Smt.G.Archana

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::AT KAKINADA

Present: Smt.G.Archana, III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 595/2015

B e t w e e n:

Dowrla Udaya Sankar Kumar, S/o.(late) Chittibabu @ Chittayya, age 45 years Advocate, Hindu, D.No.3-15-9/1, Vinayaka Temple Street, Recharlapeta, Kakinada ..Plaintif

A n d

Dowrla Veerraju, S/o.(late) Guruvulu, age 56 years Hindu, D.No.3-15B-4, Near Panduranga Temple Street

Recharlapeta, Kakinada ..Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 3-4-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Marla Narasimha Rao, Advocate for plaintif and the defendant remain ex-parte and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed for declaration of title and for recovery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property from the defendant and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

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

Originally Smt.Dowrla Chittemma got an extent of 232 Sq. yards under registered gift deed dt. 21-2-1961 with Document No.847/1961 from Bocha

Sathiraju registered at Sub Registrar’s Office, Kakinada. Later she constructed R.C.C. building with two partitions. She also executed a notarized Will in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing 131.86

Wq. Yards along with Western side portion to her eldest son Dowrla

Chittibabu @ Chittayya and 131.86 Sq. yards along with Eastern side portion to her second son Dowrla 2

Veerraju who is defendant herein. Right to modify and cancel the Will was kept by her. Subsequently during her life time, she executed registered gift deed dt. 21-6-2007 with Document No.6849/2007 in favour of plaintif in respect of western side portion. Regarding Eastern side portion, the Will was remain intact. Since the date of registered gift deed, the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying taxes to the Municipality.

His name is mutated in the Municipal record for the house bearing Door No.

3-15B-4/1 with Assessment No.1060055708. Dowrla Chittemma died on 20- 6-2010. After her death Will came into operation and Eastern side portion devolved upon the defendant.

While the things stood thus due to heavy cyclone in the month of

August/September, 2014 the portion of defendant partially collapsed since it is an old building indicating danger to his portion also the plaintif has vacated his portion and shifted to his office to his in law house which is nearby to plaint schedule propertyi. The defendant who is no other than own brother of plaintif’s father has requested the plaintif for permission to stay in the plaint schedule property till his portion will be repaired. Due to close relationship, the plaintif obliged his request and with his permission, the defendant is staying in the plaint schedule property.

In the month of January, 2015 the plaintif demanded the defendant to vacate the schedule property. The defendant requested for some more time to secure alternative accommodation. The plaintif accepted the defendant’s request. But, taking advantage of plaintif’s goodness, the defendant has not vacated and questioning the title of the plaintif alleging that he is the owner iof entire property and he need not vacate the same. The defendant has no right to question the title of plaintif. When the matter was placed before elders, the plaintif has placed his documents before elders. But, the defendant gave 3 evasive reply by saying that he need not vacate the schedule property. The defendant tried to man-handle the plaintif. The plaintif lodged a report

before Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Kakinada against the

defendant. The plaintif also gave paper publication in Sakshi daily newspaper on 1-7-2015 stating that he is owner of property and no one shall part with the property. He also got issued legal notice on 8-8-2015 demanding him to vacate the schedule property. The same was received by the defendant on 17-8-2015. But, he did not choose to give any reply. The plaintif also paid the requisite fee to Kakinada Municipality to survey and demarcate the property of defendant and plaintif as per their respective documents. But the defendant and his family members did not cooperate for survey and threatened the surveyor. Thus, the plaintif having no other go filed the present suit.

3.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

The defendant denied all the material allegations are not true and correct. It is submitted that the father of the plaintif and defendant are step brothers but not natural brothers. Because on the date the grand father of defendant by name Dowrla Guruvulu married Chittemma. She is having already three months old son which can be disclosed in the service register of father of plaintif. The defendant also denied the Will executed by

Chittemma on 30-3-1998. However, he admitted that Chittemma died on 20- 6-2010. He also denied the allegation that after her death her Will came into operation and one of the portion in the house was devolved upon the defendant. It is submitted that on the date of death of Chittemma she was very old lady. Five or six years prior to her death she was not in a position to 4 attend her regular activities also. She was not in a sound health and she was not in a position to know what she is doing. She was need of assistance even to attend nature calls. Therefore there was no chance for Chittemma to execute registered gift deed on 21-6-2007 and put the plaintif in possession of the property or keeping the will executed by her previously intact with regard to rest of the portion iof schedule property. The gift deed was fabricated document. The scribe and attester of document are henchmen of plaintif. Since the beginning the defendant is residing in the plaint schedule property and no point of time the property was in possession of Chittemma or the plaintif. All the allegations in the plaint are false and concocted for the purpose of the suit. At no point of time the defendant has requested the plaintif to permit him to stay in the schedule property till his portion got repaired and nothing is happened at any point of time. The defendant is always residing in his portion openly, continuously and uninterruptedly. He is not aware whether the plaintif paid any requisite fee to Kakinada

Municipality for survey the property as per the respective documents. Since no title is passed on plaintif by way of registered gift deed, the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession is not maintainable. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

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

(1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to be declared as owner of plaint schedule property?

(2) Whether the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from schedule property and to recover the vacant possession from him?

(3) Whether the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

(4) To what relief?

5

5.During trial, the plaintif examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked documentary evidence of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. At that stage the defendants has not filed any oral or documentary evidence and he remain ex-parte.

6.Heard the plaintif. Perused the entire material on record.

7.ISSUE NO.1:

In proof of the case of the plaintif the plaintif himself examined as

P.W.1. He filed his evidence affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint.

He got marked documentary evidence of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. Ex.A.1 is registered gift deed dt.21-2-1961 (Doct.No. 847/1961); Ex.A.2 is unregistered

Will dt.

30-3-1998 executed by D.Chittemma; Ex.A.3 is death certificate of

D.Chittemma; Ex.A.4 is registration extract of gift deed dt. 21-6-2007; Ex.A.5 is Newspaper dt. 1-7-2015 of Sakshi; Ex.A.6 is property tax receipt dt. 29-3- 2015 issued in the name of plaintif; Ex.A.7 is office copy of legal notice dt. 8- 8-2015 got issued by plaintif to defendant; Ex.A.8 is postal acknowledgment;

Ex.A.9 is Survey fee receipt dt. 2-6-2015 issued by Municipal Administration

Department and Ex.A.10 is market value certificate dt. 5-8-2015.

Besides the oral evidence of P.W.1and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10, the plaintif also got examined the first attester by name Y.Ramudu of Will executed by

D.Chittemma on 30-3-1998 as P.W.2. He deposed that he knows plaintif and defendant. He knows D.Chittemma, wife of Guruvulu executed unregistered

Will n 30-3-1998. By that time she was in sound and disposing state of mind.

She bequeathed 131.86 Sq. yards along with Western side portion to her eldest son Chittibabu and 131.86 Sq.yards along with Eastern side portion to the defendant. The right of cancellation and modification of Will was reserved by her. He is first attester to the said Will and one Nakka Pravan Murthyi is the second attester. It was scribed by P.Suryanarayanamurthy. It was notarized by Advocate Sri P.B.Krupanidhi. Chittemma put her left thumb mark on the Will in their presence.

6

8.Here though the defendant has challenged the title of plaintif over the plaint schedule property by denying Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.4 gift deed and Will executed by D.Chittemma by saying that on those days she was not in a position to attend her work without any assistance and even not in a position to attend nature calls without anybody support. So, the question of executing

Will or gift deed does not arise and since inception he is in possession and enjoyment of entire plaint schedule property without interruption from anybody. He was never permitted by plaintif to live in the schedule property till his portion will be repaired. But the reason best known to the defendant for not conducting cross examination to P.Ws. 1 and 2. Even not appear

before the court either to disprove the case of plaintif or to substantiate his

claim. As such the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 remain unchallenged. Moreover, the documentary evidence filed by the plaintif is very much in support of the case of the plaintif. Ex.A.2 Will is also proved by the plaintif by examining the first attester of it. As such the documentary evidence placed by the plaintif coupled with P.W.1 and P.W.2 is sufficient to declare the title of the plaintif over plaint schedule property. Hence, the above issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

9.ISSUE NOs.2 and 3:

Since the plaintif has succeeded in proving his title over plaint schedule property and also proved that he has permitted the defendant to live in the plaint schedule property till his property will be repaired. So, in that case the plaintif being absolute owner of plaint schedule property is very much entitled to evict the defendant from the schedule property and recover the vacant possession of it as prayed for. In that circumstances, the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction to protect his property in future from interference by the defendant or his henchmen over the plaint schedule property. Thus, the above issues are answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

7

10.ISSUE NO.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintif by declaring the title of the plaintif over plaint schedule property, the defendant is directed to hand over vacant possession of plaint schedule property to plaintif within Three Months from the date of judgment, failing which the plaintif is at liberty to recover the same by following due process of law. Permanent injunction is also granted in favour of plaintif restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over plaint schedule property.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of April, 2017.

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge Kakinada Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For plaintif: P.W.1.Dowrla Udaya Sankar Kumar P.W.2: Yeddu Ramudu

For defendant: ..None.. Documents marked For plaintif: Ex.A.1: registered gift deed dt.21-2-1961 (Doct.No. 847/1961) Ex.A.2: unregistered Will dt. 30-3-1998 executed by D.Chittemma Ex.A.3: death certificate of D.Chittemma Ex.A.4: registration extract of gift deed dt. 21-6-2007 Ex.A.5: Newspaper dt. 1-7-2015 of Sakshi Ex.A.6: property tax receipt dt. 29-3-2015 issued in the name of plaintif Ex.A.7: office copy of legal notice dt. 8-8-2015 got issued by plaintif to defendant Ex.A.8: postal acknowledgment Ex.A.9: Survey fee receipt dt. 2-6-2015 issued by Municipal Administration Department Ex.A.10: market value certificate dt. 5-8-2015.

For defendant: ..Nil..

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::AT KAKINADA

Present: Smt.G.Archana, III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 595/2015

B e t w e e n:

Dowrla Udaya Sankar Kumar, S/o.(late) Chittibabu @ Chittayya, age 45 years Advocate, Hindu, D.No.3-15-9/1, Vinayaka Temple Street, Recharlapeta, Kakinada ..Plaintif

A n d

Dowrla Veerraju, S/o.(late) Guruvulu, age 56 years Hindu, D.No.3-15B-4, Near Panduranga Temple Street

Recharlapeta, Kakinada ..Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 3-4-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Marla Narasimha Rao, Advocate for plaintif and the defendant remain ex-parte and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed for declaration of title and for recovery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property from the defendant and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

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

Originally Smt.Dowrla Chittemma got an extent of 232 Sq. yards under registered gift deed dt. 21-2-1961 with Document No.847/1961 from Bocha

Sathiraju registered at Sub Registrar’s Office, Kakinada. Later she constructed R.C.C. building with two partitions. She also executed a notarized Will in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing 131.86

Wq. Yards along with Western side portion to her eldest son Dowrla

Chittibabu @ Chittayya and 131.86 Sq. yards along with Eastern side portion to her second son Dowrla 2

Veerraju who is defendant herein. Right to modify and cancel the Will was kept by her. Subsequently during her life time, she executed registered gift deed dt. 21-6-2007 with Document No.6849/2007 in favour of plaintif in respect of western side portion. Regarding Eastern side portion, the Will was remain intact. Since the date of registered gift deed, the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying taxes to the Municipality.

His name is mutated in the Municipal record for the house bearing Door No.

3-15B-4/1 with Assessment No.1060055708. Dowrla Chittemma died on 20- 6-2010. After her death Will came into operation and Eastern side portion devolved upon the defendant.

While the things stood thus due to heavy cyclone in the month of

August/September, 2014 the portion of defendant partially collapsed since it is an old building indicating danger to his portion also the plaintif has vacated his portion and shifted to his office to his in law house which is nearby to plaint schedule propertyi. The defendant who is no other than own brother of plaintif’s father has requested the plaintif for permission to stay in the plaint schedule property till his portion will be repaired. Due to close relationship, the plaintif obliged his request and with his permission, the defendant is staying in the plaint schedule property.

In the month of January, 2015 the plaintif demanded the defendant to vacate the schedule property. The defendant requested for some more time to secure alternative accommodation. The plaintif accepted the defendant’s request. But, taking advantage of plaintif’s goodness, the defendant has not vacated and questioning the title of the plaintif alleging that he is the owner iof entire property and he need not vacate the same. The defendant has no right to question the title of plaintif. When the matter was placed before elders, the plaintif has placed his documents before elders. But, the defendant gave 3 evasive reply by saying that he need not vacate the schedule property. The defendant tried to man-handle the plaintif. The plaintif lodged a report

before Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Kakinada against the

defendant. The plaintif also gave paper publication in Sakshi daily newspaper on 1-7-2015 stating that he is owner of property and no one shall part with the property. He also got issued legal notice on 8-8-2015 demanding him to vacate the schedule property. The same was received by the defendant on 17-8-2015. But, he did not choose to give any reply. The plaintif also paid the requisite fee to Kakinada Municipality to survey and demarcate the property of defendant and plaintif as per their respective documents. But the defendant and his family members did not cooperate for survey and threatened the surveyor. Thus, the plaintif having no other go filed the present suit.

3.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

The defendant denied all the material allegations are not true and correct. It is submitted that the father of the plaintif and defendant are step brothers but not natural brothers. Because on the date the grand father of defendant by name Dowrla Guruvulu married Chittemma. She is having already three months old son which can be disclosed in the service register of father of plaintif. The defendant also denied the Will executed by

Chittemma on 30-3-1998. However, he admitted that Chittemma died on 20- 6-2010. He also denied the allegation that after her death her Will came into operation and one of the portion in the house was devolved upon the defendant. It is submitted that on the date of death of Chittemma she was very old lady. Five or six years prior to her death she was not in a position to 4 attend her regular activities also. She was not in a sound health and she was not in a position to know what she is doing. She was need of assistance even to attend nature calls. Therefore there was no chance for Chittemma to execute registered gift deed on 21-6-2007 and put the plaintif in possession of the property or keeping the will executed by her previously intact with regard to rest of the portion iof schedule property. The gift deed was fabricated document. The scribe and attester of document are henchmen of plaintif. Since the beginning the defendant is residing in the plaint schedule property and no point of time the property was in possession of Chittemma or the plaintif. All the allegations in the plaint are false and concocted for the purpose of the suit. At no point of time the defendant has requested the plaintif to permit him to stay in the schedule property till his portion got repaired and nothing is happened at any point of time. The defendant is always residing in his portion openly, continuously and uninterruptedly. He is not aware whether the plaintif paid any requisite fee to Kakinada

Municipality for survey the property as per the respective documents. Since no title is passed on plaintif by way of registered gift deed, the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession is not maintainable. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

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

(1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to be declared as owner of plaint schedule property?

(2) Whether the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from schedule property and to recover the vacant possession from him?

(3) Whether the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

(4) To what relief?

5

5.During trial, the plaintif examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked documentary evidence of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. At that stage the defendants has not filed any oral or documentary evidence and he remain ex-parte.

6.Heard the plaintif. Perused the entire material on record.

7.ISSUE NO.1:

In proof of the case of the plaintif the plaintif himself examined as

P.W.1. He filed his evidence affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint.

He got marked documentary evidence of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. Ex.A.1 is registered gift deed dt.21-2-1961 (Doct.No. 847/1961); Ex.A.2 is unregistered

Will dt.

30-3-1998 executed by D.Chittemma; Ex.A.3 is death certificate of

D.Chittemma; Ex.A.4 is registration extract of gift deed dt. 21-6-2007; Ex.A.5 is Newspaper dt. 1-7-2015 of Sakshi; Ex.A.6 is property tax receipt dt. 29-3- 2015 issued in the name of plaintif; Ex.A.7 is office copy of legal notice dt. 8- 8-2015 got issued by plaintif to defendant; Ex.A.8 is postal acknowledgment;

Ex.A.9 is Survey fee receipt dt. 2-6-2015 issued by Municipal Administration

Department and Ex.A.10 is market value certificate dt. 5-8-2015.

Besides the oral evidence of P.W.1and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10, the plaintif also got examined the first attester by name Y.Ramudu of Will executed by

D.Chittemma on 30-3-1998 as P.W.2. He deposed that he knows plaintif and defendant. He knows D.Chittemma, wife of Guruvulu executed unregistered

Will n 30-3-1998. By that time she was in sound and disposing state of mind.

She bequeathed 131.86 Sq. yards along with Western side portion to her eldest son Chittibabu and 131.86 Sq.yards along with Eastern side portion to the defendant. The right of cancellation and modification of Will was reserved by her. He is first attester to the said Will and one Nakka Pravan Murthyi is the second attester. It was scribed by P.Suryanarayanamurthy. It was notarized by Advocate Sri P.B.Krupanidhi. Chittemma put her left thumb mark on the Will in their presence.

6

8.Here though the defendant has challenged the title of plaintif over the plaint schedule property by denying Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.4 gift deed and Will executed by D.Chittemma by saying that on those days she was not in a position to attend her work without any assistance and even not in a position to attend nature calls without anybody support. So, the question of executing

Will or gift deed does not arise and since inception he is in possession and enjoyment of entire plaint schedule property without interruption from anybody. He was never permitted by plaintif to live in the schedule property till his portion will be repaired. But the reason best known to the defendant for not conducting cross examination to P.Ws. 1 and 2. Even not appear

before the court either to disprove the case of plaintif or to substantiate his

claim. As such the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 remain unchallenged. Moreover, the documentary evidence filed by the plaintif is very much in support of the case of the plaintif. Ex.A.2 Will is also proved by the plaintif by examining the first attester of it. As such the documentary evidence placed by the plaintif coupled with P.W.1 and P.W.2 is sufficient to declare the title of the plaintif over plaint schedule property. Hence, the above issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

9.ISSUE NOs.2 and 3:

Since the plaintif has succeeded in proving his title over plaint schedule property and also proved that he has permitted the defendant to live in the plaint schedule property till his property will be repaired. So, in that case the plaintif being absolute owner of plaint schedule property is very much entitled to evict the defendant from the schedule property and recover the vacant possession of it as prayed for. In that circumstances, the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction to protect his property in future from interference by the defendant or his henchmen over the plaint schedule property. Thus, the above issues are answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

7

10.ISSUE NO.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintif by declaring the title of the plaintif over plaint schedule property, the defendant is directed to hand over vacant possession of plaint schedule property to plaintif within Three Months from the date of judgment, failing which the plaintif is at liberty to recover the same by following due process of law. Permanent injunction is also granted in favour of plaintif restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over plaint schedule property.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of April, 2017.

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge Kakinada Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For plaintif: P.W.1.Dowrla Udaya Sankar Kumar P.W.2: Yeddu Ramudu

For defendant: ..None.. Documents marked For plaintif: Ex.A.1: registered gift deed dt.21-2-1961 (Doct.No. 847/1961) Ex.A.2: unregistered Will dt. 30-3-1998 executed by D.Chittemma Ex.A.3: death certificate of D.Chittemma Ex.A.4: registration extract of gift deed dt. 21-6-2007 Ex.A.5: Newspaper dt. 1-7-2015 of Sakshi Ex.A.6: property tax receipt dt. 29-3-2015 issued in the name of plaintif Ex.A.7: office copy of legal notice dt. 8-8-2015 got issued by plaintif to defendant Ex.A.8: postal acknowledgment Ex.A.9: Survey fee receipt dt. 2-6-2015 issued by Municipal Administration Department Ex.A.10: market value certificate dt. 5-8-2015.

For defendant: ..Nil..

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA

PRESENT:- Smt G.Archana

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

Friday, the 6th day of March, 2015

E.P. 77/2013

Between: Sathi Trinadha Reddy, aged 45 years, cultivation and BUsines, Resident of Anaparthy, Anaparthy …Petitioner/ Decree holder.

And

Narala Srinivasa Rao, aged 34 yeas, D.No.70-5-5, Old Cement road street, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada

...Respondent/Judgment debtor.

This petition coming today before this court and this court made the following:

O R D E R

J.Dr. produced on execution of warrant. J.Dr. requested to payment on asking him requesting. Hence J.Dr. is order to commit to civil prison for one month on payment of committal batta.

Pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 6th day of March, 2015.

Sd/- Smt G.Archana

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Kakinada. .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Petitioner : None. For Respondent: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner: Nil. For Respondent: NIL

Sd/- Smt G.Archana

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Kakinada.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE

FIRST CLASS: KAKINADA

Date : 02-04-2014

CC No. 34/2012

NIMMAKAYALA NAGESWARA RAO

And

SANGITHA CHAKRS RAO @ CHAKRAVATHI @ CHAKRI

O R D E R

Accused produced from Central Jail, Rajahmundry. Judgment pronounced. (Vide separate Judgment). In the result, the accused No.2 is found not guilty for the charge under Sec. 380 I.P.C and he is acquitted under sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. But the accused is found guilty for the charge under Sec. 411 I.P.C. and he is convicted under Sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of SIX MONTHS for the offence under Sec. 411 I.P.C. The remand period already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. The accused is in Judicial custody from 7-1-2014 to till this date.

Pronounced by me in open court on this the 2nd day of April, 2014.

III Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KAKINADA

Present: Smt G.Archana III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.518 of 2015

Between:

Nallamilli Rama chandra reddy Address - Business,Dno.67-13-7,Lalbahadur nagar,Nagamallithota,Kakinada

... Plaintiff

And

K.Appa Reddy Address - Dno.8-10-7,Kamladevi st,Gandhi Nagar,Kakinada

... Defendants

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying to pass a decree u/s 26, Or 7, R.1 and 2 C.P.C.

This suit coming on this day for trial in the presence of Sri M.V.J.R., Advocate for the plaintiff and the Counsel for defendant and this court made by the following:

J U D G M E N T

Costs not paid. No representation for plaintiff. P.W.1 absent. Hence suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 28th day of April, 2017.

III Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.