Smt. G. Kavitha Devi

IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 29 th day of April, 2022.

PRESENT: Smt.G.Kavitha Devi,

XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

O.S.No.1511 of 2019

Between:

1. Md. Irfan Uddin Kamil, S/o. Late Md. Ameenuddin Zaher, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.19-3-543/78/A, Ali Nagar, Aliabad, Hyderabad.

2. Md. Lukmanuddin Fazil, S/o. Late Md. Ameenuddin Zaher, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.19-3-543/78, Ali Nagar,

Aliabad, Hyderabad. ...Plaintiffs

And

Md. Rizwanuddin Adil, S/o. Late Md. Ameenuddin Zaher, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.19-3-543/78/1, Ali Nagar,

Aliabad, Hyderabad. ...Defendant

This suit is coming on 28.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Syed Altaf Mehdi, Advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendant is set ex-parte, and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs to pass a preliminary decree, declaring the shares of plaintiffs and defendant as one equal share each in schedule ‘A’ property and thereby partition the same as per metes and bounds by appointing a

>>2 of 8<< OS No.1511/2019

Commissioner, and deliver the possession of the same to plaintiffs and defendant to the extent of respective shares and also to pass a decree to partition schedule ‘B’ property directing the defendant to partition the same in three equal shares and hand over 2/3rd shares to plaintiffs and for costs.

2.The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:

i)The plaintiffs submitted that the father of plaintiffs and defendant namely Md. Ameenuddin @ Zaher was the absolute owner and possessor of property bearing Municipal No.19-3-543/78, total admeasuring 296 square yards, situated at Ali Nagar, Aliabad, Hyderabad, out of which he has given separate portion to the sons and daughter during his life time. Sri Md. Ameenuddin @

Zaher has given the portion of property bearing Municipal No.19-3-543/78 (corresponding to New Number 19-3-543/78/1), admeasuring 41 square yards equivalent to 34.28 square meters, out of total 296 square yards to his daughter

Arjumand Fatima under a Registered Gift Settlement deed bearing document

No.1852 of 2008, dated 26.07.2008 hereunder referred to as the suit schedule ‘A’ property. Arjumand Fatima died on 08.03.2016 leaving behind her husband, her father, and three brothers i.e., plaintiffs and defendant herein. The plaintiffs submitted that the husband of Arjumand Fatima has relinquished his share in favour of father of plaintiffs and defendant by taking his share amount and executed a document dated 27.05.2016 and the said property became the property of father of plaintiffs and defendant and he was died on 30.05.2019 leaving

>>3 of 8<< OS No.1511/2019

behind the plaintiffs and defendant as the sons and only legal heirs. Apart from the above legal heirs there are no other legal heir or heirs to deceased Md.

Ameenuddin @ Zaher. The said property became matrooka of deceased Md.

Ameenuddin @ Zaher and liable for partition.

(ii)The plaintiffs and defendant father was also having cash in hand for

Rs.5,00,000/- which was kept with the wife of defendant namely Yasmeen

Begum apart from other movables and the pension amount in his account

No.30877832937 in SBI Shamsheer Gunj Branch and also in Account

No.3031203002607 in Syndicate Bank, Shah Ali Banda Branch. The movable and the amount in the above accounts are not being included in this case by the plaintiffs as the exact quantity is not in the knowledge of plaintiffs. However the plaintiffs reserved their right to include the same after coming to know about the exact quality. The case in hand is described in schedule ‘B’ property, which is in the custody of defendant. The parties to the suit are governed to Sunni Sect of

Muslim Law. The plaintiffs have also obtained fatwa from Jamia-e-Nizamia (Religious Jurists Opinion) on 26.08.2019 according to which the plaintiffs and defendant are liable to one equal share each.

(iii)Further the plaintiffs submitted that they had several times asked the defendant to partition the said property but the defendant didn’t pay any attention. They also convened meeting before the elders and well wishers who have advised the defendant to partition the matrooka property. The defendant promised to partition the same but didn’t keep up his promise and went to Saudi

>>4 of 8<< OS No.1511/2019

Arabia for job purpose. The plaintiffs got issue the legal notice dated 29.08.2019 calling upon the defendant to partition the suit schedule “A” “B” properties and inspite of the said notice the defendant failed and neglected to partition the suit property and finally refused to partition the same on 05.09.2019. Hence the plaintiffs have left with no other option than to approach before this Hon’ble

Court for the redressal. Hence this suit.

3.Summons issued to the defendant but the same was returned to this court as the defendant address not found. On that this court ordered for steps

IA No.280/2021 publication in Urdu munsif daily newspaper and the same was

allowed on 14.12.2021 paper publication dated 18.01.2022 in munsif urdu daily newspaper filed before this court and the defendant has been called absent till 4.40pm. On that the defendant was set exparte by this court and the defendant did not choose to contest the matter.

4.On behalf of the plaintiffs PW1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to

A8. Heard the arguments of the plaintiffs counsel.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the suit schedule property is entitled for the partition or not if so the plaintiffs entitled for the equal shares

along with the defendant from the schedule A property and schedule B

property?

>>5 of 8<< OS No.1511/2019

6.The parties to the suit are muslims who are governed by the Sunni Sect of

Muslim Law. The property in question originally belonged to the father of the plaintiffs and defendant Md. Ameenuddin @ Zaher. The father of the plaintiffs

No.1, 2 and defendant was the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing Municipal No.19-3-543/78, total admeasuring 296 square yards, situated at Ali Nagar, Aliabad, Hyderabad, out of which he has given separate portion to the sons and daughter during his life time. He gave 41 square yards of land to his daughter Arjumand Fatima under a registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.1852 of 2008 dated 26.07.2008. Subsequently on 08.03.2016

Arjumand Fatima died by leaving behind her husband, her father and three brothers i.e., plaintiffs and defendant. Further the husband of the deceased daughter of Ameenuddin has relinquished his share in favour of Ameenuddin by taking his share amount and executed a document dated 27.05.2016 thereafter the father of the plaintiffs and defendant died on 30.05.2019 by leaving three sons and they are only legal heirs.

7.Further the plaintiffs submitted their father was also having cash in hand of Rs.5,00,000/- which was kept with the wife of defendant namely Yasmeen

Begum apart from other movables and the pension amount in his account

No.30877832937 in SBI Shamsheer Gunj branch and also in account

No.3031203002607 in Syndicate Bank, Shah Ali banda branch. The plaintiffs are not included that amount in the present case in hand. The parties to the suit are

>>6 of 8<< OS No.1511/2019

governed by Sunni Sect of Muslim Law. They have also obtained fatwa from

Jamia-e-Nizamia (Religious Jurists Opinion) on 26.08.2019 according to which the plaintiffs and defendant are liable to one equal share each. The plaintiffs asked several times to the defendant to make partition but the defendant did not pay any attention. The plaintiffs have convened meeting before the elders and well wishers even though the defendant did not keep up his promise and went to

Saudi Arabia for his job purpose. On that they got issued legal notice dated 29.08.2019 by calling upon the defendant for partition but the same was returned as unserved i.e., Ex.A5.

8.It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant have been postponing the issue of partition of the suit schedule property on demand made by the plaintiffs if the suit schedule property is not partitioned, the rights of the plaintiffs with respect to their equal share in the same would be effected. In view of all the above observations the plaintiffs are entitled for equal shares along with the defendant in the suit schedule A and B properties. Hence, they are proved to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The evidence of PW1 is therefore in accordance with the averments of the plaint and contents of Exs.A1 to A8.

The point is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

>>7 of 8<< OS No.1511/2019

9.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs. A preliminary decree is passed directing the defendant to partition the suit schedule property A & B by dividing equal shares among the plaintiffs No.1, 2 and defendant for allotment and hand over 2/3rd shares to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of the judgment. In failure of the defendant to do so, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to get the same be done through due process of law. The defendant put together is entitled for the equal share in both the schedule properties i.e., A and B.

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29 th day of April, 2022.

XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: Mohd. Irfanuddin Kamil EXPARTE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed doc.No.1852 of 2008 dt.26.07.2008. Ex.A2:Original Fatwa of Jamia-Nizamia in Urdu with Translation in English dt.26.08.2019. Ex.A3:Office copy of legal notice dt.29.08.2019. Ex.A4:Original postal receipt dt.29.08.2019. Ex.A5:Original returned postal envelop dt.30.08.2019. Ex.A6:Original mutual agreement in urdu with translation in english dt.19.01.2013.

>>8 of 8<< OS No.1511/2019

Ex.A7:Original receipt dt.27.05.2016. Ex.A8:Original valuation certificate dt.07.08.2019.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 01 st day of April, 2022.

PRESENT: Smt.G.Kavitha Devi, XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

O.S.No.482 of 2019

Between: M/s ICICI Bank Limited A body corporate, incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and licensed as a Bank under the Banking Regulation Act 1949 and having its registered Office at “Landmark” Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007 and having one of its office at ICICI Bank Ltd., Regional Processing Center, Sriram Towers, 3rd floor, Opp Shadan College, Khairatabad, Hyderabad – 500004. Rep by its Authorized Representative, & G.P.A. holder P. Yogesh, S/o. P. J. Laxinarayana, Age 38 years, Occ: Manager, ICICI Bank, R/o. Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

And

Mohd Faizal Bin, S/o. Mohd Bin Awao, R/o.H.No.17-8-415/8/1 Bagh-E-Jahanara Yakutupura, Charminar, Hyderabad. Pin 500023.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 23.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.V. Srinath, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is set exparte, and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of Rs.8,85,877/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Seven

>> 2 of 6<< O.S.No.482/2019

Only) from the defendant.

2.The brief averments of the plaintiff are that:

(i)The plaintiff bank is engaged, inter-alia, in the banking business of rendering financial/credit facilities, in the form of loans, to the intending borrowers. In the course of its financial services it had introduced used car loan and auto loan facilities to its customers. The plaintiff bank submitted that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance of Rs.11,95,317/- for purchase of Car i.e., TOYOTA INNOVA bearing No. TS 11EC2390. After considering the application, defendant was sanctioned a car loan of

Rs.11,95,317/- on 29.02.2016 @ 16.01% p.a. of interest for purchase of the above said car, vide loan agreement No.LUHYD00034277384, the said loan was repayable in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.29,071/- each. Accordingly the loan amount was disbursed to towards the purchase of the car. Consequently, the said vehicle was hypothecated to the plaintiff bank and endorsement in this regard is also entered in the registration certificate of the said vehicle. The plaintiff bank submitted that the defendant had executed an unattested deed of hypothecation agreement dated 29.02.2016 in favour of the plaintiff Bank, agreeing to abide by all the terms and conditions therein, thereby creating a first charge on all assets specified in the schedule thereof, as security for and be charged with the repayment/payment of the facility, all interest commission, costs, charges, expenses and all monies, whatsoever stipulated in or payable by

>> 3 of 6<< O.S.No.482/2019

the defendant.

(ii)At the time of availing the loan, the defendant was fully aware of the rate of interest, tenure of the loan, equated monthly installment of the loan along with other details, as the same were clearly explained to him. Based on the same, the loan agreement was executed by the defendant. The copy of the documents entered at the time of availing the loan was provided to the defendant. In terms of the loan agreement, the defendant has agreed to make timely and regular repayment of the loan installments which was the essence of the contract and at the time of availing the loan, he was informed that in case of default in paying the EMI’s on the due dates, overdue and bounced charges will be levied and bank may exercise their right of repossession of the hypothecated vehicle.

(iii)After availing the loan, the defendant failed to pay the EMI’s on the due dates, as the mandate returned unpaid on the due dates, thus the EMI, overdue charges and bounced charges were levied on the defendant loan account. The plaintiff bank made persistent requests to the defendant to make payments towards EMIs of the loan. But the defendant despite being fully aware has time and again failed to make the payments. The plaintiff bank also issued loan recall notice 14.04.2018 to the defendant recalling the total loan and demanded to make payment. The act of the defendant has caused wrongful loss and irreparable injury to the plaintiff bank. Further it is submitted that in utter breach of the agreement, the defendant is misusing the privileges accorded to the defendant and the plaintiff bank, upon passing of each day, is suffering irreparable loss and

>> 4 of 6<< O.S.No.482/2019

injury since the defendant have used the entire facility amount for his personal purpose. That, in the instant case the defendant having availed the loan is willfully neglecting to repay the loan amount. The defendant has defaulted in

honoring his commitment towards repayment of the outstanding amounts there

under. The defendant is liable to pay Rs.8,85,877/- towards the outstanding amount of the loan. The plaintiff bank having left with no other alternative has approached the Hon’ble Court.

3.After registering the suit this court issued summons to the defendant through Court and Registered Post and on receipt of summons also the defendant was failed to appear before this court to defend his case. Hence the defendant was set exparte on 07.02.2020.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A8.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is “whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for”?

>> 5 of 6<< O.S.No.482/2019

7.POINT:

PW1 is deposed as averred in the plaint and in support of his evidence, got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is Certified copy of certificate of incorporation

dated 10.09.1999. Ex.A2 is copy of power of attorney. Ex.A3 is preliminary

credit facility application form dated 17.02.2016. Ex.A4 is credit facility application form dated 17.02.2016. Ex.A5 is unattested deed of hypothecation

dated 29.02.2016. Ex.A6 is irrevocable power of attorney dated 29.02.2016.

Ex.A7 is loan recall notice dated 14.04.2018. Ex.A8 is statement of account as per Bankers Book of Evidence Act dated 11.01.2019.

8.It is the testimony of the PW1 that the defendant made believe of repayment of car loan regularly as agreed by him and took the vehicle loan but he did not stand on his promise and failed to obey the terms and conditions imposed by the plaintiff bank. Further the defendant failed to appear before this court to defend his case. The evidence of PW1 remains unrebutted since the defendant failed to appear before the court to contest the suit.

9.In the light of the above facts, the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A8 is clearly proving the suit claim made by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for. Point is answered, accordingly.

>> 6 of 6<< O.S.No.482/2019

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,85,877/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 01 st day of April, 2022.

XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: P. Yogesh EXPARTE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of certificate of incorporation, dt.10.09.1999. Ex.A2:Copy of power of attorney. Ex.A3:Preliminary credit facility application form, dt.17.02.2016. Ex.A4:Credit facility application form, dt.17.02.2016. Ex.A5:Unattested deed of hypothecation, dt.29.02.2016. Ex.A6:Irrevocable power of attorney, dt.29.02.2016. Ex.A7:Loan recall notice, dt.14.04.2018. Ex.A8:Statement of account as per Bankers Book of Evidence Act, dt.11.01.2019.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 01 st day of April, 2022.

PRESENT: Smt.G.Kavitha Devi, XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

O.S.No.1011 of 2019

Between: M/s ICICI Bank Limited A body corporate, incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and licensed as a Bank under the Banking Regulation Act 1949 and having its registered Office at “Landmark” Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007 and having one of its office at ICICI Bank Ltd., Regional Processing Center, Sriram Towers, 3rd floor, Opp Shadan College, Khairatabad, Hyderabad – 500004. Rep by its Authorized Representative, & G.P.A. holder P. Yogesh, S/o. P. J. Laxinarayana, Age 38 years, Occ: Manager, ICICI Bank, R/o. Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

And

Mohd. Hyder Ali, S/o. Mohd Maqsood Ali, Age: 33 years, R/o. 18-7-312/1/C/44, Aman Nagar, Talabkatta, Hyderabad -23.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 23.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.V. Srinath, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is set exparte, and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of Rs.5,73,021/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand and Twenty One Only) from the defendant.

>> 2 of 6<< O.S.No.1011/2019

2.The brief averments of the plaintiff are that:

(i)The plaintiff bank is engaged, inter-alia, in the banking business of rendering financial/credit facilities, in the form of loans, to the intending borrowers. In the course of its financial services it had introduced used car loan and auto loan facilities to its customers. The plaintiff bank submitted that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance of Rs.10,75,000/- for purchase of Car i.e., TAYOTA INNAVA bearing No. AP13AC5683. After considering the application, defendant was sanctioned a car loan of

Rs.10,75,000/- on 10.07.2015 @ 14.50% p.a. of interest for purchase of the above said car, vide loan agreement No.LUHYD00032949533, the said loan was repayable in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.25,295/- each. Accordingly the loan amount was disbursed to towards the purchase of the car. Consequently, the said vehicle was hypothecated to the plaintiff bank and endorsement in this regard is also entered in the registration certificate of the said vehicle. The plaintiff bank submitted that the defendant had executed an unattested deed of hypothecation agreement dated 10.7.2015 in favour of the plaintiff Bank, agreeing to abide by all the terms and conditions therein, thereby creating a first charge on all assets specified in the schedule thereof, as security for and be charged with the repayment/payment of the facility, all interest commission, costs, charges, expenses and all monies, whatsoever stipulated in or payable by the defendant.

(ii)At the time of availing the loan, the defendant was fully aware of the rate

>> 3 of 6<< O.S.No.1011/2019

of interest, tenure of the loan, equated monthly installment of the loan along with other details, as the same were clearly explained to him. Based on the same, the loan agreement was executed by the defendant. The copy of the documents entered at the time of availing the loan was provided to the defendant. In terms of the loan agreement, the defendant has agreed to make timely and regular repayment of the loan installments which was the essence of the contract and at the time of availing the loan, he was informed that in case of default in paying the EMI’s on the due dates, overdue and bounced charges will be levied and bank may exercise their right of repossession of the hypothecated vehicle.

(iii)After availing the loan, the defendant failed to repay the EMI’s on the due dates, as the mandate returned unpaid on the due dates, thus the EMI, overdue charges and bounced charges were levied on the defendant loan account. The plaintiff bank made persistent requests to the defendant to make payments towards EMIs of the loan. But the defendant despite being fully aware has time and again failed to make the payments. The plaintiff bank also issued “loan recall” notice to the defendant recalling the total loan and demanded to make payment. The act of the defendant has caused wrongful loss and irreparable injury to the plaintiff bank. Further it is submitted that in utter breach of the agreement, the defendant is misusing the privileges accorded to the defendant and the plaintiff bank upon passing of each day, is suffering irreparable loss and injury since the defendant have used the entire facility amount for his personal purpose. That, in the instant case the defendant having availed the loan is

>> 4 of 6<< O.S.No.1011/2019

willfully neglecting to repay the loan amount. The defendant has defaulted in

honoring his commitment towards repayment of the outstanding amounts there

under. The defendant is liable to pay Rs.5,73,021/- towards the outstanding amount of the loan. The plaintiff bank having left with no other alternative has approached the Hon’ble Court.

3.After registering the suit this court issued summons to the defendant through Court and Registered Post and on receipt of summons also the defendant was failed to appear before this court to defend his case. Hence the defendant was set exparte on 14.10.2019.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is “whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for?”

7.POINT:

PW1 is deposed as averred in the plaint and support of his evidence, got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is Certified copy of certificate of incorporation

dated 10.09.1999. Ex.A2 is notarized copy of power of attorney. Ex.A3 is

>> 5 of 6<< O.S.No.1011/2019

preliminary credit facility application form dated 24.06.2015. Ex.A4 is credit facility application form dated 24.06.2015. Ex.A5 is unattested deed of hypothecation dated 10.07.2015. Ex.A6 is irrevocable power of attorney dated 10.07.2015. Ex.A7 is statement of account as per Bankers Book of Evidence Act

dated 12.12.2018.

8.It is the testimony of the PW1 that the defendant made believe of repayment of car loan regularly as agreed by him and took the vehicle loan but he did not stand on his promise and failed to obey the terms and conditions imposed by the plaintiff bank. Further the defendant failed to appear before this court to defend his case. The evidence of PW1 remains unrebutted since the defendant failed to appear before the court to contest the suit.

9.In the light of the above facts, the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A7 is clearly proving the suit claim made by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for. Point is answered, accordingly.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,73,021/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the realization.

>> 6 of 6<< O.S.No.1011/2019

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 01 st day of April, 2022.

XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: P. Yogesh EXPARTE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of certificate of incorporation, dt.10.09.1999. Ex.A2:Notarized copy of power of attorney. Ex.A3:Preliminary credit facility application form, dt.24.06.2015. Ex.A4:Credit facility application form, dt.24.06.2015. Ex.A5:Unattested deed of hypothecation, dt.10.07.2015. Ex.A6:Irrevocable power of attorney, dt.10.07.2015. Ex.A7:Statement of account as per Bankers Book of Evidence Act, dt.12.12.2018.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

Dated this the 29 th Day of April, 2022

PRESENT : Smt.G.Kavitha Devi,

XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court: Hyderabad.

O.S.No.126 of 2021

Between:

1. P.Padma, W/o.R.Prabhakaran, D/o.Late T.Muthurathnam, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.207, A.S.Rao Nagar, Sanikpuri, Hyderabad, Telangana-500062.

2. M.Srinivasan, S/o.Late T.Muthurathnam, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-382/V/1/60, Vaishali Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad, Telangana 500079.

3. M.Ravi Chandran, S/o.Late T.Muthurathnam, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-382/V/1/60, Vaishali Nagar,

Saidabad, Hyderabad, Telangana 500079. ...Plaintiffs

And

1. Punjab National Bank, H.No.16-1-545 5(NEW), Santhoshnagar Branch, Hyderabad, Telangana State-59.

2. The Tahsildar, Saidabad Mandal, Vinaynagar, Champapet Road, Hyderabad-59.

3. All Concerned. ...Defendants

This suit coming on 24.02.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.Venugopal Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and defendants

>>2 of 6<< OS No.126/2021

set exparte and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs as legal heirs of the deceased Late T.

Muthurathnam.

2.The case of the plaintiffs in brief, is as, follows:

The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are the children of the Late T. Muthurathnam and the father of the plaintiffs died on 30.10.2013 at Hyderabad by leaving behind the plaintiffs as their legal heirs by virtue of Hindu laws of succession. During the life time of the Late T. Muthurathnam, he purchased property bearing H.No.17-1- 382/V/1/60, Vaishali Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad having purchased the same through a registered sale deed document No.3143 of 1985, dated 18.11.1985.

Upon the demise of the Late T. Muthurathnam, the plaintiffs herein continuing in the possession of the suit schedule property. Further they submitted that on account of demise of Late T. Muthurathnam, the plaintiffs herein is desirous of converting the utility bills and other documents pertaining to the schedule property in the name of plaintiffs and hence they are in need of legal heir certificate declaring as surviving legal heirs of Late T. Muthurathnam in the schedule property. Hence prayed this court to pass the judgment by declaring the plaintiffs as the surviving legal heirs of the deceased Muthurathnam.

>>3 of 6<< OS No.126/2021

3.Summons held sufficient to the defendants. Defendants remained exparte.

4.In order to prove their case the plaintiff No.3 examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 and reported no further evidence. Hence plaintiffs evidence was closed. Heard the counsel for the plaintiffs. After hearing the counsel for the plaintiffs this court posted the matter for judgment. At this juncture the counsel for the plaintiffs filed petition to reopen the matter for further hearing. On that this court reopened the matter then the counsel for the plaintiffs filed petitions under Order VII Rule 14(3) and Order 18 Rule 17 of the

CPC and both the IA’s were allowed and the witness recalled and examined as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A10 & A11.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiffs.

6.Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to

be declared as legal heirs of the deceased Late T. Muthurathnam in order to

get all the rights on the suit schedule property for all purpose?

7.Perused the evidence affidavit of PW1 which is nothing but the replica of their plaint as per their version, they are the daughter and sons of deceased

Muthurathnam. Ex.A1 is the original death certificate of the deceased T.

Muthurathnam and Ex.A10 is the original death certificate of the M. Krishnaveni

>>4 of 6<< OS No.126/2021

who is mother of the plaintiffs and wife of deceased Late T. Muthurathnam.

Ex.A2 & A11 are the original aadhar card and ration card of deceased. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed vide document No.3143 of 1985. Ex.A4 & A5 are the encumbrance certificate and market value certificate. Ex.A6 is the original electricity bill. Ex.A7 to A9 are the original aadhar cards of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 which are proving the relationship between the plaintiffs and deceased father of the plaintiffs. Ex.A1 and A10 are the death certificates of the parents of the plaintiffs which are proving the death of the parents of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs their father purchased the suit schedule property vide sale deed document No.3143 of 1985 dated 14.11.1985. Ex.A3 is the original sale deed which is clearly showing that the deceased Muthurathnam purchased the suit schedule property from the N. Ravi Kanthan S/o. A.V. Narayana Iyer. Ex.A3 is showing the same. The plaintiffs submitted through PW1 that when they went to the Punjab National Bank to release the sale deed document of Late T.

Muthurathnam the Punjab National Bank authorities asked the plaintiffs for legal heirs certificate and on that they have approached the concerned Tahsildar,

Saidabad and requested to issue the legal heir certificate on that they were informed by the Tahsildar that they are not having any right to issue legal heir certificate in respect of the immovable properties. As such legal heir certificate could not by issued to the plaintiffs. Hence they filed the present suit. In all the above circumstances, Exs.A1 to A11 are clearly proving about the relationship of

>>5 of 6<< OS No.126/2021

the plaintiffs with the deceased Late T. Muthurathnam and M. Krishnaveni and also proving under Ex.A3 that the deceased father of the plaintiffs have purchased the suit schedule property. Hence this court opines that the plaintiffs proved their case.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs in favour of the plaintiffs declaring the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as the legal heirs of the deceased Late T.

Muthuratham, who died intestate on 30.10.2013 succeeding to the suit schedule property as the absolute owners and they are entitled to succeed and transfer the schedule property of Late T. Muthurathnam as the absolute owners.

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 29 th day of April, 2022.

XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS: PW1: M.Ravichandran EXPARTE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1:Original Death Certificate of deceased T.Muthurathnam.

Ex.A2:Original Aadhar Card of deceased.

>>6 of 6<< OS No.126/2021

Ex.A3:Certified copy of sale Deed, vide doc.no.3143/1985.

Ex.A4:Original Encumbrance certificate.

Ex.A5:Market value certificate.

Ex.A6:Original Electricity bill.

Ex.A7:Original Aadhar card of plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A8:Original Aadhar card of plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A9:Original Aadhar card of plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A10:Original death certificate of mother of plaintiff dt.20.09.2016.

Ex.A11:Original ration card of mother of plaintiff.

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 01 st day of April, 2022.

PRESENT: Smt.G.Kavitha Devi, XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

O.S.No.1673 of 2019

Between: Union Bank of India a Body corporate, constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and Having its Head Office at 239, Vidhana Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai and branch offices among other places at Saifabad branch, Lakdikapool, H.No.6-1-67/14, 1st floor, Public Garden Road, Opp: DGP Office, Hyderabad, Telangana State, and is being represented by its Senior Manager and GPA holder/ Authorized Smt. Kotih Srichitra D/o. Sri K.V.V.Rao, W/o. Sri V.M.S.S. Santosh Jammi, aged 31 years, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

And

Sri Mudavath Gasiram, S/o. Sri Mudavath Kesiya, aged 49 years, Occ: Business, 17-1-341-87/17, Khajabagh, Saidabad, Hyderabad – 500 079, Telangana.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 23.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.V.S.S. Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is set exparte, and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of

Rs.11,23,121.70ps (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred

>> 2 of 6<< O.S.No.1673/2019

and Twenty One and Seventy Paise Only) from the defendant.

2.The brief averments of the plaintiff are that:

(i)The plaintiff bank submitted that the defendant who is an individual approached the plaintiff bank, for sanction of loan i.e., for carrying on business for tent house business under Standup India Programme, for requirements and against Hypothecation of tent goods and materials. On request of the defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan limits to defendant, for a limit of

Rs.11,90,000/- on 18.07.2016 against Hypothecation of tent goods and materials, and personal obligation of the defendant, to repay the loan being borrower, the loan account number is No.370606170000002, maintained by him with plaintiff’s client bank. In terms of sanction of term loan facility, the defendant has executed following documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendant has executed demand promissory note dt.18.07.2016, executed letter of continuity (AD-09) dt.18.07.2016, executed interest agreement (SD-24) dt.18.07.2016, executed term loan agreement (hypothecation of Moveables) (SD-19) dt.18.07.2016 and executed general term loan agreement (SD-18) dt.18.07.2016 in favour of the plaintiff Bank.

(ii)The defendant has fully availed the loan sanctioned by the plaintiff bank, by operating the loan account maintained with the plaintiff bank and has received the consideration. The defendant has failed to keep up with the terms of loan, as agreed upon, and despite the plaintiff made several demands and deposit the

>> 3 of 6<< O.S.No.1673/2019

amount into the loan account maintained by him with the plaintiff bank, as per terms of sanction letter. Further the plaintiff bank submitted that the defendant defaulted in payment of installments as agreed upon, despite issuance of several notices and demands made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff bank also issued the notice through counsel on 19.08.2019 for payment of entire loan outstanding, the defendant received the notice and acknowledge the same, as per acknowledgment card, the notice dt.19.08.2019 and acknowledgment received thereon from defendant. A sum of Rs.11,23,121.70ps remained due and payable by the defendant as on the date of plaint as per certified extract of statement.

3.This court issued summons to the defendant through DTDC and the said summons were returned. On that this court ordered the plaintiff to take steps for substitute service of summons. Paper publication dated 18.11.2021 in Velugu news paper filed. Defendant is called absent. No representation. Hence the defendant is set exparte on 06.12.2021.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to

A10.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is “whether the plaintiff bank is entitled

>> 4 of 6<< O.S.No.1673/2019

for recovery of amount as prayed for?”

7.POINT:

PW1 is deposed as averred in the plaint and support of his evidence, got marked Exs.A1 to A10. Ex.A1 is the sanction letter dated 18.07.2016. Ex.A2 is the Demand Promissory Note dated 18.07.2016. Ex.A3 is the letter of continuity (Ad-09) dated 18.07.2016. Ex.A4 is the interest agreement (SD-24) dated 18.07.2016. Ex.A5 is the term loan agreement (hypothecation of moveables) (SD-19) dated 18.07.2016. Ex.A6 is the general term loan agreement (SD-18)

dated 18.07.2016. Ex.A7 is the legal notice along with registration receipts dated

19.08.2019. Ex.A8 is the acknowledgment. Ex.A9 is the certified extract of statement of account along with certificate under Sec.2A (A), 2A (B) & 2A (C).

Ex.A10 is the copy of authorization of Ch. Srinivas dated 09.03.2022.

8.It is the testimony of the PW1 that the defendant made believe of repayment of loan regularly as agreed by him and took the loan but he did not stand on his promise and failed to obey the terms and conditions imposed by the plaintiff bank. Further the defendant failed to appear before this court to defend his case. The evidence of PW1 remains unrebutted since the defendant failed to appear before the court to contest the suit.

9.In the light of the above facts, the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1

>> 5 of 6<< O.S.No.1673/2019

to A10 is clearly proving the suit claim made by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for. Point is answered, accordingly.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,23,121.70ps together with interest @ 10.95% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 01 st day of April, 2022.

XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: Ch. Srinivas EXPARTE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Sanction letter, dt.18.07.2016. Ex.A2:Demand Promissory Note, dt.18.07.2016. Ex.A3:Letter of continuity (Ad-09), dt.18.07.2016. Ex.A4:Interest agreement (SD-24), dt.18.07.2016. Ex.A5:Term loan agreement (hypothecation of moveables) (SD-19), dt.18.07.2016. Ex.A6:General term loan agreement (SD-18), dt.18.07.2016. Ex.A7:Legal notice along with registration receipts, dt.19.08.2019.

>> 6 of 6<< O.S.No.1673/2019

Ex.A8:Acknowledgment. Ex.A9:Certified extract of statement of account along with certificate under Sec.2A (A), 2A (B) & 2A(C) Ex.A10: Copy of authorization of Ch. Srinivas, dt.09.03.2022.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.