G.anwar Basha

1 2

1. This is a claim petition filed U/S.166(1)(c) of M.V.Act read with rules 455 & 475 of A.P.M.V.Rules by the legal heirs of Deceased T.

Munaswamy claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­ for the untimely death of T. Munaswamy in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13­06­2011 at about 11.00 AM at Poornakumbam Circle on

Tirumala bypass road and sought for an award against R.1 and R.3 jointly and severally.

2. The case of the claim petitioners is that, on 13­06­2011 at about 11.00 AM at Poornakumbam Circle on Tirumala bypass road the driver of Volvo Bus bearing No. KA01/AD/8881 had driven it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against Pedestrian T. Munaswamy who sustained bleeding injury on his left leg. Immediately, he was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati and Duty Doctor examined him and confirmed that, he was already dead. On a report, the SHO of

Traffic P.S Tirupati registered a case in Cr.No.76 of 2011 under

Section 304­A of IPC. The Deceased T. Munaswamy was aged about 50 years and he was hale and healthy and was a crafts man by profession, earning Rs.400/­ per day and contributing the same to the Petitioners. The Petitioners are legal heirs and dependents of deceased and lost their sole bread winner in the accident. Hence this petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­ under different heads.

3. There are three respondents in this case. R.1 has remained exparte. R.2 and R.3 have filed separate written statements. The brief facts as mentioned in the written statement filed by R.2 are that, the allegations made in paras 3, 4,5,6,8,9,15,16,17,22,23,and 25 3 are not true and correct. The allegations made in para 26 with regard to the age as 50 years, occupation as crafts man earning

Rs.10,000/­ per month, nature of accident, registration of crime and insured the same with this respondent insurance company dependency are not true and correct and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. The driver of the bus was driving the same with due care and caution at Poornakumbam Circle and that, the deceased suddenly crossed the road without observing traffic rules and regulations. So, there was no negligence on part of the driver of the bus and total negligence on the part of deceased.

This respondent after verifying the records, the 1st respondent has not insured the bus with their insurance company. As per details given in long cause title the policy bearing

No.073200/31/910/01/00006356 related to United India Insurance

Company and not to their insurance company. This respondent is unnecessary party. The deceased was not doing any work and thereby earning Rs.10,000/­ per month and further the deceased was a nonearning person. The petitioners are not legal representatives and dependents of deceased and the deceased was aged more than 55 years. Hence, the petition is liable to dismiss with costs.

4. The case of 3rd respondent is that, the allegations in para­3 of petition regarding necessary particulars in respect of deceased T.

Munaswamy and the vehicle involved in the accident are all not true and correct and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. The age of deceased was 50 years and he was crafts man earning Rs.10,000/­ per month are not admitted to be true and 4 correct. The relationship of the deceased with the petitioners as wife and sons is not admitted to be true and correct and the petitioners are not the legal heirs and representatives of the

Deceased T. Munaswamy and they are not entitled to any compensation. The claim for compensation at Rs.5,00,000/­ is not at all sustainable and highly excessive. The allegations in para­26 are not at all true and correct. It is false and baseless to allege that, the deceased T.Munaswamy was aged about 50 years at the time of alleged accident and that he was doing crafts man business and earning Rs.400/­ per day and was contributing the same to the petitioners are all not true and correct. It is also false and baseless to allege that, the petitioners are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased and lost their sole bread winner in the accident and that 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are sons. The allegations in para­26 (d) that the driver of 1st respondent Volvo bus bearing No. KA01/AD/8881 committed the accident in the course of his employment while discharging his duties under the 1st respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners are not true and correct and the petitioners are put to strict proof and the same. It is also false and baseless to allege that, the 1st respondent insured his vehicle with 3rd respondent and indemnified him with all risks and hence both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. In any event this respondent is not at all liable to pay any compensation and that 1st respondent is not at all indemnified by this respondent. The 1st respondent has not at all insured his vehicle with this respondent in respect of alleged vehicle 5 bearing No. KA01/AD/8881 and no policy of insurance was issued to the 1st respondent, as such there is no contract of insurance between this respondent and the 1st respondent and this respondent not at all liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. That apart the driver of the 1st respondent did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the particular clause of vehicle involved in the accident. The interest claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and the petitioners are not legal heirs. Hence, the petition is liable to dismissed with costs.

5. Basing on the above said pleadings my learned predecessor in office framed the following issues for trial.

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of Volo

Bus bearing Regn. No. KA01/AD/ 8881 of 1 st

Respondent on 13­06­2011 and whether T.

Munaswamy died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident?

(2) What was the age and income of the

deceased on the date of his death?

(3) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for

compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?

(4) To what relief?

6

6. On behalf of petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.5 were filed. On behalf of respondents, R.Ws1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 were filed.

7. ISSUE NOs.1 to 3:­

The burden of proving these issues is on the claimants. The claimants are claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­ under different heads on the ground that due to negligent driving of Volvo bus the accident was occurred due to which deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. In order to substantiate the case of petitioners, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to A.5 were filed. P.W.1, T. Gurudev, is the third petitioner . P.W.2, T. Rudraiah, is a third party. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 is certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.3 is certified copy of inquest report , Ex.A.4 is certified copy of post­mortem certificate , Ex.A.5 is certified copy of Accident information report in form­54. Before appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, it has to be seen as to what is the legal position in case of deaths as the petition is filed under section 166 of MV Act.

8. Legal Position:­

In cases of death The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment 7 of compensation. Basically, only three facts need to be establish by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death , i.e (1) age of deceased; (2) income of deceased and (3) the number of dependents. The income of the deceased should be determined and out of the said income personal and living expenses of the deceased to be deducted. The balance is to be considered his contribution to dependent family, which constitutes multiplicand. The multiplier should be chosen from the table with reference to the age of the deceased. The annual contribution to the family when multiplied by such multiplier gives loss of dependency to the family. No amount should be awarded for pain and suffering of the legal heirs of deceased except funeral expenses, cost of transportation and cost of medical treatment of deceased before death.

9. The case on hand:­

The case of the petitioners is that deceased T. Munaswamy was met with an accident on 13­06­2011 at about 11.00 AM at

Poornakumbam Circle on Tirumala bypass road due to negligent driving of Volvo bus bearing No. KA01/AD/8881 due to which he sustained injuries and died because of injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. The petitioners have filed criminal case record under Ex.A.1 to A.5, apart from leading oral evidence. In the cross­examination of P.W.1, it was elicited that, the accident was occurred due to involvement of Volvo belonging to Karnataka State.

It was also a elicited that, firstly they filed case showing R.2, New

India Assurance Co. Ltd being insurer of 1st respondent. It was further elicited that, he was not claiming any amount from R.2 in 8 this case. In the cross­examination by R.3 it was elicited that except agricultural income the deceased had no other sources of income and he has not filed any revenue record to show that they possess lands. It was also elicited that, he did not know whether

R.1 had insured his bus with R.3. It was suggested that R.3 was not liable to pay compensation since they have not indemnified the risks of 1st respondent. In the cross­examination of P.W.2, it was elicited to the accident was occurred at about 11.00 AM or 12.00 noon near Poornakumbam Circle on Tirumala bypass road. It was also elicited that, he cannot say the number of the crime vehicle. It was suggested that he had not witnessed the occurrence and was giving false evidence. Ex.A.1 certified copy of FIR goes to show that a case in Cr.No.76 of 2011 for the offence under section 304­A of

IPC was registered against driver of Volvo bus bearing No.

KA01/AD/8881. Ex.A.2 certified copy of charge sheet, goes to show that the driver of Volvo bus by name Mohammod Shaffiulla was charged under section 304­A of IPC. Ex.A.3 certified copy of inquest report goes to show that the deceased died due to sustaining injuries in the motor vehicle accident which was caused by negligent driving of Volvo bus bearing No. KA01­AD­8881. Ex.A.4 certified copy of post­mortem certificate goes to show that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due to crush injury of left lower limb. Ex.A.5, Accident information report, goes to show that an accident was caused by bus bearing KA01­AD­8881. As against the above said evidence, respondent No.3/ insurance company has not produced any evidence that the Volvo bus did not involve in any accident. From the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and Ex.A.1 to A.5, it is 9 establish that the deceased while going by walk was met with an accident due to negligent driving of Volvo bus bearing No. KA01­AD­ 8881 due to which he sustained injuries and died due to motor vehicle accident.

10. The learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company contended that the Volvo bus bearing No. KA01­AD­8881 was not insured with 3rd respondent and that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. R.3 respondent company has examined R.W.1 and has filed Ex.B.1 insurance policy. R.W.1 has stated that the 1st respondents bus bearing No. KA01­AD­8881 was not at all insured with their company. She has also stated that their company issued a policy bearing No. 072300311OP126595292 for vehicle bearing No. KA­01­E­8881 for the period from 05­01­2011 to 04­01­2012. In cross­examination of R.W.1, she has admitted that she did not know whether crime vehicle was owned by 1st respondent. R.W.2 was examined to speak that the registration number KA­O1­E­8881 belongs to a motor cycle of one Mohammad

Arif. R.W.3 was examined to speak that there was no driving licence to the driver of Volvo bus. But in the cross­examination he has admitted that, he has not verified the record properly. Ex.B.1 is the Certified true copy of certificate of insurance which was issued in favour of managing director Karnataka State Tourism

Department Corporation Ltd for the vehicle bearing No. KA01/E 8881.

The engine number mentioned in Ex.B.1 is 181140 and Chasis number is 8101643. This was the vehicle to which the insurance policy was issued which was valid from 05­01­2011 to 04­01­2012.

In Ex.A.5 the engine number is mentioned as 181140/ and Chasis 10 number is mentioned as 8101643. Therefore, the policy was issued to the bus with the above said engine number and Chasi number and it was that bus which involved in the accident and R.3 insurance company cannot avoid its liability by mentioning wrong vehicle number in Ex.B.1.

11. The petitioners are claiming that the deceased was aged about 50 years working as crafts man and earning Rs.10,000/­ per month. The petitioners have not filed any age proof of deceased.

The age of deceased is mentioned as 50 years in Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2,

Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4, hence, the age is to be taken as 50 years and the multiplier applicable is ‘13’. With regard to income of deceased the petitioners have not filed any document in support their claim.

Hence, minimum income of Rs.4,500/­ per month is to be taken as the income of the deceased and if 1/3rd amount is deducted towards personal expenses the multiplicand is Rs.3,000/­. There is no evidence that the deceased was self­employed. As such the petitioners are entitled to following amounts under different heads:

(1)Funeral expensesRs.10,000­00 (2)Transport chargesRs.2000­00 (3)Loss of ConsortiumRs.15,000­00 (4)Loss of love and affectionRs.5,000­00 (5)Loss of dependencyRs.4,68,000­00

TotalRs.5,00,000­00 11

12.Therefore, in all the petitioners are awarded compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/­. There are no violations of policy conditions established by the respondents. Hence, the respondent Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation. The claim is not maintainable against R.2. These issues are found accordingly. 

13. ISSUE No.4:­

In view of the findings recorded in the above said issues the petitioners are entitled to compensation amount of Rs Rs.5,00,000/­ with future interest and costs.

14.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ is awarded to the claim petitioners as compensation against respondents 1 and 3 and they are liable to pay the aforesaid compensation jointly and severally. By virtue of contractual obligation, R.3 is liable to indemnify R.1. The 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ within 30 days from the date of this Judgment. The claim petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of deposit.

The 1st petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.3,00,000/­.

The petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to receive an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/­ each. On making deposit by the R.3/insurance

Company, the petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the amounts apportioned to them along with accrued interest. The 1ost petitioner is entitled to receive the costs. The claim against R.2 is dismissed.

Advocate fee is fixed Rs.5,0000/­.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open court, this the 09th day of July, 2018.

Sd/­G.A.B Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­cum­ X Additional District Judge, FAC VI Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

12

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For petitioner:

P.W.1: Sri T. Gurudev

P.W.2: Sri T. Rudraiah

For respondents: ­

R.W.1: Smt T. Sripriya R.W.2: Sri S.R. Seenappa R.W.3: Sri R. Rajappa

Exhibits marked

For petitioner:

Ex.A.1: Certified copy of F.I.R.

Ex.A.2: Certified copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A.3: Certified copy of Inquest report

Ex.A.4: Certified copy of Postmortem Certificate.

Ex.A.5: Certified copy of Form­54

For respondents: ­

Ex.B.1: Policy Ex.B.2: Authorization Letter. Ex.B.3: Register Extract of Motor Cycle

Sd/­ G.A.B

Chairman, MACT­cum­

X ADJ,

FAC VI ADJ,

TPT.

Fair Judgment in 

MVOP No. 213/2012

Dt 09.07.2018

1

In the Court of the VI Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Present: G. Anwar Basha,

X Additional District Judge, 

FAC VI Additional District Judge,Tirupati.

Wednesday, the Eleventh (11 th ) day of July,

Two Thousand Eighteen

A.S. No.32/2004

1. M/s Sai Aswitha Auto Finance, A partnership Firm, Rep by R. Sunil Kumar & Sakurthi Sreethar,

2. R. Sunil Kumar,

3. Sakurthi Sreedhar

4. Mr.Sudhakar .. Appellants

Vs

1. N. Jagadeesan (Plainitff),

2. S. Chakravarthi (D­2),

3. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy (D­6) .. Respondents

On appeal against the Judgment and decree dt 30­04­2004 of learned

Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti and made in 

O.S.No.27/2002

N. Jagadeesan .. Plaintiff

Vs

1. M/s Sai Aswitha Auto Finance, A partnership Firm,

Rep by R. Sunil Kumar & Sakurthi Sreethar,

2. S. Chakravarthi

3. R. Sunil Kumar,

4. Sakurthi Sreedhar

5. Sudhakar

6. Matreddi Chandrasekhara Reddy ... Defendants

…

This appeal suit coming on 09­07­2018 before me in the presence of Sri M.Dorai Raj, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri M. Lakshmana Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Respondents 3 & 4 remained exparte and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal filed under order 41 Rule 1 and Section 96 of

CPC by the unsuccessful Defendants 1,3, to 5 against the judgment and decree dated 30­04­2004 passed in O.S. 27 of 2002 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti.

1. The first Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in the suit. 

2. The brief averments made in plaint are that the plaintiff purchased Tractor bearing No. A.P.0.6777 and trailer bearing No.A.A.E 4446 from D.6 for Rs.1,17,000/­ on 15­07­1999 under a sale letter.

The plaintiff have paid Rs.67,000/­ to D.6 at the time of purchase and in the sale letter it was stated that he owed Rs.50,000/­ to a

Financing Partnership firm by 1st defendant and the plaintiff should discharge the loan on behalf of D.6. D.6 delivered tractor cum trailer to the Plaintiff and assured that he would deliver forms 29 and 30 under Motor Vehicles Act given by one Hanuma Reddy from whom D.6 purchaser said tractor cum trailer on 17­6­1999 utilizing loan of Rs.50,000/­ given to him by D.1. D.6 informed the Plaintiff that, the loan amount should be paid in monthly installments of

Rs.4,450/­ commencing from 14­08­1999 and an additional sum of

Rs.10,000/­ to be paid along with first installment which was taken by D.6 as hand loan. The total amount to be paid was

Rs.63,400/­. Accordingly plaintiff paid more than Rs.63,400/­ and

Rs.10,000/­ as agreed earlier. But in the month of December­2000,

D.2 to D.4 had come to plaintiffs village T.P. Palem and threaten him that they would take away the vehicle since he has not paid four installments, then plaintiff paid Rs.15,000/­ in cash on 07­12­ 2000 under receipt given by D.2 and again another sum of

Rs.5,000/­ by means of Demand Draft obtained on 12­02­2001. The plaintiff after paying the amount due to D.1 had demanded D.6 to deliver forms 29 and 30 signed by Hanuman Reddy, but D.6 was postponing the same. On 28­10­2001 D.2 to D.4 and D.6 had taken away tractor ­cum­ trailer from his village to their office at 3

Medibrulu in spite of protest. When the plaintiff approved the

Defendant for release of the vehicle at Medibrulu they illegally demanded to pay Rs.56,000/­ and plaintiff had paid Rs.49,500/­ by

Demand Draft in the name of D.1 on 13­11­2001 and on 16­11­ 2001 they forcibly taken away Rs.6,100/­ and delivered the tractor cum trailer and delivered form No.29 and 34. Hence, the suit for recovery of excess amount paid on damages of Rs.50,000/­. The appellants are defendants in the suit.

3. Defendant No.4 had filed written statement which was adopted by D.1, D.3 and D.5. In the written statement filed by D.4 the allegations mentioned in the plaint are denied as false. It is stated that this defendant, 5th defendant and 3rd defendant are the partners of 1st defendant firm and it was lending amount of rupees to various persons for purchasing of vehicles and also doing

General Finance. There was no such person by name Chakravarthy.

These defendants have acquainted with one Chandrasekhar Reddy 6th defendant. At his instance the 1st Defendant had lent a sum of

Rs.50,000/­ under pronote dated 14­06­1999 and another sum of

Rs.10,000/­ as hand loan and the plaintiff had made some part payments of Rs.14,550/­ on 14­08­1999 and sum of Rs.49,900/­ on 16­11­2001 to the 1st Defendant. The plaintiff had also borrowed another sum of Rs.55,000/­ from this defendant on 01­08­1999 under a pronote and made part payments through the demand draft and sum of Rs.15,000/­ by way of cash. These payments were exclusively towards the part payments of above said pronotes.

This defendant was not aware of these persons by name Hanuma

Reddy and they never financed any tractor loan to Hanuma Reddy are to 6th Defendant. Whenever they was lending for private purpose not for vehicle loan purpose, payment made to these defendants was shown with vehicle number of borrower in order to seize the vehicle. This defendant are any other defendants never seized vehicle and never extracted Rs.56,000/­. The defendant have also not handed over any firms to plaintiff. The plaintiff had failed to re­pay the debts due to this defendant and 1st defendant. The plaintiff in order to cover up his latches had given lawyer notice 4 with false allegations and a suitable reply notice was issued. After issuing reply notice this defendant along with other partners had gone plaintiff and request to clear the debts and in the presence of mediators to plaintiff had promised to settle accounts and further admitted about execution of pronotes in favour of this defendant and 1st Defendant and has also executed a letter on 04­02­2002. This defendant and 1st defendant have filed suits against plaintiffs on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur and suit were yet to be numbered. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The brief averments made in the written statement of D.6 are that the allegations in para 3 and 18 are not true and correct and they were concocted for the purpose of filing of the suit. This defendant has nothing to do with this case and he was unnecessarily added as party to the above suit with a view to harass and trouble this defendant to get wrongful gain. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti their following issues for trial.

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to suit amount from the defendants 1 to 6 towards damages and extorted money?

2. Whether D.6 is a necessary and proper party to the suit?

3. Whether the vehicle has been delivered to the plaintiff by D.6 on 15­07­1999 after receiving the cash of Rs.67,000/­ from out of Rs.1,17,000/­.

4. Whether the plaintiff discharged Rs.50,000/­ on 15­07­ 1999 out of Rs.1,17,000/­ of the loan debt of D.6 to d.1 and as per the calculation letter para 4 of the plaint another amount of Rs.66,500/­ from 14­08­1999 to 14­ 07­2000?

5. Whether the plaintiff has discharged Rs.15,000/­ to D.2 and obtained the receipt referring the vehicle?

6. Whether the D.1 has entered into an Hire purchase agreement with D.6?

7. Whether D.6 delivered the forms under M.V. Act and licence of the vehicle to D.1 signed by Hanuman Reddy?

8. Whether D.1 to D.4 extorting Rs.50,000/­ illegally from plaintiff on 13­11­2001 and return the vehicle on 16­11­ 2001.

9. Whether the plaintiff has executed any pronote for 5

Rs.50,000/­ on 14­06­1999 in favour of D.1, D.3, D.4 or hand loan of Rs.10,000/­ from D.1 on 14­06­2001 and made any part payments on 14­08­1999 and 16­11­ 2001?

10. Whether the plaintiff has executed any pronote on 01­ 08­1999 for Rs.55,000/­ in favour of d.4?

11. Whether the plaintiff has executed any hand letter on 04­02­2002 in favour of D.4?

12. Whether the sale letter dt. 15­07­1999 in favour of plaintiff by D.6 is true and correct?

13. To what relief?

6. During the trial before lower court P.Ws 1 and 2 are examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.28 were filed. On behalf of the defendant D.W.1 was examined in Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8 were filed. On considering the material brought on record and on hearing learned counsel for both sides, learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti.

Found that Ex.A.1 was true and valid document and decreed the suit with costs. Hence, this appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for 1st Respondent advanced their arguments in accordance with their pleadings and evidence adduced before trial court.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is

factually and legally sustainable or not?

9. Point:­

The plaintiff/1st respondent had filed the suit for recovery of

Rs.1,09, 025/­ being excess amount of Rs.56,000/­ and interest of

Rs.3,025/­ and damages of Rs.50,000/­. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased tractor­trailor bearing numbers APO/6777 and

AAE/4446 from the 6th defendant for Rs.1,17,000/­ and paid

Rs.67,000/­ to the 6th defendant and remaining amount of

Rs.50,000/­ to be paid to the Finance Partnership apart from

Rs.10,000/­ taken by 6th defendant as hand loan and 6th defendant 6 had given to sale letter and assured that he would deliver forms 29 and 30 of MV Act given to him by Hanuma Reddy who purchased tractor –cum­ trailer on 17­06­1999 with loan of Rs.50,000/­. Loan amount to be paid in monthly installments of Rs.4,450/­ from 14­ 08­1999 and additional amount of Rs.10,000/­ to be paid to the 1st defendant. The total amount payable to the 1st Defendant was

Rs.63,400/­ but he had paid Rs.66,500/­ on 07­12­200 he had paid Rs.15,000/­ to 2nd defendant who issued receipt. On 12­02­ 2001 he had paid Rs.5,000/­. On 13­11­2001 the plaintiff had paid

Rs.49,900/­ through Demand Draft and Rs.6,100 on 16­11­2001 which was forcibly taken away by the Defendants. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, P.W.s 1 and P.w.2 examined and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.28 were filed. P.W.1 was cross­examined at length by the learned counsel for 1st defendant No1, 3 to 5. In the cross­ examination P.W.1 he has admitted that, at the time of purchase of tractor from D.6, he never enqirued whether there was any finance to the said tractor or not. When the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had purchased the tractor –cum­ trailer by taking hand loan of Rs.50,000/­, his admission that he did not enquire whether there was any finance to the said tractor is fatal to his case. He has also admitted that, in Ex.A.1 the particulars of Finance company which financed the tractor were not specifically mentioned and D.6 purchased said tractor from Hanuma Reddy. He further admitted that he did not know from whom the said Hanuma Reddy purchased the tractor. He has categorically admitted that there was no proof that 1st defendant financed for purchase of tractor by

Chandra Sekhar Reddy from Hanuma Reddy. Ex.A.1 is a letter executed by D.6 in favour of the plaintiff for which D.1 is not a party and there is no supporting record relating to the finance obtained by D.6. There is no contract between D.1 and Plaintiff.

Hence, Ex.A.1 is not binding on D.1. P.W.1 has further admitted that, D.6 never accompanied him to the 1st defendant office after execution of Ex.A.1 and he never obtained any letter or documents from the 1st Defendant or its partners evidencing the financing of the tractor purchased by Chandra Sekhar Reddy. In fact a hand letter dated 04­02­2002 was filed by the defendants during the 7 cross­examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 has admitted that the signatures on the hand letter dated 04­02­2002, pronote dated 01­08­1999 and another pronote dated 01­06­1999 were his signatures and Ex.B.1 was the hand letter dated 04­02­2002 executed by him and Ex.B.2 and B.3 were the pronotes executed by him on 01­08­1999 and 01­06­1999 respectively and he was not in the habit of signing on blank papers or blank promissory note.

10. The learned Senior Civil judge found that Ex.B.1 was not proved properly. When the plaintiff himself admitted the signature in Ex.B.1 and also admitted the execution of Ex.B.1, then no further proof is required and the finding of the Senior Civil Judge is not correct. P.W.1 has also admitted that, by the date of purchase under Ex.A.1, the C­book of the tractor was in the name of Hanuma Reddy, but not in the name of Chandrasekhar Reddy.

When it is so Ex.A.26 and Ex.A.27 which are signed by D.6 are not valid documents as those documents to be signed by the registered owners and not by any other person. P.W.1 himself has stated that the recitals in Ex.A.3 are incorrect.

11. The plaintiff is contending that his tractor was seized by the defendants. Admittedly, at the time of seizure of tractor ­cum ­trailer the friends and relatives of plaintiff were present and they protested the seizure. P.W.2 was not present at the time of seizure and he has admitted the same. The friends and relatives who were present at the time of seizure were not examined by the plaintiff. The appellants are not parties to Ex.A.1. Simply, because D.6 has executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that it is binding of the appellants. Ex.A.2 goes to show that an amount of Rs.4,550/­ was paid towards hire purchaser, but Ex.A.3 which is on the back side of Ex.A.2 goes to show that Rs.10,000/­ was paid towards hand loan. The plaintiff is not claiming the amounts paid under Ex.A.4, Ex.A.5, Ex.A.6 Ex.A.7, Ex.A.8, Ex.A.9, Ex.A.10, Ex.A11 and A.12. The plaintiff is claiming amount of Rs.56,000/­ which was paid through Demand Draft for an amount of Rs.49,900/­ but no document is filed to show that Rs.49,900/­ was paid towards 8 discharge of vehicle loan amount. There is also no record to show that Rs.6,100/­ was forcibly taken away by the defendants. These are the amounts claimed by the Plaintiff, but he has not filed at least the counter fail of demand draft relating to payment of

Rs.49,900/­ towards vehicle loan. Admittedly, there is no document for payment of Rs.6,100/­. The plaintiff should atleast none shown that on 16­11­2001 he was having Rs.6,100/­. These aspects were not at all considered by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti.

In the absence of any proof relating to vehicle loan and payment of

Rs.56,000/­ by the plaintiff and in the absence of convincing evidence relating to seizure of vehicle, the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit claim. The judgment and decree of the trial court are not factually and legally sustainable and they have to be set­aside. This point is answered in favour of appellants.

12. In the result, the appeal is allowed the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.27 of 2002 on 30­04­2004 by Senior Civil Judge,

Srikalahasti, are set­aside and the suit is dismissed without costs.

Each party to this appeal do bear their own costs. 

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open court, this the 11th day of July, 2018.

X Additional District Judge, FAC VI Additional District Judge, Tirupati

1

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: TIRUPATI.

Present: Sri G.Anwar Basha, V Additional District Judge, FAC. X Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Friday, the 15th day of September, 2023

O.S.No. 149 of 2018

Between :

Tolubandala Balaji.

.. Plaintiff

and,

Peram Srinivasulu

.. Defendant

This suit coming for hearing on 08-09-2023 before me in the presence of Sri U. Lakshmanachari and U. Rajasekhar,

Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri M. Vijaya Sekhar, Advocate for defendant; and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed for cancellation of registered General

Power of Attorney dated 04.12.2014 bearing doc.No.6110 of 2014, for suit costs and other reliefs.

2.The brief averments made in the plaint are that the plaintiff is absolute owner of property mentioned in suit document. The property was situated at Tirupati and due to hard work load in his employment he was unable to maintain the property. Meanwhile, the defendant herein had come forward to maintain the property with a promise to act according to the wishes of the plaintiff. That on 04.12.2014 he has executed a

Registered General Power of Attorney appointing the defendant as his agent and registered the same with Sub-Registrar, 2

Tirupati. As per the recitals of General Power of Attorney the defendant is empowered to let out the property, to develop the property by constructing the houses and obtain electricity service connection, to dig bore well, to obtain loans and to sell property by executing Registered Sale Deeds on behalf of the plaintiff. He was also empowered to engage advocates to conduct the cases if any on behalf of the plaintiff. Later, the plaintiff learnt that, the defendant was collecting the amounts from various persons by showing the property as his own. So far, he has not rendered any accounts. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not respond. The plaintiff lost hope and confidence upon the defendant. Hence, he caused a legal notice to the defendant on 04.09.2016 to come for cancellation of General

Power of Attorney. The defendant with the help of mediators prolonged the matter and did not comply with the demand.

Hence, this suit.

3.The brief averments made in the written statement of defendant are that the allegations made in para 3 of the plaint, para 5 of the plaint, para 6 of the plaint are not true and correct.

There is no cause of action to file the suit and the alleged cause of action was invented for the purpose of filing this false and frivolous suit. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief much less the relief of cancellation of Registered General Power of Attorney

dated 04.12.2014. That, the suit is not maintainable as the

General Power of Attorney dated 04.12.2014 is no more subsisting. On the basis of aforesaid Registered General Power of

Attorney the defendant executed registered sale deed dated 3 17.12.2014 for valid consideration in favour of Smt. Ravilla

Sunithamma. By virtue of said Registered Sale Deed the rights over the property were transferred to the purchaser. On the date of execution of sale deed dated 17.12.2014 possession was delivered to her. Hence, no rights were subsisting and the plaintiff has no right to seek cancellation of General Power of

Attorney. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4.On the basis of above said pleadings, following issues were framed for trial:-

1) Whether the General Power of Attorney dated 04.12.2014 is subsisting or not?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of cancellation of General Power of Attorney dated 04.12.2014 bearing No.6110 of 2014 or note?

3) To what result?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and

Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs. B1 and B2 were marked.

6.Heard both sides and the Learned Counsel for Plaintiff filed written arguments.

ISSUE NOS 1 AND 2:-

7.The burden is of proving these issues is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the suit for cancellation of General

Power of Attorney dated 04.12.2014. The case of the plaintiff is that, the plaintiff is absolute owner of property mentioned in suit document. The property was situated at Tirupati and due to hard work load in his employment he was unable to maintain the property. Meanwhile, the defendant herein had come forward to 4 maintain the property with a promise to act according to the wishes of the plaintiff. That on 04.12.2014 he has executed a

Registered General Power of Attorney appointing the defendant as his agent and registered the same with Sub-Registrar,

Tirupati. As per the recitals of General Power of Attorney the defendant is empowered to let out the property, to develop the property by constructing the houses and obtain electricity service connection, to dig bore well, to obtain loans and to sell property by executing Registered Sale Deeds on behalf of the plaintiff. He was also empowered to engage advocates to conduct the cases if any on behalf of the plaintiff. Later, the plaintiff learnt that, the defendant was collecting the amounts from various persons by showing the property as his own. So far, he has not rendered any accounts. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not respond. The plaintiff lost hope and confidence upon the defendant. Hence, he caused a legal notice to the defendant on 04.09.2016 to come for cancellation of General

Power of Attorney. The defendant with the help of mediators prolonged the matter and did not comply with the demand.

8.To prove the case of the plaintiff, P.W.1, was examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. P.W.1, Tolubandala

Balaji, filed his affidavit in accordance with his pleadings. Ex.A1 is

Certified copy of General Power of Attorney, dated 04.12.2014.

Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice, dated 04.09.2016. P.W.1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendant. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, it was elicited that he does not know what were the transactions done by the defendant in pursuance 5 of General Power of Attorney and he does not know how much amount was taken by the defendant and from whom. It was also elicited that, as per the General Power of Attorney, the defendant was authorized to sell the property. He pleaded ignorance stating that, he does not know whether basing on General Power of

Attorney, the defendant had sold the suit property on 17.12.2014. It was further elicited that, on 04.09.2016 he had come to know about the sale deed executed by the defendant, as such, he had given legal notice to him under Ex.A2. It was further elicited that after filing of the suit he had come to know that the defendant sold the suit property to R. Sunithamma and he could not say the date when he had come to know the same.

9.The defendant was examined as D.W.1, D.W.1, Perum

Srinivasulu, filed his affidavit in accordance with in his written statement. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, it was elicited that the plaintiff had given General Power of Attorney to him and through the said General Power of Attorney the plaintiff had asked him to sell the property and execute document. It was also elicited that he had sold the property on 17.12.2014 and delivered property to the purchaser and he had constructed a compound wall and delivered the property to the purchaser. It was further elicited that the plaintiff was in Kuwait and he had contacted him through phone, and he had agreed to sell the property for Rs.17,10,000/-. It was suggested that before the sale of property, he did not contact the plaintiff. It was elicited that the said amount was not transferred to the plaintiff, but the witness adds that the amount was paid to the friend of plaintiff, 6 and there was a conference call before that. It was suggested that without knowledge of plaintiff, he had sold the property and misused the amount and hence, the General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff is liable to be cancelled.

10.It is admitted fact that, the plaintiff had executed a

General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant authorizing him to sell the property. The General Power of Attorney was executed on 04.12.2014 and the property was sold away on 17.12.2014 within 13 days. The defendant says that he had also delivered the property to the purchaser. When the sale deed was executed in favour of 3rd party which is a registered document, but the said purchaser is not made as party to the suit. When the consideration amount was not paid to the plaintiff, then he has to ask for cancellation of sale deed executed by the defendant in favour of purchaser on 17.12.2014. But, the plaintiff has not asked for cancellation of sale deed dated 17.12.2014. The plaintiff has simply filed this plaint for cancellation of General

Power of Attorney, dated 04.12.2014.

11.Sec.188 of Indian Contract Act deals with the extent of Agents Authority. It says that….

“An agent, having an authority to do an act, has authority to do every lawful thing which is necessary in order to do such act.

An agent having an authority to carry on a business, has authority to do every lawful thing necessary for the purpose, or usually done in the course of conducting such business.” 7

12.In the present case, the plaintiff executed General

Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant and authorized him to sell the property and in view of such authorization he had sold the property to third party and executed a sale deed on 17.12.2014. The same is clear from Ex.A1/Certified copy of

General Power of Attorney. The said General Power of Attorney clearly authorizes the defendant to sell the property and to execute sale deed and to get it registered. It is further mentioned all the acts done by the General Power of Attorney would be regarded as acts done by principal i.e., plaintiff. If the agent has not accounted for the amount which was received by him, the remedy to the plaintiff is to file a suit for rendition of accounts. In fact there is no clause in Ex.A1, that he has to submit accounts for the amounts received by him or the amount to be paid to the

principal.

13.The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on following judgments:-

1. Mir Khader Ali Khan and others v. District

Registrar, Ranga Reddy & Appellate Authority,

R.R. District and another 2012 (4) ALT 808 wherein the Hon’ble High Court AP., held that “5. The execution of a Power of Attorney, would, under no circumstances, lead to a transaction of transfer of title. By its very nature, the document provides for the authorisation by the principal, enabling the Power of

Attorney, to do certain acts on his behalf. It is always the prerogative of the principal to withdraw the authorisation and an agent cannot derive any independent rights under such arrangements. The right of the principal to 8 unilaterally cancel GPA, even if coupled with interest, is recognised in law. He is not under obligation to seek the participation of the agent for cancellation of such GPA.

This Court held so, in T. Vishwanadham’s case (1 supra).

Further, Rule 26 (i) (k) of the Rules applies only in respect of transactions of transfer and not in respect of

GPA’s. Therefore, the endorsement made by the 2nd respondent on 17.07.2010 cannot be sustained in law.”

14.The above said case relates to the right of the

principal to unilaterally cancel General Power of Attorney, even if

coupled with interest, is recognized in law.

2. Vasi Krishna Murthy and others v. Sri

Lakshmipathi Vari Devasthanam Pedamukthevi,

Rep. by Executive Officer and others 2005(5) ALT 464, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., was

dealing with Sec.114 (g) of Evidence Act.

15.In the present case, when the plaintiff got knowledge that sale deed was executed in favour of 3rd party, he should have added 3rd party as a defendant and should have sought for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of 3rd party. Under the authority given by the plaintiff, the defendant had executed a sale deed and when such is the case after execution of sale deed there is nothing left to the agent to act upon and the purpose of execution of General Power of Attorney was completed and no

General Power of Attorney was existing after 17.12.2014. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of cancellation of General

Power of Attorney, dated 04.12.2014. These issues are found against plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.3.

9

16.In view of the findings recorded in the above said issues, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of cancellation of

General Power of Attorney, dated 04.12.2014.

17. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of

September, 2023

Sd/- G. Anwar Basha,

V Additional District Judge, FAC. X Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- P.W.1 : T. Balaji.

For defendants:- D.W.1 : P. Srinivasulu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff: Ex.A-1: Registration copy of Registered General Power of Attorney, dated 04.12.2014.

Ex.A-2: Office copy of legal notice dt.04.09.2016 along with postal receipt.

Exhibits marked

For defendants: Ex.B.1Certified Copy of Sale Deed vide doc.No.6353 of 2014.

Ex.B.2Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 01.02.2021.

Id/- G. A.B.,

V ADJ. TPT.

FAC. X ADJ, TPT

// FAIR JUDGMENT//

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ::

TIRUPATI.

Present: Sri G.Anwar Basha,

V Additional District Judge, FAC/IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati

Thursday, the 18th day of April, 2024

L.A.O.P. 52 of 2016

Between

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Special Deputy Collector, TTD, Tirupati. ...Referring Officer/Petitioner

And

1)D.Sankar (died), 2)D.Meenakshi, 3)D.Jeevan, 4)Swathi Dheeraj (Claimant Nos.2 to 4 were added being LR’s of Claimant No.1 as per orders in IA No.201/2023, dated 24.01.2024. .....Claimant/Respondent

This Reference coming before me on 27.03.2024 for hearing in the presence of Special Government Pleader for the Referring

Officer/Petitioner and of Sri C.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for

Claimant/Respondent and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:- :: O R D E R ::

This is a reference made under Section 18 of Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector,

T.T.D. Tirupati.

2.The reference was made in view of acquisition of 3060 square feet along with structure in Sy.No.418/13 situated in the village of

Tiruchanur for construction of Vahana Mandapam at Sannidhi Street of

Tiruchanur village. The proposals were submitted to the Government were approved by the Government and draft notification under section 4(1) of 2 the Land Acquisition Act was issued and draft declaration of proposals were submitted to the District Collector which were approved by the

District Collector and published in Gazette and in the locality. The market value was fixed at Rs.334/- per square feet and proposals were submitted to the District Collector which were approved and Rs.13,76,154/- was awarded for the acquisition of 3060 square feet. One D.Sankar filed an application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act through the learned

Advocate and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to

Civil Court for enhancement of market value and award of compensation.

Hence, the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of Land

Acquisition Act. Notice was issued to the respondent/claimant who received notice and filed counter/objections.

3.The sole Respondent filed counter submitting that the Land

Acquisition Officer was pleaded to pass award in Award No.3/2010-11.

That a notice was issued under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act calling for objections and he filed objections for the same. Thereafter, by notices issued under Section 9 (1) (3) and (10) of Land Acquisition Act to attend the award enquiry and he attended the award enquiry and filed his representation. The Land Acquisition officer without considering the representation of claimant was pleased to refer the matter under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act in LAOP No. 326/2011 on the file of III

Additional District Judge, Tirupati and the matter was ended in his favour.

The Land Acquisition officer acquired an extent of 3060 square feet and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.334/- per square feet and total compensation amount, after deducting tax was Rs.13,57,112/-. The Land

Acquisition Officer had not considered that the acquired property was situated in prime locality in front of Sri Padmavathi Ammavaru Temple,

Tiruchanur besides Old Vahana Mandapam of Tiruchanur. The rental 3 value of the acquired building basing on place of important was very high and the said building could easily fetch Rs.60,000/- per month. Even if the claimant has put his own surviving by way of selling puja articles, he would get Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The Land Acquisition Officer had not taken comparable sales very nearer to the acquired property. The acquired property was in busy commercial locality and value assed by the Land

Acquisition Officer was very low. The sale transactions taken into consideration were transaction relating to agriculture land and non- residential and unimportant places. The Land Acquisition Officer not considered the document submitted by the claimant at the time of award enquiry. Hence, market value may be fixed at Rs.2,00,000/- per ankanam along with other statutory benefits.

4.On behalf of claimant, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf Referring Officer, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the respondent/claimant is entitled to enhancement of market value and if so to what amount?

Point:-

7.This is a reference made under Section 18 of Land Acquisition

Act on the requisition of claimant. The reference arose as 3060 square feet was acquired for construction of Vahana Mandapam at Sannidhi

Street, Tiruchanur. After completion of all formalities, for fixing up of market value of proposed site sale statistics were gathered for a period of 4 three years preceding the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, that is from 01.07.2006 to 30.06.2009.

Altogether there were 172 sale transactions during the crucial period. The sale transactions of 10 sales in 2006, 13 sales in 2007, 21 sales in 2008 and 2 sales in 2009 were registered in the crucial period raising from

Rs.163/- to Rs.560/- per square yard. Ultimately, the basic value furnished by the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta was taken as basis along with a document bearing No.1519/2009, dated 29.04.2009 and the market value was fixed at Rs.334/- per square feet. The respondent/claimant had filed protest petition against the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition

Officer and the reference was made to the Civil Court to decide the market value.

8.To prove the case of claimant, PW1 was examined and

Exs.A1 to A5 were marked.

9.PW1/D.Sankar filed his affidavit reiterating the contents in his counter. He was cross examined by the learned Special Government

Pleader. In the cross examination of PW1, it was elicited that there was title dispute between him and one Vanajakshi and the refering officer referred the matter under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act and the title was declared by the Hon’ble III Additional District Judge, Tirupati in his favour. It was also elicited that there were two super structures in acquired property and the same was compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer.

It was suggest that the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was reasonable and there was no necessity to enhance the compensation amount. It was also suggested that Exs.A1 to A5 were no way related to the acquired property and those properties were far away from acquired property.

5

10.On behalf of referring officer M.Sreenivasulu, Special Deputy

Collector, T.T.D. was examined as RW1. In the cross-examination of RW1, it was elicited that he did not visit the locality where the property acquired was located. It was also elicited that as per record the property was acquired for construction of Vahana Mandapam. He pleaded ignorance stating that he does not know whether the property was located at a distance of 20 feet from Ammavari Temple and he does not know whether the acquired property was first property from the road separating

Ammavari Temple. It was further elicited that he could not say the location of property covered under sale deed dated 29.04.2009. He also pleaded ignorance stating that he did not know whether in the same survey number landed property was sold at the rate of Rs.864/- per square feet as per

Ex.A1. He has further pleaded ignorance stating that he did not know whether the acquired property was surrounded by choultries, commercial shopping complexes and hotels. The claimant has not elicited anything about nature of locality where the property was situated.

11.Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 27.04.2009 relating to site located in 8th ward of Samajam Veedhi, residential area in

Sy.No.418/2. It was purchased at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per square yard that is at the rate of Rs.313/- per square feet. Ex.A2 is certified copy of sale deed which goes to show that site situated at Sannidhi Veedhi an extent of 39.33 square yards was sold at the rate of Rs.4,540/- per square yard that is at the rate of Rs.504/- per square feet. This transaction was taken place on 15.07.2008 one year prior to acquisition of property by the

T.T.D. Ex.A3 is certified copy of sale deed dated 11.04.2008 under which some site situated at Sannidhi Veedhi, an extent of 37.33 square yards was sold at Rs.4,540/- per square yard, that is at Rs.504/- per square feet.

There is no cross-examination of PW1 on Exs.A2 and A3 except that they 6 are no way related. Therefore, the market value per square feet can be fixed at Rs.504/- for 3,060 square feet which was acquired under Ex.B1.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.In the result, the reference is disposed of and the market value is enhanced to Rs.504/- per square feet. The claimant is entitled to 30% solatium, 9% interest for one year, additional market value at 12% and 15% interest for the remaining period till the date of payment. The compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer shall firstly be deducted before calculating the enhanced compensation amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced in open Court on this the 18th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- (G.Anwar Basha)

V Additional District Judge, FAC/IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

P.W.1 : D.SankarR.W.1: M.Sreenivasulu

Exhibits marked

For plaintiff: Ex.A.127.04.2009 Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Y.Srinivasan in favour of M.Ranganadham Chetty.

Ex.A.215.07.2008 Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by M.G.Shoba Ramachandran in favour of S.Lakshmi.

Ex.A.311.04.2008 Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by M.Govindabattracharyulu Ramachandran in favour of S.Lakshmi.

Ex.A.401.10.2001 certified copy of registered sale deed executed by V.K.Seshadri in favour of D.Murali and D.Siva Kumar.

Ex.A.5--Valuation certified issued by the Sub Registrar, Renigunta.

For Respondents:

Ex.B.1--True copy of award dated 09.09.2010

Id/-

V ADJ,

FAC/IV ADJ

TIRUPATI.

1

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: TIRUPATI

Present: Sri G. Anwar Basha, V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, FAC. X Additional District Judge, Tirupati

Thursday, the Twenty First (21st) day of September, 2023

O.S.No.04 of 2023

Between :

1. S. Sarojamma

2. S. Rathnamma

3. S. Guruprasad

4. S. Sai

5. A. Siddamma

6. J. Krishna Kumari .. Plaintiffs.

And,

1. S. Maheswari

2. E. Umasankari

3. S. Lakshmi

4. S. Venu

5. Tirupati Municipal Corporation,

Rep. by its Commissioner, Tirupati.

.. Defendants.

This suit coming before me on 29.08.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. M. Vani, Advocate for plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5 are set exparte; and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for partition and separate possession of half share to plaintiffs and another half share to defendants 1 to 4 for suit costs and other reliefs.

2

2.The brief averments made in the plaint are that the plaintiff No.1 is paternal grandmother of plaintiffs 3 and 4 and plaintiff No.2 is mother of plaintiff No.3 and 4 and that the plaintiff

No.5 and 6 are daughters of deceased S. Venkataramaiah.

Originally the plaint schedule property situated in Sy.No.1 an extent of Ac.1.00 cents was purchased by one S. Lakshmakka through registered sale deed dated 16.09.1966. The said

Lakshmakka has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and she have two sons namely S. Chengaiah and S.

Venkataramaiah. After death of Lakshmakka and her husband the plaint schedule property was devolved upon two sons by names S.

Chengaiah and S. Venkataramaiah and they both were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property during their life time. Since, plaint schedule property was purchased common ancestors of both plaintiffs and defendants, they all acquired an equal share over the said property. While so, Tirupati Municipal

Corporation intended to acquire a part of plaint schedule property for the purpose of widening the master plan road. When the plaintiffs approached the concerned authorities they told that defendants No.1 to 4 claimed the property as their own. That the plaintiff convened a mediation in the month of December, 2022 and called upon an amicable partition, but they did not heed to the advise of the elders and wanted to evade the allotment of share of the plaintiffs. Since, D5/Tirupati Municipal Corporation intend to acquire plaint schedule property, D5 is impleaded. Hence, this suit.

3

3.Summons were issued to Defendants No.1 to 5, who received the summons, but did not appear and they have been set ex-parte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. P.W.1/S. Gugu Prasad, is the 3rd plaintiff. P.W.2 S. Sarojamma is the 1st plaintiff and P.W.3 S.

Venkatamuni is third party. The plaintiffs have filed Exs.A1 to A5.

Ex.A5 goes to show that Lakshmamma, W/o Venkatesam purchased an extent of Ac1.00 cents in Sy.No.1 on 16.09.1966. The plaintiffs have filed Ex.A4/Family members certificate showing the plaintiffs as legal heirs of S. Venkataramaiah. Ex.A5 is the copy of representation given to Tirupati Municipal Corporation. Except this letter, the plaintiff have not filed any document to show that the

Municipal Corporation, Tirupati has acquired their land for lying road. They have not filed any copy of award. In spite of that they have the made Municipal Corporation as a party who is not a necessary or proper party. Of-course the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of partition and separate possession of half share and D1 to

D4 are entitled to half share in plaint schedule land. D5 has nothing to do with claim of the plaintiffs and defendants.

5.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and a preliminary decree is passed for partition and separate possession of half share to the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule land and 4 remaining half share to D1 to D4. The suit against D5 is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 21st day of September, 2023.a,

Sd/- G. Anwar Basha,

V Additional District Judge, FAC. X Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: P.W.1: S. Guru Prasad

P.W.2: S. Sarojamma

P.W.3: A. Venkatamuni

DEFENDANTS: None

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Registration extract of sale deed dt.16.09.1966 along with translated copy.

Ex.A2:Market value certificate.

Ex.A3:Genealogical tree.

Ex.A4:Mee-Seva copy of family members certificate dated 28.09.2016.

Ex.A5:Copy of representation, dated 23.12.2022.

Id/- GAB,

V.ADJ.TPT.

FAC. X ADJ, TPT.

// FAIR JUDGMENT// //TRUE COPY//

Sd/- G. Anwar Basha,

V Additional District Judge, FAC. X Additional District Judge, Tirupati.