Smt. G.Chandra Mowleswari

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NUZVID

Present: Smt.G.Chandramowleswari,

Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid.

Wednesday, this the 24th day of June, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT N o .120 OF 2017

Between :

Rayavarapu Subba Rao, S/o.Anjaneyulu, Hindu, 67 years, Properties, R/o.Seetharamapuram village, Nuzvid mandal, Nuzvid JCJC.…Plaintiff.

And

Borra Durga Rani, W/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, 45 years, House wife, R/o.Meerjapuram village, Nuzvid mandal,

Nuzvid JCJC....Defendant

This Original Suit coming on 20.02.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.Rajarao, Advocate for plaintiff, and of

Sri G.Prasada Rao, Advocate for defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon consideration this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit is filed by plaintiff against defendant prays to pass preliminary decree with a first charge over the plaint schedule property in his favour directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.3,51,000/- under

Registered Mortgage Deed to plaintiff together with subsequent interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, and for costs of the suit.

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

Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff for the purpose of her family benefits and executed a Registered Mortgage Deed dated 23.11.2011 in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property which is an extent of Ac.0.09 cents of site and RCC house is situated in RS.No.19/5,

D.No.4-58 of Meerjapuram village with a condition to repay the same with yearly interest @ 24% per annum and same is executed a Sub-Registry,

Kanumolu and that defendant has to discharge the above debt as and when demanded by plaintiff. Even after passing of one and half year, the defendant did not chose to repay the same with interest on one pretext or other and evaded to repay the above debt as such plaintiff got issued a demand notice 2

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, OS.No.120 of 2017

Nuzvid Dated 24.06.2020 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dated 30.10.2014 and that defendant received the said notice and kept quiet.

Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, defendant filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further stated that the defendant has no right over Ac.0.09 cents of house and house site and that the boundaries mentioned in the schedule are also incorrect. The Gift Deed stands in the name of defendant dated 23.04.2010 was cancelled by the donor. The donor and donee are living separately for the last 6 to 7 years. There are criminal cases pending each other. On that the donor cancelled the Gift Deed as executed in favour of defendant. The said gift is a conditional gift. The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff, at that time defendant executed mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- and that plaintiff put a condition that she has to pay interest every month @ 12% per annum Rs.500/- per month and that in that connection the defendant paid towards interest Rs.500/- to the plaintiff for a period of 3 years and thereafter defendant discharged the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- together with interest to the plaintiff on 20.10.2014 in the presence of Vangala

Venkateswara Rao and Borra Rajesh in their presence the entire debt due discharged by the defendant to the plaintiff. On that day the plaintiff assured that he will cancel the mortgage deed within a week, believing the words of plaintiff the defendant and above said elders returned back but plaintiff postponed on one pretext or the other. Thereafter plaintiff filed the suit to cause loss to the defendant and obtaining wrongful gain, plaintiff filed the suit with false untenable allegations and that suit is not maintainable, as such, suit is liable to be dismissed and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.This Court has taken steps under section 89 Code of Civil Procedure for amicable settlement of the matter, but the parties did not evince any interest in settling the dispute.

5.Upon hearing of both side counsels and upon perusal of pleadings of both sides the following issues are framed :

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree against defendant as prayed for?

2.Whether the defendant discharged the due amount under mortgage deed along with interest to the plaintiff?

3.To what relief?

3

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, OS.No.120 of 2017

Nuzvid Dated 24.06.2020 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.Issue No.1 & 2 :

The learned counsel for both plaintiff and defendant argued as per their respective pleadings mentioned in the plaint and in the written statement. To prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and marked

Exs.A1 to A3. To prove the defence of defendant and to disprove the case of plaintiff, defendant relied on her own evidence and examined as DW1 and further she examined DW2.

7.To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW1. His specific evidence is that defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff on 23.11.2011 for his family expenses agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% per annum and executed

Registered Mortgage Deed in his favour in respect of plaint schedule property .

Subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the said amount with interest as such he got issued a demand notice dated 30.10.2014 and that defendant received the said notice but kept quiet. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of mortgage debt due from the defendant.

8.To corroborate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff also relied on three documents which are marked as Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is a Registered Mortgage

Deed dated 23.11.2011. The recitals of Ex.A1 shows that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff and executed Ex.A1/Registered

Mortgage Deed vide document No.7263/2011 agreeing to repay with interest @ 24% per annum. Ex.A2 is office copy of notice dated 30.10.2014 got issued by plaintiff to the defendant and Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgement of defendant.

The recitals of Ex.A2/notice shows that the plaintiff demanding the defendant to repay mortgage debt amount with interest under Ex.A1/Registered Mortgage

Deed dated 23.11.2011, and Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgement for the notice/Ex.A2.

9.The oral evidence of PW1 and recitals of Exs.A1 to A3 clearly show that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff and executed

Ex.A1/Registered Mortgage Deed in favour of plaintiff on 23.11.2011.

Subsequently, plaintiff got issued Ex.A2/notice on 30.10.2014 demanding the defendant to repay mortgage debt due to him, and Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgement for the said Ex.A2/notice. Thus, plaintiff established his case by producing the oral evidence of PW1 and by marking Exs.A1 to A3, thereby, the plaintiff discharged the initial burden casts upon him.

4

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, OS.No.120 of 2017

Nuzvid Dated 24.06.2020 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.Now, the onus turns to the defendant. The learned counsel for defendant contended that defendant has no right over plaint schedule property, the boundaries mentioned in the schedule are also not correct and that defendant borrowed only an amount of Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff, the defendant obtained mortgage deed for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, subsequently the defendant used to pay Rs.500/- per month, accordingly she discharged principal amount along with interest to the plaintiff on 20.10.2014 in the presence of Vangala

Venkatewara Rao and Borra Rajesh, on that day plaintiff assured that he would cancel the mortgage deed within a week, but plaintiff does not turn up to cancel the mortgage deed and filed suit with false allegations, therefore, suit is not maintainable and suit is liable to be dismissed and prays to dismiss the petition with costs. To support the contention of defendant, the defendant herself examined as DW1 and one Vangala Venkateswara Rao is examined as

DW1. Even Dws.1 & 2 deteriorated the contents of written statement in their chief affidavit, but it is onus on the defendant to prove the contents therein.

11.It is elicited from the cross-examination of DW1 that the signature on

Ex.A1/mortgage deed belong to her signature, she admitted in her cross- examination that plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.0.09 cents is in possession and enjoyment so also it is elicited from the cross-examination of

DW1 that he do not know who filed this suit, he do not know the contents of his chief affidavit; there is no documentary proof to show that Rs.50,000/- is borrowed. Admittedly, the signature on Ex.A1 at executant column is the signature of defendant. Even though defendant contended that she borrowed only Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and at the instance of plaintiff she executed

Ex.A1/mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. But to prove the same, the defendant neither choose to adduce any oral evidence nor marked any supportive document. The defendant utterly failed to prove that she borrowed only Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff. No prudent person execute any document for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- i.e. more amount than actually she borrowed Rs.50,000/-. Once the defendant admitted the signature on

Ex.A1, it is burden on the defendant to prove that total consideration is not received by her. The defendant admitted that she borrowed Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff, but Ex.A1 document reveal that she borrowed amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff and executed a mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff by adducing his own evidence by marking Exs.A1 to A3 he discharged the initial burden casts upon him as discussed supra. Therefore, presumption under section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act is drawn in 5

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, OS.No.120 of 2017

Nuzvid Dated 24.06.2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- favour of plaintiff and against defendant. The defendant utterly failed to place any cogent, consistent and acceptable evidence to support the defence taken by her in her written statement.

12.In view of above discussion, plaintiff established his case that defendant borrowed amount from him and executed Ex.A1/Registered Mortgage Deed in his favour, thereafter defendant failed to discharge the debt due amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, without any hesitation, this Court hold that

Ex.A1/Registered Mortgage Deed dated 23.11.2011 is supported by consideration and plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree against defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 & 2 are determined and decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

13.Issue No.3 :

In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,51,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of preliminary decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- by creating a charge over plaint schedule

property. Time for redemption is three months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of June, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NUZVID

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined

For Plaintiff :For Defendant :

PW1:R.Subba RaoDW1:B.Durga Rani DW2:V.Venkateswara Rao

Documents marked For Plaintiff :

Ex.A123.11.2011Registered Mortgage Deed executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A230.10.2014Office copy of notice issued to the defendant.

Ex.A3---Postal acknowledgement of defendant for Ex.A2.

6

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, OS.No.120 of 2017

Nuzvid Dated 24.06.2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Defendant : Nil

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NUZVID

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NUZVID

Present: Smt.G.Chandramowleswari,

Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid.

Wednesday, this the 24th day of June, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT N o .121 OF 2017

Between :

Rayavarapu Subba Rao, S/o.Anjaneyulu, Hindu, 67 years, Properties, R/o.Seetharamapuram village, Nuzvid mandal, Nuzvid JCJC.…Plaintiff.

And

Borra Nageswara Rao, S/o.Meeraiah, Hindu, 50 years, Business, R/o.Meerjapuram village, now residing at C/o.New Herbon Ministries, Gurukulapet village, Eluru

mandal....Defendant

This Original Suit coming on 20.02.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.Rajarao, Advocate for plaintiff, and of

Sri G.Prasada Rao, Advocate for defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon consideration this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit is filed by plaintiff against defendant prays to pass preliminary decree with a first charge over the plaint schedule property in his favour directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.3,81,000/- under

Registered Mortgage Deed to plaintiff together with subsequent interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, and for costs of the suit.

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

Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff for the purpose of his family benefits and executed a Registered Mortgage Deed dated 28.01.2011 in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property which is an extent of Ac.0.04 ½ cents of vacant house site situated in RS.No.19/5 of

Meerjapuram village with a condition to repay the same with yearly interest @ 24% per annum and same is executed a Sub-Registry, Kanumolu and that defendant has to discharge the above debt as and when demanded by plaintiff.

Even after passing of one and half year, the defendant did not chose to repay the same with interest on one pretext or other and evaded to repay the above 2

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, OS.No.121 of 2017

Nuzvid Dated 24.06.2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- debt as such plaintiff got issued a demand notice dated 17.12.2014 and that defendant received the said notice and kept quiet. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, defendant filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further stated that the defendant never borrowed any single pie from the plaintiff at any point of time and that the property belongs to wife of this defendant, the plaintiff got filed the suit in

OS.120/2017 with regard to house property in the name of wife of this

defendant namely Borra Durga Rani and that defendant has no saleable right over the schedule property. The plaintiff in collusion with the wife of defendant, the suit is filed against this defendant as defendant and his wife are not resided together due to internal family disputes between wife and husband.

Taking advantage of that the plaintiff got filed this suit to knock away the schedule property. The defendant is residing in Sanivarapupeta of Eluru Town and he is depending upon the mercy of Church and he has no shelter. The wife of defendant is back and behind of this suit and she got filed this suit against the defendant as a binami transaction. There is no cause of action for the suit and suit is not maintainable according to Law, as such, suit is liable to be dismissed and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.This Court has taken steps under section 89 Code of Civil Procedure for amicable settlement of the matter, but the parties did not evince any interest in settling the dispute.

5.Upon hearing of both side counsels and upon perusal of pleadings of both sides the following issues are framed :

1.Whether plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree as prayed for?

2.To what relief?

6.Issue No.1 :

The learned counsel for both plaintiff and defendant argued as per their respective pleadings mentioned in the plaint and in the written statement. To prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and marked

Exs.A1 to A3. To prove the defence of defendant and to disprove the case of plaintiff, defendant relied on his own evidence and examined as DW1.

7.To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW1. His specific evidence is that defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff on 28.01.2011 for his family expenses agreeing to 3

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, OS.No.121 of 2017

Nuzvid Dated 24.06.2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- repay the same together with interest at 24% per annum and executed

Registered Mortgage Deed in his favour in respect of plaint schedule property.

Subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the said amount with interest as such he got issued a demand notice dated 17.12.2014 and that defendant received the said notice but kept quiet. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of mortgage debt due from the defendant.

8.To corroborate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff also relied on three documents which are marked as Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is a Registered Mortgage

Deed dated 28.01.2011. The recitals of Ex.A1 shows that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff and executed Ex.A1/Registered

Mortgage Deed vide document No.467/2011 agreeing to repay with interest @ 24% per annum. Ex.A2 is office copy of notice dated 17.12.2014 got issued by plaintiff to the defendant and Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgement of defendant.

The recitals of Ex.A2/notice shows that the plaintiff demanding the defendant to repay mortgage debt amount with interest under Ex.A1/Registered Mortgage

Deed dated 28.01.2011, and Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgement for the notice/Ex.A2.

9.The oral evidence of PW1 and recitals of Exs.A1 to A3 clearly show that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff and executed

Ex.A1/Registered Mortgage Deed in favour of plaintiff on 28.01.2011.

Subsequently, plaintiff got issued Ex.A2/notice on 17.12.2014 demanding the defendant to repay mortgage debt due to him, and Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgement for the said Ex.A2/notice. Thus, plaintiff established his case by producing the oral evidence of PW1 and by marking Exs.A1 to A3, thereby, the plaintiff discharged the initial burden casts upon him.

10.Now, the onus turns to the defendant. The learned counsel for defendant contended that defendant never borrowed any single pie from plaintiff at any point of time, the alleged mortgaged property is not belonged to defendant, the defendant has no saleable right over the schedule property and it is a created document, therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed and prays to dismiss the petition with costs. In order to prove the defence of defendant, he himself examined as DW1 and got cross-examined PW1, but nothing is elicited to support his version. If really, Ex.A1 is a created document what prevented the defendant to elicit evidence has to prove Ex.A1 is a created document.

Moreover, during cross-examination of DW1 he deposed that all the signatures shows on Ex.A1/mortgage deed at executant column belong to him. If really 4

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, OS.No.121 of 2017

Nuzvid Dated 24.06.2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ex.A1 is a created document, how his signatures are present on Ex.A1. Once defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A1/mortgage deed it proves that transaction under Ex.A1 is a genuine transaction since defendant did not place any contra evidence. To prove that Ex.A1 is a created document. Furthermore, it is elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 that he borrowed amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- from his neighbours namely Kannekanti Somaiah alias Raghava

Rao of Seetharampuram as to arrange amount to the wife of defendant and further it is elicited that defendant executed mortgage deed in the month of

January, 2011 he has obtained link documents of Ex.A1 by the time of transaction under Ex.A1. Moreover, on perusal of Ex.A1, it is clear that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff by mortgaging his property and executed Ex.A1 document in favour of plaintiff. In the absence of any positive evidence, the contention of defendant is not tenable.

11.The learned counsel for defendant further contended that there are family disputes in between defendant and his wife, taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff got filed suit to knock away the schedule property and wife of defendant is behind back of this suit and she got filed the suit against him as benami transaction. But to prove the contention of defendant, the defendant neither choose to adduce any oral evidence nor marked any supportive document. It is onus on the defendant to prove that there are family disputes in between defendant and his wife and taking advantage of said disputes, his wife got filed this suit. As discussed supra, the oral evidence of PW1 and recitals of Ex.P1 it is clear that defendant executed Registered Mortgage Deed in favour of plaintiff by receiving amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, but now he is speaking that he never borrowed any amount from plaintiff under Ex.A1.

Absolutely, no evidence is placed by defendant to prove his contentions.

Therefore, the contention of defendant never be and cannot be accepted.

12.In view of above discussion, plaintiff established his case that defendant borrowed amount from her and executed Ex.A1/Registered Mortgage Deed in her favour, thereafter defendant failed to discharge the debt due amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, without any hesitation, this Court hold that

Ex.A1/Registered Mortgage Deed dated 28.01.2011 is supported by consideration and plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree against defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, issue No.1 is determined and decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

5

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, OS.No.121 of 2017

Nuzvid Dated 24.06.2020 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.Issue No.2 :

In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,81,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of preliminary decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- by creating a charge over plaint schedule

property. Time for redemption is three months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of June, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NUZVID

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined

For Plaintiff :For Defendant :

PW1:R.Subba RaoDW1:B.Nageswara Rao

Documents marked For Plaintiff :

Ex.A128.01.2011Registered Mortgage Deed executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A217.12.2014Office copy of notice issued to the defendant.

Ex.A3---Postal acknowledgement of defendant for Ex.A2.

For Defendant : Nil

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NUZVID

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NUZIVD

Present: Smt.G.Chandramowleswari,

Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid.

Thursday, this the 25th day of June, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT N o .40 OF 2018 Between: 1.Parasa Ramadevi 2.Parasa Peddanna 3.Parasa Satyanarayana 4.Thatha Nagarjunamma 5.Eda Vijaya Nirmala 6.Vemula Krishnaveni 7.Marisetty Mounika …Plaintiffs

And

1.Konda Amrose 2.Konda Udayabhaskar 3.Konda Varadanam

4.Konda Prasada Rao …Defendants

This Original Suit coming on this day for hearing before me as the plaintiff’s counsel namely Sri U.Nagaprasad filed a memo along with petition affidavit through e-filing Krishna

District vide Unique ID 13551 dated 24.06.2020 stating that matter is settled out of Court and having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon consideration this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This Suit is filed by the plaintiffs against defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.07.2014 directing the defendants to execute a regular Registered

Sale Deed for the schedule property in favour of plaintiffs or their nominees, at their expenses and for suit costs.

2.As per orders in IA.246/2020, the suit advanced this day. Plaintiff counsel filed a memo stating that the suit is adjusted out of Court. Memo recorded, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th day of June, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NUZVID 2

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined – Nil –

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NUZVID

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NUZIVD

Present: Smt.G.Chandramowleswari,

Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid.

Thursday, this the 25th day of June, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT N o .40 OF 2018 Between: 1.Parasa Ramadevi 2.Parasa Peddanna 3.Parasa Satyanarayana 4.Thatha Nagarjunamma 5.Eda Vijaya Nirmala 6.Vemula Krishnaveni 7.Marisetty Mounika …Plaintiffs

And

1.Konda Amrose 2.Konda Udayabhaskar 3.Konda Varadanam

4.Konda Prasada Rao …Defendants

This Original Suit coming on this day for hearing before me as the plaintiff’s counsel namely Sri U.Nagaprasad filed a memo along with petition affidavit through e-filing Krishna

District vide Unique ID 13551 dated 24.06.2020 stating that matter is settled out of Court and having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon consideration this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This Suit is filed by the plaintiffs against defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.07.2014 directing the defendants to execute a regular Registered

Sale Deed for the schedule property in favour of plaintiffs or their nominees, at their expenses and for suit costs.

2.As per orders in IA.246/2020, the suit advanced this day. Plaintiff counsel filed a memo stating that the suit is adjusted out of Court. Memo recorded, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th day of June, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NUZVID 2

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined – Nil –

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NUZVID

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: NUZVID.

Present: Smt.G.Chandramowleswari, L.L.M.,

Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid.

Friday, this the day 06th day of March, 2020

OS.NO. 10/2019

Between:

Shaik Mahaboob Subhani …Plaintiff

Vs.

Goda Srinivasa Rao …Defendant

Suit is filed for recovery of Rs.8,43,565/- being the amount paid under sale agreement dt. 13.11.2015 paid Rs.5,00,000/- and interest Rs.3,43,565/- from 13.11.2015 to 23.09.2015 @ 24 % p.a. and for costs.

This petition is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri Lanka Siva Rama Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri N.Madhavarao, Advocate for defendant and on perusing the documents filed along with the suit and other connected material papers on record, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Inspite of conditional order plaintiff does not turn up to the court. Cost is not paid. Hence it is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 6th day of March, 2020

Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid.