Smt. G.Vandana

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Smt. G.VANDANA,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Friday, 14 th day of July, 2023

O.S.NO.588/2021

V.Vijaya Kumari, W/o. M.Ramana,

Aged about 48 years, Hindu, Employee,

Resident of H.No.49/50-A-542, Sriram Nagar,

Kurnool City.

...Plaintif

-Vs-

Sri P.Karunakar, S/o P.Thikkanna,

Aged about 42 years, R/o.Flat.No.508,

D.Block, Yelkuri Heights,

Ulchala Road, Kurnool city.

...Defendant

This suit coming up before me for hearing in the presence of

Sri M.Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri Bangi Sudheer,

Sri Para Raju, Advocates for the defendant, after perusal of the material papers available on record and after hearing the counsel for plaintif and defendant, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is fled by the plaintif for ejection of defendant from the plaint schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintif and for payment of arrears of rent of Rs.52,800/- with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2.Brief averments of the plaint:

(a) The plaintif is the owner of the plaint schedule property, purchased the Flat No.508 in the 5th foor, Yelkuri Heights, Ulchala Road, in the year 2015, which was let out to the defendant for the purpose of living in the fat at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month. There is no written lease agreement in between the plaintif and defendant and the lease is oral lease and tenancy is for month to month. In the year 2017, the rent was periodically increased by mutual consent between the plaintif and defendant, from August 2019 the defendant is paying rent at the rate of

Rs.4,400/- per month who is a tenant of the plaint schedule property. In the beginning, the defendant paid the monthly rent regularly, but since

June, 2020 the defendant failed to pay rent in time and the plaintif also requested the defendant to pay the monthly rent regularly and the defendant failed to do so, and he is due an amount of Rs.52,800/- from 05.06.2020 to 05.06.2021.

(c) Prior to fling of suit, the plaintif requested the defendant in the month of December, to vacate the fat and deliver vacant possession to her, but the defendant refused her request and he himself got issued a legal notice dated 19.06.2020 with all false allegations praying time to vacate the said fat. Hence Plaintif got issued a reply notice through his counsel on 27.06.2020, but the defendant failed to keep up his promise and not evicted the premises and causing trouble to the plaintif and harassing the plaintif by saying that if plaintif forced him for eviction, he will fle a STSC Case against plaintif. Inspite of repeated notices and oral requests made by the plaintif, the defendant failed to vacate the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit.

3.Brief averments of the written statement:

(a) The defendant submitted that he is a genuine tenant and paying rent regularly form month to month. The plaintif is a formal party for having house in her name. In fact the defendant is dealt by her husband, who got foisted this false case. This defendant has never saw the plaintif before. The plaintiffs husband never issued the receipts for rents received and there is no such practice. Whenever this defendant requests the plaintiffs husband for issuance of receipt for taking rents, the plaintiffs husband commands that, if this defendant asks for receipt he should vacate the plaint schedule plot immediately. The plaintiffs husband for remembrance of rent transactions, he only used to give short signatures in a small book.

(b) Defendant stated that plaintiffs husband did not allow him to pay rent even through Phone-pay, Google-Pay or account pay as they leave some evidence, which shows the genuineness of the defendant in payment of regular rents, and stated that the defendant is paying the rent regularly in this case. This defendant has no due of arrears as alleged by the plaintif.

4.Basing on the above pleadings of the plaintif and defendant this

Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintif is entitled for decree of eviction of

Defendant as prayed?

(ii) Whether the Defendant committed default in payment of rents?

(iii) Whether the Defendant is liable to pay arrears of Rents of

Rs.52,800/- with subsequent interest as claimed by the plaintif?

(iv) Whether the Defendant is liable to vacate the Plaint schedule property?

(v) To what relief?

5.To substantiate her contention, plaintif got examined herself as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Defendant got examined himself as

DW1 and no exhibits were marked on his behalf.

6.Written arguments submitted on behalf of the plaintif. Hearing on behalf of defendant is treated as heard.

7.Issue Nos. 2 & 3:

(ii) Whether the Defendant committed default in payment of rents?

(iii) Whether the Defendant is liable to pay arrears of Rents of

Rs.52,800/- with subsequent interest as claimed by the plaintif?

PW1 in her chief afdavit reiterated all her contentions made in the plaint and in support of her case she got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the Attested copy of Registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1975/2015,

dated 12.03.2015 showing that the plaintif is the absolute owner of the

plaint schedule property, Ex.A2 is the Ofce copy of legal notice, dated 22.03.2021 issued by the plaintif to the defendant, Ex.A3 is the Original postal receipt, dated 22.03.2021, Ex.A4 is the Original unserved returned postal cover along with notice and acknowledgment card,

Ex.A5 is the Original notice given by the defendant in favour of the plaintif, dated 19.06.2020, Ex.A6 is the Original reply notice given by the plaintif, dated 27.06.2020, Ex.A7 is the Original postal receipt,

dated 27.06.2020, Ex.A8 is the Original acknowledgment card of the

defendantfs counsel, to prove defendant is a tenant residing at the plaint schedule property by paying rent of Rs.3,000/- per month at instance and the rent was increased by the plaintif at a rate of 4,400/- per month by mutual concern between plaintif and the defendant and now the rent is of Rs.4,400/- per month.

8.As per the Ex.A1 Attested copy of which is registered sale deed bearing document No.1975/15 dated 12.03.2015 showing that plaintif is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property as pleaded by the plaintif and there is no dispute as to title property. Learned Counsel for plaintif argued that in the beginning of the tenancy the defendant paid monthly rent regularly, but since June 2020 defendant failed to pay rent regularly and the contention of the plaintif is that she pleaded the defendant to pay monthly rent in time, but he failed to do so and the defendant also knows the rent is due from 05.06.2020 to 05.06.2021 for an amount of Rs.52,800/-. For such failure of the defendant, plaintif requested the defendant in the month of December, 2019 to vacate the fat and deliver vacant possession to the plaintif. But the defendant refused the request. Defendant himself issued legal notice to the plaintif under Ex.A5, dated 19.06.2020 praying the time to vacate the fat and plaintif also got issued legal notice to the defendant under Ex.A2, dated 22.03.2021 which was received by the defendant even the plaintif has also issued reply notice to the defendant as per Ex.A6, dated 27.06.2020.

9.Defendant fled his written statement admitting that he is a tenant of plaint schedule property paying the monthly rent of Rs.4,400/- and pleaded that the plaint schedule property is exempted from the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control Act 1983. Defendant admitted that he has paying rent regularly.

Defendant took the plea that for remembrance of receipts of rent transactions plaintiffs husband only used to give short signatures in one small book and further stated that payments of rent would be clearly visible in the small book which shows the genuineness of the defendant in order to payment of regular rents.

10.On perusing the Ex.A5 it is clearly evident that defendant admitted the rent was increased to Rs.4,400/- per month in June, 2020 from the above admission it is clear that there is no dispute with record to the payment of rent of Rs.4,400/- per month.

11.At this juncture as the defendant pleaded that fat comes under

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, but as per the said Act this plaint schedule property is exempted as provided

Under Section 32(c) Act not apply to certain buildings: “The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any building the rent of which as on the date of commencement if the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and

Eviction) Control (Amendment) Act, 2005, exceeds rupees three thousand and fve hundred per month in the areas covered by the

Municipal Corporations in the State and rupees two thousand per month in other areas,” because defendant is paying rent 4,400/- per month and in the legal notice issued by the defendant he also admitted that my client is ready to pay the rent dues after recovery of fnancial problems as soon as possible. From the above admissions, it is also observed that defendant committed default in payment of rents and he has not fled any receipts before the Court, which he pleaded in his written statement about small book to show proof that he paid rent regularly. Hence from the above admissions of the defendant in the Ex.A5 it is clearly evident that defendant defaulted in paying the rents. Hence this issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

12.Issue No.4:

In view of fndings in the Issue Nos.2 & 3 the defendant admitted that he is ready to pay the rent due to the plaintif and requested time for vacating the plaint schedule property and defendant issued legal notice under Ex.A5 from legal notice it is observed that the plaintif should force him to vacate the house immediately as there are Covid-19 guidelines and lock down situations as he cannot vacate the house immediately. Plaintif was also got issued reply notice to the Ex.A5 requesting to vacate the plaint schedule property within few days and hand over the possession to the plaintif. Apart from the reply notice, plaintif has also got issued legal notice under Ex.A2 to vacate the plaint schedule premises within 15 days from the date of notice and same also served on the defendant as the plaintif complied the conditions on issuance of notice to vacate the plaint schedule property. From the admissions made by the defendant under Ex.A5 and from the above circumstances, the defendant is liable to vacate the plaint schedule property. This issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

13.Issue No.1:

In view of the fndings of the Issues No.2, 3 & 4 this issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant. The suit has to be decreed with costs as prayed for.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintif with costs, directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule premises and deliver the possession of the same to the plaintif within 15 days from the date of this Judgment, else plaintif is at liberty to get the defendant evicted from the suit schedule property by the due process of law. Further the defendant is directed to pay arrears of rent of

Rs.52,800/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred only) as claimed by the plaintif.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this 14th day of July, 2023.

SD/- SMT. G.VANDANA

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintif For Defendant

PW.1 : V.Vijaya Kumari DW.1 : P.Karunakar

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintif

Ex.A1:Attested copy of Registered sale deed bearing

Doc.No.1975/2015, dated 12.03.2015 showing that the plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

Ex.A2: Ofce copy of legal notice, dated 22.03.2021 issued by the plaintif to the defendant.

Ex.A3: Original postal receipt, dated 22.03.2021.

Ex.A4: Original unserved returned postal cover along with notice and acknowledgment card.

Ex.A5: Original notice given by the defendant in favour of the plaintif,

dated 19.06.2020.

Ex.A6: Original reply notice given by the plaintif, dated 27.06.2020.

Ex.A7: Original postal receipt, dated 27.06.2020.

Ex.A8: Original acknowledgment card of the defendantfs counsel.

For Defendant

NIL

SD/- SMT. G.VANDANA

II AJCJ, KNL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR

DIVISON), KURNOOL

Present: Smt G. Vandana,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurnool

Thursday, the 8th day of August, 2024

Original Suit No.1403/2019

1.Smt Zaibunissa @ Choti Bee W/o late Khaja Moinuddin, 68 years,

2. Saleem Basha, S/o Late Khaja Moinuddin, 46 years,

3. Chand Basha S/o Late Khaija Moinuddin, 42 years,

4. Smt Kousar Sameena, W/o Abdul Rahman, 35 years, c/o H.No.5-111,Lalitiff Loubali Street, Kurnool… Plaintiffs

-Versus-

G.Satyanarayana S/o G.Chennaiah, 75 years, H.No.2/37-1, Pullaur village, Manopad Mandal, Jogulambha Gadwal District now c/o Sree Raghavendra Kirana and General Stores, opp:H.No.91-4-35-10-14, Vijayalaxmi Nagar, near Santosh Nagar, Stantanpuram,Kurnool. … Defendant *****

This suit is coming on 01-08-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Shaik Chand Basha, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of

Sri.P.Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for defendant and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant i) cancellation of Registered Sale Deed No.1173/2010, dt:20.02.2010 of defendant/

G.Satyanarayana. ii) As ancillary relief grant permanent injucntion in favour of plaintiffs against the defendant, his men and agents restraining him from

2

in any way interfering with plaintiffs title and possession over suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The 1st plaintiff is the wife. No.2 to 4 are the only children of late

Khaja Moinuddin do died on dt:29.06.2008 at Kurnool. Death certificate, family members certificate filed.

(b) During the life time of Khaja Moinuddin he purchased the plaint schedule agriculture land Ac.3.94 land in Sy.No.69 under registered sale deed document No.2751/1994 dt:28.04.1994 as shown in the plaint "A" schedule. Ever since from the date of purchase the said Khaja Moinuddin was in title and possession of the same to the knowledge of one and all.

After his demise the plaintiffs being the only legal heirs, they are in title and possession of the same, jointly enjoying the plaint schedule land to the knowledge of one and all.

(c) This being so, in the month of August 2019 the plaintiffs come to know that the defendant created some documents in respect of plaint schedule property on which the plaintiffs obtained CC copy of the same deed under which he said to have purchased the suit property from Khaja

Moinuddin under registered sale deed document No.1173/2010

dt:20.10.2010 to an extent of Ac.0.64 only as shown in the plaint "B"

schedule, Whereas Khaja Moinuddin died on 29.06.2008 this document was created two years after death of plaintiff no.1 husband Khaja Moinuddin. The fraud is deducted in the month of August 2019 when the defendant came to suit property. Now taking advantage of forged/ fake/ impersonated document, the defendant trying to enter into the suit property, he and his

3

men came to site on dt.25.08.2019 tried to trespass in to suit land, the same was resisted on which they left land holding threat to come again. As the fraud played by the defendant is known to the plaintiffs in the month of

August, 2019, they obtained CC copy of registered sale deed of defendant, suit is filed within 3 years from the date of knowledge of fraud, hence this suit is within time. As the plaintiffs requested the defendant that his document is fraudulent one, created one, alleged sold by some fake person, requested to cancel the same, he refused to do so. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement by admitting the allegations mentioned in the plaint and contending that,

After receipt of summons from the Court, this defendant after due enquiries came to know that Khaja Moinuddin died on dt:29.06.2008 at

Kurnool and plaintiffs are his heirs. Further that the suit schedule properly belongs to Khaja Moinuddin. After going through content of the plaint the detendant came to know that he was cheated and property was sold to him by some third party who is now absconding and his addressed could not be traced. So, the sale effected in favour of defendant is not by legal owner but by one fraudulent person, so he did not get title over it. This defendant reports no objection for Ordering Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed

No.1173/2010, dated 20.02.2010 of this defendant/Satyanarayana and reports no objection for passing of decree as prayed for without costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the sale deed bearing No.1173/2010, dt:20.02.2010 is liable to be cancelled?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction as prayed for?

4

3. To what relief?

5. Issue No.1 & 2:

After perusing the written statement, the defendanl not denied the allegation of plaintiff and admitted the same. Hence issues framed does not arise for consideration as defendant admitted the case of plaintiff in written statement.

6.It is the case of the plaintiff that her husband purchased the property from its rightful owner vide registered Doc.No.2751/1994 dt.28-04- 1994. Later after death of her husband and childrens, the plaintiff acquired the property. To support his case, he got marked Exs.A1 to A3 i.e., Ex.A1 certified copy of Registered sale deed, dt:28.04.994 of Khaja Moinuddin,

Ex.A2 certified copy of Registered sale deed, dt:29.01.1946 link document and Ex.A3 certified copy of Registered sale deed, dt:20.10.2010 of defendant, are supporting the contentions of the plaintiff that plaintiff is in the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property where as the defendant pleaded that plaintiff and her husband sold the property to one

Khaja Moinuddin under sale agreement. Further the said Khaja Moinuddin sold the same to this defendant under sale agreement.

7.As per, O-12 R-6 of CPC:

Judgment on admissions

(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or

otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit,

either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without

waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties,

make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to

such admissions.

(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall

be drawn upon in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the

date on which the judgment was pronounced.

And at this juncture this court relying on the decision of Hon’ble HC

of AP in P.V.V.A.Prasad Vs. Shaik Mahaboob Basha 2011 (1)ALD 296 in

Pare 21

5

“Thus, a close consideration of the precedents cited by both the parties leads

to the conclusion that a statement made in a pleading can be acted upon as an

admission for the purposes of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil

Procedure and irrespective of resorting to pronouncement of a judgment on

the basis of the statement in the written statement of the respondent or not,

the fact remains that the rights flowing out of the unregistered lease deed

being the subject of a specific issue before the trial Court and a specific

ground of appeal before the first appellate Court, the factum of expiry of the

period of lease claimed by the respondent ought to have been taken into

consideration by the first appellate Court as a subsequent event or

circumstance having material bearing on the rights of the parties under

adjudication. If so, therefore, the first appellate Court committed an error of

law in not taking note of and acting upon the expiry of the period of lease by

the end of September 2009 even according to the defence of the respondent

in the written statement and irrespective of other considerations, when the

lease stood determined by efflux of time, the first appellate Court should

have moulded the relief to be granted in tune with the same.”

8.As the defendant admitted a case of plaintiff in written statement hence there is no rebuttal of evidence on behalf of defendanl as he admitted the case of plaintiff. From the evidence lead by the plaintiff coupled with Exs.A1 to A3, this court is considered opinion the plaintiff is entitled to decree in his favour.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiffs against the defendant declaring the title of plaintiffs over plaint schedule property by cancelling the Registered Sale Deed No.1173/2010,

dt:20.02.2010 and thereby granting permanent injunction in favour of

plaintiffs against the defendant, his men and agents restraining him from in any way interfering with plaintiffs title and possession over suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 8 th day of August, 2024.

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurnool.

6

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendant:

P.W.1:Chand Basha -None-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of Registered sale deed, dt:28.04.994 of Khaja Moinuddin

Ex.A2: Certified copy of Registered sale deed, dt:29.01.1946 link document

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Registered sale deed, dt:20.10.2010 of defendant

For Defendant: -Nil-

II ACJ(JD), KNL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT

KURNOOL.

PRESENT : Smt G. Vandana,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Tuesday, the 30 th day of July, 2024.

Original Suit No.306 of 2014

Between:

Smt.M.Lalitha, W/o.M.Janaki Rajudu, Aged about 40 years, House-wife, R/o.Plot No.494, Shareen Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool. …plaintiff

-And-

1. Mangali Sanjanna, S/o.M.Linganna, Aged about 48 years, Hindu, Resident of Kanakaiah Kottala village, Jupadu Bangla Mandal, Kurnool District,

2. Mangali Lakshmi Narayana, S/o.Mangali Sanjanna, Aged about 28 years, Hindu, Resident of Kanakaiah Kottala village, Jupadu Bangla Mandal, Kurnool District. …Defendants

This suit coming on 01-07-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.R.Krishna, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.S.Md.Haneef, Advocate for defendants and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

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

2.Brief facts of the plaint are that,

(a).The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Plaint schedule house site patta bearing No.R.C.A.No.201/82, dt.15-07-2011,

dated 02-08-2011, which was assigned house site patta, by the then

Tahasildar, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. The said house site patta is situated in Sy.No.547, Kallur village limits to an extent of Ac.0-2 1/2 cents which is within Shareen Nagar, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District and immediately after assignment, the Plaintiff constructed the hut therein and the Plaintiff is possession and enjoyment of the same along with her family 2 members without any interference from any corner. Further, the Plaintiff also obtained electricity connection to her hut.

(b).While so, on 16-07-2014, the Plaintiff has alone in her hut, suddenly, the Defendants, their men came for second time in order to dispossess the Plaintiff from the Plaint schedule hut. The said illegal attempt was averted by the Plaintiff with aid her husband and dwellers in vicinity and about one week back also, the defendants came along with their men and demolished the Plaintiff's hut to some extent, illegally, by stating that they purchased the plaint schedule house site from one Harijana Giddaiah long back and kept the same as vacant site and that the plaintiff already gave police complaint against the defendants at that time. Inspite of that the defendants, their men agents etc., came and committed the illegal act of criminal trespass into plaint schedule site in order to dispossess the plaintiff and her family members from the plaint schedule hut, as on the above said date. As per assigned laws, the defendants have not got any right or title over the plaint schedule site, basing on the alleged sale deed said to be executed by previous assignee in their favour. Defendants are making illegal attempts in order to occupy the plaint schedule house site from this plaintiff at any count, by dispossessing the plaintiff and her family members, high handedly. Hence, the suit.

3.The first defendant filed written statement and the same is adopted by

D2 by denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint and contending that,

(a).Long back, the plaint schedule plot was allotted to one Giddaiah by the then Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal in R.D.B No.1/22(HS) dt.13-08-1982, the said Giddaiah enjoyed the property and after that with the permission of authorities, he sold the property to one Battila Rajamma, W/o.Guru Murthy and executed a registered sale deed under vide document No.5725/1983 dt.11-10-1983 and delivered vacant possession. Said Rajamma enjoyed the plaint schedule property till 1984 and subsequently, on 17-10-1984 she sold the plaint schedule property to this defendant and got it registered in his name under document No.6656/1984 and delivered vacant possession.

From the date of purchase, the defendant has been enjoying the property with absolute right. This defendant laid a hut in the year 1984 and used to stay in the same as this defendant is a poor man. The plaintiff in order to 3 take advantage and with a malafide intention to knock away the property, she used to quarrel with the sons of defendant.

(b).It is further contended that, the defendant is the original assignee, the plaintiff is no way concerned with the plaint schedule plot, The plaintiff has no prima facie case and possession and enjoyment is not in her control. The defendant No.2 is the elder son of the defendant No.1. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.To substantiate her case, the plaintiff by name M.Lalitha got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the original house site patta and plot bearing No.494 in Sy.No.547 of Kallur Village, Kallur Mandal, by Tahsildar, Kallur in R.C.A.No.2011982, dt.15-07-2011, Ex.A2 is the original police complaint, dt.09-07-2014 to C.I., IV Town, Kurnool and Ex.A3 is two photographs along with CD. After filing chief affidavit of P.W.1, the advocate for defendants did not turn up for cross-examination of P.W.1.

Since the defendants did not evince any interest to cross-examine P.W.1, cross-examination of witness is recorded as nil. Even during the stage of defendants evidence there was no response from the defendants even after passing conditional orders, hence this court treated defendants evidence as nil and closed.

6.Heard the plaintiff. Perused the record. Even during the stage of arguments there is no response from the defendants. Therefore, arguments on behalf of defendants are treated as nil and posted the matter for judgment.

7. Issue No.1 & 2:

4

Since the above issues 1 & 2 are interconnected they are taken up together for discussion.

8.It is the case of the plaintiff that she has been granted patta vide proceedings bearing RCA. No. 201/82, dt:15.07.2011, and been possession from the date of issuance of patta. To support her case, she got marked

Exs.A1 to A3 i.e., Ex.A1 is the original house site patta and plot bearing

No.494 in Sy.No.547 of Kallur Village, Kallur Mandal, by Tahsildar, Kallur in

R.C.A.No.2011982, dt.15-07-2011, Ex.A2 is the original police complaint, dt.09-07-2014 to C.I., IV Town, Kurnool and Ex.A3 is two photographs along with CD, shows that patta granted in her favour and she is possession of the suit schedule property and the documents also shows that she is in lawful possession. As stated supra, the defendants did not turn up to cross- examine P.W.1 nor adduced their evidence. Therefore, the evidence of

P.W.1 regarding the plaintiff acquiring Ac.0.2 and half cents in suit schedule survey number is unchallenged.

9.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the plaintiff proved her possession as on the date of filing of the suit is lawful, as such plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, issues Nos.1 & 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 and 2.

10. Issue No.3: To what relief ?

In view of issues No.1 & 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff, this suit is to be decreed with costs as prayed for.

11.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of July 2024.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

5

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW-1: M.Lalitha-None-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original house site patta and plot bearing No.494 in Sy.No.547 of Kallur Village, Kallur Mandal, by Tahsildar, Kallur in R.C.A.No.2011982, dt.15-07-2011

Ex.A2: Original police complaint, dt.09-07-2014 to C.I., IV Town, Kurnool

Ex.A3: Two photographs along with CD

For Defendants:

-Nil-

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

1 OS No.444/2024, dt.20.06.2025

APKU020012392024

Presented on : 16-04-2024 Registered on : 16-04-2024 Decided on : 20-06-2025 Duration : 1 years, 2 months, 4 days

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), CUM SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL.

PRESENT:- Smt.S.Anusha

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurnool

Friday, this the 20th day of June, 2025

Original Suit No.444/2024

Boggula Nannesaheb, S/o B.Ahemmed Miah, Muslim, aged about 57 years, R/o D.No.4-17, Pasupala Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District.. . . Plaintiff

Vs.

S.Noor Ahammad, S/o B.Ahemmad Miah, aged about 54 years, R/o Pasupula Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District. . . . Defendant

This suit is coming on 19.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Srinivasan and Sri P.Janardhan Reddy,Advocates for plaintiff and the defendant is set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day this court, delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant a) declare the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property and consequential Mandatory injunction 2 OS No.444/2024, dt.20.06.2025 directing the defendant to remove the poles erected in the area marked

ABCD in the plaint plan covering an extent about Ac.0.16. b) permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men and agents from in any way interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

a) The plaintiff, the defendant and S.Naisr Basha are the brothers they partitioned the ancestral land. The defendant and S.Naisr Basha sold the schedule shown land which felt to their share, to the plaintiff, for valuable consideration and the same is registered as per sale deed no.3372/2002

dated 07.05.2002. The plaintiff is possession and enjoyment of the plaint

schedule shown property, ever since.

b) But, while the plaintiff was on a tour, the defendant, without any manner of right, tress passed into plaintiffs land and installed Poles covering an extent of Ac.016 and in the process damaged the standing "KANDI" crop, in the area marked as ABCD in the plaint plan.

c)Immediately, on his return, the plaintiff protested the illegal and high handed occupation, of the defendant and demanded immediate removal of the fencing. But the defendant refused to oblige the demand of the Plaintiff and also asserted that the site in which the fencing is erected belongs to him. Plaintiff tried to pull down the poles but the defendants with his rowdy friends, who were with him at that time, over powered him and threatened with dire consequences if the plaintiff tries to take any further steps to remove the poles, illegally erected by the defendant. It became very clear to the plaintiff that he is no match to counter the forces of the defendant, as he is well connected to musclemen and some persons in power.

d) Further plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff brought the matter to the notice of the Police. But, as the subject matter of the complainant is of civil in nature, the police expressed their unwillingness to take any initiative 3 OS No.444/2024, dt.20.06.2025 in the matter and the plaintiff is advised to settle the matter through court of law and hence this suit.

e) The plaintiff submits that the defendant acted illegally and without any manner of right in occupying about Ac.0.16 of his property. Marked

ABCD in the plaint plan.

f) Therefore, the plaintiff prays that Hon'ble court may be pleased to declare his right over the plaint schedule property and consequential removal of the fencing illegally erected by the defendant, in the area marked

ABCD in the plaint plan, covering an extent about Ac.0.16. Hence the suit.

3.Defendant was set ex parte in the present suit.Hence, he was set exparte to the proceedings on 06.03.2025.

4.The plaintiff in support of his contentions got examined himself as

PW1 and got marked exhibits PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction

against the defendant as prayed for?.”

POINT:

7.The chief examination of PW-1 is reiterated the averments of the plaint. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt:07.05.2002 vide Doc.No.3372/2002 executed by S.Noor

Ahammed and S.Nasir Basha in favour of plaintiff.

8.On perusal of Ex.A1, this court is of the opinion that the case of plaintiffs are proved. Further, the defendant was set exparte, no evidence placed on behalf of the defendant before this court. In Vidyadhar Rao Vs.

4 OS No.444/2024, dt.20.06.2025

Manic Rao (AIR 1999 SC 1441) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “if any

party fails to appear and given evidence in the court, it can be treated

as no case on her behalf”.

9. As per Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, if any party to the proceedings fails to enter into the witness box to prove his own case, the presumption can be drawn that the party who fails to appear before the court have no case and an adverse inference can be drawn against that party.

10. In the judgment in Vidyadhar Rao case as stated supra their lordships observed that presumption Under Section 114 of Evidence Act can be drawn against the party, who did not enter into witness box that what he pleads is not correct and further observed that where a party does not appear into witness box and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by other side, the presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.

11.In another Judgment reported in 2004 (3) ALT 665 (DB), in between

Indian Bank Vs. V.R. Venkataraman and others their lordships observed that when a party does not enter into witness box to prove the case set up by him, the presumption Under Section114 of Evidence Act has to be drawn that the version raised in pleading is not true one. If the defendant has got any case, he would come and contest the case by way of positive evidence.

But he did not do so.

12.Therefore, it can be safely held that the defendant without having any right over the plaint schedule property trying to interfere into the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as alleged by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.

13. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs

a) by declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property and the defendant is directed to remove the poles erected in the area marked 5 OS No.444/2024, dt.20.06.2025

ABCD in the plaint plan covering an extent about Ac.0.16 within four months from the date of this judgment. Failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get it done through due process of law;

b) the defendant and his men and agents are restraining from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by way of permanent injunction.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20 th day of June, 2025.

III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KURNOOL.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW-1:B.Nannesaheb-Nil-

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt:07.05.2002 vide Doc.No.3372/2002 executed by S.Noor Ahammed and S.Nasir Basha in favour of plaintiff

For Defendant:

-Nil-

III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KURNOOL.

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

Present: Smt.G.Vandana II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool FAC III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool

Tuesday, the 7th day of May, 2024

Original Suit No.709 of 2022

S.Mahammad Shafi … Plaintiff -Versus- M.Manohar … Defendant

This suit is coming on 25-04-2024 before me in the presence of Sri.F.Jawed

Imran, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant was remained exparte and upon having perused the material papers on record, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs.4,72,126/- being the principal and interest due on four promissory notes dt:09.06.2019, 18.06.2019, 19.06.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for total amount of Rs.2,75,000/- repayable with interest @ 24% per annum on each and for costs.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/- on 09.06.2019,

Rs.75,000/- on 18.06.2019, Rs.50,000/- on 18.06.2019 and Rs.80,000/- on 19.06.2019 from the plaintiff at Kalluru, Kurnool City, to meet his family expenses and necessities and executed the four promissory notes in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum.

(b) Inspite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff and registered legal notice dt:21.5.2022 and 23.05.2022, the defendant did not pay any amount.

Hence the suit.

3.In the suit, service of summons held sufficient on defendant. Defendant called absent. Having no other go, hence defendant was set exparte.

4.In support of his case, the Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex. A1 to A7.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount due under promissory note, as prayed for?

7. POINT:

In support of his case, the plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of his examination- in-chief reiterating the plaint averments and examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the original suit promissory note for Rs.70,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.09.06.2019, Ex.A2 is the original suit promissory note for Rs.75,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.18.06.2019, Ex.A3 is the original suit promissory note for

Rs.50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.18.06.2019,

Ex.A4 is the original suit promissory note for Rs.80,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.09.06.2019, Ex. A5 is the office copy of legal notice, dt:21.05.2022, Ex. A6 is the postal receipt dt:23.05.2022, Ex.A7 is the served postal acknowledgment card, dt:28.05.2022. On careful scrutiny of evidence adduced on the side of plaintiff, it clearly shows that the defendant has borrowed a total amount of Rs.2,75,000/- by executing the four promissory notes under Ex.A1 to A4. Even prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the suit amount and inspite of that, the defendant failed to repay the debt. As stated supra, the defendant remained exparte. There are no contrary pleadings or evidence to rebut the evidence of PW1. Thus, the evidence of PW1 remained unrebutted and clearly establish and prove the suit claim.

Therefore the court believes in the evidence of PW1. Having considered the evidence of PW1, coupled with Ex. A1 to A7. This court is convinced that the plaintiff proved the liability of the defendant to pay the debt amount. Therefore, he is entitled to a decree in his favour.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff for Rs.4,72,126/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Two Thousands One Hundred and Twenty Six only), with future interest @ 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Seventy Five Thousands only), from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum on principal amount, from the date of decree till the date of realization of amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7th day of May, 2024.

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. FAC III Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff:For Defendant: P.W.1: S.Mohammed Shafi -None-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is the original suit promissory note for Rs.70,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.09.06.2019.

Ex.A2 is the original suit promissory note for Rs.75,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.18.06.2019. Ex.A3 is the original suit promissory note for Rs.50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.18.06.2019.

Ex.A4 is the original suit promissory note for Rs.80,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.19.06.2019.

Ex. A5 is the office copy of legal notice, dt:21.05.2022. Ex.A6 is the postal receipt dt:23.05.2022.

Ex.A7 is the served postal acknowledgment card, dt:28.05.2022.

For Defendant:

- Nil -

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. FAC III Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

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

Present: Smt.G.Vandana II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool FAC III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool

Tuesday, the 7th day of May, 2024

Original Suit No.709 of 2022

S.Mahammad Shafi, s/o.S.Nabi Saheb, aged about 57 years, muslim, Private Employee, R/o.H.No.80-76-46-A, Aditya Nagar, Kalluru, Kurnool City, Kurnool District. … Plaintiff -Versus-

M.Manohar, s/o.M.Ayyanna, aged about 48 years, Indian, business, R/o.H.No.74-108-1, Mahatma Nagar, Kalluru, Kurnool City, Kurnool District. … Defendant

Suit filed for recovery of sum of Rs.4,72,126/- being the principal and interest due on the four promissory notes dt:09.06.2019, 18.06.2019, 18.06.2019 and 19.06.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.70,000/-,

Rs.75,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.80,000/-, repayable with interest @ 24% per annum each and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 13-06-2022 and numbered on 16-06-2022.

The cause of action for the suit arose at Kurnool on 09.06.2019, 18.06.2019, 18.06.2019 and 19.06.2019, when the defendant borrowed the amounts and executed the pronotes in favour of the plaintiff and on 23-5-2022 when the plaintiff sent legal notice to defendant demanding the pronotes debt.

Jurisdiction Value is Rs.4,72,126/- [Rs.1,20,400/- + Rs.1,28,700/- +

Rs.85,800/- + Rs.1,37,226/-] and Court Fee of Rs.14,384/- [Rs.3,726/- +

Rs.3,726/- + Rs.3,106/- Rs.3,826/-] is paid u/s.20 of A.P. Court Fee and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on 25-04-2024 before me in the presence of Sri.F.Jawed

Imran, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant was remained exparte and upon having perused the material papers on record; and upon having perused the material papers on record, this Court doth the Decree as follows:-

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of plaintiff.

2. that the defendant is directed to pay to plaintiff Rs.4,72,126/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs Seventy Two Thousands One Hundred and Twenty Six only), with future interest @ 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy

Five Thousands only), from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum on principal amount, from the date of decree till the date of realization of amount.

3. that the defendant do also pay to plaintiff a sum of Rs.22,998/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 7th day of May, 2024.

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. FAC III Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

MEMO OF COSTS

For PlaintiffFor Defendant

Stamp on VakalatRs. 2=00

Stamp on PlaintRs. 14,384=00 ex-parte

ProcessRs. 180=00

Advocate fee Rs. 7,932=00

Typing charges Rs. 500=00

Total : Rs. 22,998=00 ----------------------

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. FAC III Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.