Kum.G.Vani

1 Fair judgment in O.S.539/18, dt.27.04.21

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM I ADDL.

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KAKINADA

PRESENT:- KUM G.VANI,

1 st Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum

1 st Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

Wednesday, this the 27 th April 2021

O.S.539/2018

Between: Nandamuri Veera Venkata Satya Sai Poorna Jaggannadha Rao..Plaintif

And

Geddam Apparao ..Defendant

The suit coming before this court on 26.04.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Kakara Venkateswara Rao, advocate for plaintif and of Sri A.Muralidhar, Advocate for defendant, and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The plaintif filed the present suit for seeking eviction, to grant decree for vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintif after ejecting the defendant from the plaint schedule property and award costs.

2.The nutshell of the plaint are as follows:

The plaint schedule property is a shop in building D.No.45- 1-6 which is the plaintif leased out to the defendant long back and the lease extended from time to time and at present the monthly rent is Rs.4,000/- and that the defendant has habit of obtaining rent receipts. The agreed period was expired by end of

August 2018, but defendant did not vacate. The defendant all of a sudden filed O.S.415/2018 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Kakinada and obtained ex parte injunction while

some construction work was going on. The defendant is pouring 2 Fair judgment in O.S.539/18, dt.27.04.21 garbage under the shield of injunction orders. The defendant is not allowing any other tenant to occupy the vacant portions and thereby plaintif last monthly rent of Rs.12,000/-. The schedule property is in Smart City, Kakinada and if the property is leased out it will fetch not less than Rs.8,000/-. As the defendant has no right to continue. Legal notices were issued and the defendant also got issued reply with false allegations. The defendant has no right to continue in the schedule property. Therefore the plaintif is constrained to file the suit.

3.The defendant received the summons filed detailed written statement denying all averments stating that the defendant has never committed any default at any point of time and he is regular in payment of rents. Plaintif caused several obstructions to the business of the defendant. Defendant is doing business in the schedule property since 1991 and rent has been increased from time to time. Now the plaintif is claiming an un-imaginary rent of Rs.12,000/- per month without any basis. The defendant never put any garbage in the corridor and for the photo studio there will not be any garbage. It shows malafide intention. The plaintif refused to receive rents when the defendant rendered.

Therefore default for the month of July 2018 is not willful.

Therefore the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the court framed the following issues on 19.06.2019:

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of possession over plaint schedule property from defendant by way of eviction?

2. To what relief?

3 Fair judgment in O.S.539/18, dt.27.04.21

6.During the course of trial the plaintif himself examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked. On the other hand the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and one independent witness examined as D.W.2 and there is no documents are marked.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Issue No.1

Basing on the pleadings and rival contrary of both parties it is an admitted fact that the plaintif is the landlord in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendant is tenant and leased the property of the plaint schedule property from the plaintif and also not denied of the exchange of notices i.e. Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

Further admitted fact that the plaintif was issued notices under

Sec.107 of T.P. Act. Moreover the lease period was extended time to time in between plaintif and defendant. There is no written register lease deed in between plaintif and defendant.

Moreover the lease period is only 11 months, thereafter extended lease period time to time, so that there is no need about registered lease deed in between plaintif and defendant.

9.The version of the plaintif that after expiry of the lease period the defendant not vacate the premises i.e. plaint schedule property and handover the same to him though he received the legal notice and promised by the defendant about vacate the plaint schedule property. In this regard the plaintif himself examined as P.W.1. As seen from the chief affidavit of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of plaint averments. But they are clearly admitted about the plaint schedule property is situated in 4 Fair judgment in O.S.539/18, dt.27.04.21 commercial area and D.W.1 was paid Rs.4,000/- as a rent in monthly to the plaintif. Further admitted that if premises was given to third party plaintif will get more than Rs.8,000/- as monthly rent in respect of plaint schedule property. Further admitted fact that the neighbor shops are vacated, still now the shops are vacant and repairs are going on plaint schedule property complex. Further admitted by the defendant in their cross examination that except himself there is no any tenants occupied by the neighbor shops of the plaint schedule property premises. So above admissions is clearly found that there is no one occupied neighbor shops of the plaint schedule property premises except defendant and defendant admitted that repair works are going on schedule property. What more required to vacate the plaint schedule property by the defendant. Not only

D.W.1 and D.W.2 also admitted about the lease period was expired and the plaint schedule property is situated in commercial area and repairs are going on. So above three reasons the plaintif is entitled to vacate the plaint schedule property from the defendant.

10.Moreover the defendant is himself admitted under Ex.A3 that he paid rent amount of Rs.4,000/-, but the written statement as well as chief affidavit of D.W.1 he paid rent amount of

Rs.8,000/- per month. So there is a contrary in between admissions of D.W.1 and chief affidavit, notice (Ex.A3). So entire cross examination of D.W.1 and D.W.2 supported to plaintif about the purpose of vacating the plaint schedule property to repairing of premises and also his personal occupation and also 5 Fair judgment in O.S.539/18, dt.27.04.21 admitted about defaulter of rents. Hence the burden was shifted to the defendant. In this regard the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and another independent witness examined as D.W.2.

The chief affidavit of D.W.1 is nothing but replica of written statement. D.W.2 chief affidavit is also nothing but replica of chief affidavit of D.W.1. So as seen from the chief affidavit of

D.W.1 and D.W.2, the defendant is not the defaulter of rent and plaintif wantonly forcibly vacate the defendant from the plaint schedule property even though he was paid rents regularly and he is having three daughters and depending only to said premises there is defendant running photo studio in the plaint schedule property. Except that there is no other source for living their livelihood. In this regard the defendant is also cross examined P.W.1, but he was not elicited anything in support of his cross examination not supported to D.W.1 version. The entire version of the defendant that, except shop there is no any other way for earning the amounts. On careful perusal of the admissions made by D.W.1, the D.W.1 himself admitted that there is repairs are going on plaint schedule property premises and plaintif himself occupied as a personal occupation after completion of the repairs and also rent matter is also not xxx about Ex.A3 and admissions. In these three aspects enough to defendant is vacate the plaint schedule property.

11.Therefore above going discussion the plaintif is clearly established about the plaint schedule property have been using the personal occupation after completion of repairs and also the 6 Fair judgment in O.S.539/18, dt.27.04.21 defendant is also defaulter to payment of rent monthly. Hence this issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintif.

12.The plaintif counsel filed citations in AIR 2019 Supreme

Court 2664 Supreme Court reported in Sevoke Properties

Ltd. v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution

Company Ltd., 2019 (5) ALD 565 (TS) reported in Ashok

Kumar Gupa v. Mamidi Prakash Manchala Prakash, 2019 (4) ALD 574 reported in Vutchula Sreenivasa Rao v.

Puvvala Narayana Rao. The said decisions are not applicable to the present case. The defendant counsel filed citations in 2009 0 Supreme (AP) 486 reported in Amarjit Kaur v. S.L.

Hussain & others, 1983 0 Supreme (AP) 335 reported in

B.Sanyasi Raju v. K.Kurmanna. The said decisions are not applicable to the present case.

13.Issue No.2:

In the above foregoing discussion the plaintif is clearly established his contention hence the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule property.

14. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs evicting the defendant from the schedule property with a direction to the defendant to vacate the schedule property within two months from the date of this judgment and deliver vacant possession thereof to the plaintif, failing which plaintif is at liberty to evict the defendant as per the provisions of law.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 27th day of April 2021.

Sd/- G.Vani

I ADDL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA

7 Fair judgment in O.S.539/18, dt.27.04.21

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Nandamuri Veera Venkata Satya D.W.1: Geddam Apparao Sri Poorna Jaggannadha Rao D.W.2: G.Chittibabu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1/18.08.2018 : Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A2/-- : Served postal acknowledgement. Ex.A3/24.08.2018 : Rejoinder notice. Ex.A4/26.08.2018 : Reply notice.

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/- G.Vani

I A J C J

1 Fair Judgment in C.C.803/20, dt.20.04.21

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM I ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: AT KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. G.VANI, I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge–cum- I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada.

Tuesday, the 20th day of April 2021

C.C.No.803/2020

Between:-

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Women police station, Kakinada...Complainant.

And

Chodipalli Durga Prasad S/o.Satyanarayana, age 32 yrs., C/Vadibalija, Jagannadhapuram,

Kakinada...Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 19.04.2021 in the presence of learned A.P.P for the State, and upon perusing the evidence and material papers on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

: J U D G M E N T :

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Kakinada filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A 323, 506 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act against accused in

Cr.No.7/2020.

2. The nutshell of the prosecution is as follows:

The accused is P.W.1’s mother’s own brother’s son. Their marriage was performed at Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

Swamy temple, Annavaram and at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.1 lakh dowry and presented other lanchanams including gold rings. When she joined in conjugal life with A1 she was blessed with two sons. The A1 was addicted to alcohol and spent his earnings for his vices. He mortgaged his, his children’s and her ornaments for his vices. He harassed P.W.1 for additional 2 Fair Judgment in C.C.803/20, dt.20.04.21 dowry. When P.W.1 and her parents asked the accused he abused them. Later A1 shifted residence to house of L.W.4 Sumeya

Ahmad Abbas. The accused did not change his attitude and continued harassment for additional dowry. On 02.12.2019 he disputed with P.W.1 for additional dowry and threatened her to kill and beat her indiscriminately and also brought petrol to kill her.

As there is no other go she gave report to police. Thereafter L.W.6

S.Lakshmana Rao, registered the case and filed charge sheet offence under Sections 498-A 323, 506 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.

Act.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 498-A 323, 506 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act against the Accused/

4. After appearance of Accused copies of documents were furnished to him U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined U/S.239 Cr.P.C., charges under

Sections 498-A 323, 506 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. The evidence of L.W.4 Sumeya

Ahmad Abbas, L.W.5 Nakelay Sathibabu, L.W.6 S.Lakshmana Rao.

In view of evidence of P.W.1 there is no evidence against accused hence this Hon’ble Court closed.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence in view of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 there is no any incriminating evidence against the accused. Hence this court is dispensed Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

examination and did not purpose to choose any defence evidence.

3 Fair Judgment in C.C.803/20, dt.20.04.21

8. On behalf of accused none were examined and no documents are marked.

9.Heard the APP for the State and accused in Open Court.

10. Now the point which stood up for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 498-A 323, 506 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act against the accused 1 to 6 and whether the accused are liable for punishment of the above said section of law?

11.Point :-

In order to prove the prosecution as examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are marked. The learned APP argued that when

P.W.1 joined the accused he subjected her to a lot of cruelty having been addicted to drinking alcohol. He mortgaged gold ornaments of him, his wife and his children. On 02.12.2019 he beat her and brought petrol to kill her.

12.In this connection the P.W.1 to P.W.3 were not stated anything about the case of the prosecution. Moreover P.W.1 was not stated anything about harassment of accused for want of

additional dowry but they are categorically deposed that there is

some petty quarrels raised in between P.W.1 and her husband i.e.

accused. So that the said petty quarrels narrated to P.W.2 & P.W.3.

Thereafter on advice of neighbours, P.W.1 lodged report. This version supported by P.W.2 & P.W.3, except that the P.W.1 to P.W.3 were not stated anything.

13.At that juncture the prosecution was seeking permission and declared hostile and cross examined P.W.1 to P.W.3, except marking of Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 she is not stated anything about 4 Fair Judgment in C.C.803/20, dt.20.04.21 accused by P.W.1 to P.W.3. P.W.1 is also denied her own statement i.e. complaint, except admission of signature i.e. Ex.P1.

14.So on careful perusal of evidence of P.W.1 the nature of the offence is matrimonial case. Moreover both are compromised. So taking to guidelines of Apex Court unsafe to convict the accused without any incriminating evidence. So that accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.

15.Main Sec.498-A IPC is compromised hence no need to discuss Sec.323 & 506 IPC and also there is no evidence in respect of Sec.323 & 506 IPC hence not discussed in length.

16. Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act against accused: On lengthy discussion made supra the prosecution is miserably failed to establish that accused are demanding additional dowry from the parents of P.W.1. So that there is no need to discuss in these two sections.

17.In the above foregoing discussion made supra the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused.

Hence he is entitled to acquittal.

18.In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A 323, 506 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act against and is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. He is set at liberty in the present case.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant , corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 20 th day of April 2021. Sd/­ G.Vani

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

KAKINADA

5 Fair Judgment in C.C.803/20, dt.20.04.21

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

PW1: Chodipalli Meenakshi None P.W.2: Chokka Baburao P.W.3: Chokka Vijayalakshmi

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution Ex.P1 : P.W.1 signature on complainant Ex.P2 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

For defence :- NIL.

M.Os Marked -Nil-

Sd/- G.Vani

I AJCJ CUM I AJFCM

KAKINADA

6 Fair Judgment in C.C.803/20, dt.20.04.21

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM I ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: AT KAKINADA.

CALENDER CASE NO.803/2020 Date of offence:Prior 19.02.2020 Date of complaint:19.02.2020 Date of taken on file:17.10.2020 Date of apprehension of accused:26.03.2020 Date of commencement of trial:19.04.2021 Date of close of trial:19.04.2021 Date of sentence of order:20.04.2021 Complainant:State: Sub- Inspector of Police Women police station, Kakinada in Crime No.7/2020

Particulars of the accused:-

Chodipalli Durga Prasad S/o.Satyanarayana, age 32 yrs., C/Vadibalija, Jagannadhapuram, Kakinada.Accused

U/ Sections 498-A 323, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 & Nature of offence 4 of D.P. Act Finding of the courtAccused found not guilty. In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A 323, 506 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act against and is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. He is set at liberty in the present case.

Sd/­ G.VAani

I AJCJ CUM I AJFCM

KAKINADA

 IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

PEDDAPURAM

PRESENT:G.VANI, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram

Tuesday, this the 12th day of March, 2019

O.S.No.149/2017

Between: The Karuru Vysya Bank Ltd., Peddapuram, Rep. By its Senior Branch Manager, Peddapuram. … Plaintiff

And

1. Bandaru Vishnu

2. Surisetti Chakra Lakshmi

3. Seerapu Bala Venkata Reddy. … Defendants

This Suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 05­03­2019 in the presence of Sri Chavali Krishna Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Defendant 1 and 2 remained ex parte and Sri G.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for Defendant No.3, upon hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following 

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff Bank filed the Suit for recovery of the amount of

Rs.2,74,099­72 ps basing on the loan obtained by the first defendant, second and third defendants are guarantors of the first defendant. 

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The first defendant approached the Plaintiff bank for financial assistance of Rs.2,50,000/­ for Dairy Business on 02­04­2014, 2nd defendant and 3rd defendants are guarantors to the said first defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff Bank sanction loan of Rs.2,50,000/­ to the first defendant.

Subsequently, the first defendant utilized the said loan amount sanctioned by the plaintiff bank but failed to comply with the terms and conditions set forth by it. The 1st defendant violated the repayment schedule and he did not repay the installments as per the schedule. The 1st defendant promised to adhere to the repayment schedule but failed to do so and made his remittance on 17­10­2015 to the Plaintiff Bank. So that the limitation was started on 17­10­2015l. Subsequent he not discharged the said amount.

Hence, the suit is constrained by the plaintiff.

3. On the other hand, the third defendant received summons and filed detailed written statement denied all the plaint averments except that he never stood as surety to the 1st defendant or anybody at any time and he is not liable to pay the suit amount and when he denies the execution of guarantee deed, the question of demand orally does not arise. Hence, the plaintiff Bank is not entitled to recover anything from this defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 

4. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the following issues are framed on 03­05­2018 by my predecessor.

i.Whether the third defendant stood as surety for the first defendant?

ii.Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for?

iii.To what relief? 

5. During the course of trial, the Senior Manager of Plaintiff Bank is examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked. On other hand the 3rd defendant not adduced any evidence either occural as well as documentary.

The 1st and 2nd defendants are set exparte. 

6. Heard both sides. 

7. Issue No.1 and 2:

The above issues are interlinked hence court discussed together.

The counsel for the plaintiff argued before the Court that the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff bank and obtained loan for Dairy purpose and the same was sanction by the Plaintiff Bank on 02­04­2014 and at the time the 2nd and 3rd defendants stood as guarantors to the 1st defendant. The counsel for the plaintiff further argued before the court that subsequently the first defendant failed to repay the installments on 17­10­2015. Hence the suit constrained by the plaintiff. 

8. On the other hand, 1st and 2nd defendant were set exparte. The third defendant argued before the Court, he never stood any guarantor to the first defendant and he never signed as gurantor any paper in favour of the plaintiff Bank.

9. In this regard, the initial burden lies on plaintiff so that the Senior

Manager of plaintiff Bank is examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked. The evidence of PW1 nothing but reiterated the plaint averments also Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 clearly and categorically supported the version of PW1.

Ex.A1 is sanction order, Ex.A2 is Demand Promissory Note dt.02­04­2014 executed by defendant No.1, Ex.A3 is Hypothecation agreement executed by defendant No.1, Ex.A4 is guarantee agreement executed by 2nd and 3rd

Defendant on 02­04­2014 and Ex.A5 is the account statement of defendant

No.1. So that the Ex.A4 is the important document with regarding to the third defendant executed the said Ex.A4 in favour of the Bank as guarantor and what are the duties, terms and conditions applicable to the first defendant, the same was applicable to the third defendant under Ex.A4.

Whenever the principal borrower is defaulter, at the time defendant No.2 and 3, who are stood as guarantors, to be paid to the Bank for realization of sanctioned amount. So in this regard, the third defendant is absolutely liable to discharge the sanction amount by the Bank to the 1st defendant.

10. The Ex.A5 statement of account copy of first defendant, so there is no denial of sanction to the 1st defendant an amount of Rs.2,50,000/­ subsequently the 1st defendant defaulter in paying the installments, hence automatically the 3rd defendant is jointly and severally liable along with 1st defendant. During course of cross examination by the 3rd defendant, nothing has elicited in his favour from the mouth of PW1. So that the burden was shifted to 3rd defendant.

11.In this regard, the 3rd defendant not came to the court, not adduced oral as well as documentary produced for establishing his contention. So whenever the defendant has not adduced rebuttal evidence against contention of the plaintiff, automatically Section 118 of Negotiable

Act presumption goes in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has clearly established with regarding to he is entitled to recover the debt and third defendant is also liable to discharge amount along with 1st defendant and 2nd defendant and issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

12. Issue No.3 

Therefore in the above foregoing discussion made supra in issue Nos 1 and 2, the plaintiff clearly established his contention through adducing occural as well as documentary proof at the same time, the defendant failed to establish his contention. Hence, plaintiff is entitled in passing of decree in his favour. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

13. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,74,099­72ps (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Ninety

Nine and Seventy two paise) against the defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

Plaintiff is entitled to the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization on the outstanding amount Rs. 2,74,099­72 ps

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr­III, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court on this 12 th day of March, 2019.

( FAC) Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:None P.W.1 : Karumuri Srinivas

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff : 

Ex.A1 : Sanction order

Ex.A1 : Demand promissory note dt.02­04­2014 executed by Defendant No.1

Ex.A3 : Hypothecation Agreement dt.02­04­2014 executed by Defendant No.2

Ex.A4 : Guarantee Agreement dt.02­04­2014 executed by defendants 2 and 3

Ex.A5 : Statement of Account of the Defendant No.1.

For Defendant: Nil

FAC PJCJ,

Peddapuram

1 Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

PEDDAPURAM

PRESENT:G.VANI, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram

Tuesday, this the 12th day of March, 2019

O.S.No.142/2017

Between: State Bank of India, Jaggampeta, Represented by Its branch Manager. … Plaintif

And

Boddi Mangadevi … Defendant

This Suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 05-03-2019 in the presence of Sri Kothim Chanti Babu, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri M.Soma Raju, Advocate for Defendant, upon hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

JUDGMENT

This is a suit for passing of preliminary decree of mortgage for

Rs.50,740/- with subsequent interest and costs, for passing of personal decree against D1 & D2 for recovery of the balance amount if the mortgaged property is not sufficient to satisfy the decree debt, and for costs.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant approached the Plaintif bank for Agricultural Loan of

Rs.1,00,000/- under Kisan Gold Card for Agricultural Land Development on 25-01-2006. The plaintif Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant under Loan Account No.11500131057 for agricultural Land development of Ac.1-78½ cents which belongs to defendant. The defendant created equitable mortgage of defendant land by depositing the title deeds as collateral security for the said loan and executed Letter of confirmation on 07-10-2006 by creating Mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 05-10-2006 and handed over the connected documents to the Plaintif bank. Thereafter the plaintif bank was obtained the letter of arrangement from the defendant and sanctioned loan of Rs.1,00,000/- subsequent with 2 Fair

RBI interest. Subsequently, the defendant did not discharge the said amount and not follow the terms and conditions. Thereafter, the plaintif

Bank sent a legal notice even though the defendant received the notice but she did not discharge the amount. Hence, the suit is constrained by the plaintif.

3. On the other hand, the defendant received summons and filed detailed written statement denied all the plaint averments except that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the Bank of Rs.1,00,000/- and there is no cause of action and the value of suit is not correct, statement of

Bank account is not correct. The defendant never approached the plaintif

Bank and not borrowed any amount and the suit is barred by limitation.

Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the following issues are framed on 03-05-2018 by my predecessor.

i.Whether the plaintif is entitled to the preliminary decree of mortgage as prayed for?

ii.To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, the Branch Manager in-charge of Plaintif

Bank is examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked. On other hand the defendant not adduced any evidence either occural as well as documentary.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Issue No.1.

The plaintif counsel argued before the Court that the defendant approached the plaintif Bank and mortgaged the title deeds and obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and executed all the documents. Subsequently, the defendant did not discharge the said amount. Hence, plaintif constrained to file the suit.

8. On the other hand, the defendant argued before the Court that she never approached the plaintif Bank and not obtained any loan from the 3 Fair plaintif Bank and moreover the suit is liable to dismiss due to there is no limitation.

9. In this regard, the initial burden lies on plaintif so that the plaintif bank produced all the documents Ex.A1 to A7 and also examined Plaintif

Bank Manager as PW1. On careful perusal of Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.A7 is the registered gift deed which was mortgage by the defendant into the Bank.

So on careful perusal of entire documents, there is no doubt, the defendant obtained the loan on 05-10-2006 and the limitation is from 05-10-2006. The suit is filed in the year 2016, there is 10 years after mortgaged of Ex.A7. So as per the Article 61, the limitation period is 12 years. There is mortgaged loan was due and mortgaged the Ex.A7 on 05-10-2006 by defendant hence, the suit is filed in the year 2016 i.e., within 12 years.

10.No doubt, the defendant was received the amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif Bank. Subsequently, the defendant executed Ex.A1 to A5. Moreover the defendant also executed Ex.A5 i.e., letter of conformation in favour of the plaintif Bank. So according to Ex.A1 to A5 clearly and categorically reveals that the plaintif Bank sanction

Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of defendant and the same is reflected Ex.A6 i.e., Statement of account copy. So according to Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 clearly and categorically established with regard to the plaintif Bank sanction loan of

Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of defendant, no only documentary evidence but also supported to the oral evidence.

11. In this regard, on careful perusal of evidence of PW1, the PW1 evidence also supported the version of Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. So on combined study of evidence, the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are established with regard to the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif Bank and moreover the defendant cross examined PW1 but not elicited anything in his favour. Hence, the burden was shifted to defendant. In this regard, the defendant not came to the court, not adduced oral as well as documentary produced for establishing her 4 Fair contention. So whenever the defendant has not adduced rebuttal evidence against contention of the plaintif, automatically Section 118 of Negotiable

Act presumption goes in favour of the plaintif. Hence, the plaintif has clearly established with regarding to he is entitled to recover the debt from defendant and issue is answered in favour of the plaintif against the defendant.

11. Issue No.2

Therefore in the above foregoing discussion made supra in issue , the plaintif clearly established his contention through adducing occural as well as documentary proof at the same time, the defendant failed to establish her contention. Hence, plaintif is entitled in passing preliminary decree of mortgage in his favour. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintif against the defendant.

12. In the result, the suit is allowed passing a preliminary decree of mortgage for Rs.1,44,672/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand Six

Hundred and Seventy Two only) against defendant. The plaintif is entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the outstanding amount of Rs.1,44,672/-. Three months time is granted for redemption.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this 12 th day of March, 2019.

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif: For Defendant:None P.W.1 : Jagat Kumar Sahu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif : Ex.A1 : Loan Application dt.05-10-2006 Ex.A2 : Hypothecation Agreement dt.05-10-2006 5 Fair

Ex.A3 : Copy of Legal Notice dt.30-08-2016 Ex.A4 : Letter of Arrangement dt.05-10-2006 Ex.A5 : Letter of confirmation Ex.A6 : Statement of Account Ex.A7 : Registered Gift Deed dt.18-06-2005 For Defendant: Nil

FAC PJCJ,

Peddapuram

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTATE OF FIRST CLASS: KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. G. Vani, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada FAC of Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada.

Tuesday, the 21st day of July, 2020.

Original Suit No.260/2020

Between:

Pilli (Bandi) Manjupriya, W/o.Radhakrishna, 29 years, Housewife, D.No.3-85, Madhavapatnam,Village,

Kakinada Rural. .. Plaintiff.

AND

Pilli Radhakrishna, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, 36 years, Business, D.No.2-181, Madhavapatnam

Village, Kakinada Rural. .. Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Satya Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri N. Pattenna, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

01. This suit is filed by the plaintiff to grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant restraining him from ever performing ie., contracting second marriage and to grant costs of the suit and such other reliefs.

02. Both parties filed joint memo through e mail and Hard Copy same is allowed. Heard through Video link. Suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of July,

2020.

Sd/-G. Vani

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class(FAC), Kakinada.

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- G. Vani

PJCJ-cum-JMFC(FAC).

Plaint presented on 03-03-2020 Plaint filed on 04-03-2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTATE OF FIRST CLASS: KAKINADA.

Present: Kum. G. Vani, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada FAC of Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada.

Tuesday, the 21st day of July, 2020.

Original Suit No.260/2020

Between:

Pilli (Bandi) Manjupriya, W/o.Radhakrishna, 29 years, Housewife, D.No.3-85, Madhavapatnam,Village,

Kakinada Rural. .. Plaintiff.

AND

Pilli Radhakrishna, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, 36 years, Business, D.No.2-181, Madhavapatnam

Village, Kakinada Rural. .. Defendant.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff to grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant restraining him from ever performing ie., contracting second marriage and to grant costs of the suit and such other reliefs.

Value of the Suit:

As per Permanent injunction the value of the Suit is .. Rs.1,00,000/-

On such a Court fee of Rs.3,426/- is paid under Sec.26© of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 01.03.2020 when the plaintiff reliably learnt that because of the pressure exerted by his parents, the defendant is going to marry another girl belongs to Amalapuram on 14.03.2020 at Tirupathi, when all arrangement are being made for the marriage, on 02.03.2020 when the plaintiff gave report to the

Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District in Spandana besides copies of the report/complaint to other officials, at Madhavapatnam, Kakinada Rural where the defendant is residing within the jurisdiction of this court.

: 2 :

This suit is coming on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri K.

Satya Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri N. Pattenna,

Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court’s DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed; ii) that each party do bear their own costs;

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 21st day of July, 2020.

Sd/- G. Vani

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class(FAC), Kakinada.

No costs memo is filed on either side.

Sd/- G. Vani

PJCJ-cum-JMFC(FAC).