Sri G. Hari

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present: Sri G. Hari, M.A.,B.L, III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa

Thursday, this the 12 th day of June, 2014

O.S.No.564 of 2012

Between:-

1. Aeturi Ramachandra Reddy.

2. G.Muneaiah.

3. K.Seenu Naik. … Plaintiffs.

Vs.

1. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Kadapa City.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa City.

3. The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, C.K. Dinne (Mandal), Kadapa City. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on 28-04-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Sudhakar Babjee, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri P.

Subramanyam, Government pleader for the defendants and after hearing arguments, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and subordinates from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

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

The property fully described in the plaint schedule exclusively belongs to the government and no cultivation carried out or assigned the suit property situated within the vicinity of Mamillapalli village and panchayat. The surrounding area of the suit schedule property were developed with several residential structures, colleges, hospitals and ring road and in the said suit schedule property, there was a dilapidated Ramalayam temple existed, wherein all the Hindus and 2 devotees of Rama used to conduct pujas every day. To develop the temple, the

Hindus of Mamillapalli villagers collected subscription for renovation of the said old dilapidated temple and made it fit by removing the old temple and started construction of Ramalayam temple along with goddess of Vinayaka. The plaintiffs being the village elders were entrusted with the construction of the temple in the suit schedule property with the knowledge of revenue authorities i.e. Tahsildar,

C.K.Dinne mandal, all the villagers constructed temple, Kalyana Mantapam under the supervision of the plaintiffs.

The subordinates of defendants came to the suit schedule structure since three days back and tried to demolish the said temple as the same was constructed in the Government land without prior permission which the defendants have no right to take arbitrary steps without following due process of law. Due to threatening efforts were made by the defendants, the sensitive feelings of the

Hindus i.e. public of Mamillapalli panchayat is greatly infringed and the suit scheldule property is situated near by Indiramma Colony layout is not causing any problems to the defendants. The defendants have no exclusive, arbitrary rights to demolish the structure, hence the present suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction.

03. The defendant No.3 filed his written statement and defendants

No.1 and 2 filed adoption memo, adopting the written statement of defendant No.3.

In order to provide house sites to the weaker sections and houseless persons of the area of Municipal Corporation, Kadapa a layout in survey No.715, 733 of

Mamillapalli village of C.K. Dinne Mandal was prepared and the house sites were granted duly forming 2500 house plots under the name and style of Indira Nagar colony, the plaintiffs unauthorizedly encroached the following house site plots and first constructed Ramalayam temple during the year 2011 and subsequently erected 3 seven shopping rooms at the entrance of the temple and collecting rents unauthorizedly from the shop owners. The defendant No.3 further averred that previously there was no Ramalayam temple in the above said land as contended by the plaintiff and they have newly constructed Ramalayam temple in the

Government land without taking permission from the Government or Municipal

Corporation, Kadapa. Taking lenience of this situation they have extended the construction by erecting shopping complex and given on rent basis for their income which is highly objectionable and that apprehending the action by the Revenue department for eviction for the unauthorized constructions and with bad motives for grabbing the government land and they have filed the suit by misleading the Court and the Government.

There is no objection on behalf of the Government for the existence of

Ramalayam Temple, but the objection with regard to unauthorized construction of seven rooms of shopping complex and Kalyanamantapam have to be evicted to safe guard the Government lands and to defend the interest of the Government and there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit and the plaintiffs have no right to seek permanent injunction, hence prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

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

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief ?

05. During the course of trial, on the plaintiffs side PWs.1 and 2 are examined and Ex.A.1 is got marked. On the defendants side, the defendant No.3 is examined as DW.1 and no documents are marked on behalf of the defendants.

PW.1 is the plaintiff No.1 and PW.2 is the supporting witness to the case of 4 plaintiff. Ex.A.1 is the colour photograph album with C.D. DW.1 is the defendant No.3 who is Tahsildar of C.K.Dinne mandal.

06. Heard the arguments of learned counsel of both sides.

07. It is the argument of the plaintiffs that the people of Mamillapalli village who were conducting pujas at Ramalayam temple which is in dilapidated stage, as such the Hindus of Mamillapalli collected funds for renovation of the said old dilapidated temple and constructed compound wall and Kalayanamandapam.

During the time of construction work is going on, no revenue authorities objected them about the reconstruction of Ramalayam temple, but after completion of the same, the subordinates of the revenue department made efforts to demolish the said

Ramalayam temple. The plaintiff No.1 being the elder member of the Mamillapalli village took strains for construction of Ramalayam temple in the existing plalce with the help of village people of Mamillapalli by collecting donations. To support their case, they filed album containing colour photographs along with C.D. The defendants have no right to take arbitrary steps without due process of law and the sensitive feelings of the Hindus will greatly be infringed, as the defendants making efforts to occupy and demolish the Ramalayam temple and prayed the Court to grant permanent injunction in their favour

08. The defendants arguments is that the site belongs to Government wherein the Government planned to allot sites to the poor people in the name and style of Indiramma colony and the plaintiffs without having any manner of right and title, arbitrarily occupied the plaint schedule property which were meant for providing plots to the poor people and hence prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs and in the said circumstances, in which they have no right and title over the suit schedule property.

5

09.ISSUE No.1:- The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is that, the schedule property belongs to the Government and no cultivation carried out or assigned the suit property situated within the vicinity of Mamillapalli village and panchayat. The surrounding area of the suit schedule property were developed with several residential structure, colleges, hospitals and ring road and in the said suit schedule property, there was a dilapidated Ramalayam temple existed in the suit land , wherein all the Hindus and devotees of Rama used to conduct pujas every day. To develop the temple, the Hindus of Mamillapalli villagers collected subscription for renovation of the said old dilapidated temple and made fit by removing the old temple and started construction of Ramalayam temple along with goddess of Vinayaka. The plaintiffs being the village elders were entrusted the construction of the temple to the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property with the knowledge of revenue authorities and all the villagers constructed temple and

Kalyana Mantapam under the supervision of the plaintiffs. The subordinates of defendants came to the suit schedule structure since three days back and tried to demolish the said temple as the same was constructed in the Government land without prior permission and the defendants have no right to take arbitrary steps without following due process of law, hence the present suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction.

10. To support their case, the plaintiff No.1 himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1. The plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW.1 reiterated the contents of the plaint. PW.2 is the supporting witness who is doing Kirana business near to Indira Nagar colony, C.K.Dinne mandal, deposed that there was a dilapidated Ramalayam temple in the suit land, wherein all the villagers of

Mamillapalli used to conduct poojas to the Lord Rama and the plaintiffs with the help of public removed old structure and constructed new temple of Sri Lord 6

Ramachandra along with goddess of Vinayaka and the entire villagers contributed funds for construction of Ramalayam temple in the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is a Government poromboke and there was no construction in the surrounding areas. Subsequent to the development of the colony, there are shops raised adjoining to the suit schedule property.

11. DW.1 deposed that he is working as Tashildar of C.K.Dinne mandal and she is third defendant in the suit and as such she is well acquainted with the facts of the case and giving evidence basing on the record available in the office. In order to provide house sites to the weaker sections and houseless persons of the area of Municipal corporation, Kadapa a layout in survey No.715, 733 of Mamillapalli village of C.K.Dinne mandal was prepared and house sites were granted duly forming 2500 house plots under the name and style of Indira

Nagar colony. The plaintiffs unauthorizedly encroached into the house plots and first constructed Ramalayam temple during the year 2011 and subsequently erected seven shopping rooms at the entrance of the Ramalayam temple and also collecting rents unauthorizedly. The temple was constructed by the plaintiff without obtaining permission from the concerned. Apprehending the action by the revenue department for eviction of the unauthorized constructions, with bad motives for grabbing the Government land, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction to which they are not entitled.

12. DW.1 further deposed that the Government has no objection for the existence of Ramalayam temple, but unauthorized construction of seven rooms of shopping complex and Kalyanamantapam have to be evicted to safeguard the lands of the Government and to defend the interest of the Government. The plaintiff have no right to seek the permanent injunction as they are land grabbers.

7

13. During the cross examination of PW.1 by defendant No.3 counsel,

PW.1 stated that during the construction of Ramalayam temple, the Government not objected them to stop the construction. The proposed temple is near to RIMS

Hospital, Kadapa and that during the cross examination he also stated that he do not know that he has to approach the Court to obtain the permission to file the suit on behalf of the entire public of the said village. The survey number of the Indira

Nagar colony plots is 710 and again the witness stated that nobody objected during the construction of Ramalayam temple, but after completion of the said temple, the

Government came forward and objected the construction and tried to demolish the same. He admitted that he has not obtained permission from the Government for construction of Ramalayam temple. The compound wall was also constructed for the Ramalayam temple and he denied the suggestion with regard to the collection of rents from the shopping complex and also denied the suggestion that there is trust in the name of ARCR. He denied the suggestion with regard to having seven shopping complexes on the eastern and northern side of the Ramalayam temple and also denied the suggestion with regard to the collecting of rents and donations for the construction of temple in the name of ARCR charitable trust and using the same for his personal purpose.

14. PW.2 who is the independent witness contended that during the cross examination that the colony people performed the puja of the said temple and there is no trust with regard to the temple and no records produced or filed before the Court with regard to the past dilapidated temple which was existed at Indira

Nagar Colony and he admitted that the suit schedule property is a Government land.

15. During the cross examination of DW.1, she deposed that she has not visited the disputed area as well as sites allotted to the Indira Nagar colony 8 personally and as such she has no idea about the existence of temple and also admitted that she has not personally measured the rooms constructed in the Indira

Nagar colony in front of the suit temple and also admitted that she has not given any notice to the seven occupants of the room and she also expressed her ignorance that the Indira Nagar Colony people have developed the existence of old temple by raising funds and she also stated that the Government can issue notices to these seven occupants in front of the temple compound and she also admitted the

Government has no objection for continuation of temple and its compound wall.

16. Here in this case, on thorough perusal of the oral and documentary evidence filed on behalf of both sides, it is an admitted fact that the temple is situated at Government land. On going through the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, discloses that during the construction of work which is going on, the revenue authorities never interfered and questioned the plaintiffs or the villagers to stop the work, but after completion of work, the revenue authorities interfered and objected the construction of Ramalayam temple in the suit schedule property, for that the defendants not contradicted the version of the plaintiffs about the objections raised by them during and after completion of the Ramalayam temple in the suit schedule property. Even though the plaintiffs who have no right and title over the plaint schedule property, their case is that they renovated the old Ramalayam temple which was in existence with the help of villagers of Mamillapalli and they have no personal interest in this regard, to that also the defendants never rebutted any contra evidence in favour or against to the plea of the plaintiffs. As per the provisions of the C.P.C., the trespasser can also seek for permanent injunction, if it is a valid trespass.

17. This Court relied upon a decision reported rulings in 2002 (1)

CCC Page No.232 (Karnataka) in between Sampangiramaiah Vs. Venkatamma.

9 “Even a trespasser is entitled to resist his dispossession even against a true owner, whose remedy is to evict him through due process of law. A continued and settled possession of property was required to be seen for granting temporary injunction.”

Basing on the above said observations, here in this case the plaintiffs who are the elders of the villagers of Mamillapalli who made their efforts to construct a

Ramalayam temple by renovating the old one and the villagers of the said

Mamillapalli who are performing the pujas in Ramalayam temple everyday.

Though they are not in possession of the said land which is illegal as the

Government is the owner of the said land and the parties for which they trespassed and occupied the said land is met with some superstitions of the Hindu community and with due respects to the sentiment of Hindu community some sort of relief has to be granted.

18. On thorough perusal of the versions of the pleadings i.e. plaint, written statement, oral and documentary evidences of both the parties, the temple was constructed by the plaintiffs with the help of Mamillapalli villagers by obtaining contributions. In the said record, during the pendency of the suit also no villager came forward or question the acts of the plaintiffs that the said Ramalayam temple was constructed in the interest of plaintiffs. On going through the written statement, chief affidavit and cross examination of the defendants, DW.1 stated that the Government have no objection for continuation of Ramalayam temple with compound wall. If the injunction is not granted the sentiments and sensitive feelings of the Hindus i.e. public of Mamillapalli village will greatly infringed and to safeguard the same and as the Government also accepted for the continuation of

Ramalayam temple through defendant No.3, the Court is of opinion that granting injunction is the only way to respects the sensitive feelings of the Hindus in the said locality and in the said circumstances, the Court is of opinion that injunction is 10 granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against to the defendants to the extent of

Ramalayam temple with compound wall only and with regard to other aspects of shopping complex, etc., the Government is at liberty to take appropriate steps against those who occupied the shopping complexes outside the temple and hence the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

19. ISSUE No.2: In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed by restraining the defendants from interfering with the enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs and public, except by due process of law. In the said circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of June, 2014.

Sd/- G. Hari.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Appendix of Evidence.

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Witnesses examined for:

P.W.1: A. Ramachandra Reddy. D.W.1: B. Parvathi.

P.W.2: K. Chandra Sekhar.

Exhibits marked for:-

Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1: Album containing colour photos along with C.D.

Defendants: Nil.

Intld/- G.H. III A.J.C.J. Kdp.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present: Sri G. Hari, M.A.,B.L, III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Thursday, this the 14 th day of August, 2014.

O.S.No.80 of 2012

Puli Lakshmi Devi.

... Plaintiff

Vs.

Verri Subba Reddy. … Defendant

This suit coming on 08-08-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L. Rama Sanjeeva Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri G.V.Kalyan Reddy, Advocate for defendant and after hearing arguments, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.75,680/- being the

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 17-05-2006

executed by the defendant in favour of Ramireddy Obul Reddy for

Rs.44,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, and later the said Ramireddy Obul Reddy transferred the suit promissory note under transfer endorsement on 17.2.2009 executed by R.Obul

Reddy in favour of Puli Lakshmi Devi i.e., plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

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

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.44,000/- from one

Ramireddy Obul Reddy, Son of Ramireddy Obul Reddy on 17.5.2006 and executed a promissory note in favour of Ramireddy Obul Reddy on the same day. The defendant promised to repay the principal amount with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum, on his demand or to his order.

Inspite of several demands made by the said Ramireddy Obul Reddy, the defendant did not pay any amount and postponed the same.

2 02.1. On 17.2.2009 the said Ramireddy Obul Reddy made transfer endorsement of the said promissory note dated 17.5.2006 in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration of Rs.78,320/- by endorsing the same on the back side of the promissory note by transferring his right in favour of plaintiff by name Puli Lakshmi Devi, enabling her to recover the promissory note amount due by the defendant with interest.

02.2. During the transfer endorsement, the said Ramireddy Obul

Reddy issued a legal notice dated 16.4.2009 to the defendant and intimated about the transfer endorsement of the promissory note and the defendant returned the said notice on 24.4.2009. Further the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 15.5.2009 to the defendant demanding him to repay the promissory note amount, but the defendant never responded.

Thereafter the plaintiff approached the defendant and asked him to repay the promissory note amount, but the defendant failed to repay the amount and postponing the same on one pretext or other, hence the suit is filed for recovery of promissory note amount of Rs.75,680/- with interest.

03. Defendant filed his written statement, denying all the allegations of the plaint and contended that he never borrowed an amount of Rs.44,000/- from one Ramireddy Obul Reddy and executed a promissory note on 17.5.2006 in favour of the said Ramireddy Obul

Reddy and that the thumb impression contained in the suit alleged promissory note dated 17.5.2006 are not belongs to him, that the plaintiff with active collusion and support of Ramireddy Obul Reddy, attestor namely Eswar Reddy brought into existence the alleged suit promissory note with a malafide intention to have wrongful gain from him. He does not know the identity of Ramireddy Obul Reddy who is transferor, Eswar Reddy who is attestor of the said promissory note and that the suit is barred by limitation as the suit promissory note is 3 executed on 17.5.2006 and filed the suit on 2012 and there is no cause of action either to plaintiff or Ramireddy Obul Reddy to file the suit and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

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

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money ?

3. To what relief ?

05. During the course of trial, the plaintiff side PWs.1 to 5 are examined, Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 are got marked on her behalf. The defendant himself examined as DW.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf. PW.1 is the plaintiff in the suit, PW.2 is the attestor of the suit promissory note, PW.3 is the scribe of the transfer endorsement of the promissory note, PW.4 is the transferor of promissory note in favour of plaintiff and PW.5 is the Finger Print Expert.

Ex.A.1 is the original promissory note dt.17.5.2006 for Rs.44,000/-,

Ex.A.2 is the Transfer endorsement dt.17.2.2009 on the back side of promissory note, Ex.A.3 is the Office copy of legal notice dt.09.3.2009,

Ex.A.4 is the Postal receipt dt.09.3.2009, Ex.A.5 is the office copy of legal notice dt.14.5.2009, Ex.A.6 is the Postal receipt dt.14.5.2009,

Ex.A.7 is the returned postal cover and Ex.A.8 is the returned postal cover. Ex.X.1 is the Finger Print expert report and Ex.X.2 is the

Photographs taken by finger print expert.

06. Heard the arguments of learned counsel of both sides.

06.1. It is the argument of the plaintiff that one Ramireddy

Obul Reddy transferred the promissory note by way of transfer endorsement on the back side of the promissory note in her favour on 4 17.2.2009, wherein the V.Subba Reddy who is the defendant is the original borrower from Ramireddy Obul Reddy and after transfer endorsement, she made several requests to the defendant to repay the promissory note amount, but in vain. In support of her contentions, she got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 to prove that the promissory note was executed by defendant in the suit and she also got examined the finger print expert about the genuinity of the L.T.I.

impression on revenue stamp of the promissory note, below the promissory note and the evidences of PW.2 who is the attestor also reveals that at the time of execution of promissory note he was present,

PW.4 who is the transferor of promissory note in favour of present plaintiff, her efforts of intimating about the transfer endorsement by way of Exs.A.5 to A.8 are proved through the material evidence and also the oral evidence adduced by her supporting witnesses, hence prayed the

Court to decree the suit with costs.

06.2. It is the argument of the defendant counsel that the defendant denied about borrowing amount from Ramireddy Obul Reddy and execution of promissory note in his favour and the thumb impression containing in the alleged promissory note is also not belongs to him and that he does not know about the identity of Ramireddy Obul Reddy and

Eswar Reddy and the said promissory note is barred by limitation and the opinion arrived by PW.5 is also not according to procedure, hence prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

07.ISSUES No.1 and 2:- Both issues are taken up together for common discussion.

07.1. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.44,000/- from one Ramireddy Obul Reddy on 17.5.2006 and executed the suit promissory note i.e. Ex.A.1, that on 5 17.2.2009 the said Ramireddy Obul Reddy transferred the said promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration of

Rs.78,320/- with an endorsement on the back side of the promissory note. Ex.A.3 is the legal notice dated 09.3.2009 issued by Ramireddy

Obul Reddy to the defendant intimating the transfer of promissory note and it was returned unserved, that the plaintiff issued Ex.A.5 legal notice

dated 14.5.2009 demanding repayment of promissory note and that

there is no response from the defendant. The plaintiff filed her chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint, in cross examination also she stood on her version. It is suggested to PW.1 that the promissory note and endorsement were created and fabricated for the purpose of the suit, PW.1 denied the said suggestion.

07.2. PW.2 Eswar Reddy who is attesting witness filed his chief affidavit contending that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.44,000/- from one Ramireddy Obul Reddy and executed the suit promissory note and affixed his L.T.I. on the promissory note in his presence.

07.3. PW.3 is the scribe of the promissory note and transfer endorsement, he filed his chief affidavit contending that one Ramireddy

Obul Reddy received an amount of Rs.78,320/- from the plaintiff on 17.2.2009 and executed transfer endorsement on the back side of the suit promissory note and that Ramireddy Obul Reddy signed on the promissory note. In the cross examination, he stated that he knew about the transaction covered under Ex.A.1 and that the scribe of Ex.A.1 is one

Lakshmi Obul Reddy, he admitted that the name of the said Lakshmi

Obul Reddy is not available in Ex.A.1. Nothing elicited to disprove the transfer endorsement in his cross examination.

07.4. PW.4 Ramireddy Obul Reddy is the person who has lent the amount to the defendant and obtained promissory note under 6

Ex.A.1 from him, it is the evidence of PW.4 that as he was in need of money and hence he transferred the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 17.02.2009 for valuable consideration by executing transfer endorsement on the back side of the promissory note conveying the plaintiff to recover the said amount from the defendant. It is his further evidence that he issued legal notice to the defendant on 15.4.2009 informing about the execution of transfer endorsement under Ex.A.2. It is elicited from his cross examination that the contents of promissory note was written by one Lakshmi Obul Reddy and that his name was not mentioned as scribe in Ex.A.1.

07.5. PW.5 who is the Finger Print Expert deposed that according to him, he was examined the case and marked the disputed thumb impressions as “D D1 D2” on the promissory note of Ex.A.1 and that the specimen left and right thumb impressions of Verri Subba Reddy obtained in Court hall marked as “S1 and S2”. PW.5 deposed that on examination of disputed left thumb impressions marked as “D and D2”, they are smudged and wanting clear ridge characteristics required for the purpose of establishing identity, are unfit for comparison and that “D1” compared with “S1 and S2” and found that the disputed left thumb impression marked as “D1” is identical with “S1”. Ex.X.1 is the report and Ex.X.2 is the photographs marked through PW.5.

It is elicited from the PW.5 in his cross examination by the defendant counsel that he has given his opinion basing on the thumb impressions available on the promissory note and admitted thumb impressions, that the thumb impressions marked as “D and D2” are unfit for comparison and “D1” is fit for comparison, nothing is elicited to disprove the contents of Ex.X.1 report.

07.6. Defendant examined himself as DW.1, it is disclosed by him in his chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination that he has not 7 borrowed sum of Rs.44,000/- under Ex.A.1 from one Ramireddy Obul

Reddy, that he does not know about the identity of the said Ramireddy

Obul Reddy prior to filing of the suit, that the thumb impression under

Ex.A.1 does not belongs to him and the same is fabricated by the plaintiff for wrongful gain. DW.1 denied having knowledge about Ex.A.2 transfer endorsement obtained by the plaintiff, also denied having received notices from Ramireddy Obul Reddy or from the plaintiff.

In his cross examination, the defendant admitted that he put his

L.T.Is. in the papers given to his counsel, but he cannot identify his

L.T.I., because, he is illiterate, he denied the suggestion that as he is aware of transfer endorsement in favour of the plaintiff, he did not receive any legal notice issued by the plaintiff to him. The defendant though pleaded ignorance about the identity of Ramireddy Obul Reddy, but failed to cross examine the said person (who is examined as PW.4) on that aspect. PW.4 categorically deposed that the defendant himself affixed his L.T.I. on the promissory note in his presence after borrowing the amount.

07.7. Further the defendant contended that he did not receive any of the legal notices in this case. The address of the defendant is mentioned as Door No.1/48, Akkayapalli, Kadapa town, in all the connected papers. Defendant as DW.1 admitted that he received

Court summons for his appearance before the Court and the said summons also addressed to D.No.1/48. In these circumstances, it can be presumed that the defendant has got knowledge about the transfer endorsement.

07.8. The evidences of PWs.1 to 5 clinchingly proves that the defendant borrowed the amount and failed to pay it. In the instant case, the plaintiff has discharged her initial burden and proved that the 8 defendant borrowed amount from Ramireddy Obul Reddy and executed promissory note. The defendant took a stand that the suit promissory note is forged one, automatically the burden shifts on the defendant to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff. There is no material filed before the Court to disbelieve the contention of the plaintiff as contemplated

Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act reveals that –

Presumptions as to negotiable instruments :- Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made

(a) that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.

(d) as to time of transfer; that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;

The presumption operates in favour of the plaintiff that the promissory note is executed for valid consideration.

07.9. Viewed from any angle, I am of the considered opinion that the defendant borrowed the amount and failed to repay the said amount. The scientific evidence of PW.5 categorically supports the version of the plaintiff with regard to the execution of promissory note and the evdience of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Ex.X.1 and X.2 remains unchallenged, hence issues No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, it can be said that the suit promissory note dated 17.5.2006 is true, valid and binding on the defendant, hence the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount.

08. ISSUE No.3:- In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for a sum of Rs.75,680/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.44,000/- from the date of suit till 9 the date of decree and interest thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14th day of

August, 2014.

Sd/- G. Hari.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Appendix of Evidence.

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Witnesses examined for:

P.W.1:P. Lakshmi Devi. D.W.1: V. Subba Reddy.

P.W.2: N. Eswar Reddy.

P.W.3: K. Naga Subba Reddy.

P.W.4: R. Obul Reddy.

P.W.5: T. Rama Krishna Reddy (Finger print expert)

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1: Original suit promissory note dt. 17.05.2006 for Rs.44,000/-.

Ex.A.2: Transfer endorsement dt.17.2.2009 on the back side of promissory note

Ex.A.3: Office copy of legal notice dt.09.3.2009

Ex.A.4: Postal receipt.

Ex.A.5: office copy of legal notice dt.14.5.2009.

Ex.A.6: Postal receipt.

Ex.A.7: Returned postal cover.

Ex.A.8:Returned postal cover.

Ex.X.1: Finger Print Expert report.

Ex.X.2: Photographs.

Exhibits marked for defendant:- Nil.

Intld/- G.H. III A.J.C.J. Kdp.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present: Sri G. Hari, M.A.,B.L, III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 11 th day of June, 2014.

O.S.No.72 of 2013

Murikinati Raja Sekhar.

... Plaintiff

Vs.

Palla Venkata Narayana. … Defendant

This suit coming on 05-06-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Abdul Rahim, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri

G.Sai Vamsee Krishna, Advocate for defendant and after hearing arguments, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.91,200/- being the

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 18.11.2010

executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.60,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, and for costs of the suit.

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

The defendant is working as attender, with that acquaintance the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 18.11.2010 for his necessity from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, after that the plaintiff demanded the defendant for discharge of the suit debt, but the defendant postponing the same from one pretext or other.

The defendant also received legal notice, but he kept quite, hence the plaintiff has no other option, except to file this suit. The debt reliefs are not applicable to the defendant as he is a Government employee, hence prayed the Court to decree the suit in his favour with costs of the suit.

2

03. The defendant filed his written statement denying all the allegations of the plaint and contended that he never borrowed the suit promissory note amount from the plaintiff, that the defendant denies each and every stroke of the signature so found in the alleged suit promissory note and stated that the suit promissory note is rank forged and the same was twisted by the plaintiff with oblique motives with a view to extracting money from him by filing this frivolous and unjust suit and no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note and the said suit promissory note was created by the plaintiff with the help of his near and dear and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

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

1. Whether the suit pronote is valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the consideration passed with regard to suit pronote?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit pronote amount ?

4. To what relief ?

05. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and attestor of the suit promissory note is examined as PW.2 and Ex.A.1 is got marked on his behalf. The defendant side reported no defendant evidence on his behalf and adduced his arguments only.

Ex.A.1 is the original promissory note dated 18.11.2010 for Rs.60,000/-.

06. Heard the arguments of learned counsel of both sides.

07. It is the argument of the plaintiff counsel that the defendant borrowed suit promissory note amount of Rs.60,000/- on 18.11.2010 by agreeing to repay the same with interest, whenever demanded by the plaintiff and that plaintiff made several demands to the 3 defendant to discharge his promissory note debt, but the defendant failed to discharge the same. To support his case, he examined PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.A.1 got marked and by thus the case of the plaintiff is proved and prayed the Court to decree the suit with costs.

08. The defendant counsel argued that defendant never approached the plaintiff nor borrowed any amount and no consideration was passed in his name and the suit promissory note is rank forged one with an ulterior motive for unlawful gain and to extract money, hence prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

09.ISSUE NO.1:- It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant approached him for financial assistance and after receiving promissory note amount of Rs.60,000/-, the defendant executed a suit promissory note for Rs.60,000/- and to support his case PW.2 is examined, who is attestor of the suit promissory note. PW.2 deposed that at the time of execution of promissory note, he was present and he also attested in the suit promissory note, he witnessed and signed in the promissory note and he know both the parties in the suit and the defendant himself scribed the bond in his presence.

10. The contention of the defendant is that the suit promissory note is rank forged with the help of his near and dear the said promissory note was created to extract money as per his written statement, but during the course of evidence, he never made any suggestion either to PW.1 or PW.2 about scribing of the promissory note and attestation of the promissory note by PW.2. Only one suggestion was made during the cross examination of PW.2, to help the plaintiff

PW.2 is deposing false and the same was denied by PW.2.

11. During the cross examination of PW.1 also defendant never put any suggestion about the forgery and fabrication of promissory note by the plaintiff with the help of his near and dear and a suggestion 4 was put only with regard to keeping of blank promissory note with the plaintiff, which was denied by the plaintiff and a suggestion was put about suffering with paralysis by the defendant, which was denied by the plaintiff. The cross examination by the defendant to PWs.1 and 2 wherein he suggested that keeping of blank promissory note with the plaintiff goes to show that defendant might have obtained loan from plaintiff by executing promissory note. The cross examination itself reveals that certain transaction taken place in between plaintiff and defendant, wherein PW.2 is the witness. When Ex.A.1 was verified one attestor by name K.Chandra Sekhar was attested and the defendant signed in Telugu on the revenue stamp, below the revenue stamp, and in the place of scribe of the promissory note. When verified with suit summons, the defendant signed in Telugu and when verified with postal acknowledgment he signed in English and in vakalath filed by the defendant, he signed in English. The said suit was decreed exparte formally and after filing a petition to set aside the decree, it was again restored and cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 was made by the defendant, when it is posted for defendant side evidence, the counsel for the defendant reported no evidence on his side and adduced his oral arguments.

12. On verification of the signatures of the defendant on the suit promissory note, vakalath, written statement, suit summons, he signed in some documents in Telugu and in English in some documents.

To support his versions, in his written statement that the suit promissory note is rank forged, he might have signed different language. On verification of all these documents, the strokes in Telugu as well as in

English verified with suit summons, vakalth and promissory note are one and the same. Hence, the Court is of opinion that to evade the suit promissory note amount, the defendant might have signed in some 5 document in Telugu and in some documents in English, which shows the conduct of the party and that of his evasive nature, he was not questioned or suggested during cross examination to PWs.1 and 2 about the fabrication of suit promissory note, the Court is of in further opinion that it is a bald allegation made by the defendant and created the said story to evade the suit promissory note amount. The above said discussion and supporting evidence of PW.2, shows that the defendant is due suit promissory note amount to the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is valid and binding on the defendant, hence this issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

13. ISSUE No.2:- During the course of trial, PW.1 to support his contentions examined PW.2 who is the attestor of the suit promissory note, wherein the PW.2 stated that he know plaintiff and defendant and the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.11.2010 and executed the suit promissory note on the same day and he witnessed and attested in the suit promissory note.

Defendant during the cross examination of PW.2 not got useful information to support his contentions that promissory note is rank forged. The attestor as PW.2 stated during cross examination that the defendant himself scribed the bond, but defendant never put a suggestion about non-scribing the bond by himself, all goes to show that after passing consideration only, the defendant executed the suit promissory note in the presence of PW.2. Hence this issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

14. ISSUE No.3:- During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and to support his contentions, he marked

Ex.A.1 which is suit promissory note executed by defendant and examined PW.2 who is the attestor of the suit promissory note, to prove that the defendant himself scribed the suit promissory note and after 6 receiving consideration, the defendant signed in the promissory note in the presence of PW.2. It all goes to show that the defendant is due suit promissory note amount of Rs.91,200/- to the plaintiff. Hence this issue is also answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

15. ISSUE No.4:- In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.91,200/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.60,000/- from the date of suit i.e. on 11.2.2013 till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11th day of

June, 2014.

Sd/­ G. Hari 

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Appendix of Evidence.

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Witnesses examined for:

P.W.1: M. Raja Sekhar. - Nil -

P.W.2: K. Chandra Sekhar.

Exhibits marked for plaintiff :-

Ex.A.1: Original suit promissory note dt. 18-11-2010 for Rs.60,000/-.

Exhibits marked for defendant:- Nil.

Intld/- G. H.

III A.J.C.J. Kdp.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADAPA.

Present: Sri G. Hari, M.A.,B.L, III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 11 th day of June, 2014.

O.S.No.73 of 2013

Murikinati Raja Sekhar.

... Plaintiff

Vs.

Palla Venkata Narayana. … Defendant

This suit coming on 05-06-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Abdul Rahim, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri

G.Sai Vamsee Krishna, Advocate for defendant and after hearing arguments, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.75,000/- being the

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 07-12-2010

executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, and for costs of the suit.

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

The defendant is working as attender, with that acquaintance the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 07.12.2010 for his necessity from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, after that the plaintiff demanded the defendant for discharge of the suit debt, but the defendant postponing the same from one pretext or other.

The defendant also received legal notice, but he kept quite, hence the plaintiff has no other option, except to file this suit. The debt reliefs are not applicable to the defendant as he is a Government employee, hence prayed the Court to decree the suit in his favour with costs of the suit.

2

03. The defendant filed his written statement denying all the allegations of the plaint and contended that he never borrowed the suit promissory note amount from the plaintiff, that the defendant denies each and every stroke of the signature so found in the alleged suit promissory note and stated that the suit promissory note is rank forged and the same was twisted by the plaintiff with oblique motives with a view to extracting money from him by filing this frivolous and unjust suit and no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note and the said suit promissory note was created by the plaintiff with the help of his near and dear and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

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

1. Whether the suit pronote is valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit pronote amount ?

3. To what relief ?

05. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and attestor of the suit promissory note is examined as PW.2 and Ex.A.1 is got marked on his behalf. The defendant side reported no defendant evidence on his behalf and adduced his arguments only.

Ex.A.1 is the original promissory note dated 07.12.2010 for Rs.50,000/-.

06. Heard the arguments of learned counsel of both sides.

07. It is the argument of the plaintiff counsel that the defendant borrowed suit promissory note amount of Rs.50,000/- on 07.12.2010 by agreeing to repay the same with interest, whenever demanded by the plaintiff and that plaintiff made several demands to the defendant to discharge his promissory note debt, but the defendant failed to discharge the same. To support his case, he examined PWs.1 and 2 3 and Ex.A.1 got marked and by thus the case of the plaintiff is proved and prayed the Court to decree the suit with costs.

08. The defendant counsel argued that defendant never approached the plaintiff nor borrowed any amount and no consideration was passed in his name and the suit promissory note is rank forged one with an ulterior motive for unlawful gain and to extract money, hence prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

09.ISSUE NO.1:- It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant approached him for financial assistance and after receiving promissory note amount of Rs.50,000/-, the defendant executed a suit promissory note for Rs.50,000/- and to support his case PW.2 is examined, who is attestor of the suit promissory note. PW.2 deposed that at the time of execution of promissory note, he was present and he also attested in the suit promissory note, he witnessed and signed in the promissory note and he know both the parties in the suit and the defendant himself scribed the bond in his presence.

10. The contention of the defendant is that the suit promissory note is rank forged with the help of his near and dear the said promissory note was created to extract money as per his written statement, but during the course of evidence, he never made any suggestion either to PW.1 or PW.2 about scribing of the promissory note and attestation of the promissory note by PW.2. Only one suggestion was made during the cross examination of PW.2, to help the plaintiff

PW.2 is deposing false and the same was denied by PW.2.

11. During the cross examination of PW.1 also defendant never put any suggestion about the forgery and fabrication of promissory note by the plaintiff with the help of his near and dear and a suggestion was put only with regard to keeping of blank promissory note with the plaintiff, which was denied by the plaintiff and a suggestion was put 4 about suffering with paralysis by the defendant, which was denied by the plaintiff. The cross examination by the defendant to PWs.1 and 2 wherein he suggested that keeping of blank promissory note with the plaintiff goes to show that defendant might have obtained loan from plaintiff by executing promissory note. The cross examination itself reveals that certain transaction taken place in between plaintiff and defendant, wherein PW.2 is the witness. When Ex.A.1 was verified one attestor by name T. Harikrishna was attested and the defendant signed in

English on the revenue stamp, below the revenue stamp, and in the place of scribe of the promissory note. When verified with suit summons, the defendant signed in Telugu and when verified with postal acknowledgment he signed in English and in vakalath filed by the defendant, he signed in English. The said suit was decreed exparte formally and after filing a petition to set aside the decree, it was again restored and cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 was made by the defendant, when it is posted for defendant side evidence, the counsel for the defendant reported no evidence on his side and adduced his oral arguments.

12. On verification of the signatures of the defendant on the suit promissory note, vakalath, written statement, suit summons, he signed in some documents in Telugu and in English in some documents.

To support his versions, in his written statement that the suit promissory note is rank forged, he might have signed different language. On verification of all these documents, the strokes in Telugu as well as in

English verified with suit summons, vakalth and promissory note are one and the same. Hence, the Court is of opinion that to evade the suit promissory note amount, the defendant might have signed in some document in Telugu and in some documents in English, which shows the conduct of the party and that of his evasive nature, he was not 5 questioned or suggested during cross examination to PWs.1 and 2 about the fabrication of suit promissory note, the Court is of in further opinion that it is a bald allegation made by the defendant and created the said story to evade the suit promissory note amount. The above said discussion and supporting evidence of PW.2, shows that the defendant is due suit promissory note amount to the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is valid and binding on the defendant, hence this issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

13. ISSUE No.2:- During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and to support his contentions, he marked

Ex.A.1 which is suit promissory note executed by defendant and examined PW.2 who is the attestor of the suit promissory note, to prove that the defendant himself scribed the suit promissory note and after receiving consideration, the defendant signed in the promissory note in the presence of PW.2. It all goes to show that the defendant is due suit promissory note amount of Rs.75,000/- to the plaintiff. Hence this issue is also answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

14. ISSUE No.4:- In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.75,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of suit i.e. on 11.02.2013 till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11th day of

June, 2014.

Sd/- G. Hari.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

6

Appendix of Evidence.

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Witnesses examined for:

P.W.1: M. Raja Sekhar. - Nil -

P.W.2: T. Hari Krishna.

Exhibits marked for plaintiff :-

Ex.A.1: Original suit promissory note dt. 07-12-2010 for Rs.50,000/-.

Exhibits marked for defendant:- Nil.

Intld/- G.H. III A.J.C.J. Kdp.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE:: KADAPA

Present:- Sri T.Kesava, B.L.,

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa

Tuesday this the 9th day of December, 2014.

EP No. 18/2014

IN

OS.NO. 576/2012

Kadiri Rayudu.

.... Petitioner/DHr

Vs.

A. Mayuru Kumar.

.... Respondent/JDr.

This suit coming on this day 4.12.2014 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri. K. Krishna Murthy, advocate for

petitioner/Dhr and Sri. V. Hemanth, Advocate for Respondent/JDr, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is an execution petition filed under order 21 Rule 38 CPC for recovery of EP amount by way of arrest and detention of the Judgment Debtor in Civil Prison.

02. The averments of the execution petition in brief are as follows: The decree holder obtained a decree against the judgment debtor in OS.No. 576/2012 on 24.7.2013 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 70,000/- with subsequent and future interest and on principal sum of Rs. 50,000/- and for cost of the suit. The judgment debtor is working as Lecturer in KSRM college,

Kadapa and he got immovable properties of his own. The judgment debtor having sufficient means did not choose to pay the

EP amount and he is trying to sell away his properties to defeat the right of the Dhr to recover the EP amount. Hence, this execution petition.

2

03. The averments of the courter of the judgment debtor in brief are as follows: The judgment debtor denied all allegations in the petition and pleaded that he is working in a private college and drawing low salary. His entire salary is being utilized for his family expenses. Therefore, he has no means to pay the decree amount and prayed for dismissal of the EP with costs.

04. To prove the case of the decree holder the decree holder himself examined as PW1 besides examining the grand son of the decree holder as PW2. In support of his case the decree holder got marked the salary certificate of Jdr as Ex.A1.

05. Though sufficient opportunity was provided to the

Jdr he did not appear before the court nor cross examined the PW2 and adduced any evidence on his behalf.

06. Heard the counsel for Dhr. As there is no representation for the Judgment debtor the arguments on behalf of the judgment debtor treated as nil and the matter is posted to this day for orders.

07. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

08. Now the point for consideration is

"Whether decree holder is entitled for arrest and

detention of the judgment debtor for

recovery of EP amount.”

09. POINT:- As could be seen from the record it is manifest that the Dhr obtained a decree in OS.No. 576/2012 on 24.7.2013 against the judgment debtor for recovery of a sum of

Rs. 70,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till 3 the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs. 50,000/- and for cost of the suit. Admittedly, the decree referred supra has not been satisfied yet.

10. It is the contention of the Dhr that the Jdr is working as a lecturer in KSRM Private College and he is receiving handsome salary besides owning movable and immovable properties on his own. The Jdr is trying to sell away his properties to defeat the right of the Dhr to recover the EP amount. Hence, the Dhr filed this petition for arrest and detention of the Jdr in Civil

Prison. Per contra, the Dhr would contend that he is receiving meager salary. Therefore, it is not sufficient to meet his family expenses and he has no means to pay EP amount.

11. PW1 and 2 in their evidence they categorically deposed that the Jdr got sufficient means and he is receiving salary more than 20,000/- per month as a lecturer at KSRM

Engineering College, Kadapa to prove their contentions the Dhr exhibited the salary certificate of Jdr issued by the principal KSRM

Engineering College, Kadapa as Ex.A1 wherein it provides that the

Jdr is working as Assistant Professor in MBA Department and he is receiving salary of Rs. 43,971/- for the month July 2014.

Therefore, by exhibiting Ex.A1 the Dhr proved that the JDR got sufficient means to pay EP amount. Having receiving sufficient salary the Jdr appears not showing any interest to pay the EP amount the Dhr is a old man aged about more than 80 years. It appears that the Jhr in order to harass the old man is not showing any interest to pay the EP amount. Therefore, to compel the Jdr to pay the EP amount it is just and necessary to order for arrest and detention of Jdr in Civil Prison as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Dhr against the Jdr.

4

12. In the result, this Execution Petition is

allowed ordering for arrest and detention of Jdr in Civil

Prison for recovery of EP amount.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 9th day of December, 2014.

Sd/- T. Kesava

IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner/D.Hr:- Respondent/J.Dr.: NIL

P.W.1 : K. Rayudu. P.W.2 : P. Nagaraju

Exhibits marked for petitioner/D.Hr:-

Ex.A1: is the Salary Certificate of J.Dr.

Exhibits marked for Respondent/J.Dr:- NIL

Id/- T.K.

IV AJCJ, KDP.