Rs.8,58,000/­.

Typed to my Dictation by the stenographer G­III corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31st day of January, 2023.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff:For Defendant : P.W.1: Kallam Maheswara Reddy DW.1: Kallam Phanibushan Reddy P.W.2: Kallam Ramanjaneya Reddy. DW.2: Kallam Kirankumar Reddy.

Documents Marked For Plaintiff: 

Ex.A1: Statement of Account of PW.1 dt.18.10.2017 in SBI, Penamakuru branch. Ex.A2: Statement of account of PW.1 from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017. Ex.A3: Statement of account of PW.1 in SBI, Devarapalli Branch. Ex.A4: Office copy of the legal notice dt.2.5.2018 got issued by plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A5: Postal receipt dt.3.5.2018 Ex.A6: On line postal track consignment dt.11.6.2018.

Ex.B1: Legal notice dt.19.9.2016 issued by K.Kotireddy & Others to plaintiff and another. Ex.B2: Reply notice dt.27.9.2016 issued by plaintiff herein and another to the notice issued under Ex.B1. Ex.B3: Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.41/2017 of Thotlavalluru PS along with sworn statement and complaint.

For Defendant:­­NIL­­

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 

OS.558 of 2018

I ASCJ, VJA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: SMT. D.GEETHA RANI

I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada.

Friday, this 21stday of November, 2025.

O.S.No.92 of 2021

Between:

M/s.Balaji Argo Oils Limited, rep. By its Director-Cum-Chairman Vallabhaneni Venkata Ramaiah, Son of Late Durga Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 72 years, having its registered office at Door No.74-2-19, Old Check Post Centre, Krishna Nagar, Vijayawada-7, Krishna District.

Plaintiff

Vs

Chilukuri Sambasiva Rao, Son of Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 51 years, Residing at Door No.5-83, Tadanki Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District.

Defendant

This Suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri.Nomula Srinivasa

Rao, Advocate for Defendant and upon hearing both sides, this court made the following :

// J U D G M E N T //

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendant for a sum of due Rs.30,06,220/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.17,48,480/- from the date of the suit, till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

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

The plaintiff is running a unit of Solvent extraction and manufacturing of Rice Bran Oil and De-Oiled Rice Bran since 1995. The 2

Plaintiff has its registered office at Door No.74-2-19, Krishna Nagar,

Patamata, Vijayawada and the plaintiff company authorized Vallabhaneni

Venkata Ramaiah, Director-Cum-Chairman, to represent it before the Court vide a resolution passed by the Board Members on dt.13.08.2018 and he is competent to sign on the Vakalat, plaint and other required documents on behalf of plaintiff.

The Defendant joined as a clerk in the Plaintiff company in the year 1997 and he used to look after the marketing of the products of the

Plaintiff and collection of amounts from the customers of the Plaintiff and as such he is an employee of the Plaintiff. Besides that, the Defendant also used to do aqua culture personally and that he is having fish tanks at

Jonnapadu Village of Nandivada Mandal, Krishna District and he used to purchase products from the Plaintiff for his aqua culture.

Further submitted that the Defendant opened a running Khatha with the Plaintiff and the Defendant used to purchase De-Oiled Rice Bran for his personal fish tanks and he received the stock of De-Oiled Rice Bran for his personal fish tanks from the Plaintiff time to time and that the Plaintiff used to maintain the business transactions in an electronic system and that all the transactions with the Defendant were entered into the said running account maintained by the Plaintiff in an electronic system. A copy of the detailed account statement is herewith filed for the perusal of the Hon'ble

Court.

Further submitted that as on 03.06.2017 as per the running

Khatha, the Defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.17,48,480/ - to the 3

Plaintiff for the stock of De-Oiled Rice Bran purchased by him for his fish tanks.

Further submitted that some of the customers of the Plaintiff who are residents of Krishna District used to purchase the products from the

Plaintiff on credit basis and the Plaintiff used to maintain accounts for each customer. The defendant as the employee of the plaintiff in his clerical capacity, used to collect the amounts from the plaintiff’s customers and used to remit the same to the plaintiff. The defendant during the course of his employment, collected an amount of Rs.82,56,245/- from some of the customers of the plaintiff and failed to remit the same and misappropriated the said amount.

Further submitted that after coming to know about the misappropriation committed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff's personnel,

Managing Director and Chairman, questioned the Defendant about his acts of misappropriation and the Defendant confessed the misappropriation committed by him before the Chairman, Managing Director of the Plaintiff and the other personnel of the Plaintiff and the Defendant himself revealed the amounts collected by him from the customers of the Plaintiff. A consolidated account of the amounts collected by the defendant from the customers of the plaintiff and the amounts payable by him for the purchases made by him for his own fish tanks was prepared and the defendant endorsed on the said account copies that " he hereby confirm that the account balance of the above company, he collected the above amounts from above said persons and not remitted to the company. He had to pay 4

Rs.1,00,04,725/- as on 23.07.2017". The said statement was prepared on 23.07.2017 and was signed by the Defendant. Photostat copies of the same are herewith filed for the perusal of the Honorable Court. The originals are filed before the Honorable IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,

Vijayawada in C.C.No.686 of 2019.

Further submitted that, out of the total amount of

Rs.1,00,04,725/- an amount of Rs.82,56,245/- was collected by the defendant from the customers of the plaintiff and was misappropriated by him. The remaining amount of Rs.17,48,480/- is liable to be paid by the defendant towards the purchases made by him from the plaintiff for his own fish tanks.

Subsequently, the Defendant issued a cheque bearing No.

459174 for an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Vuyyuru

Branch Vuyyuru towards the discharge of his liability towards the plaintiff for the amount payable by him under the aforesaid account statement and as the said cheque was dishonored the Plaintiff was obliged to issue a notice dt.01.08.2018 to the Defendant calling upon him to pay the cheque amount.

The Defendant received the said notice and he got issued a reply notice dt.21.08.2018 with all false and untenable allegations. The Plaintiff is denying the allegations made in the said reply notice. As such, the Plaintiff filed a case in C.C.No.686 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble IV Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Vijayawada as the Defendant committed an offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act.

5

Further submitted that the Defendant committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriated the amounts entrusted to him in his clerical capacity by the customers of the plaintiff and he failed to deposit the same in the Plaintiff's account. As such, the Defendant committed an offence under

Sections 409 and 420 of I.P.C and the Plaintiff lodged a complaint against the defendant in C.F.No.2239 of 2019 on the file of the Learned IV Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Vijayawada and the same is under consideration.

In total, the defendant has paid an amount of Rs. 48,89,410/- on different dates to the plaintiff towards the amount payable to the plaintiff towards the misappropriated amount. Their client is filing another suit for recovery of the remaining amount which was misappropriated by the defendant.

The present suit is filed before this court for recovery of an amount of Rs. 17,48,480/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand

Four Hundred and Eighty only, along with interest @ 24% p.a, as the said amount is payable by the defendant towards the purchase of products from the plaintiff for his fish tanks and as those transactions fall under commercial transactions. The defendant has not paid the said amount to the plaintiff since 23.07.2017 and as such the Plaintiff is obliged to file the present suit for recovery of the said amount of Rs.17,48,480/-. The defendant is bound to pay the said amount of Rs.17,48,480/- along with interest @ 24% p.a as per the prevailing trade custom to the plaintiff as per the endorsement made by the defendant on the account statement on 23.07.2017.

6

Further submitted that the Honorable Supreme Court of India passed orders extending the limitation and the present proceedings are within the purview and ambit of the orders of the Honorable Supreme Court pertaining to the limitation. As such, the present proceedings are in time and are not barred by time.

3. Defendant filed his written statement and denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that on 10-07-2017, Four Blank

Cheques duly signed by defendant bearing Nos: 459174 to 459177 of

Syndicate Bank. Vuyyuru Branch, Vuyyuru and on 10-07-2017. Four Blank

Printed Promissory Notes duly signed by this defendant;

Thereafter, when another Security was asked for, by the plaintiff

additionally, this defendant had also offered the immovable Property as

Security, which stands in the name of his son Viz., Chilukuri Charith Kumar.

The same is an Agricultural Land in an extent of Ac:0.32 Cents in R.S. No:

45/6A situated at Tadanki Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District, entrusted by delivering its Original Sale Deed No: 6109/2015 dated 30.12.2015, But, no document has been executed evidencing such Security either by defendant or by his son.

Further, in another occasion, when the disputes were crept up in the midst of this defendant and one Chennupati Venkateswarlu, they both have arrived at a conclusion at the instance of plaintiff and other elders as they happened to be once carried on business Jointly in doing fish- culture and subsequently divided from their conducting Joint-Business as a consequence of such differences crept up in their midst and both of them 7 had entered into an arrangement by Settlement on 10.07.2017. i.e., on the same day of this defendant's execution of above said blank instruments etc., delivered to plaintiff. This is all happened as both this defendant and the said joint-business holder of him were happened to be once employed in the

Company under the management of Plaintiff. Because of such settlement arrived, whatever the amount payable to the Company by them jointly against their joint-purchases made in the Company shall be borne by only the said Chennupati Venkateswarlu. As of a consequence and the arrangement arrived thereto in the midst of this Defendant, the said

Chennupati Venkateswarlu, in the presence of plaintiff and his son and other elders Viz., Yalamanchi Ramprasad of Garikaparu Village, Thotlavalluru

Mandal, Krishna District, Vampati Ramachandra Rao of Chekkapalli Village,

Musunuru Mandal, Krishina District, Parvathaneni Panduranga Rao of

Nuzvid and M. Gindhi of Tenneru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District and this defendant's son Ch. Charith Kumar of Tadanki Village,

Pamidimuklala Mandal, Krishnat District etc., this defendant had made a payment of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs only) in two consecutive days, i.e., on 5th and 6th January, 2018 by P.A making account transfer to the account of plaintiffs Company holding in State Bank of India, monetary involvement thereupon in any aspect whatsoever either with plaintiff or with his joint business holder as all matters once for all settled amicably. Later, the amount payable to the Company by the customers whoever in due had paid directly to the Company under proper receipts.

Because of such, that whatever the dues outstanding as aforesaid were fully 8 paid up and are still continuing their respective accounts as usual with the

Plaintiff's Company. When this defendant had demanded plaintiff for return of the said blank instruments and the Original Sale Deed of his son entrusted to

Plaintiff as of a security for the collection of dues outstanding from the aforesaid customers in the plaint, plaintiff with the active connivance of the said Chennupati Venkateswarlu have turned enemical towards this defendant and they did not return such blank signed instruments to this

Defendant and with a malalide and evil intention filed N.I. Act case in

C.C.No.686/2019 on the file of Learned Court of IV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. But the Defendant did not receive any summons from the Hon'ble court for his appearance.

Further humbly submitted that in reply to the plaint, it is absolutely false to say that all of the above said transactions are also reflected in the Account statement endorsed by the Defendant on 23.07.2017 and the statement of the plaintiff; that subsequently, the

Defendant also issued a cheque bearing No. 459174 for an amount of

Rs.40,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Vuyyuru Branch, Vuyyuru towards the discharge of his liability towards the plaintiff for the amount payable by him under the aforesaid account statement and as the said cheque was dishonored the Plaintiff was obliged to issue a notice dt.01.08.2018 to the Defendant calling upon him to pay the cheque amount; that the Defendant received the said notice and he got issued a reply notice dt.21.08.2018 with all false and untenable allegations: that the Defendant in the said reply notice admitted the said payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees 9

Ten Lakhs only) and Rs.4,00,000/- on 05.01.2018 and 06.01.2018 respectively through bank transactions; that the Plaintiff is denying the allegations made in the said reply notice; that as such, the Plaintiff filed a case in C.C.No.686 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble IV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Vijayawada as the Defendant committed an offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act are not true and correct. It is submitted that if this Hon'ble Court may observe the alleged account statement and the calculations in the plaint, there are several miscalculations in the plaint. The plaintiff said as if nothing existed and did not exist. The plaintiff case in all corners gives a reasonable suspicion that there was no legal enforceable debt and the cheque was not issued for discharge of such liability. The nature of proof lies on prosecution is with high standards proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant had discharged his burden cast under law and had shown the circumstances under which the case of the plaintiff cannot be supposed to be acted upon. The preponderance of probabilities are in favour of defendant for the references discussed above. The initial onus of proof is being discharged by the defendant by showing the non- existence of consideration. The said amounts

Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/-, this defendant transferred to the plaintiff account on 05.01.2018 and 06.01.2018 respectively through bank transactions for the debt which was alleged in the plaint. Further remaining balance of consideration of Rs.3,48,480/- paid by this Defendant to Plaintiff through cash transaction on 10.12.2017. But the plaintiff did not give receipt 10 to that amount. As such this defendant paid all debt towards which he paid goods for his own fish tanks.

The cause of action mentioned in the suit is false and not true and correct and created for the purpose of filing the present suit.

Hence, Defendant prayed the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs.30,06,220/- under Khata Account?

2 Whether there is cause of action for the plaintiff to file the above said suit against the Defendant?

3 To what relief?

5.Counsel for the plaintiff argued that in para 9 and 11 of written statement there is an improvisation. Ex.A2 is filed and which is judgment in

OS.No.15/2021 before VII Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada.

Details with regard to payment paid by the defendant is mentioned. The total amount paid and mentioned in the 4th para of the judgment and finally prayed this Court to Decree the suit

6. Counsel for the defendant argued that on behalf of plaintiff Exs.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked and on behalf of defendant only Ex.B1 marked which is account statement of defendant with the bank on 05.01.2018 and 06.01.2018. Ex.A1 is not related to this case. Appeal is pending against this case before Hon’ble High Court. Ex.A2 is not related to this case. Khata related to the defendant is marked as Ex.A4 with plaintiff. Upto 30.06.2017 only this Khata is maintained. On 09.04.2021 suit filed. Original Khata not 11 filed before this Court. Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are certified copies of Khata. Ex.A6 legal notice is not related to this suit. Ex.A7 is reply. The transactions in

Ex.B1 dt.05.01.2018 and 06.01.2018 were not shown in Khata i.e., Ex.A4.

The plaintiff not issued notice before filing of the suit and finally prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

7.To substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 on his behalf. The plaintiff also examined PW.2 in support of his case. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 was examined and

Ex.B1 was marked.

8. ISSUES No.1 & 2: Since the issues are inter-related, for the sake of brevity and for better appreciation, the issues are taken up together.

The plaintiff filed chief examination affidavit on his behalf and reiterated the contents of plaint. During cross-examination of PW.1 he deposed that Balaji Agro Oils Limited is a registered company as per companies Act. He did not filed certificate of incorporation of his company

before this court. He had filed certified copy of resolution letter of

authorization i.e., Ex.A3 before this court. Their company is a Solvent (Tavudu) Oil Company. Annual turnover of their company is 100 crores approximately. In the year 1995 their company was established and their company is paying income tax regularly since 1995. Their company is having auditor report. The defendant used to work as clerk in their company. He did not remember the salary of defendant per month as their company is having more than 200 employees. The nature of duties of defendant is selling of waste came out from solvent oil, which is used for feeding of fish and also 12 collection of amounts from parties. The suit is based on Khata. He had filed the account statements (Ex.A4 and Ex.A5) of defendant till filing of the suit.

He denied the suggestion that Ex.A5 is not valid as it is not filed as per

Section 64-B of Income Tax Act and that Ex.A6 legal notice was issued to defendant with regard to cheque bounce case, but not with regard to this suit and also Ex.A7 reply notice was got issued by the defendant with regard to cheque bounce case only. Further denied the suggestion that he did not gave any notice to defendant by mentioning amount due by the defendant and that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 Judgment copies are no way related to this case.

Further denied the suggestion that Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 certified copies of account statements are no way related to this suit and that he did not filed any statement with regard to the payment due by the defendant to the company in this suit.

During further cross-examination he deposed he can file the creditor list and debtor list of his firm pertaining to years 2017 to till date

before this court.He had not filed the Debt Admission list of the customers

before this court along with Khata copy of customers. He further deposed

that he had filed the defendant Debt Admission letters Khata before this court. He denied the suggestion that he did not filed the defendant Debt

Admission letters Khata before this court and that the defendant transferred an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 05-01-2018 and Rs.4,00,000/- on 06.01.2018 to him.

The defendant not transferred any amount to his company on 05-01-2018 and 06-01-2018 as such he had not shown any amount in khata 13 account of defendant. He denied the suggestion that he did not filed any documents before this court to show that the defendant is due an amount of

Rs.30,06,220/- to his firm. He denied the suggestion that defendant paid entire amount to his firm and he is intentionally deposing false and that he did not filed necessary documents before this court and suppressed the same and filed unnecessary documents. He denied the suggestion that the defendant is not liable to pay any interest and that this suit is barred by limitation.

The amount of rupees One Crore four thousand seven twenty five is not shown in the account of defendant. He further deposed that the said amount will be reflected in accounts of customers. He had filed the letters given by the customers to show that the defendant used the amount of customers after selling the product. He denied the suggestion that he had filed the statement of defendant but not the account of the defendant and also their customers.

9.During PW.2 cross-examination he deposed that he is working as Accountant since 20 years. Their company deals with extraction from rice bran and their company turnover is Rs.150 crores per annum. Their company is having auditor and if turnover exceeds Rs.40 lakhs auditor gives his report. Their company is paying income tax regularly. Their company gives credit and details will be given in credit account of the person who purchased the items. He admitted that the defendant is having Khata in their company and that as per the Khata account of the defendant filed before this court the defendant is due an amount of Rs.17,48,480/-. He denied the 14 suggestion that the defendant paid Rs.10,00,000/- on 05.01.2018 and

Rs.4,00,000/- on 06.01.2018 through RTGS to their company and that their company has received Rs.14,00,000/- but he is intentionally deposing false, that he has not paid. Further denied the suggestion that the remaining amount of Rs.3,48,340/- paid by cash by the defendant to their company.

Plaintiff filed personal account copy of defendant in this court. He denied the suggestion that their company has not given any legal notice to the defendant for the due amount. He did not filed any document before this court to show that they are charging 24% interest on the amount due by the defendant and that that the particulars of claim is false.

During further cross-examination he deposed that they had filed account extract statement of the defendant upto 2021 i.e., upto filing of this suit. Plaintiff company account is in SBI. He cannot say the account number of their company. He did not remember the account number of plaintiff company as there are 3 or 4 account numbers. As such he cannot say the statement shown to him belongs to plaintiff company or not. He denied the suggestion that the defendant paid an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- through account transfer and later remaining amount of Rs.3,48,480/- paid by way of cash but intentionally they suppressed the said fact and filed this false suit against the defendant.

10.DW.1 filed his chief affidavit and during his cross-examination he admitted that the plaintiff filed another suit against him vide

OS.No.15/2021 on the file of VII Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division)

Vijayawada and same was decreed. He had preferred appeal. He did not 15 know the appeal number. He did not know how much amount the court ordered him to pay. He adduced his evidence in that suit and he know the contents of defence and suit. He do not know whether he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.82,56,245/- and he paid some amount and the said suit was filed to pay the remaining amount. He admitted that the plaintiff company filed cheque bounce case vide CC.No.329/2020 on the file of IV

Special Magistrate court, Vijayawada and in the said case he was convicted.

He had preferred appeal vide appeal No.81/2023 on the file of Hon’ble VIII

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and the said appeal was

dismissed. He admitted that the cheque amount under CC.No.329/2020 is

Rs.40,00,000/-. He denied the suggestion that his defence in both the proceedings are that he paid the amount Rs.10,00,000/- on 05.01.2018 and

Rs.4,00,000/- on 06.01.2018 for total liability.

He admitted that he gave reply notice to the notice under Ex.A7 through his counsel Bheemana Hari Babu. He know the contents of his reply notice and the contents are true and correct. He admitted that he did not mentioned in his reply notice that he had paid Rs.14,00,000/- towards the

Khata transaction which is subject matter of present suit and that he had mentioned in his reply notice that he had paid Rs.14,00,000/- on 05.01.2018 and 06.01.2018 towards full and final settlement of all financial transactions between him and plaintiff and company in the presence of elders.

He admitted that he is not having any documentary proof to show that he had paid Rs.3,48,480/- to plaintiff company after deducting the above said Rs.14,00,000/-. Further admitted that he is not having any 16 dispute with regard to payable amount of Rs.17,48,480/- to plaintiff company.

He do not know whether the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- wad deducted out of the misappropriated amount. He denied the suggestion that Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- are not paid for the present suit

Khata. Except the bank proof he is not having any other documentary proof to show that he had paid Rs.14,00,000/- towards the suit transaction. He admitted that the plaintiff company paid Rs.40,00,000/- to his son when he went to abroad and later he had repaid the same. He did not filed any suit against plaintiff company to return his blank signed cheques and blank signed promissory notes. He admitted that NBW is pending against him issued by Trial Court vide CC No.329/2020. He denied the suggestion that he is liable to pay the suit amount and to avoid the same he came with false defence.

11. The main contention of the defendant is that he paid a sum of

Rs.14,00,000/- on 05.01.2018 and 06.01.2018 by way of account transfer to the plaintiff. In order to substantiate the same, he filed his bank account statement, which was marked as Ex.B1. On perusal of Ex.B1, it reveals that an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was paid on two different dates. However, the suit claim is for Rs.17,48,480/-.

Admittedly, two cases are pending against the defendant on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada, and another case is pending before the Special Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. During cross-examination, the defendant deposed that in his reply notice he had stated that he paid Rs.14,00,000/- on 05.01.2018 and 06.01.2018 towards 17 full and final settlement of all financial transactions between himself, the plaintiff, and the company, in the presence of elders. However, the defendant neither mentioned the names of those elders nor examined them as witnesses on his behalf.

He further admitted that he has no documentary proof to show that he paid the balance amount of Rs.3,48,480/- to the plaintiff company after deducting the said Rs.14,00,000/-. He also stated that he does not know whether the amounts of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- were adjusted out of the alleged misappropriated amount.

Though the defendant contends that he paid Rs.14,00,000/- and filed his account statement in support thereof, there is no evidence to establish that he paid the entire suit amount to the plaintiff company. Hence, the defendant has failed to prove his contention. Accordingly, all the issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount of Rs.30,06,220/- from the defendant. With future interest at the rate of 12% PA from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, at 6% PA from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.17,48,480/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of November, 2025.

Sd/-D.Geetha Rani

I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

VIJAYAWADA.

18

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For plaintiff For defendant PW.1: Vallabhaneni Venkata Ramaiah DW.1: Chilukuri Sambasiva Rao

PW.2: Navaneetham Srinivasa Rao

Documents marked

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1:Certified copy of the Judgment in CC.No.329/2023 on the file of IV Special Magistrate Court, Vijayawada dt.23.03.2023.

Ex.A2:Certified copy of the Judgment in OS.NO.15/2021 on the file of VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dt.15.09.2023.

Ex.A3Certified copy of resolution letter of authorization dt.13.08.2018.

Ex.A4:Certified copy of the Khata Account Statement of the defendant.

Ex.A5:Certified copy of consolidated account statement.

Ex.A6:Certified copy of legal notice issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, dt.01.08.2018.

Ex.A7:Certified copy of the reply notice got issued by the defendant, dt.21.08.2018.

FOR DEFENDANT

Ex.B1:Attested copy of Bank Account statement of defendant issued by SBI, Vuyyuru Branch, dt.10.07.2025.

Sd/-D.Geetha Rani

I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: SMT D.GEETHA RANI

I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada.

Friday, this 13th day of March, 2026.

O.S.No.756 of 2017

Between:

1.Madamsetty @ Madhamsetti Siva Kumari (Died)

2.Krishna Kumari Madamsetty, @ Madhamsetti, W/o.Late Siva Kumar, Hindu, aged 51 years, R/o.D.No.41-1/9-53, Gowthami Nagar, 4th Lane, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada-13, NTR District, Rep by her GPA Holder i.e., Siva Rama Krishna Madamsetty, S/o.Late Siva Kumar, Hindu, aged 38 years, R/o.D.No.41-1/9-53, Gowthami Nagar, 4th Lane, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada-13, NTR District.

3.Siva Rama Krishna Madamsetty, @ Madhamsetti, Son of Late Siva Kumar, Hindu, aged about 38 years, R/o.D.No.41-1/9-53, Gowthami Nagar, 4th Lane, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada-13, NTR District.

4.Seetha Rama Krishna Madamsetty @ Madhamsetti, S/o.Late Siva Kumar, Hindu, aged 35 years, working as Principal Software Engineer, R/o.2285, Redington Dr.Tracy, California Zip Code 95377, U.S.A. R/o.D.No.41-1/9-53, Gowthami Nagar, 4thLane, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada-13, NTR District.

Plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as per the orders in IA.No.350/2024 by the

Hon’ble Court on 05.08.2025)

Plaintiffs

And

1.Polina Venkateswaramma @ Polineni Venkateswaramma @ Polineni Sumasri, W/o.Krishna Kumar, Hindu, aged about 44 years, Resident of Nagendra Towers, Flat No.1, Ground Floor, Door No.24-28/6-5, Edupuganti Lakshmana Rao Street, Durgapuram, Vijayawada-2, Krishna District.

2.Polina @ Polineni Krishna Kumar, S/o.Sudarsana Raju, Hindu, aged about 46 years, Resident of Nagendra Towers, Flat No.1, Ground Floor, Door No.24-28/6-5, Edupuganti Lakshmana Rao Street, Durgapuram, Vijayawada-520002, Krishna District.

Defendants

This Suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri.Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for Defendants and upon hearing both sides, this court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendants to declare the 1st plaintiff as the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property under the

Registered Sale Deed, Dt.21.05.2008 vide Doc.No.2743/2008 registered on the file of District Registrar, Vijayawada. B) To grant the consequential relief of permanent Injunction against the defendants by ejecting them from the plaint schedule property under due process of law and for costs of the suit.

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

The plaintiff submitted that originally, the 1st plaintiff has purchased an undivided and unspecified joint share of an extent of 25.0 Sq. yards or 20.90

Sq. mtrs of site out of a total extent of 366.7 Sq. yards or 306.619 Sq. mtrs of site bearing Flat No.1, Ground Floor of Nagendra Towers, D.No.24-28/6-5,

Edupuganti Lakshmana Rao Street, Durgapuram, Vijayawada-2, Krishna District in favour of his minor daughter, Madamsetty @ Madhamsetti Venkata Sai Krishna

Siva Sri, being represented by him as guardian father from one Kondapalli Siva

Satyanarayana, S/o.Narasaiah for a valuable consideration under a Regd. Sale

Deed, Dt.21.05.2008 vide Doc.No.2743/2008 registered on the file of Vijayawada

District Registrar, Vijayawada, which is called as plaint schedule property and the schedule is annexted to the plaint.

Further submitted that the 1st defendant is the kept mistress of the 1st plaintiff and due to their relation, she delivered a female child by name

Madamsetty @ Madhamsetti Venkata Sai Krishna Siva Sri and told to the 1st

Plaintiff that the female child was born to him. Prior to that, the 1st defendant was absconded from the house of the 1st plaintiff by grabbing cash and gold ornaments worth of Rs.70,000/- and again the 1st plaintiff caught hold her and brought her to Vijayawada. At that time, the 1st defendant went to Hyderabad to the house of Mokkapati Siva Kumari, who is maintaining a brothel den.

Subsequently, on two occasions, on 16.07.2008 the 1st plaintiff gave

Rs.8,00,000/- worth of Gold Ornaments to the 1st Defendant and in the month of

March, 2007 Rs.15,00,000/- worth of Gold Ornaments to the 1st Defendant with an understanding that the said valuables are to be utilized for the education, health and marriage purposes of the female child and staying at Hyderabad. However, after a gap of 7 years, the 1st defendant when informed about the illness of the said female child daughter, out of love and affection the 1st plaintiff came down to

Hyderabad all the way from Bangalore, thought he was taking treatment for his ailments at Bangalore and spent about Rs.9,00,000/- towards the medical check – up and aid to the said female child. He went to the extent of giving a Debit Card of

Andhra Bank, Krishnalanka Branch, Vijayawada, which is in the name of the 1st plaintiff for the purpose of using the same for rendering any medical aid to the female child. Finally, the child was discharged from the hospital giving a fond hope that was cleared from the disease and suggested that she has to take the prescribed medicine regularly and maintain hightly hygienic inhabitation.

But, the reasons best known to the mother of the child i.e., 1st defendant was taking the child from poll to pillar i.e., from Hyderabad to

Vijayawada, Vijayawada to Bangalore, Bangalore to Vijayawada and back to

Hyderabad, etc., during hot summer season between May and June, 2017, particularly when the doctor suggested her not to travel more than 5 Kmts., From

Hyderabad, as a consequences, she became weak. At this juncture, the 1st defendant waged a war against the 1st plaintiff by conducting press conferences and informing to media stating that the father of the child is not responding when his daughter was suffering with serious disease like blood cancer and started blackmailing the 1st plaintiff and thus, she was instrumental for defaming the 1st plaintiff and also with a malafide intention to grab the plaint schedule property.

When the 1st plaintiff who is suffering with certain ailments and taking treatments, did not receive any of the information focused by the 1st defendant as aforesaid, but the 1st defendant was under the impression that the 1st plaintiff knowing fully well about all the above facts is not responding. As such, she wanted to aggravate the situation by creating a serious cinematic scenes in the press as well as media. In that process, the defendants 1 and 2 went to the extent of even killing the female child mercilessly and brutally on 12.05.2017 itself and brought on to the screen on 14.05.2017, as if she died on the particular date and though the female child was not married, she was burnt. Infact, as per the Hindu Rites and customs, a child or woman dies without marriage, she will be buried, but she cannot be burnt, the defendants wantonly burnt the body of the deceased female child only to obliterate the evidences. This clearly shows the cruel and criminal attitude of the defendants.

Further submitted that, the 1st plaintiff has leased out the plaint schedule property to one Akam Sridhar, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Cell

No.8019748219, a Railway Employee, and subsequently, to one Jaldi

Ravindra Kumar, S/o.Yoan, has occupied the plaint schedule property as a tenant till the date of dispossession of him by the 1st defendant and her henchmen. The said Jaldi Ravindra Kumar was dispossessed from the plaint schedule property by the defendants and their henchmen by threatening him that they will implicate false cases against him have forcibly occupied the plaint schedule property illegally, unlawfully, and highhandedly. In this behalf, the dispossessed tenant lodged a complaint with the police at Suryaraopet for action against the defendants and their henchmen on 27.04.2017 and the same is pending. Subsequently, the defendants were served with notices and a caveat petition was filed on 14.05.2017 in Caveat Petition No.93/2017 on the file of Vacation Addl. District Judge Court, Vijayawada in a much as, both of them started making hectic efforts to alienate/dispose the plaint schedule property even without the knowledge of the 1st Plaintiff. After the completion of the tenure of the caveat period by 15.08.2017, another caveat petition was filed after serving notices to both the defendants vide Caveat No.395/2017,

Dt.06.09.2017 and it will be in force for 90 days.

However, the defendants along with their henchmen, are still living plaint schedule property without having any title or right whatsoever and because of their illegal and unauthorized occupation of the plaint schedule property, the 1st plaintiff is unable to enter into the premises though he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and having absolute right and title in his favour, in as much as, he himself out of his personal earnings had purchased the said plaint schedule property. Thus, he was deprived of his legitimate right over his own property due to the evil desires and interruptions that are being caused by the defendants and their henchmen. Under such circumstances, the 1st plaintiff is not only suffering a lot mentally and he is also suffering financial loss, as there is no other go, the 1st plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit seeking for declaration of the plaint schedule property and also for granting permanent injunction by ejecting the defendants from the plaint schedule property under due process of law as he is the true owner having absolute rights, title over the plaint schedule property in his favour as guardian father to the deceased female child and for the other reliefs that may be passed by this Hon’ble Court.

Further submitted that during the pendency of the suit proceedings the 1st plaintiff died on 14.07.2024 as intestate, leaving behind his wife and two children i.e., Plaintiffs 2 to 4 were impleaded as parties in the above suit.

(Plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as per the orders in IA.No.350/2024 by the

Hon’ble Court on 05.08.2025).

3.The 1st Defendant filed written statement at length and the same is adopted by the 2nd defendant. The brief averments of written statement are as follows:-

This defendant submitted that the plaintiff cannot enter into the plaint schedule property as they have no right, title, interest and possession over the plaint schedule property and the allegation to that affect that the plaintiff and his henchmen are under unauthorized and illegal occupation is absolutely incorrect and nor born by any evidence or truth. The plaintiff did not purchase the plaint schedule property, and on the other hand the property stands in the name of the deceased child which the 1st defendant and others have a revisionary right. The plaintiff cannot interfere with the right of the deceased child or her heirs.

The plaintiff filed the suit in a gambling manner for a wrongful gain to himself and to cause wrongful loss to the defendants.

Further submitted that the plaintiff is at liberty to produce such document of title to the plaint schedule property if any and on his failure to do so, the plaintiff is liable for payment of damages to the 1st defendant for brining vexatious litigations.

Hence, the 1st defendant prayed the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.

Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1 Whether the plaintiff established that he is the natural father

of the M.Venkata Sai Krishna Siva Sri ?

2 Whether the plaintiff proves that he purchased the plaint

schedule property under registered sale deed dt.21.05.2008,

in the name of M.Venkata Sai Krishna Siva Sri?

3 Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule

property ?

4 Whether the plaintiff established that D1 and D2 dispossessed

his tenants from plaint schedule property ?

5 Whether the defendants have been in unauthorised and illegal

occupation of plaint schedule property without any right, title and interest?

6 Whether the plaintiff entitled of declaration as prayed?

7 Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek eviction of defendants from

plaint schedule property?

8 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as

prayed for? 9 To what relief?

4.During the course of trial, the plaintiff No.1 examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 on his behalf. The plaintiff also examined

PW.2 and PW.3 in support of their case. PW.1 to PW.3 were cross examined at length.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st plaintiff died and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.

6.On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 to

Ex.B4 were marked. Later DW.1 was also cross examined at length.

7.When the matter was pending for further defendant evidence, the parties to the suit have amicably settled their disputes outside the Court.

Accordingly, both the plaintiffs and the defendants have filed a petition under

Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting this Court to record the compromise entered into between them and to pass a decree in terms of the compromise.

8.The compromise petition is signed by all the parties and also by their respective learned counsel. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and carefully perused the compromise petition and the terms and conditions agreed between the parties.

9.As per the terms of compromise, the plaintiffs admitted that the

Sale Deed dated 21.05.2008 registered as Document No.2743 of 2008 on the file of the District Registrar Office, Vijayawada stood in the name of

Madhamsetty Venkata Sai Krishna Siva Sri, daughter of the 1st plaintiff, and by virtue of the said sale deed she became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

10.It is further stated in the compromise that the said Madhamsetty

Venkata Sai Krishna Siva Sri died on 14.04.2017 leaving behind the 1st defendant as her sole legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act, and consequently the 1st defendant became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

11.The plaintiffs have admitted that the 1st defendant alone is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and that the property is in her peaceful possession and enjoyment. The plaintiffs further agreed that they have no right, title or interest over the plaint schedule property and they shall not create any obstruction or interference in the enjoyment or dealing of the said property by the 1st defendant.

12.The plaintiffs have also agreed that the 1st defendant is entitled to mutate her name in all municipal and other revenue records relating to the plaint schedule property without any objection from the plaintiffs.

13.It is further agreed that the plaintiffs have delivered the original

Sale Deed dated 21.05.2008 along with the original link documents relating to the plaint schedule property to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant acknowledged the receipt of the same.

Further all the Plaintiff confirm that the suit filed by Manikonda Sai

Babu in OS.No.1762 of 2023 against the 1st Plaintiff on the file of V Additional

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada, which was subsequently decreed

and was the subject matter of EP.No.72 of 2024, was terminated and full satisfaction was recorded.

The 1st defendant undertakes and declares that she shall not, at any time hereafter, institute, initiate, prosecute, or maintain any suit, petition, application, claim, or other legal proceedings of whatsoever nature, either directly or indirectly, before any Court of law or authority, claiming any right, title, interest, or share in respect of the properties belonging to and standing in the name of the Plaintiffs, which are in their possession and enjoyment subsequent to the demise of Madhamsetti Siva Kumar, who was the husband of the 2nd Plaintiff and the father of the Plaintiff Nos.3 & 4.

14.As part of the settlement, the 1st defendant has paid a sum of

Rs.6,96,600/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Six Hundred only) to the 3rd plaintiff by way of Demand Draft No.564664 dated 01.01.2026 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Governorpet Branch, Vijayawada, towards full and final settlement of the disputes between the parties and the plaintiffs acknowledged the receipt of the said amount.

15.The plaintiffs have also assured that there are no encumbrances or attachments over the plaint schedule property and both parties have agreed to bear their respective costs.

16.Both parties have further undertaken that they shall not dispute the present compromise or the terms thereof in future and that all claims and counter claims between the parties stand fully and finally settled.

17.This Court, upon hearing both the parties and upon perusing the compromise petition and the terms contained therein, is satisfied that the compromise entered into between the parties is lawful and voluntary and that there is no legal impediment to record the same. Hence, the compromise petition filed by the parties is recorded.

18. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties.

It is hereby declared that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and she shall be entitled to enjoy the same with full rights and to deal with the property in any manner she deems fit.

The plaintiffs shall have no right, title or interest whatsoever over the plaint schedule property and they shall not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the 1st defendant.

The 1st defendant is entitled to mutate her name in all municipal and other records pertaining to the plaint schedule property without any objection from the plaintiffs.

Both parties shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court, this the 13th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-D.Geetha Rani

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT :

PW.1: Madamsetty Siva Kumar DW.1: Polina Venkateswaramma

PW.2: Koppula Venkata Siva Prasad

PW.3: Pothana Sobhan Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1:Notarized copy of Regd. Sale Deed bearing document No.2743/2008 executed by Kondapalli Siva Satyanarayana in favour of plaintiff, dt.21.05.2008.

Ex.A2:Notarized copy of death certificate of M.Venkata Siva Krishna Siva Sri issued by the Births and Deaths, Registrar, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, dt.19.09.2017.

Ex.A3:Notarized copy of valuation certificate cum EC, Dt.07.09.2017.

Ex.A4:Notarized copy of police complaint given by plaintiff to Suryarao pet Police Station including postal acknowledgment, dt.06.08.2017.

Ex.A5:Notarized copy of caveat petition No.395/2017 filed against defendants on the file of Hon’ble II Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada.

Ex.A6:Notarized copy of marriage certificate of defendants No.1 and 2 issued by District Registrar, Hyderabad, dt.21.04.2011.

Ex.A7:Notarized copy of marriage photos of defendant No.1 and 2 (Total 7 in number)

Ex.A8:Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card acknowledgment/Resident copy of deceased daughter of plaintiff., dt.26.02.2011.

Ex.A9:Notarized copy of family enrollment receipt of defendants together with the deceased child P.Venkata Sai Krishna Siva Sri., dt.26.02.2011.

Ex.A10:Compact Disc (CD) and Pen-drive.

Ex.A11:Notarized copy of complaint submitted to the Commissioner of

Police, Vijayawada along with postal acknowledgment.

FOR DEFENDANT :

Ex.B1:Outpatient Bills of Deceased Madamsetty Venkata Sai Krishna Siva Sri, issued by Apollo Hospital Hyderabad.

Ex.B2:In patient Bills of Deceased Madamsetty Venkata Sai Krishna Siva Sri, issued by Apollo Hospital Hyderabad.

Ex.B3:Bunch of Medical Bills of deceased Madamsetty Venkata Sai Krishna Siva Sri.

Ex.B4:Bunch of Hospital Bills of deceased Madamsetty Venkata Sai Krishna Siva Sri.

(Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked subject to objection by counsel for plaintiff)

Sd/-D.Geetha Rani

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA