Smt G.V.L.Saraswati, LL.M.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SMT. G.V.L.SARASWATHI,

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

THURSDAY, THIS THE 7th DAY OF APRIL, 2014.

O.S.427/2013

Between:

1. Muppalla Krishna Mohan

2. Muppalla Venkata Rama Leela Prasad ..PLAINTIFFS

A N D

1. Dhammalapati Chandra Sekar

2. Dhammalapati Venkata Leela Prasad ..DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming before me on 28.03.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Muralidhar, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri M.S.Krishna, Advocate for defendants and upon perusing the plaint, written statement and other connected material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Muppalla Krishna Mohan and another filed suit for permanent injunction U/sec.26 and Or.VII R.1 of CPC against

Dhammalapati Chandra Sekar and another. The parties herein after referred as plaintiffs and defendants.

2.The case of the plaintiffs that a godown with vessels and chairs, tables etc. in a door No.23-22-128/129, known as

Seetharama Kalyanamandapam situated at Sivalayam street,

Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada herein after referred as schedule property. The schedule property is part of Seetharama

Kalyanamandapam which is constructed in the year 1964 by Sri

Kallepalli Krishnam Raju. The Schedule property is in the north east corner of the Seetharama Kalyanamandapam is consists of 2 two rooms and zinc sheet sheds both on the front and back. The said two rooms were let out by the hereditary trustee Sri Gopaluri

Bhogeswara Sarma to the first plaintiff for his medical profession or any other business at his wishes to conduct. Then, plaintiff further submitted that even prior to letting out of the two rooms, first plaintiff was managing the Seetharama Kalyanamandapam as he was appointed by the then managing trustee in the year 1997. while so one K.S.R.V.P.Raju was allowed the first plaintiff to keep his cooking vessels and other necessary articles useful for marriages for supplying the same to the persons celebrating the marriages in the said Kalyanamandapam. Then, the said

K.S.R.V.P.Raju has requested the first plaintiff to manage the said activity hiring out, the said articles entrusted to the management of first plaintiff on condition of payment of Rs.1,000/- per month to the said K.S.R.V.P.Raju. therefore, the first plaintiff and second plaintiff had increased the articles like chairs, dining tables and other vessels by purchasing themselves.

3.The plaintiff further submitted that after death of

K.S.R.V.P.Raju, his wife Smt.K.Lakshmi taken over the business of hiring vessels. On 08.05.2000 the said Lakshmi and first plaintiff had entered an agreement to receive Rs.1,000/- per month for vessels which business has been conducted by the first plaintiff to be paid by way of two installments that is Rs.500/- each. The said agreement was attested by one Rayapa Raju who is nearest relative of K.Lakshmi and first plaintiff. In the year 2007, the said

Lakshmi was behaving contrary to the agreement dt.29.12.2004 a mediation was held in the year 2007 that they have decided, the 3 entire vessels left by K.S.R.V.P.Raju should be enjoyed by the second plaintiff only and no rent should be paid to the said

Lakshmi as per the suggestion of the mother of K.S.R.V.P.Raju, accordingly no rent is paid to K.Lakshmi and she has not collected any rents. The second plaintiff is only conducting the said hiring vessels business and enjoying the same.

4.The plaintiffs further submitted that the defendants, who are nothing to do with the Kalyanamandapam and the said two rooms and godown i.e., plaint schedule property along with the articles stores in the godown, have come to the plaintiffs in the second week of October, 2012, while the plaintiffs are in the

Kalyanamandapam along with their friends one Tennati Srinivas and others demanded the plaintiffs to vacate and handover the schedule property and two rooms to the management of

Kalyanamandapam and that the plaintiff refused the same.

Thereafter on 11.10.2012 at about 12.30a.m., the second plaintiff was taken to the house of the defendants where they have abused with filthy language and beaten. So the second plaintiff submitted a report before Satyanarayanapuram P.S. The defendants have used their influence and as such no case was registered. Subsequently, on 22.05.2013 the second defendant along with Tennati Srinivas and some other people have come to the second plaintiff and caused injuries on the neck of the second plaintiff and demanded to handover the schedule property to the management of the said Kalyanamandapam. The plaintiffs lodged a complaint before Satyanarayanapuram P.S. The police advised him to go to pre-litigation cell but no action was taken by the local 4 police. So the second plaintiff was obliged to file a complaint

before the Commissioner of police in person and also sending by

registered post. Unfortunately no action was taken till today. The plaintiffs further submitted that the defendants have no right title or possession of the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever and the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since last several decades. Hence the suit

5.The 2nd defendant filed written statement and the 1st defendant filed adoption memo. They submitted that the plaint schedule property is known as Seetharama Kalyanamandapam and no dispute of the identity of the schedule property. They further submitted that Sri Gopaluni Purushothama Sarma Pakayaji was the hereditary trustee of the property situated in Dr.No.23- 22-128/129, Sivalayam street, Satyanrayanapuram, Vijayawada.

After his dedath Sri G.Bhogeswara Sarma, hereditary trustee of the property had applied for permission to construction of

Kalyanamandapam in the said premises with the Vijayawada

Municipality in the year 1964. Accordingly, he obtained necessary permission, Sri G.Bhogeswara Sarma hereditary trustee with the help of Sri K.Krishnam Raju and some other donars have completed the construction of the Kalyanamandapam in the year 1965. The said Bhogeswara Sarma never let out schedule property to the plaitniffs and two rooms also.

6.The defendants further submitted that a case was filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Vijayawada in the Land

Grabbing Court, Hyderabad alleging that Dr.Dammalapati Rama 5 Rao and Sri G.V.Bhogeswara Sarma who are staying in Dr.No.23- 22-128/129, Hanuman Street, Styanarayanapuram, Vijayawada are land grabbers stating that the said land belongs to the adjacent temple, in the year 1993. It is clearly evident that the schedule property is under occupation of Dr.Dammalapati Rama

Rao and Sri G.V.Bhogeswara Sarma.

7.The defendants further submitted that the first plaint schedule property was kept as a caretaker of the said

Kalyanamandapam in the year 1977. One late K.S.R.V.P.Raju,

S/o.K.Krishnam Raju who is one of the major donar for construction of Seetharama Kalyanamandapam was allowed by late Sri G.V.Bhogeswara Sarma, hereditary trustee and Sri

Dr.Dammalapati Rama Rao, managing truste of Sri Seetharama

Kalyanamandapam to hire out the cooking vessels, tables etc to the functionaries performed in the said Kalyanamandapam to get his livelihood in the year 1994. Since then Sri K.S.R.V.P.Raju is doing business of hiring out the vessels for the functions. The said K.S.R.V.P.Raju died of illness in the year 1999.

Smt.K.Lakshmi, W/o.late K.S.R.V.P.Raju had approached the trustees and requested to continue her husband business by her as she do not have any other source of livelihood. Keeping in view of the miserable condition of her family and also the contribution made by her father-in-law late Sri K.Krishnam Raju for the development of Kalyanamandapam, the trustees allowed her to continue her husband business in the year 1999. But the defendants never gave possession of any room in the

Kalyanamandapam muchless the plaint schedule property. The 6 agreement and understanding between the plaintiffs and

Smt.K.Lakshmi put forth by 1st plaintiff are not in the knowledge of the trustees. They appears to have been taken place without the knowledge and reference of the trustees.

8.The defendants further submitted that the defendants father late Dr.D.Rama Rao was founder and managing trustee of

Seetharama Kalyanamandapam. The electricity connection is in the name of their father to the schedule premises. The first plaintiff is only caretaker. The defendants further submitted that the plaintiffs are maintaining day book accounts and booking of

Kalyanamandapam. As certain complaints received from the parties against the plaintiffs during the month of June, 2012, Sri

G.Purushothama Sarma, Hereditary trustee and 1st defendant who is managing trustee have recovered the account books, cash receipt books and also booking register from the plaintiffs in the month of June, 2012 and also instructed the plaintiffs not to make any bookings till further instructions. The plaintiffs after handing over the booking registers etc. have opened a duplicate register without authorization and started booking for the events in the

Kalyanamandapam. When it came to the notice of the trustees, the second plaintiff was called and enquired on 11.10.2012 regarding the unauthorized act. The plaintiffs quarreled with the management and to cover their misdeed. The second plaintiff lodged a false complaint in the V Town P.S. After knowing the irregularity committed by the plaintiffs, the trustees have dispensed them from the duties of management of the

Kalyanamandapam on 12.10.2012.

7

9.The defendants further submitted that the plaintiffs did not have any right title over the plaint schedule property and they are neither tenants nor licenses. It is under the possession of the trustees. It is not correct that the plaint schedule property is under their control since several decades. It is contradicting their statement that they have taken the articles from Smt.K.Lakshmi in the year 2000. The services of the plaintiff are engaged for the purpose of taking care of the Kalyanamandapam and also to maintain the accounts, bookings etc. and paid monthly

honorarium besides providing free accommodation in the

adjoining choultry. The plaintiffs lost the trust and confidence of the trustees by committing irregularities and expressing disobedience. As such they were discharged from the duties as caretakers on 13.10.2012. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed.

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

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

2. To what relief?

11.To prove the contents of the suit, the first plaintiff himself examined as Pw.1 and second plaintiff himself examined as Pw.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.20. Ex.A.1 is agreement between the first plaintiff and Kalyanamandapam, dt.08.05.2000. Ex.A2 is also agreement between Kalyanamandapam and second plaintiff, dt.29.12.2004. Ex.A3 is also agreement dt.26.06.2007 executed 8 by the second plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the empty prescription and visiting card. Ex.A5 is invitation. Ex.A6 receipt, dt.19.06.2010.

Ex.A7 is urgent notice, dt.09.10.2011. Ex.A8 is receipt, dt.15.10.2009. Ex.A9 is letter issued by second plaintiff. Ex.A10 is the receipt. Ex.A11 is five photographs with CD. Ex.A12 is office copy of police report, dt.24.05.2013. Ex.A13 is receipt issued by commissioner, dt.22.05.2013. Ex.A14 is complaint dt.05.06.2013. Ex.A15 is complaint, dt.22.05.2013. Ex.A16 and

A17 are postal acknowledgements. Ex.A18 is photograh. Ex.A19 receipt, dt.25.05.2013 issued by Bombay Studio. Ex.A20 is CD.

The first defendant himself examined as Dw.1 and got marked

Exs.B1 to B4. Ex.B1 is the discharge letter executed by the second plaintiff, dt.12.10.2012. Ex.B2 is proceedings issued by

EndowmentsdepartmenttoBhuvaneswariPeetam, dt.20.08.2010. Ex.B3 is letter addressed to Bhuvaneswari Peetam by hereditary trustee, dt.27.12.1998. Ex.B4 is letter addressed by

Bhuvaneswari Peetam to trustees, dt.01.10.2001.

UNDISPUTED FACTS:-

12.The first plaintiff was managing the Seetharama

Kalyanamandapam as caretaker since 1977. One K.S.R.V.P.Raju was allowed by trustees to hire vessels which are keeping in the schedule property, to the marriages performed in the said

Kalyanamandapam. The said K.S.R.V.P.Raju died in the year 1999.

9

13. ISSUE NO.1:

The case of the plaintiff that the second plaintiff is son of first plaintiff. K.S.R.V.P.Raju was allowed, to keep his vessels and other necessary articles using for marriages, supplying the same to the persons celebrating the marriages in Kalyanamandapam , in the year 1994. The said K.S.R.V.P.Raju requested the first plaintiff to manage the said business and there is a condition that first plaintiff paying an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the said

K.S.R.V.P.Raju. The first and second plaintiff had increased the articles and doing business in the same premises. After death of

K.S.R.V.P.Raju in the year 1999 Smt.K.Lakshmi handed over the business on 08.05.2000. She entered into agreement with the first plaintiff agreeing to receive Rs.1,000/- per month for the vessels in two installments from the plaintiffs in the year 2007.

The said Lakshmi behaving contrary to the agreement and there was a mediation held between Smt. K.Lakshmi and plaintiffs and decided that vessels left by K.S.R.V.P.Raju should be enjoyed second plaintiff and no rent paid to the Smt.K.Lakshmi. The defendants no way concerned to the Kalyanamandapam, rooms and godown i.e plaint schedule property, they tried to dispossess the plaintiffs on 11.10.2012 at about 12.30a.m. The second defendant brought the defendants house and abused with filthy language and beaten. So the second plaintiff gave a report before

Satyanarayanapuram P.S. The defendants have used to influence and no case was registered. Subsequently, on 22.05.2013 the second defendant along with Tennati Srinivas and some others came to the schedule property and cause injuries to the second 10 plaintiff to handover the management of godown and two rooms.

As against the defendants submitted that the first plaintiff was kept as a caretaker since 1977. It is fact that K.S.R.V.P.Raju was allowed doing business for hire vessels for the functions in the

Kalyanamandapam ,he died in the year 1999. Subsequently, his wife was allowed to continue the business of K.S.R.V.P.Raju in the said Kalyanamandapam. The defendants father late

Dr.Dammalapati Rama Rao was founder and managing trustee of

Seetharama Kalyanamandapam. In the suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs would have establish the possession of the schedule property, the D.W.1 himself admitted in his cross- examination the keys of the schedule property is also with the plaintiffs. After perused the evidence of Dw.1 it shows that as per

Ex.B.1 document, the articles mentioned in Ex.B.1 which are managed by the plaintiffs were handed over to the defendants.

After perused the Ex.B.1 document it established that the management of Kalyanamandapam is handed over to the defendants by the plaintiffs, the Ex.B-1 is not disputed. But in case of permanent injunction whether physical possession has been handed over to the defendants are not would be arose. The defendant never stated that the plaintiffs also handed over the possession of the schedule property. Dw.1 himself admittd the keys which are belongs to the schedule property is with the plaintiffs and the vessels also kept in the schedule property that itself established the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. The plaintiff filed Ex.A.1 and A2 agreements between plaintiffs and Smt.K.Lakshmi, admittedly those agreements are no 11 way related to the defendants, so that the two documents are no way help to the plaintiffs. Ex.A-3 is also agreement, the learned counsel for defendant objected at the time of cross-examination that the said Smt.K.Lakshmi signature was not there in Ex.A-3.

After evidence of Pw.1, it elicited that the agreement between

Smt.K.Lakshmi and plaintiffs no way connected to the defendants, as such Ex.A.3 also not at all considerable in this case. Ex.A4 to

A11 documents are not relevant to the case as the plaintiffs are received those documents at the time when they were care takers of Kalyanamandapam till 2012.

14.The defendants counsel submitted that Ex.A.12 to A.20 are the complaints given by the plaintiffs and acknowledgments which are brought into, after the plaintiffs were removed from the service of their misdeeds. The defendants counsel submitted that the second plaintiff misuse the power of the care taker and management. So that after due enquiry, they were removed from the management and handed over the management by the defendants under Ex.B.1 documents. So that they bore grudge, the plaintiffs filed false suit against the defendants. The defendants counsel also submitted that as per the evidence of

Pw.1, the plaintiffs are using the Kalyanamandapam for ingress and egress to reach their two rooms. There is no dispute, that plaintiffs are in possession of the two rooms which are situated in the back side of the Kalyanamandapam. The Pw.1 also admitted that after handed over the management to the defendants,the second plaintiff obtained photographs under Ex.A11. The plaintiff submitted his argument that the defendants or not at all 12 hereditary trustee of the Seetharama Kalyanamandapam. But it is not the case of the plaintiffs that whether the defendants are the hereditary trustees of the Seetharama Kalyanamandapam or not. However the defendants filed Ex.B2 to B4 documents which reflect that the second defendant is the manger of the said

Kalyanamandapam. The second plaintiff examined as Pw.2, but the defendants failed to cross-examine the Pw.2, the contents of the chief affidavit are one and the same of the Pw.1 the plaintiffs counsel submitted that the evidence of Pw.2 is true and valid as the defendants failed to cross-examine the Pw.2. The plaintiffs counsel submitted that the defendants brought the second plaintiff into their house and used filthy language and beat him on 11.10.2012. The plaintiff counsel cross-examine the Dw.1 to elicit the said incident and he suggested that 11.10.2012 the defendants and his followers, one Tennati Srinivas threatened the plaintiffs and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs. The Dw.1 answered that on that day he was at Kodaikanal If it is really true he would have file any documentary proof that he was at

Kodaikanal, the defendants did not file any document. As per the above discussion the plaintiff had established the possession of the schedule property, though the managing power was removed by the defendants. But they are in physical possession of the schedule property and also establish the cause of action. Hence the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

15.Issue No.3: To what relief?

13

16.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs restraining the defendants, their men, agents and followers from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property not to evict by using force except due process of law.

Dictated to Personal Assistant of this Court, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7th day of April, 2014.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

P.W-1/M.Krishna Mohan Dw.1/D.Chandra Sekhar P.W-2/M.V.R.L.Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A.1/08.05.2000 : Original agreement Ex.A.2/29.12.2004 : Original agreement Ex.A.3/26.06.2007 : Original agreement Ex.A.4/ -- : Visiting card and prescription Ex.A.5/02.03.2013 : Invitation cover Ex.A.6/19.06.2010 : Receipt from CTO, Vijayawada Ex.A.7/09.10.2009 : Demand notice from CTO Ex.A.8/15.10.2009 : Receipt from CTO, Vijayawada Ex.A.9/15.10.2009 : Certificate Ex.A10/25.10.2012 : Receipt Ex.A11/24.05.2013 : Six positive photographs with CD Ex.A12/24.05.2013 : Office copy of police report Ex.A13/22.05.2013 : Receipt by S.N.Puram P.S. Ex.A14/05.06.2013 : Office copy of police report Ex.A15/22.05.2013 : Office copy of police report Ex.A16/27.05.2013 : Acknowledgement Ex.A17/27.05.2013 : Acknowledgment Ex.A18/15.06.2013 : Positive photograph Ex.A19/25.05.2013 : Receipt Ex.A20/15.06.2013 : CD 14

DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1/12.10.2012 : The discharge letter executed by 2nd plaintiff Ex.B2/20.08.2010 : Proceedings issued by Endowments department to Bhuvaneswari Peetam. Ex.B3/27.12.1998 : Letter addressed to Bhuvaneswari Peetam by hereditary trustee Ex.B4/01.10.2001 : Letter addressed by Bhuvaneswari Peetam to trustees.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SMT. G.V.L.SARASWATHI,

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

THURSDAY, THIS THE 7th DAY OF APRIL, 2014.

O.S.427/2013

Between:

1.Muppalla Krishna Mohan son of late Venkateswar Sastri Hindu, aged 72 years, profession,resident of 23-21-12/1 Mudigondavari street, Vijayawada, Krishna District with the jurisdiction of the court.

2.Muppalla Venkata Rama Leela Prasad son of krishna Mohan Hindu, aged 35 years, resident of 23-21/12/1 Mudigondavari street, Vijayawada ,Krishna District within the jurisdiction of the court.

..PLAINTIFFS

A N D

1.Dhammalapati Chandra Sekar s/o late Rama Rao,Hindu, aged 52 years, employee residing at Sivalayam street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada ,Krishna District, within the jurisdiction of the court.

2.Dhammalapati Venkata Leela Prasad s/o Rama Rao, Hindu, 55 years, employee, residing at Sivalayam street, Surayanarayanapuram,Vijayawada ,Krishna District within the jurisdiction of the court.

..DEFENDANTS

Suit is filed for perpetual injunction against the defendants and their men, agents, Hooligans restraining them from ever interfering peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Plaint presented on 4-6-2013

Plaint numbered on 4-6.2013

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction u/s. 50(1) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act is Rs.10,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid U/s.24(d) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, 1956. Cause of action for the suit arose in the 2nd week of October 2012 when the defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and on 11-10-2012 when the police complaint given on 24-5-2013 the commissioner of police and subsequently when the defendants of proclaiming that they will forcibly evict the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of the court.

This suit is coming before me on 28.03.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Muralidhar, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri M.S.Krishna, Advocate for defendants and upon perusing the plaint, written statement and other connected material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court doth the order and made the THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

1.that the defendants, their men, agents and followers are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property not to evict by using force except under due process of law.

2.that the defendants do also pay a sum of Rs 788/- towards institutional costs

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of April , 2014.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No Costs memo filed on either side.

1.2-00-- Vakalat 2Plaint Fees Stamp duty786-00--

3.Process----

4.Advocate Fees --No bill of costs filed

5.Commissioner Fees----

6.Publication Charges ----

7.Type Charges----

8.Writing Charges-- Institutional costs 788-00-NIL- allowed = Rs.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA.

Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt G.V.L.Saraswathi, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

FRIDAY THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2014.

O.S.No.447/2011

BETWEEN: Bellu Sambasiva Rao

...Plaintiff.

AND:

1.Bellu Chandra Mouli 2.Bellu Narasimha Rao

3. Bellu Venkateswra Rao Defendants 

This Original suit coming on 24­3­2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Pandamaneni Srinivasa Rao, P.Paul,P.Sudhakara Rao Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri B.David Ratna Kumar, Advocate for the 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this court upon consideration delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Bellu Sambasiva Rao filed suit against Bellu Chandra Mouli and two others for partition of the schedule Property in to ¼ share to the plaintiff the parties herein after referred as plaintiff and defendant .

2.The case of the plaintiff is that an extent of 2 ¾ cents vacant house site situated in R.S.No 225, Penamaluru village and Mandal hereinafter referred as schedule property . Originally the plaint schedule property belongs to Bellu 

Ramaiah who is the father of the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff is permanent resident of Poranki village and defendants are the permanent 2 residents of Penamaluru village where the schedule property is situated. After demise of Bellu Ramaiah the defendants were colluded with each other and create a fake Will dt 10­11­1991 thereby created and fabricated partition document over the plaint schedule property on 12­6­2007 in favour of Bellu 

Lingamma and defendants 1 and 3 with the help of the 2nd defendant . As per the fabricated partition deed the plaint schedule property is vested to the share of Bellu Lingamma who is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants as “A” schedule item. The plaintiff has a right to dispute the fake Will and the subsequent transfer of Partition . 

3.The plaintiff's further submitted that the said Bellu Lingamma died intestate on 28­3­2006 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant as her legal heirs to her estate. The plaintiff is having undivided 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property . The plaintiff recently came to know that the defendants are trying to alienate the plaint schedule property for wrongful gain. The plaint schedule property is valuable property in the market . It costs much more amount and in order to get wrongful gain with malafide intention the defendants are trying to alienate the plaint schedule property without having any valid consent from the plaintiff and is having 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property and seeking partition and possession of the schedule property to his share. 

Hence the suit.

4.The defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte. 

3

5.The 1st defendant filed his Written statement denying all the avements levelled in the plaint and submitted that originally the schedule property belongs to defendants who is the father of the plaintiff and defendants , he was not disputed the schedule property where it is situated , according to the defendant the extent is 10 cents. The 1st defendant submitted that plaintiff is eldest son of 

Bellu Ramaiah have separated from the family of said Ramaiah soon after performance of his marriage and has been living and leading separate life with his family . The plaintiff did not take about the welfare of his parents or the other children of said Bellu Ramaiah. At that time there is no property to the father of plaintiff and defendants Bellu Ramanaiah. Thereafter with the hard earnings of the defendants 1 to 3 have purchased the schedule property from one Smt 

Kilaru Sakunthalamma wife of Kondala Rao of Penamaluru and got registered the same in favour of father of the plaintiff and defendants on 4­6­1982.

6.The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff noway connected with the plaint schedule property and it is self acquired property of said Bellu 

Ramaiah. The defendant 1 and 3 only performed the obsequies of their parents . 

During life time of the mother of the defendants , the mother of the defendants and defendants 1 to 3 have executed a partition deed dt 12­6­2007 and the 2nd defendant Narasimha Rao had sold away his share of properties as their respective share of property to the 1st defendant. . As per the partition deed dt 12­6­2007 the mother of the defendants got “A” schedule , the 1st defendant has 4 got “B” schedule and defendant No.3 has got ”C” schedule property, the 2nd defendant sold away his property to the 1st defendant for consideration. Since the defendants 1 and 3 and their mother has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. 

7.The defendant further submitted that prior to death of the said Bellu 

Lingamma had executed a Regd. Will dt 20­9­2007 bequeathing her share of property, devolved upon her, as per the partition deed, in favour of the wife and 2nd daughter of the 1st defendant equally and since then they both are needs in possession and enjoyment of the said property, therefore the plaintiff has no right , possession , interest in any manner what so ever of the schedule property. The mother of the plaintiff and defendants surviving by this defendant and defendant Nos 2 and 3. Hence suit is liable to be dismissed. 

8.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property or not ?

2. Whether there is any partition in between the defendants and their mother ?

3. To what relief ?

9.The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A­1 and Ex.A­

2. Ex.A­1 is C.C of partition deed dt 12­6­2007 Ex.A­2 is dt 12­7­2010 Market value certificate. The first defendant is examined as D.W.1 and Ganji 5

Chandrayya as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B­1 registered sale deed dt 4­6­ 1992 ;Ex.B­2 is the copy of original Will executed by Bellu Ramayya; Ex.B­3 is original Will dt 20­9­2007.

10.Undisputed facts are :­

The plaintiff and defendants are brothers and they are children of Bellu 

Ramayya and Bellu Lingamma. The schedule property is in the name of deceased father of Bellu Ramayya. 

11.ISSUE NO.2:­ 

The case of the plaintiff that after demise of Bellu Ramayya and Bellu 

Lingamma who is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants were colluded with each other and created dominant Will dt 10­11­1991 thereby fabricated registered partition deed document with respect of the schedule property on 12­ 6­2007. As per the fabricated partition deed the plaint schedule property is vested to the share of Bellu Lingamma as “A” schedule item, the said Lingamma died intestate on 28­3­2008 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as her 

Legal heirs. 

12.Though the plaintiff pleaded in his plaint with regard to validity of Will executed by his father the partition deed executed among his mother and defendants,but he did not challenge and didn't take any steps to disprove those documents. 

13.As the plaintiff seeking partition in the share of her mother allotted to her 6 in the said partition deed i.e under Ex.A­1 . So that the plaintiff didn't challenge and dispute the Ex.A­1 partition deed, as such there is no necessity to answer the issue . 

14.ISSUE NO.1:

The plaintiff pleaded that his mother died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as her legal heirs as such the plaintiff is having right of 1/4th share in the share of his mother. The defendants pleaded that his mother 

Bellu Lingamma had executed a registered Will dt 20­9­2007 bequeathing her share of to the wife of 1st defendant and his 2nd daughter . After perused the record of evidence of plaintiffs and defendants the plaintiff is resident of poramboke the schedule property is situated in Penamaluru village. After got marriage the plaintiff went to Poranki at his in laws house . As per the evidence of D.W.2 the plaintiff used to come and vis447it his parents house and there is cordial relationship with his parents. The chief evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3 contents shown that they got knowledge about the Will executed by Bellu 

Ramayya partition deed under Ex.A­2 and Will under Ex.B­2. But in the cross­ examination of D.W.2 deposed that he do not know about the said Will and partition deed i.e Ex.A­2 and Ex.B­2 . So the evidence of D.W.2 is not relevant to the defence of defendant . 

15. The D.w.3 got knowledge about Ex.B­2 Will executed by Bellu Ramayya who deposed that the said Will is executed in his presence but he is not attester 7 to the said Will. However, the plaintiff didn't challenge Ex.B­2 Will which is executed by Bellu Ramayya in favour of Bellu Lingamma. Though, the plaintiff object with regard to Ex.B­3 Will executed by his mother in favour of first defendant's wife and his daughter. As per the pleading of plaintiff , his mother died intestate, so that the burden is on the defendant , the execution of Will has to be proved as himself pleaded in his written statement . The evidence of D.W.1 disclosed that other two brothers who are 2nd and 3rd defendants are attesters to 

Ex.B­3 Will. But the defendant failed to examine any one of the attesting witness to prove the contents of Ex.B­3 Will. As per Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and as per Section 63 of Indian Succession Act will has to be proved atleast 2 witnesses and atleast one attester. 

As per 68 of Indian Evidence Act the proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.

If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence;

Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian

Registration Act , 1908 ( 16 of 1908 ) unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have bee executed is specifically denied “ 8

16.In the present case the defendant failed to examine atleast one attester who is none other than brother of the defendant. The defendants 2 and 3 are set exparte long back. The defendant failed to prove Ex.B­3 Will, though it is registered Will , which require by examining atleast one attesting one witness, on failure of prove of Will the contention of plaintiff that his mother died intestate is established. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff is brother of defendants as such he is also entitled 1/4th equal share of her mother's property i.e schedule property. 

17.In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed by allotting 1/4th share in schedule property to the plaintiff by metes and bounds out of 2 3/4th cents vacant site situated in R.S.No 225 Penamaluru village and Mandal, Krishna 

District. 

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and 

pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of April 2014.

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Appendix of Evidence.

For plaintiff For defendant 

P.w.1 : Bellu Sambasiva Rao D.W.1: Bellu Chandra Mouli

D.W.2: Gajji Mallswara Rao

D.W.3:Gajji Chandraiah.

9

Documents marked.

For plaintiff :

 Ex.A­1: Dt 12­6­2007 C.C of Partition deed.

Ex.A­2: Dt 12­7­2010 Market Value Certificate

For defendant's side :

Ex.B­1: Dt 4­6­1982 Original Registered sale deed.

Ex.B­2: Dt 10­11­1991 Original Will

Ex.B­3: Dt 20­9­2007 Original Will.

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt G.V.L.Saraswathi, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2014.

O.S.No.447/2011

BETWEEN: Bellu Sambasiva Rao son of Ramaiah, 60 years,resident of D.No 5­10,Poranki village,Penmaluru Mandal, Krishna District within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court.

...Plaintiff.

AND: 1.Bellu Chandra Mouli son of Ramaiah, 59 years, resident of 4­77, Penamaluru village and Mandal, Krishna District within the jurisdiction of the Court. 2.Bellu Narasimha Rao son of Ramaiah, 57 years resident of 4­77, Penamaluru village and Mandal, Krishna District within the jurisdiction of the court. 

3. Bellu Venkateswra Rao son of Ramaiah, 55 years, resident of 4­77,Penamaluru village and mandal,krishna District within the jurisdiction of the court. Defendants The suit is filed for partition by the plaintiff for division of the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds among himself and the defendant and to allot 1/4th such share to the plaintiff with separate possession .a) directing to division of the plaint schedule property in to 4 equal shares taking in to consideration and the bad qualities by metes and bounds allot 1/4thsuch share to the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession This Original suit coming on 24­3­2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Pandamaneni Srinivasa Rao, P.Paul,P.Sudhakara Rao Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri B.David Ratna Kumar, Advocate for the 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this court upon consideration Plaint presented on : 29­4­2011

Plaint filed on : 5­5­2011.

11

The plaint schedule property is vacant house site in an extent of 2 ¾ cents equaling to 132.10 Sq.Yards and the value of the land is at Rs 2,17,965/­ as per the valuation certificate issued by the SRO,Kankipadu. The plaintiff's 1/4th share is at Rs 54,491.25­00 3/4th of the share is Rs 40,868/­ that is the value of suit under section 50 of APCF and S.V.Act. On which fixed court fee is Rs 200/­ is paid herewith for the plaintiff's ½ share under section34(2) of the A.P Court fees and and S.V.Act. As the plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Cause of action for the suit arose on 112­6­2007 when the fabricate partition deed executed in support of fake Will and the same was registered in favor of deceased Bellu Lingamma and defendants 1 and 3 with the help of defendant No.2 and on 3­8­2008 when the said Bellu Lingamma died intestate leaving behind her the plaintiff and defendants as her legal heirs to her estate and the plaintiff reliably came to know that the defendants trying to alienate the plaint schedule property ignoring the right of the plaintiff and the plaintiff demanded to partition and the defendant refused and where the plaint schedule property is situated at Penamaluru village and Mandal, Krishna District is situated within the jurisdiction of the court. 

This Original suit coming on 24­3­2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Pandamaneni Srinivasa Rao, P.Paul,P.Sudhakara Rao Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri B.David Ratna Kumar, Advocate for the 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this court upon consideration this court doth the order and made the 

DECREE.

1.that the suit be and the same is here by decreed Preliminarily by allotting 1/4th share in schedule property to the plaintiff by metes and bounds out of 2 3/4th cents vacant site situated in R.S.No.225

Penamaluru village and Mandal, Krishna District. 

2.that there be no order as to costs. 

( copy of schedule is here with attached ) 12

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 4th day of April 2014. 

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS FOR

No costs memo filed on either side. 

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Note:­ The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve as the record will be able to destroyed after 3 years from the date of the decree or order.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SMT. G.V.L.SARASWATHI,

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MONDAY, THIS THE 7th DAY OF APRIL, 2014.

O.S.798/2013

Between:

Mohammed Jakeer Hussain ..PLAINTIFF

A N D

Syed Gowsia Begum ..DEFENDANT

This suit is coming before me on 04.04.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri I.Pranava Prakash, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Rama Krishna, Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the plaint, written statement and other connected material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Mohammed Jakeer Hussain filed suit for permanent injunction U/sec.26(1) and Or.VII R.1 of CPC against Syed Gowsia

Begum. The parties herein after referred as plaintiff and defendant.

2.The case of the plaintiffs that the defendant is the owner of the property bearing No.8-15-4 situated at Yenugulavari street,

Wynchipet, Vijayawada comprising three floors. The plaintiff took the premise for residential purpose in the ground floor as tenant since 10 years bearing D.No.8-15-4, Yenugula vari street,

Vijayawada herein after referred as schedule property from the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.1,400/- per month, excluding electricity charges. The defendant is residing in the tenanted premises along with family members. In the said portion, the 2 plaintiff’s in-laws are residing. The plaintiff is auto driver and thereby eking his livelihood along with his family members. The plaintiff paid an advance amount of Rs.5,000/- at the time of inductoin of the tenancy. There is no practice of issuing rental receipts. The rent has been enhanced from time to time,the present rent is Rs.2,000/- per month. The tenancy is month to month tenancy as per English calender month. The plaintiff further submitted that he paid the monthly rent regularly to the defendant and paid rent till October, 2013 @ Rs.2,000/- on 09.11.2013. The defendant received the October month rent and demanded the plaintiff to enhance the rent at Rs.5,000/- per month and also enhance the advance amount of Rs.30,000/- from

Rs.5,000/- otherwise the plaintiff will evict from the schedule property. The plaintiff expressed his inability and requested the defendant not to enhance the rent in respect of the existing rent of Rs.2,000/- per month. While the matter stood thus, since 20days the defendant is making threatening to evict the premises. Finally on 16.11.2013 the defendant along with men came to the schedule property and demanded the plaintiff to vacate the premises. However, the plaintiff would rescue the illegal acts of the defendant with the help of neighbours. As such the plaintiff constrained to file the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement and all the averments levelled in her plaint and submitted that the plaintiff is not a tenant to her and his in-laws namely S.A.Sattar and his wife

Halimunnisa are the original tenants to the defendant and the plaintiff was not inducted as tenant in the schedule premises in 3 the year 2003 or at any point of time, due to the old age and ailments of the Halimunnisa, the plaintiff and his wife joined with his mother-in-law for rendering services to her and continued with her. The schedule building is consisting of two door Nos viz.8-15- 3 and 8-15-4. The said S.A.Sattar is in occupation of the ground floor of the schedule building bearing Dr.No.8-15-4. The said

Sattar was died in the month of January, 2007 and the defendant had joined in the month of April, 2008 with his mother-in-law in the ground floor of Dr.No.8-15-4 and he has been continued with his mother-in-law.

4.The defendant further submitted that in the adjacent portion bearing Dr.No.8-15-3 there is another tenant namely

Sk.Javed used to reside in the plaint schedule property and he vacated the premises on 15.11.2013. The plaintiff requested the defendant to provide the plaint schedule property for few days representing that he want to separate from his mother-in-law and he is in search of another house and meanwhile he will adjust his belongings in the plaint schedule portion as his mother-in-law is vacated the tenanted portion in Dr.No.8-15-4, the defendant further submitted that the plaintiff is presently in Dr.No.8-15-3 and not in 8-15-4. The defendant further submitted that she intended to sell the house property under dire necessity that is to perform her daughter’s marriage and requested all the tenants to vacate the entire building, at her request the other tenants had vacated the premsies and plaintiff had requested 15 days time to vacate the house. The mother-in-law of plaintiff had vacated her portion on 30.11.2013 and the plaintiff remained in the said 4 portion of the schedule premises in Dr.No.8-15-3 and not in 8-15-

4. All the portions are vacated except the plaintiff portion. As there is no cause of action the plaintiff has come with clean hands. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled suit for permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6.To prove the contents of the suit, the plaintiff himself examined as Pw.1 and Syed Saber Ali is examined as Pw.2 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.4. Ex.A.1 is office copy of the report given by the plaintiff before II Town P.S., Vijayawada. Ex.A.2 is Aadhar card of the plaintiff. Ex.A3 is household card of the plaintiff and

Ex.A4 is gas connection of Indane Gas of the plaintiff. The defendant herself examined as Dw.1 and the husband of the defendant examined as Dw.2. Sk.Abdul Raheman is examined as

Dw.3 and no documents are marked on behalf of the defendant.

UNDISPUTED FACTS:-

7.The defendant is the landlady of the schedule building, the said schedule building consisting of two door numbers. i.e., 8-15-4 and 8-15-3. The father-in-law and mother-in-law of the plaintiff was inducted as tenant into the Dr.No.8-15-4. The plaintiff and his family were also residing with them. The plaintiff did not paid rents since November, 2013 till today. The plaintiff is in possession of portion of schedule building.

5

8.The plaintiff pleaded that he is a tenant to the property under Dr.No.8-15-4. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff is in possession of 8-15-3. The burden is on the plaintiff, he would establish that he is possession of the Dr.No.8-15-4 to that he filed

Ex.A1 to A5 documents which reflect Dr.No.8-15-4. Ex.A2 is aadhar card, Ex.A3 is photo copy of household card and Ex.A.4 excusion letter which reflect to the Dr.No.8-15-4. It is an admitted fact that after demise of father-in-law of the plaintiff he came to the schedule property at the request of his mother-in-law and residing along with her since 2003 to till her vacation. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is residing with mother-in-law in schedule property i.e Door No 8-15-4, all the documents which are filed by the plaintiff had obtained when he was within the mother –in-laws portion i.e door number 8-15-4. So that the documents which are filed by the plaintiff are not supported to prove that in which door number he is residing at present.

9.The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff is not original tenant his mother-in-law is the original tenant and she vacated her portion and that the plaintiff requested the defendant to adjust his belongings in the adjacent portion of the schedule property and the plaintiff is in possession. It is only permissive permission in Dr.No.8-15-3, the defendant counsel had successfully elicited the fact through the evidence of Pw.1 the

Pw.1 admitted that schedule building consists of two door numbers i.e., 8-15-3 and 8-15-4,he further admitted that at present he is residing in Dr.No.8-15-3 and the adjacent portion

Dr.No.8-15-4, wherein his mother-in-law was residing. The 6 admission itself shown that at present the plaintiff is in possession of Dr.No.8-15-3 but not in schedule property. The plaintiff also examined as Pw.2 to support his version that he is residing in

Dr.No.8-15-4. but in the cross-examination of Pw.2 elicited he they had no knowledge about the door numbers of the schedule building and in which door number the plaintiff is residing. So that the evidence of Pw.2 is no way help to the plaintiff.

10.The plaintiff denied in his cross-examination that the mother-in-law of the plaintiff having voter ID card, Aadhaar Card and ration card are in the same Dr.No.8-15-4. The said suggestion was denied by Pw.1. The counsel for defendant asked about the production of Aadhaar card ration card and voter ID of the mother-in-law of the plaintiff, he deposed that he can’t file the above said documents of his mother-in-law. If it is really, the said documents are not in that door number he would have file the said documents to show that her mother-in-law has not resident of

Dr.No.8-15-4.

11.The plaintiff counsel submitted that the defendant who is examined as Dw.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiff paying rent of Rs.2,500/- and her husband received the rent on behalf of herself. The admission itself shows that the plaintiff is tenant to defendant. Dw.2 is none other than the husband of the defendant also admitted that the plaintiff is tenant to one portion of his wife’s property. The plaintiff counsel further argued that in the evidence of affidavits of Dws.1 and 2, it 7 deposed that the schedule building consisting of two door number. One is 8-15-3 and second one is 8-15-4 . In the Dr.No.8- 15-3 one a tenant namely Sk.Javed used to reside and he vacated the said premises on 15.11.2013. The Dw.2 admitted in his cross- examination he did not file any proof of documents to show that the said building consisting of two door numbers and Sk.Javed is tenant of portion to the Dr.No.8-15-3. As per evidence of defendant, they did not examine to show that the siad building consisting of two door numbers. After perused the evidence of

Pw.1 as already above discussed that the Pw.1 admitted, the building consisting of two door numbers and present he is residing in Dr.No.8-15-3. as such the defendant need not necessary examine any evidence and filed any documents to prove the fact as the said fact proved through P.W.1. The defendant also examined Dw.3. after perused the evidence of Dw.3 he had no knowledge about the facts of the case. So that the evidence of

Dw.3 is not useful to the defendant.

12.The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant tried to evict the plaintiff without due process of law on 16.11.2013. The burden is on the plaintiff he has to be establish that the defendant and her men threatened the plaintiff to dispossess from the schedule property. To that the plaintiff examined Pw.2 who is also auto driver. He deposed that on 16.11.2013 the defendant and her husband along with men came to the schedule premises demanded the plaintiff to vacate the schedule premises and in the cross-examination also he deposed that he was present on 16.11.2013 when the galata was made in the schedule property.

8 The evidence of Pw.2 shown that he regularly passing through the schedule building and since 9 years the plaintiff is resident of schedule building.

13.The defendant counsel submitted that all the tenants except the plaintiff had vacated their premises at the request of the defendant that the schedule property will be sold to the third parties for her daughter’s marriage performance. To that the

P.W.2 deposed in her cross-examination that it might be all the tenants had vacated their premises in the schedule building. The plaintiff counsel also elicited the fact of threaten of the plaintiff by cross-examine the Dw.1, who deposed that she got knowledge that her husband went the police station to evict the plaintiff from the schedule building that itself sufficient that the defendant tried to evict the plaintiff from the portion. As per the above discussion, the plaintiff failed to establish that he is in possession of schedule property Dr.NO.8-15-4 admittedly he is in possession of 8-15-3. But he is seeking relief for the Dr.No.8-15-4. Though the plaintiff had elicited that the defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the portion of the plaintiff. But he failed to establish that he is in possession of Dr.No.8-15-4 which is schedule property. Hence issue is answered in favour of the defendant aginst the plaintiff.

14.Issue No.2: To what relief?

15.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant of this Court, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7th day of April, 2014.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W-1Md Jakeer Hussain Dw.1/ Sayed Gousia Begum D.W.2/Syed Yusuf. D.W.3: Abdul Saleem.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A-1: Dt 16-11-2013 office copy of report given by the plaintiff Ex.A-2: Dt16-2-2013 Adhar Card of the plaintiff Ex.A-3: House hold card of the plaintiff. Ex.A-4:Dt 9-4-2008 Gas connection.

DEFENDANT ..NIL..

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SMT. G.V.L.SARASWATHI,

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MONDAY, THIS THE 7th DAY OF APRIL, 2014.

O.S.798/2013

Between:

Mohammed Jakeer Hussain s/o Md.Javar Hussain, Muslim, aged 41 years, resident of D.No 8-15-4, Yenugula vari street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada (urban) & Vijayawada JCJC

..PLAINTIFF

A N D

Syed Gowsia Begum w/o Syed Yusub, Muslim, aged 45 years, Resident of OA-II,RI quarters, ,B-Blcok No.401/BZA,Vijayawada &JCJC.

..DEFENDANT

Suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant , her men, agents and servants, etc., from Ever interfering with the peaceful possession and Enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the Plaintiff by evicting him forcibly except under due process of law.

Plaint presented on 2911.2013 Plaint numbered on 29.11.2013

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction u/s. 50(1) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act is Rs. 24,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.1546/- is paid U/s.24(d) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, 1956. Cause of action for the suit arose since 10 years, the plaintiff has been inducted as tenant in the plaint schedule property bearing DNo 8-15-3, Wynchipet, Vijayawada-1 and when the plaintiff has been paying the monthly rents regularly including electricity charges and when the side portion, the plaintiff’s-in- laws are residing and when the defendant got eye sore against the plaintiff because of increasing of support of his relatives in that locality and when the defendant demanded the plaintiff to enhance the monthly rent from Rs 2,000/- to Rs 5,000/- and also enhancement of advance from Rs 5,000/- to Rs 30,000/-and on 16- 11-2013 when the defendant along with men came to the schedule premises and demanded the plaintiff to vacate the premises and threatened the plaintiff and timely intervention of well wishers and neighbours of the plaintiff the defendant went away at that moment and when the defendant continued her threatening to evict the plaintiff by hook or crook and at whinchipet, Vijayawada where the plaint schedule property situated ,which is within the jurisdiction of the court. . This suit is coming before me on 04.04.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri I.Pranava Prakash, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Rama Krishna, Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the plaint, written statement and other connected material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court doth the order and made the

DECREE.

1. that the suit be and the same is here by dismissed.

2. that there be no costs.

3. That costs memo filed by the defendant is certified at Rs 3102/- ( copy of schedule is herewith attached along with the decree )

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of April , 2014.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

No costs memo filed

1.2-00 Vakalat 2Plaint Fees Stamp duty--

3.Process----

4.Advocate Fees --3,000/-

5.Commissioner Fees----

6.Publication Charges ----

7.Type Charges--50/---

8.Writing Charges--50/- Total = Rs.Certified 3,102/-

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA.

Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt G.V.L.Saraswathi, , I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

MONDAY THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2013.

O.S.No.319/2013

BETWEEN:

Annam Sucharitha

…...Plaintiff.

AND: Motepalli Naga Venkata Ramana

.. Defendant

This suit coming on 3-4-2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of SriSri.P.Seshu Mohan, . Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Muvva Srinivas, Advocate for defendant and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this court upon consideration delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Annam Sucharita filed suit against Motepalli Naga Venkata Ramana for permanent injunction , the parties hereinafter called as plaintiff and defendant .

2.The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff purchased schedule property in D.No 59-8-2 to an extent of 1153.57 Sq. yards of residential site situated in R.S.No 10/8, 11/10 Municipal Ward No. 30 patamata ,Vijayawada in the said property constructed under name and style of Sindura Apartments 2nd floor No.303 hereinafter refereed as “A and B” schedule properties.

3.The plaintiff purchased on 15-3-2013 for 23 lakhs under registered

G.P.A. and he had retained an amount of Rs 10,000/- from and out of the total sale consideration, which is agreed to be paid on the property from the mortgagee i.e Repco Home Finance.

4.By the date of execution of the Registered sale cum GPA, the plaint schedule property with the possession of Repco Home Finance by way of initiating the proceedings under the Special Act. The said mortgage had also initiated the auction proceedings and instead of auctioning the same , the plaintiff had deposited the outstanding dues to the Repco Home Finance with 2 respect of the plaint schedule property and the balance of consideration was paid to the defendant. The delivery of property under agreement cum GPA was given on 3-4-2013, which is after the delivery of the keys to the plaintiff through the defendant.

5.After receipt of the entire amount and delivering the property in vacant condition , the defendants started approaching the plaint schedule property and threatening to take possession by force which the property was being attended for repairs on 4-4-2013 and also made an attempt to inflict the plaintiff in criminal proceedings on false grounds. The plaintiff also received delivery receipt dt 3-4-2013 from the defendant, since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The defendant is also having another apartment which is also mortgaged to the same finance company.

6.The plaintiff further submitted that , after execution of receipt, delivery of receipt while the plaintiff was making modifications to the property and by attending repairs and white washing the property, the defendant along with his father had been causing hindrance to the enjoyment of the property and threatened to take possession of the property highhandedly. The plaintiff had approached Machavaram P.S.,seeking protection from the illegal threats of the defendant. But, the police advised to the the plaintiff it is civil nature approached before civil court. As such the plaintiff filed suit.

7.The defendant filed his Written statement denying all the averments levelled in the plaint and submitted that except execution of G.P.A.the remaining allegations are baseless. The defendant is in possession of the schedule property even till today . The defendant never handed over the possession to the plaintiff at the time, taking advantage of the GPA cum sale

Agreement the plaintiff intentionally creating a new story to grab the plaint schedule property without paying the sale consideration. The plaintiff did not paid the balance sale consideration to the defendant and whenever the 3 defendant requested to make arrangement of the balance sale consideration the plaintiff with intention to grab the schedule property without paying the balance sale consideration , she gave evasive replies from time to time . To that effect, the defendant himself approached the police and requested for necessary justice and when the police personal advised the defendant to approach the civil court, and there is no cause of action . Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed .

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

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

2.To what relief ?

9.The plaintiff herself is examined as P.w1. . The husband of plaintiff

A.Balaji Varaprasad is examined as P.w2. And one P. Krishna Mohan is examined as P.w.3 and got marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5. Ex.A-1 is sale agreement cum G.P.A; Ex.A-2 is receipt acknowledging payment and also delivery of the property to the plaintiff dt 3-4-2013, Ex.A-3 is the payment letter to the plaintiff by way of cash receipt before 15-3-2013; Ex.A-4 is the served copy of petition in I.P 45/2013 dt 27-6-2013;Ex.A-5 is the registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff dt 24-5-2013.

10.The defendant himself is examined as D.W.1 and no documents are marked on behalf of himself.

11.ISSUE NO. 1:

The case of the plaintiff submitted that, originally the defendant mortgaged the schedule property with Repco Finance Company, the schedule property brought to the sale by the Repco Finance as per the

Special Act. The plaintiff paid the said loan amount to release the mortgage from Repco Finance through Ex.A-3 receipt for an amount of Rs 15,95,834/- on behalf of the defendant on 15-3-2013 . Before payment of said amount, on the same day i.e on 15-3-2013, the plaintiff and the defendant had executed agreement cum sale cum G.P.A. The payment of amount to the 4

Repco Finance was also mentioned in the said agreement, on that day the plaintiff also paid an amount of Rs 6,93,166/- to the defendant,the remaining balance of Rs 10,000/- would be paid at the time of registration of schedule property. The defendant didn't disputed Ex.A-1 agreement on sale cum G.P.A.

In favour of the plaintiff. So that admittedly the defendant had received amount of Rs 6,93,116/- and the plaintiff paid 15 lakhs to Repco Finance. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff didn't paid the balance sale consideration to the defendant ,to that the plaintiff filed Ex.A-2 delivery receipt dt 3-4-2013 issued in favour of the plaintiff but the defendant denied the execution of Ex.A-2 receipt. But the defendant admitted his signature in

Ex.A-2 when the defendant admitted his signature in Ex.A-2 the burden is on him, he would have elicited that Ex.A-2 is not executed or issued by him.

After perused the evidence the defendant did not prove Ex.A-2 is not executed by him.

12.The plaintiff examined P.w.3 who is non other than the witness to Ex.A-2 receipt, he deposed in his chief affidavit that on 15-3-2013 except the execution of the document i.e General Power of Attorney Cum GPA under

Ex.A-3 delivery was not effected on that day, as it was under lock and key by the Bank. Later on 3-4-2013 the Bank officials delivered the property, after discharge of the outstanding amount by the plaintiff, and symulteneously the defendant in turn had delivered the property to the plaintiff after receiving the balance amount of Rs 10,000/ at the time of delivery of the property, the defendant executed separate receipt acknowledging the receipt of the amount and confirmed the delivery of the property to the plaintiff. In all the transaction, he stood as witness. The defendant Counsel cross-examined

P.w.3 ,he deposed that , he had no knowledge about value of sale consideration of amount and the name of the Bank, there is no dispute about the amount paid by the plaintiff to Repco Finance on behalf of defendant, so the lack of knowledge of P.W.3 about the said Bank claim is not at all 5 considerable. After perused the evidence of P.w.3, he signed in Ex.A-2 delivery receipt after singed by the defendant. In Ex.A-2 receipt the date and document No is wrote with pen the remaining matter is typed, for that the counsel for the defendant argued that Ex.A-2 is created as the receipt which is left the blank column in ' date ' and document No, receipt prepared and after that filled with pen and . There is no bar if the columns filled with pen , and the remaining portion has been typed with the instrument. The P.w.3 deposed that he stood as witness in Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 documents.

13.The defendant pleaded that he is in possession of the schedule property till to day . As per Ex.A-2 receipt the defendant handed over schedule property to the plaintiff. The burden is on the defendant he would establish he is in possession of the schedule property, to that he himself examined D.W.1 he deposed that he borrowed amount of 2 lakhs from the plaintiff's husband and that he executed Ex.A-1 G.P.A sale agreement which is contrary to his pleadings of Written statement as he admitted Ex.A-1 agreement of sale and the plaintiff didn't paid balance sale consideration to the defendant, he repeatedly requested the plaintiff to pay balance sale consideration .

14.The defendant further deposed in his chief that, the plaintiff and her husband took the signature in the blank stamp papers before executing sale agreement, further deposed that he never handover possession of schedule property either to the plaintiff or to her husband, they themselves forcibly took the schedule property by managing the police department and created story as they are in possession . The D.W.1 also admitted that the possession of schedule property is in the hands of plaintiff ,that itself shown that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. The defendant also did not give his address particulars, but the Written statement to that the plaintiff's counsel asked question about the reason of non furnishing the address particulars but the defendant did not answer.

6

15.After perused the evidence of D.W.1 Repco Finance handover seized the schedule property after that he shifted to Shobana Apartments in Flat

No.302,Sai Nagar, Vijayawada. At present the defendant is in possession of

Sobhana Apartments Flat No.302 but not in schedule property. The defendant also admitted the defendant and plaintiff went to police station with regard to dispute of the schedule property, which is established the cause of action.

As per above discussion, the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property and the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant with regard to schedule property . Hence this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

16.Issue No.2:-

In the result, the suit is decreed by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaint schedule property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of April 2014.

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Appendix of Evidence.

For plaintiff For defendant

P.w.1 : Annaem Sucharita ..None P.w.2:A.B.V.Prasad. P.W.3 :P.Krishna Mohan Documents marked.

For plaintiff :

Ex.A-1: Dt 15-3-2013 : Sale agreement cum G.P.A., Ex.A-2: Dt 3-4-2013 Receipt acknowledging payment Ex.A-3: Dt 15-3-2013 Payment of the loan agreement. Ex.A-4: Served copy of petition in I.P45/2013. Ex.A-5:Dt 24-5-2013: Registered sale deed No.4428/2013 in favour of plaintiff.

For defendant's side : I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt G.V.L.Saraswathi, , I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

MONDAY THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2013.

O.S.No.319/2013

BETWEEN: Annam Sucharitha w/o Balaji Vara Prasad,Hindu, aged 44 years, husband's protection, r/o D.No 26-14-24,Annapurnadevi street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada.

…...Plaintiff.

AND: Motepalli Naga Venkata Ramana s/o Subhash Chandra Bose, Hindu, aged 43 years r/o Sobhana Apartments, Patamata, Sub Registrar office road, Vijayawada.

.. Defendant

Suit filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaint schedule property and granting costs .

Plaint presented on 10-4-2013

Plaint filed on 10-4-2013.

8

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction u/s. U/s.26(c) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act is Rs. 10,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs. 786/- is paid U/s.50 (1) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, 1956.

The cause of action for the suit arisen since when the Repco Home Finance had initiated the recovery proceedings for the default committed by the defendant , since 15-3-2013 when the plaintiff came forward to discharge the outstanding dues and to get the property registered by paying the balance consideration, since on 15-3-2013 hen the Agreement cum GPA was executed and registered and received an amount of Rs 6,93,166/- since on 3- 4-2013 when the Repco finance had delivered the keys and on the same date when the defendant executed a receipt towards the acknowledgment of the balance amount and also the delivering of the property and sine then when the defendant had been causing harassment and taking support to take possession of the property with the help of the police and sine then when the plaintiff had been protecting the property and since 7-4-2013 when the plaintiff was advised by the police authorities to approach the court and since subsequently at Vijayawada where the property is situated which is within the jurisdiction of the court.

This suit coming on 3-4-2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of SriSri.P.Seshu Mohan, . Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Muvva Srinivas, Advocate for defendant and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this court upon consideration this court doth the order and made the

DECREE.

1.that the suit be and the same is here by decreed.

2.that the defendant be and the same is here by restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property .

3. that there be no costs.

( copy of schedule is here with attached )

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 7th day of

April 2014.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

9

No costs memo filed on either side.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA.

Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; 

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt G.V.L.Saraswathi. I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

MONDAY THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2014.

 O.S.No. 619/2013

BETWEEN:

Tamatapu Srinivasa Rao 

…...Plaintiff.

AND:

Eite Seshu Babu .. Defendant

This suit coming on 4­4­2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Subba Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri J.Sai Raju , Advocate for the defendant and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this court upon consideration delivered the following:

JUDGMENT 

1.Tamatapu Srinivasa Rao filed suit against Eite Seshu Babu the parties herein after referred as plaintiff and defendant .

2.Suit filed under section 26 Or. VI Rule 1 of CPC for recovery of Rs. 

55,333/­ being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 27­2­2013 for Rs. 50,000/­ executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for their family expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a either to the plaintiff or order on his demand.

3.The plaintiff submitted that the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs 50,000/­ on 27­2­2013 for his family expenses 2 and executed promissory note on the same day and agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or order on demand. 

4.In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff the defendant had not choose to pay the amount in the said promissory note then the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt 4­7­2013 demanding the defendant to pay amount due under pronote but the defendant having received registered notice neither choose to pay nor any reply . Hence the plaintiff constrained to file the suit.

5.The defendant filed his Written statement by abnegated all averments in the plaint and submitted that he availed loans to the required persons, in that regard, one of known person of Erikala Ajay kumar Record Asst. in 

S.R.R.& C.V.R Govt. Junior College, Machavaram, Vijayawada who is colleague employee of the defendant asked his signature as guarantee because the said Erikala Ajay kumar borrowed several amounts from several persons and due to the said reason the plaintiff does not give any amount to the said Erikala Ajay kumar and upon the request of said Erikala 

Ajaya kumar the defendant signed as guarantee to him due to advantage the said Erikala Ajay kumar is colluded with the plaintiff and created false and fabricated promissory note in the name of the defendant and filed this suit . The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. Hence 3 the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial .

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt 27­2­2013 is supported by consideration, valid binding on the defendant ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled suit claim as prayed for ?

3.To what relief ?

7.On behalf of the plaintiff he himself examined as P.w1 and got marked Ex.,A­1 to Ex.A­3 . Ex.,A­1 is promissory note dt 27­2­2013. Ex.A­2 is office copy of legal notice dt 4­7­2013; Ex.A­3 postal acknowledgment dt 6­7­2013.

8.Neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence adduced on defendants side. 

9. ISSUE No 1 & 2 :

The case of plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 

50,000/­ on 27­2­2013 at Vijayawada for his family expenses and executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. 

plaintiff either to him or order on demand .The plaintiff repeatedly demand the defendant for debt amount , but the defendant did not pay any amount. 

Finally he got issued a legal notice dt 4­7­2013, the said notice got returned 4 with endorsement with intimation.

10.As against the defendant denied all the pleadings in the plaint the defendant put his signature as guarantee to one Erikala Ajay kumar who borrowed several amounts from several persons including the plaintiff. 

Taking advantage of that the plaintiff filed false suit with collusion with 

Erikala Ajay kumar . The promissory note is fabricated and filed present suit. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that Ex.A­1 promissory note is executed by the defendant to that the plaintiff himself examined as P.w1. 

The plaintiff also filed Ex.A­1 promissory note , Ex.A­2 is office coy of legal notice, Ex.A­3 returned cover . The chief affidavit contents are sailing with the plaint pleadings. The counsel for the defendant cross­examined P.W.1 with regard to execution of promissory note and at the time of promissory note who are present. After perused the evidence of P.w.1, he deposed the defendant is employee as Record Assistant in the Government Junior 

College, Vijayawada. One Pulipaka Samuel and Nallamothu Srinivasa Rao were present at the time of execution of Ex.A­1 promissory note the said 

Nallamothu Srinivasa Rao is scribe of Ex.A­1 promissory note. The plaintiff deposed that one Erikala Ajay kumar known to him, the Counsel for the defendant did not suggested P.w.1 that said Erikala Ajay kumar borrowed amount under Ex.A­1 promissory note as he known to P.W. 1 and that the 

P.w.1 asked the defendant to execute Ex.A­1 promissory note on behalf of 5 said Ajay kumar , the said suggestion was denied by P.W1. The plaintiff also examined P.w.2 who is scribe of Ex.A­1 promissory note. The counsel for the defendant did not cross­examine the P.W.2 as such the chief affidavit contents are true and valid. The defendant also did not adduce any evidence and didn't came in to witness box to cross­examine himself by the other side ,the presumption can be drawn in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as the contents of Written statement are not true and correct. Hence this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff .

11.Issue No.3:­

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs. 55,333 /­ and also entitled future interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on principal sum of Rs 50,000/­.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant,transcribed by her pronounced by 

me in open court, this the 7th day of April 2014

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

6

Appendix of evidence. 

For plaintiff :For defendant 

P.W.1: Tamatapu Srinivasa Rao..None 

P.w.2: Nallamothu Sriivasa Rao.

Documents marked.

For plaintiff :

 Ex.A­1: Promissory note dt 27­2­2013

Ex.A­2: office copy of legal notice dt 4­7­2013.

Ex.A­3: Returned notice dt 6­7­2013 .

For defendant : Nil.

 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; 

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt G.V.L.Saraswathi. I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. MONDAY THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2014.

 O.S.No. 619/2013

BETWEEN: Tamatapu Srinivasa Rao s/o Ranga Rao, Hindu, aged 45 years, resident of Ramavarappadu , Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. 

…...Plaintiff.

AND: Eite Seshu Babu s/o Ram babu, Hindu, aged 41 years, resident of D.No 1­3/9­4,Pappuvari street,Gupta Center,Vidhyadharapuram, Vijayawada. 

.. Defendant

Suit filed suit for recovery of Rs. 55,333/­ being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 27­2­2013 for Rs. 50,000/­ executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff for their family expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or order on his demand.

Suit presented on : 22­7­2013

Suit filed on : 26­7­2013

Value of the suit for the purpose of C.F and jurisdiction u/s 50 (1) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act is Rs 55,333/­ on which a C.F of Rs 2546/­ is paid u/s 20 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act by depositing the same in S.B.H. Civil Courts Compound Branch, Vijayawada .

Cause of action for the suit arose on 27­2­2013 at Vijayawada when and where the suit transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this court. This suit coming on 4­4­2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Subba Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri J.Sai Raju , Advocate for the defendant and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this court upon consideration upon consideration doth the order and made the 8

DECREE.

1.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 55,333/­and with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of suit i.e. 22­7­2013 till the date of decree , and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on principal sum of Rs 50,000/­

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs 6078 /­towards costs of the suit .

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of April 2014.

 I ADDL.JR.CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

MEMO OF COSTS

PLAINTIFF No costs memo filed 

1. Stamp on power 2­00

2. Stamp on plaint 2546­00

3. Stamp on process 70­00

4. Adv. Fee 3360­00

5. Stamp on petitions ­

6. Writing charges 50 ­00

7. Typing charges 50­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Costs allowed :Rs 6078­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

I ADDL.JR.CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as the record will be able to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.