Smt.G.Geetha

1

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-IV

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present:- Smt G.Geetha,

Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 20th day of September, 2023.

M.V.O.P.06 Of 2020

Nukanaboina Pranavi, minor represented by his next friend father N.Venugopal. … Petitioner/Claimant ...

- Vrs -

1. Nandyala Venkatesh.

2. The National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, Kadapa City.

3. V.Kullayappa.

...Respondents...

This petition is coming on 09.08.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Ramanjaneya Reddy,Sri P.Srikanth Reddy and Sri T.Sreenivasulu

Reddy, Advocates for the petitioner and Sri P.Goutham Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.2, Smt S.Lalitha, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and remaining respondent No.1 is remained exparte, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a claim petition filed under Section.166 of M.V.Act, and Rules 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 and Amendment Act.54 of 1994 for compensation for

Rs.13,05,000/- with interest and costs for injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident.

2. (I) The brief averments of the claim petition are that the petitioner was hale and healthy prior to accident and she was aged 6 years old. While so, on 05.11.2017 at about 10.00 a.m., the petitioner was playing in front of her house in the presence of her father at about 10.00 a.m., the 1st respondent’s Tractor and

Trailoer bearing No.AP04-BK-0475 and AP04-BK00474 came from Kadirepalli side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed driven by 3rd respondent and hit the 2

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

minor petitioner, as a result of which the minor petitioner sustained severe head injury on right side and went into unconscious and immediately the parents of the minor petitioner was shifted to Private Hospital, Vempalli and from there to

M.M.Hospital, Kadapa and when minor petitioner condition was serious, she was shifted to Kurnool Rainbow Hospital and from there to NIMHANS, Bangalore and continued treatment, wherein on a complaint of father of minor petitioner, a case in

Cr.No.270/2017 of G.R.Palli Police Station registered against respondent No.3 and after due investigation, charge sheet was also filed against him.

(ii). It is submitted that in the accident, the minor petitioner sustained following injuries as per the wound certificate/discharge summary and CT scan of brain dt.05.11.2017 that “undisplaced linear fracture at left parietal bone extending upto the coronal saline” and mild parietal peri cranial soft tissue swelling noted” and discharge summary issued by NIMHANS, Bangalore, it is noticed that “Traumatic

Brain injury with diffuse axonal injury with right hemiparesis” and minor petitioner was inpatient from 19.11.2017 to 08.12.2017. Further, the petitioner visited the

NIMHANS, Bangalore on several times and also taking physiotherapy for a long time at Vempalli. Due to the accident the petitioner is suffering from mental agony and unable to walk normally, unable to walk little distance by limping and right hand not functioning property, authoritatively all the fingers of right hand are closed and automatically fist forms and by force fist will be opened and minor petitioner became unfit to do any work and minor petitioner father spent Rs.1,10,000/- towards medicines and treatment, Rs.20,000/- towards transport, Rs.10,000/- towards extra- nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and parent of minor petitioner were prevented to attend their cooly work for a period of two months and they lost their earning of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, the petition.

3

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

3. Here, the respondent No.1 did not appear in spite of receipt of notices and on that he was remained exparte.

4. The brief averments of the counter of respondent No.2/ Insurance company are that they denied mode and manner of accident and age, income, injuries and treatment of the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that there is a delay in giving complaint and by managing the police got filed false case against the 3rd respondent. It is further submitted that the minor petitioner taken treatment at

Kurnool for 13 days and shifted to NIMANS, Bangalore has to prove by producing documentary evidence. It is submitted that as per Sec.134 (c) of M.V.Act, 1988 it is the duty of the insured / owner of the vehicle to furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time and place of the accident, but the insured / owner has not complied with the statutory demand and thus the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(I) It is further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy if any the respondent No.3, who is the driver of the offending Tractor bearing

No.AP04-BK-0475 should possess valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, otherwise this respondent is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.1 is alone liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that this respondent entitled to take all defences under section.170 of M.V.Act and

Under section.149(2) of M.V.Act. Further, it is contended that the claim of petitioner is highly excessive and requested the Court to dismiss the petition with costs.

5. The brief averments of the counter of respondent No.3 are that he denied mode and manner of accident and age, income, injuries and treatment of the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that he is having a valid driving license to drive the tractor and trailor and there is no negligence on his part in causing accident and the minor petitioner is suddenly came on road and caused accident. It is further submitted that the tractor and trailer were insured with 2nd respondent and 2nd 4

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

respondent is liable to pay the compensation and requested the Court to dismiss the petition with costs..

6. Basing on the above contentions, the following issues are settled for trial:- 1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle

Accident which occurred on 05.11.2017 at about 10.00 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor & Trailor bearing No.AP04-

BK-0475 & AP04-BK-0474 or not?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3.To what relief?

7. To prove the claim of the minor petitioner, her guardian / father is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.16 and also got examined P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the billing manager and Neuro Surgeon, Rainbow hospital, Kurnool and through him Ex.C.1 was marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, they got examined their legal Manager as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 insurance policy.

Further they also filed a petition in I.A.488/2022 u/sec.170 of M.V.Act and the same was allowed. On behalf of the respondent No.3, he did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

ISSUE No.1:-

9. In support of the relief claimed in the petition, the father of the minor petitioner filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination by reiterating the averments of the petition and got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to

Ex.A.16 i.e., attested copy of FIR I Crime No.270/2017 of G.R.Palli Police station, attested cop of charge sheet, original discharge summary dt:05.11.2017 issued by

M.M.Hospital, Kadapa, original C.T Scan of brain issued by S.R.S Diagnostics, 5

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

Kadapa dt:05.11.2017, original discharge summary dt:06.11.2017 to 17.11.2017 issued by Rainbow hospital, Kurnool, original discharge summary dt:06.11.2017 issued by Omini hospital, Kurnool, original final bill for Rs.73,150/- issued by

Rainbow hospital, Kurnool for period from 06.11.2017 to 17.11.2017, 52 original pharmacy and lab bills issued by Rainbow pharmacy, Kurnool for Rs.14,521/-, original pharmacy bill worth Rs.2,510/- issued by Omini hospital, Kurnool, treatment record of NIMHANS, Bangalore from 18.11.2017 to 08.12.2017, 3 medical bills wroth Rs.1,176/- issued by Janatha Bazaar Drug counter, Medical and Surgical and

Annoya medicals, Kadapa, 2 original lab reports issued by Biacheem Diagnostic,

Kadapa referred by Dr Jagadeeswar Reddy, Neuro dt:05.11.2017, 2 colour photographs of the petitioner showing physical condition, attested copy of insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 insurance company, attested copy of wound certificate and original physical disability certificate issued by District Medical Board,

RIMS hospital, Kadapa.

10. Here as per the claim petition and evidence of P.W.1 / father of the petitioner while the minor petitioner was playing in front of their house in his presence, the respondent No.3 being the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing

No.A.P.04-BK-0475 and No.A.P.04-BK-0474 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the minor petitioner and on that minor petitioner sustained head injury on the right side, then on the report of P.W.1 a case in Crime No.270/2017 of

G.R.Palli Police station for the offences under section.337 and 338 of IPC was registered and charge sheet was also filed against the respondent No.3.

11. Regarding the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled in “KAUSHNUMMA BEGUM

AND ORS. VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 2001 ACJ 421 SC”, held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle 6

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Section 166 and 140 of the Act. In “BASANT KAUR AND ORS. VS. CHATTAR PAL SINGH & ORS., reported as 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB)”, it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident.

Similarly, in “NATIONAL INSURANCE CO Ltd Vs PUSHPA RANA reported as 2009

ACJ, 287”, it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section.279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.

It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is benevolent legislation and not a penal one.

12. Here, the contention of respondent No.2/Insurance company through their written statement and through the evidence of their legal manager /

R.W.1 the accident was not occurred due to the fault on the part of the respondent

No.3 and the respondent No.1’s tractor and trailer never involved in the present accident and the minor petitioner sustained injury by hitting a two wheeler and the 7

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

same was revealed in the medical records, but by colluding with the respondents 1 and 3 and by managing the police they got impleaded the respondent No.1’s vehicle to get wrongful gain and for that only the delay of 41 days occurred in giving the report.

13. Here the respondent No.2 / insurance company did not adduce any documentary evidence and not summoned the investigating officer in Crime

No.270/2017 of G.R.Palli Police station to disprove the manner of the accident mentioned in Ex.A.1 FIR and Ex.A.2 charge sheet. So, here except the entries in

Ex.A.5, A.6 and A.10 there is no any cogent evidence to prove their contention. On the other hand as admitted by R.W.1 in his cross examination, he does not know at the first instance the injured was admitted to M.M hospital, Kadapa and on the other hand admitted that as per the records the date of the accident is 05.11.2017 and as per the records the minor petitioner hit by a tractor.

14. More over in the written statement of respondent No.3 driver, he admitted that he is the driver of the crime vehicle tractor and admitted about the accident, but his contention is that the minor petitioner suddenly came on the road and in an unavoidable circumstances his tractor hit the minor petitioner. So, the cross examination of R.W.1 and averments of the written statement of respondent

No.3 supports the contention and evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 FIR and A.2 charge sheet that the accident was occurred with the above said tractor and it was driven by the respondent No.3 at that time and also as per Ex.A.2 charge sheet the said accident was occurred due to the fault on the part of the respondent No.3. So, here the respondent No.2 / insurance company failed to prove their contention that the respondent No.1’s tractor was not involved in the accident and planted for the purpose of wrongful gain. On the other hand the petitioner through the evidence of

P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 and A.2 proved that the fault is on the part of the respondent 8

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

No.3 and through medical records proved that she sustained injuries in the presence accident. Further here as admitted by P.W.1 and as revealed through Exs.A.1 FIR and A.2 charge sheet there was delay of 41 days in giving the report in respect of the accident, but as per the column No.8 of Ex.A.1 FIR, the delay was occurred due to seriousness condition of the minor petitioner on sustaining the injuries in the accident and on that immediately after the accident she was taken to different hospitals for her treatment. The same was also categorically deposed by P.W.1 in his cross examination. More over the medical records of minor petitioner issued by

Rainbow hospital, Kurnool etc, also shows that the minor petitioner sustained severe injuries in the accident. The same was also revealed in the charge sheet. So, here the delay in giving the report was properly explained by P.W.1. So, mere delay of 41 days in giving the report is not dis-entitle the petitioner in seeking the compensation.

15. The same was held by the Hon’ble Court in a citation reported in ‘Gunjan ICICI Lombard Insurance Company of reported in 2020 ACJ 2003’, in which it was observed that ; ‘’Even there is a delay of one month in giving the report, it is satisfactorily explained by the claimants, then it is not fatal to the claim of the claimants’’.

16. Further in Ravi Vs Badrinarayana and others dt:18.02.2011 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was held that; ''Though there was delay in lodging the FIR about the accident, it is not fatal to the claim petition, when the reasons for the delay was properly explained by the claimant in giving the report, when facts are shown that treatment and attending the injured is more important for him than lodging the

FIR''.

17. Further in Sampath Vs Sundara Moorthy of the Hon'ble High

Court of Madras, dt:14.02.2019, it was held that, 9

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

''It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case knowing the Indian conditions as we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station than go to the hospital''.

So, as per the observations in the above judgments, the delay of 41 days in filing the report, which is satisfactorily explained by the petitioner, is not fatal to the claim of the petitioner.

Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

ISSUE No.2:-

18. Here, as per the claim petition and evidence of P.W.1, who is the father of minor petitioner, the minor petitioner was aged 6 years at the time of the accident, but as admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination and as per the medical records the minor petitioner was aged about 3 years by the date of the accident.

Hence, this tribunal considered the age of the minor petitioner at the time of the accident is at 3 years.

19. Here as per the claim petition and evidence of P.W.1, i.e., the father of the minor petitioner, the minor petitioner is entitled notional income of Rs.10,000/- per month.

20. At this stage, this Court relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble

Apex Court, in ‘Meenadevi Vs Nunu Chand Mahto @ Neem Chand and others

dt:13.10.2022 ’, in which notional income of a child aged about 7 years, who died in

the accident, has considered at Rs.30,000/- per annum by observing the principles laid down in ‘Kuravan Ansari @ Kuravan Ali and another Vs Syam Kishore

Murmu and another, reported in (2022) 1 SCC.370 and Kishan Gopal and

another Vs Lala And another, reported in (2014) 1 SCC, 244 , basing on the 10

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

guidelines given in ‘Sarala Varma and others Vs Delhi Transport corporation, (2009) 6 SCC, 121 ’.

21. Here as discussed above, the age of the minor petitioner is 3 years by the date of the accident, so, in view of observations and guidelines of the Hon’ble

Apex Court, the notional income of the minor petitioner herein is considered at 25,000/-per annum with 15 multiplier.

22. Here, as per the claim petition and evidence of P.W.1 in the present accident the minor petitioner sustained severe bleeding injuries to her head on itsright side and as per the medical records and scanning, it was noticed that ‘’Un- displaced linear fracture at left parietal bone extending upto the coronal saline’’ in the discharge summary issued by NIMHANS, Bangalore, it is also noted ‘’Traumatic brain injury with diffuse axonal injury with right hemiparesis’ and she was treated in different hospitals i.e., in M.M Hospital, Kadapa, Rainbow hospital, Kurnool and

NIMHANS hospital, Bangalore from 05.11.2017 to 08.12.2017.

23. Here the above said evidence of P.W.1 about the injuries sustained by minor petitioner and treatment given to her in Rainbow hospital, Kurnool is supported by its Billing manager, who is examined as P.W.2 and Doctor, who is examined as P.W.3, who treated the minor petitioner.

24. Further in the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.C.1 i.e., the documentary proof of certificate of incorporation, it is evident about merging of Rainbow hospital,

Kurnool in KIMS hospital, Kurnool from 01.04.2019. Further the categorical evidence of P.W.2 is that Ex.A.7 and A.8 bills issued by their hospital i.e., Rainbow hospital,

Kurnool and his evidence is that Ex.A.7 final bill, includes Ex.A.8 bills amount.

11

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

25. Further in the evidence of P.W.3, who treated the injured deposed that on 06.11.2017 the minor petitioner admitted in their hospital with left parietal fracture and Diffuse Axonal injury, then they gave treatment to her and she was discharged on 17.11.2017 and as per the hospital history ‘’Trival trauma hit by tractor at 10.00 a.m on 05.11.2017 near Rajupalem, V.N.Palli mandal, Kadapa district.

26. So, in the cross examination of P.Ws.2 and 3, nothing was elicited to disprove the manner of the accident mentioned in Ex.A.1 FIR and A.2 charge sheet and also about the injuries sustained by minor petitioner and her treatment.

27. Further as per the claim petition and evidence of P.W.1 due to sustain injuries in the accident by the minor petitioner, she is suffering from serious physical disability, such as not able to walk normally and able to walk only by wearing boot to a little distance by limping and right hand not functioning properly, automatically fingers of right hand are closed and automatically fist forms and by force fist will be opened and on her right upper and lower limbs are not in normal functioning and she was unable to hold tight with right hand, unable to eat foot, unable to write and her future became dark in all aspects including education and marriage prospects.

28. No doubt, it is certainly a stigma of limping and it is a dis-figuration and it will cause mental agony to the petitioner throughout her life and it will certainly affect her livelihood.

29. Here the above said evidence of P.W.1 about the disability of the minor petitioner is supported by Ex.A.16 disability certificate issued by District

Medical Board, Kadapa, in which the petitioner’s disability is certified at 50%. But here the petitioner did not takes steps to examine the authority, who issued Ex.A.16 12

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

disability certificate, but it was issued by three members District Medical Board,

Kadapa. Further the disability of the petitioner is also revealed through the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A.5. Hence, the disability of the petitioner minor petitioner contended by this Court is at 40%.

30. Further in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, laid down in ‘Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar,’ held that in such type of injuries it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to award just compensation and to award.

Pecuniary damages (Special damages):

(I) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.

(II) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(III) Future medical expenses.

Non pecuniary damages (General damages):-

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospect of marriage)

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

31. Here annual income of the petitioner is Rs.25,000/-. Out of it 40% (Disability) is Rs.10,000/- as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in “Sarala

Varma and Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Ans. reported in 2009 ACJ

1298” the appropriate multiplier '15' which comes to Rs.1,50,000/-.

32. Further here the contention of the petitioner P.W.1’s evidence and evidence of P.W.2, the petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs.75,150/- under Ex.P.7 final bill, which includes an amount of Rs.14,521/- under Ex.A.8. Further, here as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and as per her medical record she was travelled from 13

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

the place of accident to a private hospital, Vempalli, M.M. Hospital, Kadapa and

Rainbow hospital, Kurnool and from there to NIMHANS hospital, Bangalore for several times. So, it shows that the petitioner would spent huge amount towards transportation, hence the petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards transportation.

33. Further by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and injuries sustained by the petitioner, she is entitled a sum ofRs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.40,000/-towards extra-nourishment.

34. No doubt due to the ‘Undisplaced linear fracture at left parietal bone extending upto the coronal saline’’ and Traumatic brain injury with diffuse axonal injury with right hemiparesis’, she would have depend on others during the period of her treatment in various hospitals and throughout her life even to attend her calls of nature and difficulty even for taking food and for her studies, as such, the petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards attendant charges.

35. Here as revealed through the evidence on the record, the petitioner was aged 03 years by the date of the accident, so due to the said injuries, it will affect his enjoyment of life and causes loss of amenities, as such, she is entitled a sum of Rs.25,000/- and the disability suffered by the petitioner is a stigma of limping and disfiguration and it affects her education, and marriage prospects and it causes mental agony to her, as such, the petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Further the injuries and disability suffered by the petitioner is required future medical treatment and assistance, as such, the petitioner is entitled an amount of

Rs.50,000/-.

Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for the following amounts.

14

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

Towards loss of earningsRs.1,50,000/-

Towards medical expenses, medicines &Rs.75,150/- treatment under Ex.A.7).

Towards transportationRs.40,000/-

Towards pain and suffering Rs.75,000/-

Towards Extra-nourishment Rs.40,000/-

Towards attendant charges Rs.50,000/-

Towards Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/-

Stigma of Limping and disfiguration 1,00,000/-

Future medical treatment and assistance 50,000/-

Total Rs.6,05,150/-

37. Further, as per the claim petition, evidence of petitioner and as admitted by R.W.1 in his cross examination, the insurance policy bearing

No.551006311710000892 of the offending Tractor bearing No.AP04-BK-0474 was valid from 03.07.2017 to 02.07.2018 and as on the date of the accident the policy was in force.

38. Further it is the contention of the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.3 has no valid and effective driving license by the date of the accident. The same was not proved by the respondent No.2 / insurance company by adducing any evidence.

39.Here, respondent No.2 / insurance company is the Insurer of the offending vehicle filed a petition vide I.A.488 Of 2022, U/Sec.170 of M.V.Act to take up all the defences available on behalf of insured / owner of offending vehicle, here the respondents No.1 and 3 did not contest the same and the same was allowed.

15

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

40. In view of the findings recorded in the above said issues, this tribunal considered that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.6,05,150/- (Rupees six lakhs five thousand one hundred and fifty only) with future interest at 7.5% pa., with costs.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

ISSUE No.3:-

41. In the result, the claim petition is allowed, with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.6,05,150/- (Rupees six lakhs five thousand one hundred and fifty only) with subsequent interest at 7.5% p.a., on the said amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

(i) The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount within ONE MONTH from the date of this order.

(ii) On such deposit by the respondents, the petitioner/Nukanaboina

Pranavi, who is the minor is entitled for an amount of Rs.6,05,150/- (Rupees six lakhs five thousand one hundred and fifty only) with accrued interest and costs thereon after she attaining majority, till then the same shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank.

(iii) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

(iv) The rest of the claim of petitioner under other heads is dismissed without costs.

(v) In view of the orders passed in I.A.No.02/2020 on the file of

Hon'ble Principal District Judge’s Court, Kadapa, U/Sec.475-2 of A.P.Motor Vehicle

Rules, 1989 initially the petitioner is exempted to pay Court fee. The petitioner is entitled to receive the copy of award on deposit of Court fee within two weeks from the date of this award and the respondents are permitted to receive the copy of 16

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

award after two weeks. If the petitioner fails to pay the Court fee amount within stipulated time, he will not entitled for the interest till the date of payment from the date of failure.

Typed to my dictation to the Grade-1 Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20th day of September, 2023.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of claim petitioner

P.W.1: Pernapathi Chinna Obaiah

P.W.2: M.Venkateswar Reddy

P.W.3: Dr G.Ram Balaji Naik

Exhibits marked on behalf of the claim petitioner

Ex.A.1: Attested copy of FIR I Crime No.270/2017 of G.R.Palli Police station

Ex.A.2: Attested copy of charge sheet,

Ex.A.3: Original discharge summary dt:05.11.2017 issued by M.M.Hospital, Kadapa

Ex.A.4: Original C.T Scan of brain issued by S.R.S Diagnostics, Kadapa

dt:05.11.2017

Ex.A.5: Original discharge summary dt:06.11.2017 to 17.11.2017 issued by Rainbow hospital, Kurnool

Ex.A.6: Original discharge summary dt:06.11.2017 issued by Omini hospital, Kurnool,

Ex.A.7: Original final bill for Rs.73,150/- issued by Rainbow hospital, Kurnool for period from 06.11.2017 to 17.11.2017,

Ex.A.8: 52 original pharmacy and lab bills issued by Rainbow pharmacy, Kurnool for Rs.14,521/-,

Ex.A.9: Original pharmacy bill worth Rs.2,510/- issued by Omini hospital, Kurnool,

Ex.A.10: Treatment record of NIMHANS, Bangalore from 18.11.2017 to 08.12.2017,

Ex.A.11: 3 medical bills wroth Rs.1,176/- issued by Janatha Bazaar Drug counter, Medical and Surgical and Annoya medicals, Kadapa,

Ex.A.12: 2 original lab reports issued by Biacheem Diagnostic, Kadapa referred by Dr Jagadeeswar Reddy, Neuro dt:05.11.2017, 17

MVOP.06 Of 2020 of IV ADJ, Kdp.

Ex.A.13: 2 Colour photographs of the petitioner showing physical condition,

Ex.A.14: Attested copy of insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 insurance company,

Ex.A.15: Attested copy of wound certificate

Ex.A.16: Original physical disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, RIMS hospital, Kadapa.

Exhibits marked through P.W.2

Ex.C.1: Documentary proof of certificate of incorporation

Witnesses examined on behalf of Respondent No.2

R.W.1: K.Vasanth Kumar

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

Ex.B.1: Attested copy of insurance copy.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

- 1 -

CMA.28 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present:- Smt G.Geetha,

IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Saturday, this the 23rd day of September, 2023.

C.M.A.28 / 2022

I.A.No.307 / 2022 in O.S.No.469 / 2022

(on the fie of of iearned IIII Additionai Junior Civii Judge’s Court, Kadapa).

M.Venkata Subbaiah

.. Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff ..

- Vrs -

1. S.Narayana Reddy

2. Syed Faiz Ahmed

3. Shaik Mahaboob Chan

.. Respondents/Respondents/Defendants..

On appeal against the order dt:22.07.2022 made in I.A.307/2022 in O.S.469/2022 on

the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa.

BETWEEN

M.Venkata Subbaiah .. Petitioner/Plaintiff ..

- And -

1. S.Narayana Reddy

2. Syed Faiz Ahmed

3. Shaik Mahaboob Chan …Respondents/Defendants..

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is coming on 29.08.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.S.Riyazuddin, Advocate for

Appellant/Respondent and of Sri S.Md.Haneef, Advocate for Respondent No.1, Sri

T.Mohana Krishna, Advocate for the respondents 2 and 3 and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

Preferring this appeal:- This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed

Under order.43, Rule.1 of C.P.C, against the order and decretal order Dt.22.07.2022 passed in I.A.307/2022 in O.S.469/2022 on the file of Learned II Additional Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa, which was filed Under Order.39, Rule.1 and 2 read

with Sec.151 of C.P.C, to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner - 2 - against the respondents, restraining the respondents from alienate the petition schedule property to third parties till disposal of the main suit.

2. For the sake of convenience and better appreciation the parties, as arrayed in the above petition are referred to hereinafter.

3. Back ground of the case of the appellants/ petitioners/ plaintiffs in the trial Court is that:- Here the petition in I.A.307/2022 in

O.S.469/2022 is filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, under order.39, Rules 1 and 2 read

with section.151 C.P.C, to grant temporary injunction, restraining the defendants and their men from alienating the petition schedule property to third parties till disposal of the suit, otherwise the petitioners will suffer serious irreparable loss and in the interest of justice.

4. The averments of the petition are that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property, having purchased the same vide registered document bearing No.6100/2013, dt:12.12.2013 for valid consideration and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Out of the total extent of 439.93 square yards he executed a gift deed in favour of his wife to an extent of 214.33 square yards vide document No.506/2014 dt:28.01.2014.

(ii) It is further submitted that due to financial crisis he borrowed an amount of Rs.2,93,000/- from the respondent No.1 on 03.03.2014 by executing a conditional sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 vide document

No.1132/2014 to an extent of 225.6 square yards and the respondent No.1 executed a reconveyance agreement in favor of this petitioner on the same day. It is further submitted that the petitioner executed another credit note i.e., ‘Appu

Patramu’’ dt:03.03.2014 for total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1, which includes sale consideration of Rs.2,93,000/- vide document

No.1132/2014 and additional amount of Rs.2,07,000/- borrowed by this petitioner for the interest at Rs.3-00 per month and the interest has to be paid in lump sum - 3 -

CMA.28 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023. once in every five months. This petitioner had paid interest regularly to the respondent No.1 till June, 2020 and during Pandemic due to financial crisis he failed to repay the principal amount along with interest to the respondent No.1.

Then in the month of December, 2020 he secured the loan amount to pay back the same along with interest and redeem the conditional mortgage property from the respondent No.1, but the respondent No.1 postponing the same, though this petitioner is ready and willing to repay the total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest since January, 2022.

(iii) It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 in the month of

February, 2022 told that he sold away the said property to third parties and on that this petitioner obtained encumbrance certificate, which shows that the petition schedule property was transferred to respondents 2 and 3 by the respondent No.1, without the notice of this petitioner and on that the petitioner preferred a criminal complaint against the respondent No.1, but his efforts were in vain as the respondent No.1 with his political influence managed stage affairs and on that the police had not taken any action.

(iv) It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 colluded with the respondents 2 and 3 with each other due to hike in market price of the land to make unlawful gain and to grab the petition schedule property fraudulently and transferred the names of respondents 2 and 3 vide document No.2452/2021 to an extent of 128.7 square yard and 2453/2021 to an extent of 96.8 square yards dt:06.03.2021 respectively. The respondent No.1 is neither the owner nor in possession of the said property at any point of time since the same was mortgaged as conditional sale deed. Later this petitioner issued legal notice dt:16.04.2022 to the respondents 1 to 3, on receiving the same the respondent No.2 issued reply notice by denying the contentions of the petitioner. The respondents 2 and 3 are influenced persons they are trying to alienate the petition schedule property through real estate brokers, if - 4 - they do so the petitioner put to irreparable loss and hardship. So, requested the

Court to restrain the respondents from alienating the petition schedule property to third parties till the disposal of main suit, otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss.

5. The averments of the counter of the respondent No.1, are that he denied all the allegations made in the petition, except those that are specifically admitted by him. He admitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property, having purchased the same under registered sale deed 28.01.2014. It is submitted that the petitioner himself expressed his willingness for sale voluntarily without any threat or fear and the sale consideration was fixed at

Rs.2,93,000/- and the petitioner executed a registered sale deed in favour of this respondent after duly receiving entire sale price on 03.03.2014 vide document 2452/2021 dt:06.03.2021 to an extent of 128.79 square yards. As the petitioner in need of money he borrowed further amount of Rs.2,07,000/- for his necessities on 03.03.2014 and executed ‘Appu Patram’’ for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1 by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 36 per annum.

Further he also agreed to repay entire amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was borrowed by him within one year from the date of execution of ‘Appu Patramu’’ i.e., on or before 03.03.2015. Further the petitioner also obtained from this respondent by agreeing with certain terms and conditions, which are stipulated in the said re- conveyance agreement, the petitioner has not paid anything towards principal or interest inspite of demands made by this respondent and violated the terms and conditions of the said reconveyance agreement. Finally this respondent is need of money and on that he sold away the property to the respondents 2 and 3 vide document bearing No.2452/2021 dt:06.03.2021 to an extent of 12.79 square yards and document No.2453/2021 dt:06.03.2021 to an extent of 96.8 square yards i.e., - 5 -

CMA.28 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023. after lapse of nearly eight years period from the date of reconveyance agreement, as such, the petitioner is not having locus standy to file this petition.

(ii) Further the respondent No.1 denied about payment of interest amount till June, 2020 and denied that in the month of December, 2020 the petitioner secured the amount to discharge the entire debt. It is further submitted that if the petitioner is ready and willing to perform his part of contract as per the reconveyance agreement, who prevented him to deposit into the Court or any nationalized bank or send through post office.

(iii) It is further submitted that the specific period of one year as per the reconveyance agreement is elapsed. Hence, the said reconveyance agreement is not binding upon this respondent, as the rates not hiking to market value in the immovable properties.

(iv) It is submitted that there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner and he never expressed his willingness particularly since 2022 to perform his part of contract and he is not having any prima-facie case and balance of convenience. It is submitted that the relief sought against this respondent, the petition is not maintainable as this respondent already sold away the property to the respondents 2 and 3. So, requested the Court to dismiss the petition, with costs.

6. The averments of the counter of the respondent No.2 and 3 are that, they denied all the allegations made in the petition, except those that are specifically admitted by them. It is submitted that the petition schedule property was purchased by the petitioner vide document No.6100/2013, dt:12.12.2013, but they denied the other allegations made in the petition-affidavit.

(i). It is submitted that the petitioner has executed a pucca registered sale deed dt:03.03.2014 vide document No.1132/2014 in favour of the respondent

No.1 after receiving sale consideration and delivered possession of the property on the same day, the said document is absolute sale sale deed but not a conditional - 6 - sale deed. Ever since the date the respondent No.1 had been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any let or hindrance from anybody including the petitioner herein. These respondents herein purchased the petition schedule property under registered sale deeds dt:06.03.2021 for valid consideration and acquired possession of the same on the same day and these respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the same, with the knowledge of the petitioner herein without any let or hindrance. It is submitted that the alleged ‘Appu Patramu’ and reconveyance agreements are nothing but rank forged and fabricated documents and created by the petitioner with a malafide intention. Further even it is considered as true, but not considered about the execution of the reconveyance agreement, it is barred by limitation and not enforced under law. These respondents are the absolute owners of the petition schedule property with valid right and title and possession, as such, the petitioners is not having any prima-facie case and balance of convenience in his favour favour. On the other hand the respondents herein are having prima-facie and balance of convenience in their favour. So, if temporary injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner, these respondents will suffer irreparable loss. So, there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner and no cause of action to file the petition. So, requested the Court to dismiss the petition, with costs.

7. Enquiry:- During enquiry before trial Court, no oral evidence adduced by either parties. On behalf of the petitioner, he got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9.

On behalf of the respondents, no documents are marked.

8. Finding of the trial Court:- After hearing both sides and considering the documents filed by them, the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no prima-facie case and balance convenience in favour of the petitioner at this stage, and he will not suffer any irreparable loss if respondents are not restrained from alienating the petition schedule property.

- 7 -

CMA.28 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023.

9. Grounds of appeal:- On aggrieved by the said decree and order

dt:22.07.2022 passed in I.A.307/2022 in O.S.469/2022 on the file of learned II

Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa, the petitioner / appellant preferred

the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, on the following grounds:- (I). The trial Court erred by dismissing the petition in I.A.307/2022 in

O.S.469/2022 and it is against the law, wait of evidence and probabilities of the

case.

(ii). It is submitted it is well established principle that the admissions of the parties in pleadings should be given paramount importance while determining the dispute against them. The trial Court erred by not considering the admission of respondent No.1 in his counter about execution of sale deed, conveyance deed and appu patramu and all the above document are part and parcel of one transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.1.

(iii) The trial Court has erred by wrongly concluding the citations and not considering the factual matrix and circumstances of the transaction between appellant and respondent No.1 and not considered whether they are helpful in deciding the case or not.

(iv) The trial Court has erred is not appreciating creditor and debtor relationship between this petitioner and respondent No.1 and transfer being a security for the debt, whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Vidyadhar

Vs Mankikrao and another, AIR 1999 SC 9 (1 st ) Supp. 1441 = (1999) 3 SCC 573,

that ; ‘’The basic principle is that the form of transaction is not the final test and the true test is the intention of the parties in entering into the transaction, if the intention of the parties was that the transfer was by way of security, it would be a mortgage’’.

- 8 -

(v) The trial Court erred in interpreting the citation relied by this petitioner i.e., Mushir Mohammed Khan (dead) by Lrs Vs Smt Sajeda Banu and others (2000) 3 SCC 536), wherein the trial Court erred by extracting the part of the judgment without going through the whole judgment and conclusion given by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case.

(vi) The trial Court erred in appreciating the circumstances that the respondent No.1 had persuaded the petitioner to execute a registered sale deed along with credit note in his favour to execute reconveyance agreement in favour of the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.Nilan Vs Kannayand (dead) through

Lrs J.T 1999 (7) SC 621 = 1999 (8) SCC 511, it was observed that; ‘’Adversity of a person is not a boon for others, if a person is stringent financial conditions had taken the loan and placed his properties as security therefore, the situation cannot be exploited by the person affected by adverse circumstances from being a victim of exploitation. It is this pholosophy which is followed by the Court in allowing that person to redeem his properties by making the deposit under order.34, Rule 5 of C.P.C’’.

(vii) It is submitted that the trial Court has not considered the plea of this petitioner that the land so placed as security with the respondent No.1 and the amount so advanced does not reflect the true value of the land and the actual value of the land if higher than the amount so advanced, as such, the transaction between the appellant and respondent No.1 cannot be considered as out and out sale and it is not a simple mortgage as per the procedure conditional mortgage once the creditor executed reconveyance agreement in favour of the debtor, the right of the ownership cannot be claimed and in the present case the order itself shows that the reconveyance agreement is admitted fact by the respondent No.1. More over for an agreement the time is not essence as once mortgage is always a mortgage.

(viii) The trial Court erred by making observations in para.11 of the impugned order that this petitioner had not filed any document that he obtained the - 9 -

CMA.28 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023. loan or that he had the amounts to pay the same to the respondent No.1 and get the property transferred. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed xerox copy of appu patramu dt:03.03.2014 along with plaint documents as the original is in the custody of creditor i.e., respondent NO.1 and the same was admitted by the respondent No.1 in his counter but not filed by him and the same was not even treated as secondary evidence under section.65 of Indian Evidence Act and with respect to ready and willingness to perform his part of contract and petitioner sent a legal notice on 16.04.2022.

Therefore, prayed the Court to allow the civil miscellaneous appeal and set aside the decretal order and order dt:22.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.307/2022 in

O.S.469/2022 on the file of Learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Kadapa.

10. Enquiry:- During enquiry before this Court the trial Court record was received. No oral and documentary evidence adduced before this court .

11.Heard on both sides.

12. On perusal of the petition-affidavit, counters and material available on record including the documents filed by the petitioner, the point for determination is;

(i) Whether the petitioner / appellant is entitled for temporary

injunction, restraining the respondents from alienating the petition schedule

property to third parties till disposal of main suit?

(ii) Whether there are any valid ground to interfere or to set aside

or to modify the decree and order dt.22.07.2022 passed in I.A.NO.307/2022 in

O.S.No.469/2022 ?

(iii) To what relief ?

13. Point No.1 & 2:-

Here the present petition is filed by the petitioner Under Order.39,

Rule.1 and 2 read with Sec.151 of C.P.C, to grant temporary injunction. So, the - 10 - petitioner has to prove his prima facie case and balance of convenience and he has to prove that if temporary injunction is not granting he will be put to irreparable loss.

14. Here on perusal of the petition-affidavit, counters and material available on record the admitted fact is that the petitioner is the original owner of the petition schedule property having purchased the same through registered document bearing document No.6100/2013, dt:12.12.2013.

15. It is the contention of the petitioner that due to financial crisis, he borrowed an amount of Rs.2,93,000/- from the respondent No.1 on 03.03.2014 by executing a conditional sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 under Ex.P.1 and the respondent No.1 had executed a re conveyance agreement i.e., Ex.P.2 in favour of this petitioner on the same day i.e., on 03.03.2014. But here the contention of the respondent No.1 is that the petitioner voluntarily sold the petition schedule property under Ex.P.1 sale deed for valid consideration and it is out and out sale. No doubt on perusal of the recitals of Ex.P.1 registered sale deed it is found that it complying all the ingredients of sec.54 of Transfer of Property Act, as a sale deed.

16. Further here it is the contention of the petitioner that he has executed another credit note i.e., Appu Patramu’ on the same day i.e., on 03.03.2014 for a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1, which includes sale consideration of Rs.2,93,000/- covered under Ex.P.1 sale deed and

additional amount of Rs.2,07,000/- borrowed by him from the respondent No.1 for

interest at the rate of Rs.3-00 per month and interest has to be paid in lump sum once in every five months. Though here the petitioner did not file the said ‘Appu patramu’ dt:03.03.2014, the respondent No.1 in his counter admitted about borrowing of Rs.2,07,000/- from him by the petitioner on 03.03.2014 itself and admitted in evident of the said transaction execution of the said ‘Appu Patramu’ for

Rs.5,00,000/- by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.1 agreeing to repay - 11 -

CMA.28 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023. the same with interest and also agreed to discharge the entire debt i.e., the sale consideration of Rs.2,93,000/- + Rs.2,07,000/-, within one year from the date of execution of ‘Appu Patramu’ dt:03.03.2014 and at that time the petitioner also obtained reconveyance agreement from this respondent by agreeing with certain terms and conditions as stipulated in the said reconveyance agreement. No doubt the same was revealed through Ex.P.2 reconveyance agreement dt:03.03.2014.

17. Further here the petitioner in his petition-affidavit itself agreed about the execution of the Ex.P.2 document by the respondent No.1 and its terms and conditions. So, here the specific contention of the respondent NO.1 is that as per the terms and conditions of the said reconveyance agreement the petitioner has not paid anything towards principal or towards interest inspite of demands made by him and on that as per the terms of Ex.P.2 reconveyance agreement, he became absolute owner of the petition schedule property and sold away the same to the respondents 2 and 3 under the originals of Exs.P.4 and P.5 sale deeds when he was in need of money.

18. No doubt even as per the petition-affidavit of the petitioner he did not repay the said amount covered under Exs.P.1 and P.2 to the respondent No.1 within the time stipulated in Ex.P.2 reconveyance agreement i.e., one year from 03.03.2014. But the contention of the petitioner is that he paid interest regularly to the respondent No.1 till June, 2020 and due to financial crisis during Pandemic period, he failed to repay the principal amount along with interest, later in the month of December, 2020 he secured the loan amount to repay the same along with interest and redeem the conditional mortgage property from the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 was postponed the same on some pretext or other. But the same was denied by the respondent No.1. On the other hand the petitioner did not file any piece of record to show that he paid the interest amount regularly to the respondent No.1 till June, 2020 as contended by him and to show that the - 12 - respondent No.1 accepted the said amount and impliedly extended the due date mentioned in Ex.P.2 reconveyance agreement. So, the petitioner fails to prove his prima-facie case and balance of convenience over the petition schedule property.

19. Further in the petition-affidavit of the petitioner his plea is in two folds, one is he executed Ex.P.1 sale deed as conditional sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 by following the reconveyance agreement, but the another contention is that he executed a conditional mortgage deed in favour of the respondent No.1 in respect of the petition schedule property. But the recitals of

Ex.P.1 clearly shows that it is out and out sale deed and Ex.P.2 recitals shows that it is only a reconveyance agreement and it cannot be treated as a mortgage by conditional sale as rightly observed by the trial Court in its order by relying upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Cout in Manjabai Krishna Patil (D) by

L.Rs Vs Raghunath Revaji Patil and Anor (2007) 12 SCC 427) with several

precedents. In Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs Rajendra Prasad and Anr (AIR

2006 SC 965), wherein it was held that; ‘’A mortgage by conditional sale must be evidenced by one document whereas a sale with a condition of retransfer may be evidenced by more than one document. A sale with a condition of restransfer, is not a mortgage. It is not a partial transfer.

20. In Shri Bhaskar Waman Joshi Vs Shri Narayan Rambilas

Agarwal (1960) 2 SCR 117, wherein it was held that; ‘’A transaction shall not be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition referred to in the clause is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale. But it does not follow that if the condition is incorporated in the deed effecting or purporting to effect a sale a mortgage transaction must of necessity have been intended. The question whether by the incorporation of such a condition a transaction ostensibly of sale may be regarded ass a mortgage is one of the intention of the parties to be gathered from the language of the ded interpreted in the light of the surrounding - 13 -

CMA.28 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023. circumstances. The circumstance that the condition is incorporated in the sale deed must undoubtedly be taken into account, but the value to be attached thereto must vary with the degree of formality attending upon the transaction. The definition of a mortgage by conditional sale postulates the creation by the transfer of a relation of mortgagor and mortgagee, the price being charged on the property conveyed. In a sale coupled with an agreement to reconvey there is no relation of debtor and creditor nor is the price charged upon the property conveyed, but the sale is subject to an obligation to retransfer the property within the period specified. What distinguishes the two transactions is the relationship of debtor and creditor and the transfer being a security for the debt. The form in which the deed is clothed is not decisive. The definition of a mortgage by conditional sale itself contemplates an ostensible sale of the property...’’.

21. In Tulsi Vs Chandrika Prasad AIR (2006 SC 3359), wherein it was held that; ‘’A distinction exists between a mortgage by way of conditional sale and a sale with condition of purchase. In the former the debt subsists and a right to redeem remains with the debtor but in case of the latter the transaction does not evidence an agreement of lending and borrowing and, thus, right to redeem is not reserved thereby’’.

22. On the other hand, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above

said citation in ‘Manjabai Krishna Patil (D) by L.Rs Vs Raghunath Revaji Patil

and Anor (2007) 12 SCC 427)’ case, as per sec.17 of Indian Registration Act, the agreement of reconveyance is not a compulsorily registerable document, but the mortgage by conditional sale deed is compulsorily registerable one. So, here

Ex.P.2 cannot be termed as a mortgage by conditional sale as contended by the petitioner in para No.4 of the petition-affidavit. The same was also rightly appreciated by the trial Court in its order.

23. On the other hand the petitioner is at liberty to prove his two folds contentions i.e., one is Ex.P.1 is conditional sale deed followed by reconveyance - 14 - agreement and his another contention is that Ex.P.2 is mortgage by conditional sale, which will be decided in full-fledged trial by adducing relevant evidence and how the citations submitted by the petitioner are applicable to his contentions as raised in the appeal grounds.

24. On the other hand here through Exs.P.4 and P.5 sale deeds and through the contentions of the petitioner and respondent No.1 that the respondents 2 and 3 purchased the petition schedule property under Exs.P.4 and P.5 sale deeds.

Further the recitals of Exs.P.4 and P.5 sale deeds also shows that they are out and out sale deeds by following the delivery of possession to the respondents 2 and 3.

On the other hand even the petitioner did not file any piece of record to show that the possession of the petition schedule property is with him and not delivered to the petitioner as recited in Ex.P.1 sale deed. So, here the petitioner fails to prove his balance of convenience over the petition schedule property, even for asking of relief of not to alienate the property. Even the petitioner did not repay the amount to the respondent No.1, till date in any mode including depositing the said amount before the Court to supports his contention that even in the month of December, 2020 itself he secured the said amount with interest and ready to pay the same to show his bonafides. So, the same was also rightly appreciated by the trial Court in its order.

25. Further here as discussed above the petitioner fails to prove his prima-facie case and balance of convenience over the petition schedule property, as such, if temporary injunction is not granted it will not cause any hardship to the petitioner, more over it causes hardship to the respondents 2 and 3.

26. Hence, the petitioner fails to prove the cordial principles to grant temporary injunction against the respondents 1 to 3 to restrain them from alienating the petition schedule property pending disposal of the main suit. The same was also rightly appreciated and decided by the trial Court in its order. So, there are no any reasonable or valid grounds to interfere or to set aside the orders dt:22.07.2022 - 15 -

CMA.28 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023. passed in passed in I.A.307/2022 in O.S.469/2022 on the file of Learned II

Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa.

Hence the point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioner / appellant and against the respondents / respondents.

27. POINT No.3:-

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is dismissed, without costs by confirming the decree and order dt:22.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.307/2022 in O.S.469/2022 on the file of Learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Kadapa.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I transcribed by him corrected

and pronounced by me, in open Court, this the 23rd day of September, 2023.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

Sd/- G.Geetha,

IV A.D.J.,

Kdp.

- 1 -

CMA.27 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present:- Smt G.Geetha,

IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Saturday, this the 23rd day of September, 2023.

C.M.A.27 / 2022

I.A.No.308 / 2022 in O.S.No.468 / 2022

(on the fie of of iearned IIII Additionai Junior Civii Judge’s Court, Kadapa).

M.Vara Lakshmi

.. Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff ..

- Vrs -

1. N.Kalyani Devi

2. Syed Faiz Ahmed

.. Respondents/Respondents/Defendants..

On appeal against the order dt:22.07.2022 made in I.A.308/2022 in O.S.468/2022 on

the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa.

BETWEEN

M.Vara Lakshmi .. Petitioner/Plaintiff ..

- And -

1. N.Kalyani Devi

2. Syed Faiz Ahmed …Respondents/Defendants..

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is coming on 29.08.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.S.Riyazuddin, Advocate for Appellant/

Respondent and of Sri S.Md.Haneef, Advocate for Respondent No.1, Sri T.Mohana

Krishna, Advocate for the respondents 2 and 3 and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

Preferring this appeal:- This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed

Under order.43, Rule.1 of C.P.C, against the order and decretal order

Dt.22.07.2022 passed in I.A.308/2022 in O.S.468/2022 on the file of Learned II

Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa, which was filed Under Order.39,

Rule.1 and 2 read with Sec.151 of C.P.C, to grant temporary injunction in favour of - 2 - the petitioner against the respondents, restraining the respondents from alienate the petition schedule property to third parties till disposal of the main suit.

2. For the sake of convenience and better appreciation the parties, as arrayed in the above petition are referred to hereinafter.

3. Back ground of the case of the appellants/ petitioners/ plaintiffs in the trial Court is that:- Here the petition in I.A.308/2022 in

O.S.468/2022 is filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, under order.39, Rules 1 and 2 read

with section.151 C.P.C, to grant temporary injunction, restraining the defendants and their men from alienating the petition schedule property to third parties till disposal of the suit, otherwise the petitioner will suffer serious irreparable loss and in the interest of justice.

4. The averments of the petition are that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property, having got the same vide registered gift deed bearing No.506/2014, dt:28.01.2014 to an extent of 214.33 square yards from her husband and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same.

(ii) It is further submitted that due to financial crisis she borrowed an amount of Rs.2,79,000/- from the respondent No.1 on 03.03.2014 by executing a conditional sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 vide document

No.1133/2014 to an extent of 214.33 square yards and the respondent No.1 executed a reconveyance agreement in favor of this petitioner on the same day. It is further submitted that the Petitioner executed another credit note i.e., ‘Appu

Patramu’’ dt:03.03.2014 for total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1, which includes sale consideration of Rs.2,79,000/- vide document

No.1133/2014 and additional amount of Rs.2,21,000/- borrowed by this petitioner for the interest at Rs.3-00 per month and the interest has to be paid in lump sum once in every five months. This petitioner had paid interest regularly to the - 3 -

CMA.27 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023. respondent No.1 till June, 2020 and during Pandemic due to financial crisis she failed to repay the principal amount along with interest to the respondent No.1.

Then in the month of December, 2020 he secured the loan amount to pay back the same along with interest and redeem the conditional mortgage property from the respondent No.1, but the respondent No.1 postponing the same, though this petitioner is ready and willing to repay the total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest since January, 2022.

(iii) It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 in the month of

February, 2022 told that she sold away the said property to third parties and on that this petitioner obtained encumbrance certificate, which shows that the petition schedule property was transferred to respondent No.2 by the respondent No.1, without the notice of this petitioner and on that the petitioner preferred a criminal complaint against the respondent No.1, but her efforts were in vain as the respondent No.1 with her political influence managed stage affairs and on that the police had not taken any action.

(iv) It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 colluded with the respondent No.2 with each other due to hike in market price of the land to make unlawful gain and to grab the petition schedule property fraudulently and transferred the name of respondent No.2 vide document No.2451/2021 dt:06.03.2021 to an extent of 214.33 square yards. The respondent No.1 is neither the owner nor in possession of the said property at any point of time since the same was mortgaged as conditional sale deed. Later this petitioner issued legal notice dt:16.04.2022 to the respondent No. 1 and 2, on receiving the same by denying the contentions of the petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 are influenced persons they are trying to alienate the petition schedule property through real estate brokers, if they do so the petitioner put to irreparable loss and hardship. So, requested the Court to restrain - 4 - the respondents from alienating the petition schedule property to third parties till the disposal of main suit, otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss.

5. The averments of the counter of the respondent No.1 are that, she denied all the allegations made in the petition, except those that are specifically admitted by her. She admitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property, having got the same from her husband vide registered gift deed bearing No.506/2014, dt:28.01.2014 to an extent of 214.33 square yards.

It is submitted that the petitioner herself expressed her willingness for sale voluntarily without any threat or fear and the sale consideration was fixed at

Rs.2,79,000/- and the petitioner executed a registered sale deed in favour of this respondent after duly receiving entire sale price on 03.03.2014 vide document 2451/2021 dt:02.03.2021. As the petitioner was in need of money she borrowed further amount of Rs.2,79,000/- for her necessities on 03.03.2014 and executed ‘Appu Patram’’ for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1 by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 36% per annum. Further she also agreed to repay entire amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was borrowed by him within one year from the date of execution of ‘Appu Patramu’’ i.e., on or before 03.03.2015. Further the petitioner also obtained from this respondent by agreeing with certain terms and conditions, which are stipulated in the said re-conveyance agreement, the petitioner has not paid anything towards principal or interest inspite of demands made by this respondent and violated the terms and conditions of the said reconveyance agreement. Finally this respondent is in need of money and on that she sold away the property to the respondent No.2 vide document bearing No.2451/2021

dt:06.03.2021 to an extent of 214.33 Square yards i.e., after lapse of nearly eight

years period from the date of reconveyance agreement, as such, the petitioner is not having locus standy to file this petition.

- 5 -

CMA.27 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023.

(ii) Further the respondent No.1 denied about payment of interest amount till June, 2020 and denied that in the month of December, 2020 the petitioner secured the amount to discharge the entire debt. It is further submitted that if the petitioner is ready and willing to perform her part of contract as per the reconveyance agreement, who prevented her to deposit into the Court or any nationalized bank or send through post office.

(iii) It is further submitted that the specific period of one year as per the reconveyance agreement is elapsed. Hence, the said reconveyance agreement is not binding upon this respondent, as the rates not hiking to market value in the immovable properties.

(iv) It is submitted that there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner and she never expressed her willingness particularly since 2022 to perform her part of contract and she is not having any prima-facie case and balance of convenience. It is submitted that the relief sought against this respondent, the petition is not maintainable as this respondent already sold away the property to the respondent No.2. So, requested the Court to dismiss the petition, with costs.

6. The averments of the Counter of the respondent No.2 are that, he denied all the allegations made in the petition, except those that are specifically admitted by him. It is submitted that the petition schedule property was gifted by her husband to the petitioner vide document No.506/2014 dt:28.01.2014, but he denied the other allegations made in the petition-affidavit.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner has executed a pucca registered sale deed dt:03.03.2014 vide document No.1133/2014 in favour of the respondent

No.1 after receiving sale consideration and delivered possession of the property on the same day, the said document is absolute sale deed but not a conditional sale deed. Ever since the date the respondent No.1 had been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any let or hindrance from anybody including the - 6 - petitioner herein. This respondent No.2 herein purchased the petition schedule property under registered sale deed dt:06.03.2021 for valid consideration and acquired possession of the same on the same day and this respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, with the knowledge of the petitioner herein without any let or hindrance. It is submitted that the alleged ‘Appu Patramu’ and reconveyance agreements are nothing but rank forged and fabricated documents and created by the petitioner with a malafide intention. Further even it is considered as true, but not considered about the execution of the reconveyance agreement, it is barred by limitation and not enforced under law. This respondent is the absolute owners of the petition schedule property with valid right and title and possession, as such, the petitioner is not having any prima-facie case and balance of convenience in his favour favour. On the other hand the respondent herein is having prima-facie and balance of convenience in his favour. So, if temporary injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner, this respondent will suffer irreparable loss. So, there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner and no cause of action to file the petition. So, requested the Court to dismiss the petition, with costs.

8. Enquiry:- During enquiry before trial Court, no oral evidence adduced by either parties. On behalf of the petitioner, he got marked Exs.P.1 to

P.8. On behalf of the respondents, no documents are marked.

9. Finding of the trial Court:- After hearing both sides and considering the documents filed by them, the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no prima-facie case and balance convenience in favour of the petitioner at this stage, and she will not suffer any irreparable loss if respondents are not restrained from alienating the petition schedule property.

10. Grounds of appeal:- On aggrieved by the said decree and order

dt:22.07.2022 passed in I.A.308/2022 in O.S.468/2022 on the file of learned II

- 7 -

CMA.27 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023.

Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa, the petitioner / appellant preferred

the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, on the following grounds:- (I). The trial Court erred by dismissing the petition in I.A.308/2022 in

O.S.468/2022 and it is against the law, wait of evidence and probabilities of the

case.

(ii). It is submitted it is well established principle that the admissions of the parties in pleadings should be given paramount importance while determining the dispute against them. The trial Court erred by not considering the admission of respondent No.1 in her counter about execution of sale deed, conveyance deed and ‘Appu patramu’ and all the above document are part and parcel of one transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.1.

(iii) The trial Court has erred by wrongly concluding the citations and not considering the factual matrix and circumstances of the transaction between appellant and respondent No.1 and not considered whether they are helpful in deciding the case or not.

(iv) The trial Court has erred is not appreciating creditor and debtor relationship between this petitioner and respondent No.1 and transfer being a security for the debt, whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Vidyadhar

Vs Mankikrao and another, AIR 1999 SC 9 (1 st ) Supp. 1441 = (1999) 3 SCC 573,

that ; ‘’The basic principle is that the form of transaction is not the final test and the true test is the intention of the parties in entering into the transaction, if the intention of the parties was that the transfer was by way of security, it would be a mortgage’’.

(v) The trial Court erred in interpreting the citation relied by this petitioner i.e., Mushir Mohammed Khan (dead) by Lrs Vs Smt Sajeda Banu and others (2000) 3 SCC 536), wherein the trial Court erred by extracting the part of the - 8 - judgment without going through the whole judgment and conclusion given by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case.

(vi) The trial Court erred in appreciating the circumstances that the respondent No.1 had persuaded the petitioner to execute a registered sale deed along with credit note in his favour to execute reconveyance agreement in favour of the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.Nilan Vs Kannayand (dead) through

Lrs J.T 1999 (7) SC 621 = 1999 (8) SCC 511, it was observed that; ‘’Adversity of a person is not a boon for others, if a person is stringent financial conditions had taken the loan and placed his properties as security therefore, the situation cannot be exploited by the person affected by adverse circumstances from being a victim of exploitation. It is this pholosophy which is followed by the Court in allowing that person to redeem his properties by making the deposit under order.34, Rule 5 of C.P.C’’.

(vii) It is submitted that the trial Court has not considered the plea of this petitioner that the land so placed as security with the respondent No.1 and the amount so advanced does not reflect the true value of the land and the actual value of the land if higher than the amount so advanced, as such, the transaction between the appellant and respondent No.1 cannot be considered as out and out sale and it is not a simple mortgage as per the procedure conditional mortgage once the creditor executed reconveyance agreement in favour of the debtor, the right of the ownership cannot be claimed and in the present case the order itself shows that the reconveyance agreement is admitted fact by the respondent No.1. More over for an agreement the time is not essence as once mortgage is always a mortgage.

(viii) The trial Court erred by making observations in para.11 of the impugned order that this petitioner had not filed any document that she obtained the loan or that he had the amounts to pay the same to the respondent No.1 and get the property transferred. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed xerox copy of ‘Appu patramu’ dt:03.03.2014 along with plaint documents as the original is in the - 9 -

CMA.27 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023. custody of creditor i.e., respondent No.1 and the same was admitted by the respondent No.1 in her counter, but not filed by her and the same was not even treated as secondary evidence under section.65 of Indian Evidence Act and with respect to ready and willingness to perform her part of contract and petitioner sent a legal notice on 16.04.2022.

Therefore, prayed the Court to allow the civil miscellaneous appeal and set aside the decretal order and order dt:22.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.308/2022 in O.S.468/2022 on the file of Learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Kadapa.

11. Enquiry:- During enquiry before this Court the trial Court record was received. No oral and documentary evidence adduced before this court .

12.Heard on both sides.

13. On perusal of the petition-affidavit, counters and material available on record including the documents filed by the petitioner, the points for determination is;

(i) Whether the petitioner / appellant is entitled for temporary

injunction, restraining the respondents from alienating the petition schedule

property to third parties till disposal of main suit?

(ii) Whether there are any valid ground to interfere or to set aside

or to modify the decree and order dt. 22.07.2022 passed in I.A.No. 308/2022 in

O.S.No.468/2022 ?

(iii) To what relief ?

14. Point Nos.1 & 2:-

Here the petitioner has to prove his prima facie case and balance of convenience and he has to prove that if temporary injunction is not granted he will be put to irreparable loss.

- 10 -

15. Here on perusal of the petition-affidavit, counters and material available on record the admitted fact is that the petitioner is the original owner of the petition schedule property having got the same from her husband vide registered gift deed bearing No.506/2014, dt:28.01.2014 to an extent of 214.33 square yards.

16. It is the contention of the petitioner that due to financial crisis, she borrowed an amount of Rs.2,79,000/- from the respondent No.1 on 03.03.2014 by executing a conditional sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 under Ex.P.1 and the respondent No.1 had executed a reconveyance agreement i.e., Ex.P.2 in favour of this petitioner on the same day i.e., on 03.03.2014. But here the contention of the respondent No.1 is that the petitioner voluntarily sold the petition schedule property under Ex.P.1 sale deed for valid consideration and it is out and out sale. No doubt on perusal of the recitals of Ex.P.1 registered sale deed it is found that it complying all the ingredients of sec.54 of Transfer of Property Act, as a sale deed.

17. Further here it is the contention of the petitioner that she has executed another credit note i.e., ‘Appu Patramu’ on the same day i.e., on 03.03.2014 for a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1, which includes sale consideration of Rs.2,79,000/- covered under Ex.P.1 sale deed and

additional amount of Rs.2,21,000/- borrowed by her from the respondent No.1 for

interest at the rate of Rs.3-00 per month and interest has to be paid in lump sum once in every five months. Though here the petitioner did not file the said ‘Appu patramu’ dt:03.03.2014, the respondent No.1 in her counter admitted about borrowing of Rs.2,79,000/- from him by the petitioner on 03.03.2014 itself and admitted in evident of the said transaction execution of the said ‘Appu Patramu’ for

Rs.5,00,000/- by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.1 agreeing to repay the same with interest and also agreed to discharge the entire debt i.e., the sale consideration of Rs.2,79,000/- + Rs.2,21,000/-, within one year from the date of - 11 -

CMA.27 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023. execution of ‘Appu Patramu’ dt:03.03.2014 and at that time the petitioner also obtained reconveyance agreement from this respondent by agreeing with certain terms and conditions as stipulated in the said reconveyance agreement. No doubt the same was revealed through Ex.P.2 reconveyance agreement dt:03.03.2014.

18. Further here the petitioner in her petition-affidavit itself agreed about the execution of the Ex.P.2 document by the respondent No.1 and its terms and conditions. So, here the specific contention of the respondent No.1 is that as per the terms and conditions of the said reconveyance agreement the petitioner has not paid anything towards principal or towards interest inspite of demands made by her and on that as per the terms of Ex.P.2 reconveyance agreement, she became absolute owner of the petition schedule property and sold away the same to the respondent No.2 under the original of Ex.P.4 sale deed, when she was in need of money.

19. No doubt even as per the petition-affidavit of the petitioner, she did not repay the said amount covered under Exs.P.1 and P.2 to the respondent No.1 within the time stipulated in Ex.P.2 reconveyance agreement i.e., one year from 03.03.2014. But the contention of the petitioner is that he paid interest regularly to the respondent No.1 till June, 2020 and due to financial crisis during Pandemic period, he failed to repay the principal amount along with interest, later in the month of December, 2020 he secured the loan amount to repay the same along with interest and redeem the conditional mortgage property from the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 was postponed the same on some pretext or other. But the same was denied by the respondent No.1. On the other hand the petitioner did not file any piece of record to show that he paid the interest amount regularly to the respondent No.1 till June, 2020 as contended by her and to show that the respondent No.1 accepted the said amount and impliedly extended the due date - 12 - mentioned in Ex.P.2 reconveyance agreement. So, the petitioner fails to prove her prima-facie case and balance of convenience over the petition schedule property.

20. Further in the petition-affidavit of the petitioner her plea is in two folds, one is she executed Ex.P.1 sale deed as conditional sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 by following the reconveyance agreement, but the another contention is that she executed a conditional mortgage deed in favour of the respondent No.1 in respect of the petition schedule property. But the recitals of

Ex.P.1 clearly shows that it is out and out sale deed and Ex.P.2 recitals shows that it is only a reconveyance agreement and it cannot be treated as a mortgage by conditional sale as rightly observed by the trial Court in its order by relying upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Cout in Manjabai Krishna Patil (D) by

L.Rs Vs Raghunath Revaji Patil and Anor (2007) 12 SCC 427) with several

precedents. In Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs Rajendra Prasad and Anr (AIR

2006 SC 965), wherein it was held that; ‘’A mortgage by conditional sale must be evidenced by one document whereas a sale with a condition of retransfer may be evidenced by more than one document. A sale with a condition of restransfer, is not a mortgage. It is not a partial transfer.

21. In Shri Bhaskar Waman Joshi Vs Shri Narayan Rambilas

Agarwal (1960) 2 SCR 117, wherein it was held that; ‘’A transaction shall not be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition referred to in the clause is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale. But it does not follow that if the condition is incorporated in the deed effecting or purporting to effect a sale a mortgage transaction must of necessity have been intended. The question whether by the incorporation of such a condition a transaction ostensibly of sale may be regarded ass a mortgage is one of the intention of the parties to be gathered from the language of the deed interpreted in the light of the surrounding circumstances. The circumstance that the condition is incorporated in the sale deed must undoubtedly be taken into account, but the value to be - 13 -

CMA.27 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023. attached thereto must vary with the degree of formality attending upon the transaction. The definition of a mortgage by conditional sale postulates the creation by the transfer of a relation of mortgagor and mortgagee, the price being charged on the property conveyed. In a sale coupled with an agreement to reconvey there is no relation of debtor and creditor nor is the price charged upon the property conveyed, but the sale is subject to an obligation to retransfer the property within the period specified. What distinguishes the two transactions is the relationship of debtor and creditor and the transfer being a security for the debt. The form in which the deed is clothed is not decisive. The definition of a mortgage by conditional sale itself contemplates an ostensible sale of the property...’’.

22. In Tulsi Vs Chandrika Prasad AIR (2006 SC 3359), wherein it was held that; ‘’A distinction exists between a mortgage by way of conditional sale and a sale with condition of purchase. In the former the debt subsists and a right to redeem remains with the debtor but in case of the latter the transaction does not evidence an agreement of lending and borrowing and, thus, right to redeem is not reserved thereby’’.

23. On the other hand, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above

said citation in ‘Manjabai Krishna Patil (D) by L.Rs Vs Raghunath Revaji Patil

and Anor (2007) 12 SCC 427)’ case, as per sec.17 of Indian Registration Act, the agreement of reconveyance is not a compulsorily registerable document, but the mortgage by conditional sale deed is compulsorily registerable one. So, here

Ex.P.2 cannot be termed as a mortgage by conditional sale as contended by the petitioner in para No.4 of the petition-affidavit. The same was also rightly appreciated by the trial Court in its order.

24. On the other hand the petitioner is at liberty to prove her two folds contentions i.e., one is Ex.P.1 is conditional sale deed followed by reconveyance agreement and her another contention is that Ex.P.2 is mortgage by conditional sale, which will be decided in full-fledged trial by adducing relevant evidence and - 14 - how the citations submitted by the petitioner are applicable to her contentions as raised in the appeal grounds.

25. On the other hand here through Ex.P.4 sale deeds and through the contentions of the petitioner and respondent No.1 that the respondent No.2 purchased the petition schedule property under Ex.P.4 sale deed. Further the recitals of Ex.P.4 sale deed also shows that it is out and out sale deed by following the delivery of possession to the respondent No.2. On the other hand even the petitioner did not file any piece of record to show that the possession of the petition schedule property is with her and not delivered to the petitioner as recited in Ex.P.1 sale deed. So, here the petitioner fails to prove her balance of convenience over the petition schedule property, even for asking of relief of not to alienate the property.

Even the petitioner did not repay the amount to the respondent No.1, till date in any mode including depositing the said amount before the Court to supports her contention that even in the month of December, 2020 itself she secured the said amount with interest and ready to pay the same to show her bonafides. So, the same was also rightly appreciated by the trial Court in its order.

26. Further here as discussed above the petitioner fails to prove her prima-facie case and balance of convenience over the petition schedule property, as such, if temporary injunction is not granted it will not cause any hardship to the petitioner, more over it causes hardship to the respondent No.2.

27. Hence, the petitioner fails to prove the cordial principles to grant temporary injunction against the respondents 1 and 2 to restrain them from alienating the petition schedule property pending disposal of the main suit. The same was also rightly appreciated and decided by the trial Court in its order. So, there are no any reasonable or valid grounds to interfere or to set aside the orders

dt:22.07.2022 passed in passed in I.A.308/2022 in O.S.468/2022 on the file of

Learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa.

- 15 -

CMA.27 Of 2022 of

IV ADJ Court, KDP. Dt.23.09.2023. Hence the point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioner / appellant and against the respondents / respondents.

28. POINT No.3:-

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is dismissed, without costs by confirming the decree and order dt:22.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.308/2022 in O.S.No.468/2022 on the file of Learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Kadapa.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I transcribed by him corrected

and pronounced by me, in open Court, this the 23rd day of September, 2023.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

Sd/- G.Geetha,

IV A.D.J.,

Kdp.

1

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023.

In the Court of the III Additional District Judge :: Rajampet

Present: Smt G.Geetha, IV Addl .District Judge, kadapa FAC: III Additional District Judge, Rajampet

Thursday, this the 21st day of September, 2023.

Original Suit No.17 of 2018

1. Somalaraju Balarama Raju

2. Somalaraju Subhashani

.. Plaintiffs

Versus

P.Chinna Penchal Reddy

.. Defendant

This suit coming on 04-08-2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Krishna Kumar, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri R.C.Suresh Babu, advocate for defendant, having stood over for consideration and after perusing the records on file and hearing arguments on both sides, this court delivered the following:

J u d g e m e n t

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for grant of specific performance directing the defendant to receive an amount of Rs.68,05,333/- and to execute regular registered sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff in terms of re-conveyance deed Dt.31.7.2015 and to return two empty signed N.J. Stamps worth of Rs.100/- each and five empty signed promissory notes, which were signed by the plaintiffs, if the defendant failes to do so, the plaintiffs are entitled for the same by following due process of law and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the original owners of the plaint schedule property, who purchased the same under two registered sale deeds vide document No.751/2011 and 1180/2011 and since then they have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and they are badly in need of money and on that 2

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023. they approached the defendant and borrowed an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- from the defendant on 31.7.2015 and by that time at the instigation of defendant and also under inevitable circumstances, the plaintiffs have executed a nominal registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendant on the same day I.e, on 31.7.2015 ( Wrongly mentioned as 31.7.2014 in the registered sale deed) for

Rs.28,70,000/-, for the sake of convenience, though the document is recited as out and out sale and delivery of possession but in fact no sale transaction was made under the said document and no possession was delivered to him. Further, on the same day on the demand of the plaintiffs, the defendant has executed an unregistered re-conveyance deed in respect of plaint schedule property on 31.7.2015 in favour of plaintiffs agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiffs on repayment of principal amount of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24%p.a, within three years and the plaintiffs have to pay interest for every five months . Further, on the same day , the defendant obtained signature of the plaintiffs in two empty N.J.Stamp papers worth of Rs.100/- each and also obtained signatures of the plaintiffs in five empty stamped promissory notes promising to return the same on payment of principal amount with interest. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

2(a).It is further submitted after that inspite of several requests made by the plaintiffs to receive five months interest by the defendant as per the terms of the re conveyance deed, the defendant directed the plaintiffs to pay entire interest along with principal amount.

Later, the plaintiffs approached the defendant with amount borrowed by them along with interest and requested the defendant to receive the same 3

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023. and to return the signed N.J. Stamp papers and five signed promissory notes and to execute regular registered sale deed in their favour. The defendant showed deaf ear.

2(b).It is further submitted that later the plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendant on 18.6.2018 through the Professional courier service Dt.18.6.2018 requesting the defendant to present at the Sub-

Registrar office, Pullampet at 10.30 a.m on21.6.2018 to receive the amount with interest and to reconvey the property in their favour and return the signed blank promissory notes and N.J. Stamp papers, but though the plaintiffs went to Sub-Registrar office, Pullampet on 21.6.2018 and waited there from 10.30 a.m to 5.00 p.m , the defendant did not turn up intentionally to grab the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3. The averments of the written statement of defendant are that he denied the allegations made in the plaint except that those are specifically admitted by him. He admitted that the plaintiffs are the original owners of the plaint schedule property and they borrowed an amount of

Rs.40,00,000/- from him on 31.7.2015 and admitted about execution of re conveyance deed on 31.7.2015 in favour of plaintiffs to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs on payment of principal amount of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest at 24%p.a, within three years. It is submitted that as per the conditions of re conveyance agreement , the plaintiffs have to pay interest for every five months in default interest due amount to be added to the principal amount, but the defendant denied that at his instigation under inevitable circumstances only, the plaintiffs have executed nominal registered sale deed in favour of the defendant on 31.7.2015 and denied that he obtained signatures of the plaintiffs in two empty N.J.Stamp papers worth of Rs.100/- each, and five empty stamped promissory notes to return the same on repayment of principal amount with 4

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023. interest. Further, he denied that inspite of plaintiffs requests to receive the interest amount for five months, this defendant directed them to pay the same along with principal amount and denied that though the plaintiffs approached him to repay the principal amount with interest, he showed deaf ear with a view to increase of market value of plaint schedule property.

It is further submitted that the defendant received legal notice issued by the plaintiffs after the due date mentioned in their notice , later the defendant got issued reply notice Dt.25.6.2018 to the counsel for plaintiffs by mentioning the real facts.

3(a). It is further submitted that the plaintiffs borrowed an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- from him for their business necessities on 31.7.2015 and executed a registered sale deed Dt.31.7.2015 in favour of defendant as security on the same day, the defendant executed unregistered re conveyance agreement in favour of the plaintiff with the terms and conditions mentioned in it . Further, it is submitted that this defendant never obtained signatures of the plaintffs in two empty

N.J.Stamp papers and five empty promissory notes.

3(b). It is further submitted that originally the defendant by name T. Chinna Penchal Reddy went to abroad to see his daughter and on that he executed registered General Power of Attorney on 4.7.2018 in favour of his son by name P.Narasimhulu Reddy to look after the maintenance of plaint schedule property and also court cases pertaining to the plaint schedule property. Now, the agent namely P. Narasimhulu Reddy, representing the original defendant as his true agent, who is his son having personal knowledge about the entire transactions from the date of execution of the registered sale deed and other documents.

3(c).It is further submitted that even though the defendant is ready and willing to receive the principal amount with interest, the plaintiffs 5

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023. intentionally filed the suit to postpone the huge amount due to the defendant, as such there is no cause of action to file the suit. So, requested to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by my learned predecessor :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract under reconveyance agreement Dt.31.7.2015?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of reconveyance agreement Dt.31.7.2015 on payment of interest for five month to defendant ?

3. To what relief ?

5.To prove their respective contentions, the plaintiffs themselves examined as P.Ws1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 toA.6 and also examined father-in-law of P.W.1 as P.W.3. On behalf of defendant, his son/ G.P.A examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3 and got examined finger print expert as D.W.2 and got marked Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.5.

6.Further, the defendant also got summoned and examined the thumb impression expert as D.W.2 through him Exs.X1 to X.5 were marked.

7.Heard on both sides.

8.In support of the oral arguments, the plaintiffs also filed their written arguments .

9.Perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by either parties and written arguments of the plaintiffs and citations submitted by the defendant.

Admitted and Revealed facts:-

10.On perusal of the plaint, written statement and evidence of

P.ws1 to3, D.W.1 , Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 the revealed and admitted facts are that originally the plaint schedule property is belonged 6

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023. to the plaintiffs No.1 and 2, who have purchased the same under two registered sale deeds and after that they borrowed an amount of

Rs.40,00,000/- from the defendant for their necessities on 31.7.2015 and executed original of Ex.A.1/ sale deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property and on the same day , the defendant executed Ex.A.6/ agreement of reconveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs agreeing to reconvey the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiffs by executing regular sale deed on repayment of principal amount of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24%p.a, within three years from that date and payment of interest amount for every five months , failing which , the interest amount to be included in the principal amount.

Discussion:-

Whether DW.1 is competent to give evidence:-

11.Here, as per the orders in I.A.NO.794/2018Dt.28.11.2018

D.W.1, who is G.P.A of the defendant permitted to represent the defendant in the present case proceedings in respect of the plaint schedule property.

12.Here, though the plaintiffs that they did not prefer any revision on the decree and orders passed in I.A.No.794/2018, in their written arguments, they contended that D.w.1 is not a competent person to give evidence on behalf of defendant and to represent the matter on behalf of defendant as he is not having personal knowledge about the suit transaction. Further, they contended that without examining the defendant the evidence of G.P.A/D.W.1 itself is not sufficient to prove the pleas taken by the defendant. The same was denied by the defendant.

13.The learned counsel for the defendant contended that the evidence of D.w.1/G.P.A is sufficient even in the absence of evidence from the original defendant , for that he relied upon a citations reported in 2015 (3) ALD 490 in between Durgampudi Padmamma Vs Kallutla 7

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023. Kotamma ( died) her L.Rs, in which the Hon’ble Court held that non- examination of sole plaintiff is not a sufficient ground to brush aside the evidence of P.W.1/ G.P.A holder who is none other than the daughter of sole plaintiff, when her evidence spell out she has knowledge about the facts, moreover, in a suit for declaration of title in respect of immovable property , the documentary evidence is of significance.

14.No doubt the facts of the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case on hand because here, D.W.1 is none other than the son of sole defendant, who is G.P.A holder and his evidence shows that he has got personal knowledge about the facts of the case. So, in these circumstances, even in the absence of sole defendant, the evidence of G.P.A. holder of the defendant I.e, D.W.1 is sufficient and valid.

ISSUE NOS.1 and 2:-

15.Since, issues No.1 and 2 are inter-related with each other, it is just and necessary to take up both at once for just appreciation and consideration.

16.In support of the relief claimed in the suit, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 filed their affidavits in lieu of their chief examination by reiterating the averments of the plaint and got examined themselves as P.ws1 and 2.

In support of their oral evidence, they also got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 i.e.

Certified copy of registered sale deed Dt.31.7.2014, office copy of legal notice Dt.18.6.2018, Courier receipt, blank N.J.Stamp stands in the name of

Somalaraju Balarama Raju, unregistered agreement and agreement agreeing to cancel the registered document on receipt of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest dt.31.7.2015.

17. Further, here, the evidence of plaintiffs is that though they are ready to repay the borrowed amount of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest to the defendant, he did not come forward to receive the same inspite of 8

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023. demands made by the plaintiffs and inspite of issuing Ex.A.2/ notice and did not come forward to reconvey the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs in pursuance of the terms and conditions of Ex.A.6/ agreement and to return two empty signed N.J.Stamps worth of Rs.100/- each and five signed blank promissory notes to the plaintiffs as agreed by the defendant in Ex.A.5/ agreement/ receipt and the categorical pleadings of the plaintiffs is that they are they are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract in pursuance of Ex.A.6/ agreement for reconveyance.

18.Here, the evidence of the plaintiff in respect of Ex.A.5/receipt was supported by one of the alleged attesters, who was examined as P.W.3.

19.Here, the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs is denied by the defendant in his written statement. In support of his pleadings as discussed above, he examined his General Power of Attorney holder as

D.W.1, who is none other than his son. In the evidence of D.W.1, he categorically deposed that though the defendant is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract to receive the amount lent by him with interest as per the terms and conditions of Ex.A.6, the plaintiffs did not turn up to pay the amount and even the alleged Ex.A.2 notice was served on the defendant after due date stipulated in the said notice.

Further, the contention and evidence of the defendant is that though he mentioned in his reply notice I.e, Ex.B.2 that he is ready to receive the amount with interest as per the terms of Ex.A.6, the plaintiff did not turn up to pay the amount and the contention and evidence of D.W.1 is that even in

Ex.B.2/ reply notice itself the defendant categorically stated that no such blank stamped papers or blank signed pronotes were obtained buy him from the plaintiffs and contended that even in the cross-examination of

P.Ws1 and 2, they categorically deposed that they are ready to repay the amount as per the terms of Ex.A.6 within the period of six months I.e, from 9

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023. the date of giving cross-examination by them i.e., on 04.1.2022 even then they did not pay the same. So, the defendant contended that it clearly shows that the plaintiffs are not ready and willing to perform their part of contract and they approached the Court with this suit with unclean hands , as such there is no cause of action to file the suit. Further, the defendant categorically denied about execution of receipt/EX.A.5.

20.Here, on perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is just and necessary to see that whether the plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract to pay the amount with interest as per the terms and conditions of Ex.A.6. Here, it is the contention and evidence of

P.Ws1 and 2 that they approached the defendant on several times and requested him to receive five months interest as per the terms and conditions of Ex.A.6/ agreement, but the defendant directed to repay the entire interest along with principal amount . But, here, there is no iota of evidence to show that the plaintiffs approached the defendant either to pay five months interest or to pay the entire principal amount with interest to the defendant till the date of issuing Ex.A.2/ Legal notice.

21. On the other hand, they did not file any piece of record to show that they are always ready with amount either towards interest or amount towards principal and interest. So, here, the plaintiffs failed to prove that from the date of execution of Ex.A.6 till the date of issuing Ex.A.2, thety are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract to pay the amount to the defendant.

22.Further, here, as per the pleadings and evidence of plaintiffs though they issued Ex.A.2/ legal notice to the defendant directing him to appear before the Sub-Registrar office, Pullampet on 21.6.2018 at 10.30 a.m requesting the defendant to receive the amount from them and to reconvey the property to them by the plaintiffs, even then the defendant 10

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023. did not turn up on that day, though they were waited at the Sub-registrar office, Pullampet till 5.00 p.m. In proof of their evidence and they got filed

Ex.A.4/ N.J. stamp papers , worth of Rs.100/-, which contains the date of purchase as 21.6.2018 at Sub-Registrar office, Pullampet. But here, it is the contention of defendant that the said notice was served on him after due date mentioned in the notice and after receiving the said notice, he issued

Ex.A.2/ reply notice with true facts. Here, though Exs.A.2 and A.3 supports the pleadings of the plaintiffs that they send the said notice through

Professional Courier service, but there is no evidence from them to show that when it is reached to the defendant and even they did not take any steps in this regard, when there is categorical denial from the defendant about serving of said notice within time. So, here, there is no evidence from the plaintiffs to show that Ex.A.2 was served on the defendant within the due date mentioned in the said notice I.e, on 21.8.2018.

23.On the other hand, there is no evidence from the plaintiffs for the steps taken by them to send the said amount to the defendant by depositing in the account of the defendant or in any other manner, even after receiving of Ex.B.2/ Reply notice from the defendant.

24.Further, through the plaint itself it is the contention of plaintiffs is that they are always ready and wiling to pay the amount, but through the record, it reveals that even they did not deposit the said amount before the Court by the time of filing of suit or subsequent of filing of the suit or after filing written statement filed by the defendant to show their readiness and willingness and bonafides.

25.Further, here, even in the cross-examination of P.Ws1 and 2 they categorically admitted about receiving the amount from the defendant and admitted that even they did not pay the interest amount to the defendant as stipulated in Ex.A.6/ agreement. Further, they categorically 11

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023. admitted that by the date of giving their evidence, the interest comes to

Rs.1,20,00,000/- to Rs.1,30,00,000/- and deposed that they would pay the

principal amount with interest within six months from the date of giving

their cross-examination I.e, from 4.1.2022. But though the defendant agreed to receive the said amount, the plaintiff did not repay the amount till that date, moreover, in asking six months time itself shows that the plaintiffs are not ready with the amount due to the defendant and it shows that even till the date the plaintiffs are not ready to pay the amount, which impliedly proved that they are not willing to perform their part of contract within three years as stipulated in Ex.A.6/ agreement. Here, as per the terms of Ex.A.6 and as admitted by P.Ws1 and 2 they have to repay the amount within three years from the date of Ex.A.6 I.e, 31.7.2018 I.e, on or

before 1.8.2018, but now it is September month of 2023, even then the

plaintiffs did not pay any amount to the defendant, which clearly shows that they are not ready and willing to perform their part of contract though the defendant is ready and willing to receive the amount and to reconvey the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs.

26.Further, here, though the pleadings of plaintiffs I.e, plaint is silent about execution of alleged Ex.A.5/ agreement/ receipt by the defendant on 31.7.2015 I.e, on the date of execution of Ex.s.A.1 and A.6 by agreeing to return the signed blank two N.J. stamps worth of Rs.100/- and five signed blank promissory notes to the plaintiffs on payment of principal amount with interest to him. Here, in the evidence of P.W.1, he introduced the same. Further, it was supported by P.W.3, who is none other than the father-in-law of first plaintiff and father of the 2nd plaintiff. But, here, in the cross-examination of P.W.2 itself she surprisingly deposed that the said stamp receipt is with her and she does not know whether the same was filed along with plaint or not before the Court, which is in consisting with 12

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023. the evidence of P.W.1.

27.On the other hand, the defendant categorically denied the execution of Ex.A.5/ agreement/ receipt and denied about receiving the blank signed N.J. Stamp papers and blank signed promissory notes from the plaintiffs on the date of execution of Ex.A.6. Moreover, on introducing

Ex.A.5/ receipt by the plaintiffs, the defendant categorically contended that it is forged one and on that the defendant sent Ex.A.5 to thumb impression expert along with admitted document I.e, Ex.A.6 and subsequent the thumb impressions, which were taken in the public Court and received expert report, which was supported the contention of defendant that the disputed thumb impression of Ex.A.6 is not identical with the specimen thumb impression of the defendant.

28.To prove the same, the defendant summoned and examined the thumb impression expert as D.W.2, through whom Exs.X.1 to X.5 I.e,

Ex.X.1 is letter Dt.27.2.2023 issued by director Finger print Beauro,

A.P.Mangalagiri, Ex.X.2 is report of Finger print expert , Ex.X3/Specimen thumb impression sheet of P.Chinna Penchal Reddy, Ex.X4/Photograph of disputed thumb impression marked as “D” and Ex.X5/ Photograph of specimen left thumb impression marked as “A” . Further, here even in the cross-examination of D.W.2/ expert , nothing was elicited in favour of plaintiffs to support the execution of Ex.A.5 by the defendant. On the other hand, he categorically denied that due to age factor there are changes in the finger prints of Human body and denied that due to seven years gap between Ex.A.5 and specimen thumb impression, there must be variation in the thumb impression. So, here, the evidence of D.W.2 and Exs.X1 to X.5 clinching the plea of defendant that Ex.A.5 is forged one.

29.Further, here, there are no reasons or explanations from the plaintiffs for non mentioning about Ex.A.5/ agreement/ receipt either in 13

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023. Ex.A.2/ legal notice or in their pleadings, which creates doubt on the case of the plaintiffs about Ex.A.5.

30.Further, here, the contention of defendant is that in the absence of pleadings , the evidence adduced by the parties cannot be considered , for that he relied upon a citation reported in AIR 2018, in the

judgment in between Delong steel limited Vs Lords Bluetech

Co.Pvt. Ltd, it was held that “Evidence produced by the parties in the absence of pleadings in that regard cannot be considered”, which supports the contention of the defendant that in the absence of pleadings in the plaint about Ex.A.5, the evidence of plaintiff in this regard is not useful.

31.No doubt, here, though there is no pleadings about Ex.A.5 in the plaint, the plaintiff adduced evidence in respect of Ex.A.5. Even then through the evidence of D.ws1 and 2 and Exs.X.1 to X.5, the defendant proved that Ex.A.5 was not executed by him .

32.So, here, as discussed above, the plaintiff failed to prove that they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract under reconveyance of agreement Dt.31.7.2015. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of specific performance in pursuance of Ex.A.6/ reconveyance agreement as prayed for. Since the original of Ex.A.1/ sale deed is with the defendant, the defendant is not entitled for costs.

33.Hence, these issues NO.1 and 2 are decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant.

Issue No.3:-

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

14

O.S. 17 Of 2018

III ADJ Court, Rjpt. Dt.21.9.2023.

Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 21st day of September, 2023. Smt G.Geetha,

IV Addl. District Judge,Kadapa FAC: III Additional District Judge, Rajampet.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff Defendant

P.W.1: S.Balarama Raju. D.W.1: M.Krishna Reddy P.W.2: S.Subhashini D.W.2: T.Praveen kumar. ( Finger print expert) P.W.3: S.prabhakar Raju

Exhibits marked on behalf of

Plaintiff Ex.A.1: Certified copy of registered sale deed Dt.31.7.2014, Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice Dt.18.6.2018, Ex.A.3: Courier receipt Ex.A.4: blank N.J.Stamp stands in the name of Somalaraju Balarama Raju. Ex.A.5: Unregistered agreement EX.A.6: Agreement agreeing to cancel the registered document on receipt of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest dt.31.7.2015. Defendant Ex.B.1: Original notarized G.P.A Dt.30.3.2021 Ex.B2: Office copy of reply notice Ex.B.3: Original postal receipt. Exhibits marked through summoned witness/D.W.2

Ex.X.1:Letter Dt.27.2.2023 issued by director Finger print Beauro, A.P.Mangalagiri. Ex.X.2 :Report of Finger print expert Ex.X3: Specimen thumb impression sheet of P.Chinna Penchal Reddy. Ex.X4: Photograph of disputed thumb impression marked as “D” Ex.X5: Photograph of specimen left thumb impression marked as “A” .

Smt G.Geetha, IV AdJ, Kdp, FAC: III ADJ, Rjmpt.

1

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: KADAPA.

Present:- Smt G.Geetha, IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Friday, this the 22nd day of September, 2023.

Appeal Suit No.63 of 2017

1. Karamala Chandra Obula Reddy

2. Karamala Kesamma

3. Karamala Bala Obula Reddy

4. Karamala Chandra Sekhar Reddy

5. Karamala Nageswara Reddy

... Appellants/Plaintiffs ..

- Versus -

1. Mula Chalama Reddy (Died)

2. Mula Lakshmi Devi (Died)

3. Mula Gangadhara Reddy

4. Mula Jagadeeswaramma

5. Yenugu Veera Reddy

6. Yenugu Sekhar Reddy

... Respondents/Defendants ..

This is an Appeal against the Decree and Judgment made in

O.S.339 of 2012, Dt.30.06.2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Kadapa.

Between:-

1. Karamala Chandra Obula Reddy

2. Karamala Kesamma

3. Karamala Bala Obula Reddy

4. Karamala Chandra Sekhar Reddy

5. Karamala Nageswara Reddy

... Plaintiffs ..

- Versus -

1. Mula Chalama Reddy (Died)

2. Mula Lakshmi Devi (Died)

3. Mula Gangadhara Reddy

4. Mula Jagadeeswaramma

5. Yenugu Veera Reddy

6. Yenugu Sekhar Reddy

... Defendants ..

This appeal coming on 21.09.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Masthan Valli, Advocate for Appellants/Plaintiffs and Sri L.Rama 2

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp. Sanjeeva Reddy, Advocate for the respondent Nos.3 and 4/D.3 and D.4, and respondent Nos.5 and 6/D.5 and D.6 are remained exparte, and after perusing the records on file and hearing arguments on both the sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This appeal suit is preferred by the Appellants/Plaintiffs under

Order.XLI, Rule.1 r/w Sec.96 of CPC, against the decree and judgment dt.30.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.339 of 2012 on the file of learned Principal Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa and to set aside the same by allowing this Appeal.

2. This Court being the first appellate Court and fact finding Court need to appreciate the pleadings and evidence let in by both parties by re- appreciating the record. The same was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Jagannath Vs. Arulappa and another, reported in 2005 (12) SCC page

No.303, while considering the scope of Sec.96 of CPC. Further in B.V.Nagesh and another, Vs. H.V.Sreenivasa Murthy, reported in 2010 (13) SCC Page No.530, the Hon’ble Apex Court, observed scope of Rule.31 of Order.XLI of CPC, 1908.

3.For the sake of convenience and better appreciation the parties, as arrayed in the above suit are referred to hereinafter.

4. The back ground of the case of the plaintiffs (Appellants) is that:-

The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs against defendants for division of suit schedule property into 3 equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs, one such share to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and one such share to the defendant Nos.5 and 6 by taking into consideration of good and bad qualities and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

5. The brief averments of plaint are that : - 3

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp.

(i) The suit schedule property originally owned and possessed by one Mr. Balanna, who died interstate leaving behind him a son by name Rosi Reddy and two daughters by name Smt. Lakshumma and Smt. Ammani. After the death of said Balanna his son and daughters succeeded his estate and they are enjoying property without anybody objection by cultivating the land.

(ii)It is submitted that, the said Rosi Reddy also died leaving behind his wife/Kesamma and four sons who are the plaintiffs herein, who succeeded his estate including the interest in the subject matter as such the plaintiffs are entitled 1/3rd equal share out of the plaint schedule properties.

(iii)It is submitted that the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant

Nos.1 and 2 colluded with the defendant Nos.3 and 4 and got created and fabricated documents in favour of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the suit schedule property without having any right, title and possession over the said property and they are trying to get pattadar passbook and title deeds and other revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property basing upon the fraudulent documents in order to deny the legitimate share of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.5 and 6.

(iv)It is submitted that inspite of conducting several panchayats and inspite of issuing the legal notice the defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not come forward for amicable partition. Hence, the suit.

(v)Here the defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are husband and wife are died and the defendant Nos.5 and 6 were remained exparte inpite of receiving the notice.

6. (i)The averments of the written statement of defendant

Nos.3 and 4 are that, they denied that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to Mr. Balanna and after his death his legal heirs i.e., son and daughters succeeded 4

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp. his estate and they are in joint possession and on that the plaintiffs are entitled 1/3rd equal share.

(ii)It is submitted that the plaintiffs grand father namely Karamala

Balanna and the paternal grand father of defendant No.3 by name Mula Balanna are strangers and they are not in related to each other. The suit schedule property item

No.1 property was originally belongs to defendant No.1 namely Mula Chalama

Reddy, who is junior paternal uncle of the defendant No.3. The item No.2 of the suit schedule property was originally belongs to Mula Balanna, who is the paternal grand father of defendant No.3. The item No.2 of the suit schedule property was fallen to the share of the defendant No.1 in the family partition between him and his elder brother Mr.Gangi Reddy about 40 years back. Later, the defendant No.1 along with his wife sold away the item No.1 of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.3 on 13.01.2012 under registered sale deed for valid consideration. Further, the defendant No.1 along with his wife sold his share of property i.e., item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to the defendant No.4 on 13.01.2012 under registered sale deed. Since then item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property are in possession and enjoyment of the defendant Nos.3 and 4. The Tahsildar, Pendlimarri Mandal issued pattadar passbooks and title deed to the defendant Nos.3 and 4, prior to their purchase their vendor namely Mula Chalama Reddy was in enjoyment of the same, as such the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are absolute owners and the possessors of the suit schedule property.

(iii)It is further submitted that, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.5 and 6 are colluded together in order to knock away the suit schedule property and filed the present false case with false allegations.

(iv)It is submitted that, the defendant No.3 is working as lecturer in

Decree College at Hyderabad and defendant No.4 is working in D.R.D.A at 5

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp. Rangareddy District. Defendant No.3’s father by name Mula Gangi Reddy died and his wife/Mula Obulamma is residing in the suit schedule village and cultivating the suit land on rental basis. So, requested the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the plaint schedule property is liable for partition in to three shares as alleged by the plaintiffs?

2) Whether the plaint is entitled for one such share and separate possession of the same?

3) To what relief?

8. Evidence before the trial Court:-

To prove their respective contentions, on behalf of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 and they also examined one independent witness as PW.2. On behalf of the defendant Nos.3 and 4, the defendant No.3 examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.13 and they also got examined one of the attestor of Ex.B.7/A.1 and Ex.B.10/A.2 as DW.2.

Further, they also got examined one of the alleged neighbour of the suit schedule property as DW.3.

9.Finding of the trial Court:-

On hearing the both sides and on considering the evidence available on record, the trial court dismiss the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove their right and joint possession over the plaint schedule properties.

Appeal before this Court:- 10. On aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred this appeal on the following grounds : -

(i)The trial court decree and judgment is against the Civil Rules of

Practice, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

6

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp.

(ii) The trial court did not appreciate the role and evidence adduced by the defendants and did not frame proper issues to bring out the points in controversy.

(iii)The trial court is erred in giving the findings and has not properly verified the documentary evidence of the plaintiffs i.e., Ex.A.5 genealogical tree and

Exs.A.6 and A.8 and in a suit for partition and separate possession both the parties have to be prove the same but not the plaintiffs alone.

(iv)The trial court failed to observe that the defendants not filed any scrap of paper for the year 2012 and Exs.A.1 and A.12 are pertaining to the year of 2015. Exs.B.7 to B.13 are self serving documents.

(v)It is submitted that the defendants have no manner of right, possession over the suit schedule property and on the other hand it is a joint property and relationship is admitted by the defendants.

(vi)It is submitted that the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are not bonafied purchasers and their documents are cannot be considered.

(vii)So, requested the court to set aside the decree and judgment passed in OS.No.339/2012 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Kadapa, dated 30.06.2017 and allow the appeal.

11. Enquiry before this Court:-

During this appeal before this Court, the trial Court record was received. No oral and documentary evidence adduced by either parties before this

Court by way of additional evidence. Further, the petition filed by the plaintiffs (appellants) in I.A.No.707/2022 in the present A.S.No.63/2017 under XLI Rule 27 and 28 of C.P.C., was dismissed on merits.

12. Heard on both sides.

7

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp.

13. On perusal of plaint, written statement, evidence on the record and decree and judgment of the trial court, this Court made the following points for determination:- (1) Whether the suit schedule property originally belongs to one Balanna, who is the paternal grand father of the plaintiffs?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?

(5) Whether there are any reasonable and valid grounds to interfere or to set aside or to modify the decree and Judgment, dt.30.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.339/2012 on the file of Learned Principal Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa ?

(6) To what relief ?

POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

14.In supporting of the relief claimed in plaint, the plaintiff No.1 filed his affidavit and additional affidavit in lieu of his chief examination by reiterating the averments of the plaint and got examined himself as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked i.e., A.1 is the registered copy of sale deed, dated 13.01.2012 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3, Ex.A.2 is the another registered copy of sale deed, dated 13.01.2012 executed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.4, Ex.A.3 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 18.02.2012,

Ex.A.4 is the valuation certificate issued by Sub Registrar, Kadapa, Ex.A.5 is the genealogical tree, Ex.A.6 is the copy of R.S.R relating to suit property along with a covering letter issued by concern M.R.O as per RTI Act, Ex.A.7 is the copy of 1-B namuna issued by Tahsildar, Pendlimarri along with a covering letter issued by concern M.R.O as per RTI Act and Ex.A.8 is the copy of No.3 adangal for 10 years.

15.In support of their oral and documentary evidence they also examined one independent witness as PW.2. Here the contention and evidence of 8

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp. plaintiff is that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to their paternal grand father namely Balanna and after his death his legal heirs who are his father and daughters i.e., defendant No.2 and mother of the defendant Nos.5 and 6 succeeded the same and after the death of their father/Rosi Reddy, they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

16.The same was denied by the defendant Nos.3 and 4. In support of their pleadings the defendant No.3 filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination by reiterating the averments of his written statement and examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.13 i.e., Ex.B.1 is the 1-B namuna (R.O.R), dated 15.09.2015, Ex.B.2 is the No.3 adangal, dated 15.09.2015 in respect of Ac.0.30 cents of land in Sy.No.640/1, Ex.B.3 is the No.3 adangal, dated 15.09.2015 in respect of Ac.0.52 cents of land in Sy.No.640/2, Ex.B.4 is the No.3 adangal, dated 15.09.2015 in respect of Ac.0.34 cents of land in Sy.No.640/11, Ex.B.5 is the No.3 adangal, dated 15.09.2015 in respect of Ac.0.32 cents of land in Sy.No.640/12-B,

Ex.B.6 is the revenue pattadar passbook stands in the name of the witness relating to item No.1 of suit schedule property i.e., Ac.1.52 cents, Ex.B.7 is the registered sale deed, dated 13.01.2012 relating to 1st item of suit schedule property, Ex.B.8 is the revenue title deed stands in the name of defendant No.1, Ex.B.9 is the revenue pattadar passbook stands in the name of defendant No.1 in respect of 1st item of suit schedule property, Ex.B.10 is the registered sale deed, dated 13.01.2012 stands in the name of defendant No.4 in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property,

Ex.B.11 is the revenue pattadar passbook stands in the name of the defendant No.4 in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property, Ex.B.12 is the 1-B adangal extract,

dated 15.09.2015 stands in the name of the defendant No.4 in respect of item No.2

of suit schedule property and Ex.B.13 is the No.3 adangal pahani, dated 15.09.2015 9

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp. stands in the name of defendant No.4 in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property.

17.Here in support of the oral and documentary evidence, the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are also got examined one of the attestors of Ex.B.7/A.1 and

Ex.B.10/A.2 registered sale deeds as DW.2, who supports the evidence of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 about purchasing the suit schedule property by the defendant Nos.3 and 4 from defendant Nos.1 and 2.

18.Further, inrespect of their contention and evidence of defendant

Nos.3 and 4 they also got examined one of the neighbouring land owner of the suit schedule property as DW.3, who supports the evidence of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 in material aspects.

DISCUSSION:-

19.Here the suit is filed by the plaintiffs for partition of the suit schedule property alleging that the suit schedule property belongs to their paternal grand father by name Balanna and after his death his legal heirs succeeded the property, who are father of plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and 5 and husband of plaintiff No.2 by name Karamala Rosi Reddy and daughters namely Mula Lakshmi Devi/D.2 and another daughter by name Ammani, who is the mother of defendant Nos.5 and 6 and they are in joint possession of the said properties.

20.Here in the cross examination of defendant Nos.1 and 2 it reveals that one Karamala Balanna has got three children I.e. one son and two daughters namely Karamala Rosi Reddy, Karamala Lakshumma and Karamala

Ammani and one of the daughter namely Karamala Lakshumma given to the son of

Mula Balanna in marriage and they were not blessed with children.

21.Here both the plaintiffs filed the computer generated copies of death certificate of Karamala Rosi Reddy, family member certificate of Karamala 10

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp. Rosi Reddy and family member certificate of Karamala Balanna, which was also revealed that the father of plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and 5, who is the husband of plaintiff

No.2 by name Karamala Rosi Reddy is son and defendant No.2 and mother of defendant Nos.5 and 6 by name Ammani are the daughters of Karamala Balanna and it reveals that the said Karamala Rosi Reddy died leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and family member certificate of Karamala Balanna shows Rosi Reddy, Lakshumma and Ammani are son and daughters of Karamala

Balanna.

22.Here though the pleadings and evidence of plaintiff is that original, the suit schedule property belongs to Karamala Balanna, they did not file any piece of record in this regard even the plaint is silent about the surname of

Balanna and how the suit schedule property became ancestral property of said

Balanna, who is the paternal grand father of PW.1.

23.On the other hand the documents filed by the plaintiffs i.e.,

Exs.A.1 and A.2 are registration copies of registered sale deeds stands in the name of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property said to have been executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2.

24.Further, even in Ex.A.4 valuation certificate also the survey number of the item No.2 of the suit schedule property is silent because though the survey number of the item No.2 of the suit schedule property is No.352 but in Ex.A.4 the survey number shown as 350.

25.Further Exs.A.6 to A.8 are obtained by the plaintiffs under R.T.I which are the R.S.R, 1-B namuna and No.3 adangal in respect of the suit schedule property.

26.On perusal of Ex.A.6 R.S.R, it is found that name of either

Karamala Balanna or his son Karamala Rosi Reddy or the plaintiffs are not shown in 11

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp. respect of land in survey No.352 to an extent of Ac.5.70 cents and also in respect of land in survey Nos.640/1, 640/2, 640/11 and 640/12 for an extent of 0.30 cents, 0.52 cents, 0.34 cents and 0.37 cents respectively i.e, in total extent of Ac.1.52 cents. So,

Ex.A.6 is no way helpful to the plaintiffs to show the right, title and possession of

Karamala Balanna or Karamala Rosi Reddy or the plaintiffs herein.

27.Further, on perusal of Ex.A.7, 1-B namuna/adangal, which was along with the pattadar title book with patta No.645 shows that 1-B adangal stands in the name of Mula Chalama Reddy son of Balanna in respect of land in survey

No.640/1, 640/2, 640/11 and 640/12-B, in which name of the Mula Chalama Reddy shows as pattadar and his father’s name is shown as Mula Balanna.

28.Moreover, PW.1 also in his cross examination admitted that photo of the Mula Chalama Reddy/D.1 is appearing in the pattadar title book copy filed under Ex.A.7. So, here Ex.A.7 is also no way helpful to the plaintiffs to prove the right and title and possession of Karamala Balanna or their father Rosi Reddy etc.

29.Further, on perusal of Ex.A.8, No.3 adangal, it is found that name of Karamala Balanna or Karamala Rosi Reddy or with the surname of

Karamala no person was found in the said No.3 adangal filed under Ex.A.8. On the other hand in respect of lands in survey Nos.640/1, 640/2, 640/11 and 640/12 name of defendant No.1 shown as possessor and encroacher.

30.Further, the land in survey No.354 is also stands in the name of

Mula Gangi Reddy as pattadar, who is the father of the defendant No.3 and elder brother of defendant No.1 and name of defendant No.1 is shown as possessor.

31.Further, name of Mula Gangi Reddy, who is the elder brother of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.3 was shown as pattadar for the lands in survey Nos.641 and 642. So, here adangals filed by the plaintiffs under Ex.A.8 12

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp. name of Karamala Balanna is not fond place. So, Ex.A.8 is also no way helpful to prove the right, title and possession of Karamala Balanna or Karamala Rosi Reddy or any other person with the surname of Karamala. So, here the plaintiffs did not filed any peace of record to show the right, title and possession of Karamala

Balanna.

32.On the other hand through the evidence of DW.1 to DW.3 and through Exs.B.1 to B.13 and through the cross examination of PW.1, DW.1 to DW.3, the revealed fact is that one Mula Gangi Reddy and defendant No.1/Mula Chalama

Reddy are own brothers and sons of Mula Balanna and defendant No.3 is the son of

Mula Gangi Reddy and grand son of Mula Balanna. Further, through the cross examination of DW.2 and DW.3 the revealed fact is that the daughter of Karamala

Balanna by name Lakshmi Devi/defendant No.2 given in marriage to the son of Mula

Balanna by name Mula Chalama Reddy/defendant No.1. So, here it supports the pleadings and evidence of defendant Nos.3 and 4 and are Karamala Balanna and

Mula Balanna are not one and the same.

33.Here the contention and evidence of defendant Nos.3 and 4 and

DW.1 to DW.3 is that item No.1 belongs to the defendant No.1, who is junior paternal uncle of defendant No.3 and item No.2 is originally belongs to Mula

Balanna, who is paternal grand father of defendant No.3 and later during the partition item No.2 fallen to the share of the defendant No.1 and his elder brother

Mula Gangi Reddy about 40 years back and thereafter the defendant No.1 along with his wife i.e., defendant No.2 sold away the item No.1 of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.3 under Ex.B.7 sale deed and they sold the item No.2 of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.4 under Ex.B.10 registered sale deed and contended that the pattadar passbook and title are also standing in the name of the defendant No.1 prior to the said sale transaction and his name also 13

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp. shown in the revenue records as possessor and pattadar with patta No.645 and after the sale transaction, the revenue records are mutated in the name of defendant

Nos.3 and 4 and they were also issued pattadar passbook and title deeds. The same was revealed through Exs.B.1 to B.13.

34.So here as per the above discussion it is found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the right, title and possession of Karamala Balanna in respect of the suit schedule property and their joint possession over the said property, the same was rightly appreciated and decided by the trial court in its judgment.

Hence, point Nos.1 and 2 are decided against the plaintiffs (Appellants) and in favour of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 (Respondent Nos.3 and 4).

POINT No.3:

35.Here already as decided in point Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiffs failed to prove the right and title of Karamala Balanna and their father Karamala Rosi

Reddy. As such the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition as prayed for the same was rightly appreciated and decided by the trial court in its judgment.

Hence the point is answered against the petitioner/ Appellant and in favour of the defendant Nos. 3 and 4/ Respondents No.s 3 and 4.

POINT No.4:

36.Here already as discussed in point No.2, the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property either separately and in joint status and failed to prove that they are in joint possession with the defendants. As such the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. The same was rightly appreciated and decided by the trial court in its judgment.

Hence, point is answered against the plaintiffs (Appellants) and in favour of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 (Respondent Nos.3 and 4).

14

A.S.63 of 2017

IV A.D.J.,Kdp.

POINT No.5:

37.In view of the result of the point Nos.4 and 5 there are no grounds to interfere in the decree and judgment passed by the trial court on any angle. As such the decree and judgment of trial court is stands good and is not liable for set aside.

Hence, point is answered against the plaintiffs (Appellants) and in favour of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 (Respondent Nos.3 and 4).

POINT No.6:

38.In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed without costs, by confirming the decree and judgment dated 30.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.339 of 2012 on the file of Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court this the 22nd day of September, 2023.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

Sd/- G.Geetha,

IV A.D.J.,

Kdp.