Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi

1

OS.No.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL.

MONDAY, THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024.

PRESENT:-SMT. GANTA KAVITHA DEVI, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

O.S. No. 80 of 2018

BETWEEN:-

State Bank of India, Gadwal Branch Rep. by its Branch Manager Sri Chinta Chandrasekhar Rao S/o. Subba Rao, Age: 50 years, Occ: Branch Managar, R/o. Gadwal.

…Plaintiff. AND

Smt. T. Aruna W/o. T. Veera Reddy, Age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gorlakhandoddi Villlage of Gattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

…Defendant.

Claim:- Suit for recovery of amount of Rs.4,76,409/- on the basis of the Suit Schedule Property.

***

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 09-09-2024 in the presence of SRI T. MANOHAR,Advocate for the plaintiff and of

M/s. PUJARI SRIDHAR, Advocate for the defendant and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 2

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

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff Under Order VII Rule 1 and 2 U/Sec.

26 of CPC.

2. The plaintiff-bank submits being in need of financial assistance for the purpose of ATL Horticulture loan the defendant approached the plaintiff- bank seeking a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- for which the plaintiff-bank agreed to finance her by opening her loan account No. 30111911506. The interest was stipulated at the rate of Rs. 10.25% p.a. with subject to revision from time to time changes. The defendant mortgaged the land bearing Sy. No.

33/AA extent of Ac. 0.29 gts., and Sy. No. 34/AA extent of Ac. 5-01 gts., total extent of Ac. 5-30 gts., situated in the limits of Gorlakhandoddi Village of Gattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District in favour of the plaintiff-bank by executing the Reg. Mortgage Deed Doc. No. 6547/2006, dated 22-12- 2006 towards the security of loan amount. The defendant also executed a deed of Hypothecation Agreement dated 10-01-2007, Application form for

Agricultural credit, Deed of Agreement in favour of the plaintiff-bank towards the security of the loan amount. The defendant also deposited her ownership passbook in favour of the plaintiff-bank towards the security of the loan amount.

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 3

3. The defendant has failed to repay the loan amount as per the Terms and conditions of the agreements, although the plaintiff-bank demanded in several times. The defendant failed to repay the loan amount, the plaintiff- bank caused to file present suit for recovery amount of Rs.4,76,409/- with accrued interest. These are the matters of inducement in this suit.

4. The plaintiff-bank claim, Rs.4,76,409/- from the defendant as on 10- 01-2007 in her account No.30111911506 by sale of Mortgage property of land bearing Sy.No.33/AA extent of Ac.0-29gts, and Sy.No.34/AA extent of

Ac.5-01gts total extent of Ac.5-30 gts situated in the limits of

Gorlakhandoddi village of Gattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District as per the terms of Agreements and documents executed by the defendant and statement of Account maintained by the Plaintiff-bank.

5. The cause of action in this suit arose at Gadwal on 22-12-2006 and also on all dates of payment of amount to the defendant and is still continuing.

6. The plaintiff-bank is situated in Gadwal and the loan transaction by the defendant transpired at here, as such the Hon’ble Court has proper forum to try the present suit.

7. The plaintiff-bank therefore prayed for a decree for Rs.4,76,409/- against the defendant. With future interest within a specified period. On failure of payment, to pass a final decree for sale of Mortgage of property

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 4

land bearing Sy.No.33/AA extent of Ac.0-29gts and Sy.No.34/AA extent of

Ac.5-01gts total extent of Ac.5-30gts., situated in the limits of

Gorlakhandoddi village, Gattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District for the realization of the decretal amount.

8. In case the proceeds of sale are found to be insufficient to reimburse the plaintiff-bank, then that liberty be reserved to the plaintiff-bank apply for an order for the balance.

9. Any other efficious relief may be granted to the plaintiff-bank in the circumstance of the suit, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit.

10. The defendant filed written statement and stated that, the suit of the plaintiff is neither just nor sustainable either on law or facts and it is fit to be dismissal.

11. It is further submitted that the defendant approached the plaintiff-bank seeking a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- being in need of financial assistance for the purpose of ATL-Horticulture loan for which plaintiff-bank agreed with her by opening her loan account no.30111911506. The interest was stipulated at the rate of Rs.10.25% per annum with subject to revision from time to time changes. The Defendant mortgaging the land bearing Sy.No.33/AA extent of Ac.0-29gts, and Sy.No.34/AA extent of Ac.5-01gts, total extent of Ac.5- 30gts situated in the limits of Gorlakhandoddi village of Gattu Mandal,

Jogulamba Gadwal District in favour of the plaintiff-bank by executing the

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 5

Regd. Mortgage deed doc.No.6547/2006, dated 22-12-2006 towards the security of loan amount. But the plaintiff-bank rejected loan of defendant due to non-compliance with required documents as per the SBI-

PROVISIONS for Horticultural loan. Therefore, the defendant never received the loan amount from the plaintiff on dated 22-12-2006.

12. It is further submitted that the plaintiff-bank failed to cancel the mortgage deed due to non-compliance with required documents as per SBI guidelines where, the defendant deposited the security for loan amount i.e.,

Sy.No.33/AA extent of Ac.0-29gts, and Sy.No.34/AA extent of Ac.5-01gts, total extent of Ac.5-30gts situated in the limits of Gorlakhandoddi village,

Gattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

13. It is further denied that the defendant also executed a deed of

Hypothecation Agreement dated 10-01-2007, Application form for

Agriculture Credit, Deed of agreement in favour of the Plaintiff-Bank towards the security of the loan amount. The defendant also deposited her ownership passbook in favour of the plaintiff towards the security of the loan amount.

14. It is further submitted that, Plaintiff-bank obtained the Defendant signatures on said agreements and applications on 22-12-2006 while the defendant requested for Horticultural Loan. After the rejection of the loan by

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 6

the plaintiff-bank need to kept aside of the said documents. But the Plaintiff- bank took the advantage of empty blank Defendant’s signature and filed the details in the respective forms and agreements according to Plaintiff-Bank covet in the absence of Defendant. Subsequently, the Plaintiff-bank mismanaged and exercised irregularity with regard to series of transactions of amount which himself made all the Statement of accounts in the name of the Defendant. Therefore, the fraudulently created all the documents and filed before the Hon’ble Court which is a Bank fraud and misconduct by the plaintiff-bank. Hence, the suit is said to be dismissed.

15. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by this court on 30-07-2019:-

1. Whether the defendant received loan amount from plaintiff-bank on 22- 12-2006?

2. Whether the defendant No. 1 executed hypothecation agreement,

dated 10-01-2007?

3. Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to execution of the suit?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant?

5. If so, to what relief?

16. To substantiate his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11.

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 7

17. Defendant examined as Dw1 and Dw2 no documents filed on behalf of defendant.

Heard both the sides. Perused the entire record. Placed before the

Court. Inspite of their oral arguments, Defendant counsel relied on the

Written Arguments.

ISSUE NO: 1, 2 & 4:-

1. Whether the defendant received loan amount from plaintiff-bank on 22-12-2006?

2. Whether the defendant No. 1 executed hypothecation agreement, dated 10- 01-2007?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant?

18. The plaintiff is the bank. The present manager Mr. Maheshwar Reddy has examined as Pw.1 who reiterated the contents of his plaint in his chief examination affidavit. During the course of his cross examination he admitted that at the time of sanction of loan to the defendant he was not present and he does not have personal knowledge about the sanction of loan. But being an authorized person he is representing the matter on behalf of the bank they collected mortgage deed from the customer and subsequently on her execution of hypothecation agreement and deed of agreement they sanctioned loan. Further he admitted that he did not make any personal enquiry regarding the identification of the customer/defendant in the present case. Further he admitted that as per RBI guidelines the rate

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 8

of interest for crop loan is below Rs. 10%, but he denied that the defendant obtained crop loan but not horticulture loan. Crop loan is meant for 12 to 18 months whereas horticulture loan is depending upon the type of crop and approximately it is more than three years. Further admitted that the plaintiff- bank mentioned year of due for repayment but not mentioned due date and month. The document was sent for franking/stamping on 22-12-2006 but it was executed in the bank on 10-01-2007. Further he denied that as per RBI guidelines after execution of the document before the bank then only it will be stamped in the registration office. Further he denied that the necessity of third party witness and he volunteers that when the loan agreement is entered by an illiterate then only they secure another person who known to the customer. Further he denied that initially they rejected the loan application without granting loan to the defendant subsequently they claiming due amounts basing on the Ex. A2 to A4 with fraudulent intention.

19. Further admitted that Ex. A7 to A11 are in the custody of the bank/plaintiff and failed to file those documents at the time of filing of the suit. Further admitted that they did not collected signature of the defendant on Ex. A7 and A8 being the purchaser of the drip irrigation from Jala Bindu and Ex. A9 to A11 do not contains stamp and seal of the company. Then the witness volunteers those documents or letter head documents and having signatures of the authorized person and also admitted that the

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 9

plaintiff mentioned in Ex. A6 as third party cheque advance but they did not mention the said cheques issued neither on the name of the Jala Bindu nor in the name of Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Electricals. Further they denied they have created Ex. A7 to A11 in the present case though the defendant is no way concerned with those documents.

20. On the other hand the defendant examined as Dw.1. She is also reiterated the contents of her written statement in the chief examination affidavit. During the course of her cross examination she admitted that her family had an extent of 15.00 acres subsequently, she received an extent of 4.00 acres of land and also admitted that in the suit schedule property one bore well is there and Ex. A5 which is title deed of pattadar pass book has been handed over by the Dw.1 to the plaintiff-bank for acquiring loan. She denied her signature on Ex. A1 and admitted her photographs. She denied they execution of Ex. A1 to A4 at the time of obtaining loan and deposit of

Ex.A5.

21. In support of the defendant evidence, her husband Veerareddy examined as Dw.2. Who is also reiterated the contents written statement of

Pw1 in his chief examination affidavit. During the course of his examination he clearly admitted that Ex. A2 bears his wife photographs and the signatures appearing on Ex. A2 belongs to his wife and him. Further he

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 10

admitted that he did not file any requisition before the bank authority for return of documents and so also he did not issue any demand notice in writing to the bank for return of documents as well as stoppage of loan and so also they did not file any suit against the bank for cancellation of Ex. A2 i.e., registered document No. 6547/2006 as well as for return of documents.

This is the evidence of available on the record from both the sides.

22. On perusal of the exhibits filed by the Pw.1 i.e., Ex.A1 to A6 are the original application form for obtaining loan by the defendant, original registered mortgage deed, hypothecation agreement, original deed of agreement of loan and title deeds of the defendants and the bank statement of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff-bank filed Interlocutory Application for receiving of further documents and the said petition was allowed by this court. Thereafter, they filed further chief examination affidavit of Pw1 and got marked Ex. A7 to A11. Ex. A7 and A9 marked subject to objection raised by the defendant. Ex. A7 is the purchase order, Ex. A9 is the original bill issued by the Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Electricals sales and service

Dharoor Village, dated 09-01-2007. The main contentions of the defendant counsel is that Ex. A7 to A11 are in the custody of the bank i.e., the plaintiff, and the bank failed to file those documents along with the suit at initial stage. Further contended that, the Ex. A7 and A8 does not contain the date of the purchase order. As such those documents are created one and the

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 11

defendant is no way concerned with those documents. Further he argued that as per Ex. A1 is an application for loan dated 01-01-2007, then how defendant will executed mortgage deed on 22-12-2006 in security of loan amount before defendant made an application to alleged loan dated 10-01- 2007. On perusal of the Ex.A2 she made an application on 10-01-2007. The mortgage deed executed on 22-12-2006 but Ex. A1 made for application form for agricultural credit it is one time or whenever there is a change but as per Ex. A2 it is AGR (Adjusted Gross Revenue) term loans at the rate of

Rs.10.25% interest.

23. Coming to the Ex.A3 the loan agreement was signed by the defendant on 10-01-2007 but the same was stamped by 22-12-2006. Ex.

A4 does not contain the date. These objections raised by the defendant counsel, but as per the version of the Pw.1 they collected the mortgage deed from the customer and subsequently on execution of hypothecation of agreement and deed of agreement they sanctioned loan. As per Ex. A7 to

A11 those are the bills pertaining to the Jala Bindu drip irrigation which was issued in the name of the defendant. As per the evidence of Dw.1 she admitted that the bore well in her land and Dw.2 also supported by way of admitting his signatures and signatures of Dw.1 on the loan documents.

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 12

24. Moreover, the plaintiff did not take any steps to take back their original documents from the possession of the bank. It is admitted fact by the Dw.1 and Dw.2 that they approached the plaintiff-bank for obtaining loan but they denied the sanction of loan by the plaintiff-bank. If it is so, what hurdles count to the way of defendant to collect their documents and why the defendant failed to take steps for taking back their documents, of course it is a mandatory rule of the banks they will pay the loan amounts directly to the partly from whom. The bank customer purchased the house or machinery or vehicles. In the present case in hand also the plaintiff-bank made payments to the company on the name of the defendant. If, the defendant did not take loan she has to establish the non fixes of bore well as well as drip irrigation in her land she did not file any photographs of the said land before this court to establish that non fixation of drip irrigation in her fields. Dw.2 who is the husband of the Dw.1 clearly admitted their signatures on Ex. A1 and A2 and so also photographs of the Dw.1. It is gives strength to the evidence of Pw1 to establish that the plaintiff-bank made payment to the company on behalf of the defendant No. 1. In the above said circumstances the plaintiff established its case by placing documentary evidence as well as oral evidence. Hence, the issues are answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 13

ISSUE NO.4:-

4. Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to execution of the suit?

25. At the time of filing suit by the plaintiff this court got pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. So, the subsequent amendment does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, the issues No. 4 is answered against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.5: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs. 4, 76,409/- (Rupees

Four Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Four Hundred and Nine only) with costs and interest at the rate of 10.25% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter future interest at 6% per annum on the

principal amount of Rs. 2, 00,000/- till the date of realization.

Dictation to the Steno and typed by him and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30th day of September, 2024.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

OS. NO.80 of 2018 Dt.30-09-2024 14

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

Pw.1 Maheshwar Reddy Dw.1 Smt. T. Aruna Dw.2 Veera Redy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the Original Application form for Agriculture Credit,

Ex. A2 is the Original Regd. Mortgage Deed No. 6547/2006,

Ex. A3 is the Original Hypothecation Agreement, dated 10-01-2007,

Ex. A4 is the Original Deed of Agreement of loan,

Ex. A5 is the Ownership pass book No. W 855176,

Ex. A6 is the Statement of Account.

Ex.A7 is the Purchase order (marked an objection subject to condition),

Ex. A8 is the Purchase order (marked an objection subject to condition),

Ex. A9 is the Original bill issued by Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Electricals Sales and service, Dharoor Village, dated 09-01-2007,

Ex. A10 is the Original bill issued by Jala Bindu Drip Irrigation, Jalagaon,

dated 09-01-2007,

Ex. A11 is the Original bill issued by Jala Bindu Drip Irrigation, Jalagaon,

dated 09-01-2007.

DEFENDANT: -Nil-

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Gadwal.

1

HMOP NO. 15 OF 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AT JOGULAMBA GADWAL

PRESENT:- SMT. KAVITHA DEVI GANTA (M.Com, LLM)

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GADWAL.

FAC ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

HMOP.No. 15 of 2024

BETWEEN:-

Gouni Beesireddy S/o Gouni Venkat Reddy, Age: 37years, Occu: Agriculture R/o Duvasipally Villege presently residing at Erravalli village of Erravalli Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal Dist. ……. Petitioner

AND

Smt.Gouni Saritha @ Bheemeswari W/o Gouni Beesireddy, D/o Eltooru Maddilati, Age: 32 years, Occu: Tailor, R/o Yakthapur Village, presently residing at Shiva Gardens C/o Poola Pedda Madhu, Kothakota Village and mandal, Wanaparthi District.

….… Respondent.

This petition is coming before me today i.e. 13-08-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S. Suresh counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, was set-exparte, upon the material papers available on record and upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

2

HMOP NO. 15 OF 2024

: : O R D E R : :

1. This is an application filed U/Sec.13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 by the petitioner for decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage was solemnized on 06-05-2009 of the petitioner with respondent at Duvasipally village, according to Hindu rites and customs.

2. The averments of the petition in Nut shell as follows:-

3. It is submitted by the petitioner after their marriage the respondent lived happily with the petitioner at his house at Duvasipally. During their wedlock they were blessed with one daughter and son by name Gouni

Kavya and Gouni Rithvik. Later on they shifted to Eravally village and built new house in the year 2020 with the fund of petitioner and his parents in the name of respondent and all are started residing at new house. The petitioner puts the respondent in a pleasant atmosphere towards love and affection but she developed illegal intimacy with one Poola Pedda Madhu and frequently chatting with him a mobile, in this regard the Respondent started quarrelling with petitioner and several panchayats held before the local elders but she refused to live with the petitioner.

3

HMOP NO. 15 OF 2024

4. The respondent has left the society of the petitioner nearly about more than 2 years back and left to her parent’s house without consent of the petitioner. The petitioner, his parents and the elders of the locality went to the respondent’s parent’s house at Yakthapur village and brought her back to the society of the petitioner. After that she most hardly lived happily only for a period of one month and quarreled with rude manner and with cruel behavior and again left the society of the petitioner without the consent of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner further submitted that the respondent neglected the petitioner and ill-treated him and shown disrespect towards him. She has treated the petitioner with such cruelty and as he apprehends that it will be harmful and injurious for him to live with her. The petitioner is of the opinion that she is not at all interested to live with him. Being a moral binding citizen the petitioner has tolerated all her acts so far. Now he lost patience towards her adamant character. The petitioner has made several requests to the respondent to change her attitude and her desertion, but in vain.

4

HMOP NO. 15 OF 2024

6. It is submitted that by the petitioner in the year 2019 the petitioner transferred his self acquired property i.e., plot No.192 situated at Erravali

Village in favour of respondent towards love and affection on her. Later on they obtained permission at Gram Panchayath, Erravalli and built new house and started residing at new house. The plot No.192 is in her name by taking advantage of that the respondent started blackmailing the petitioner stating that she will sell the said house to third party. Several negotiations happened regarding the same, wherein she demanded money towards her permanent alimony in exchange of transfer of said plot.

Accepting the demands of the Respondent the petitioner father gave

Rs.13,76,000/- in the shape of cash and on 24-07-2023 the respondent execute sale deed in favour of father of the petitioner by name Gouni

Venkat Reddy after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.13,76,000/- and executed document vide No.7890/2023 and took her daughter Gouni

Kavya with her and residing at Kothakota.

7. It is further submitted that, the petitioner gave land of Ac.0-30 gts to his both children towards their livelihood and same is not implemented in revenue records. Additional to that the petitioner paid Rs.13,76,000/- in the shape of cash to the Respondent as permanent alimony and the 5

HMOP NO. 15 OF 2024

petitioner has made several requests to the Respondent to come to the society of the petitioner. But the Respondent refused and started to live with the said Poola Pedda Madhu. Having no other alternative, he has approached the court and filed petition for granting divorce in his favour and against the respondent by way of dissolution of their marriage.

Hence prayed to order for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent by decree of divorce.

8. On the other hand notices were issued to the respondent through court and registered post and notices were served on respondent through court and registered post. Inspite of receiving notices also the respondent did not turn to court. On that the respondent was set as exparte on 12-07- 2024.

During the trial the petitioner himself got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

9. Heard the petitioner arguments.

10. Now the point for consideration is:-

i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for an order of divorce, as prayed for?

ii) If so to what relief?

6

HMOP NO. 15 OF 2024

POINT:-

11. It is the case of the petitioner that he got married the Respondent on 06-05-2009 at his house at Duvasipally. During their wedlock they blessed with one daughter and son by name Gouni Kavya and Gouni Rithvik. Later on they shifted to Eravally village and built a new house in the year 2020 and all are started residing at new house. The petitioner further stated that he put the respondent in a pleasant atmosphere towards love and affection but she developed illegal intimacy with one Poola Pedda Madhu and frequently chatting with him in mobile, in this regard the Respondent started quarrelling with petitioner and several panchayats held before the locality elders but refused to live with the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent started harassment towards the petitioner and from the beginning the respondent had no interest to lead marital life with the petitioner. The respondent has left the society of the petitioner near about more than 2 years back and went to her parent’s house without consent of the petitioner. The petitioner, his parents and the elders of the locality went to the respondent’s parent’s house at Yakthapur village and brought her back to the society of the petitioner. After that she most hardly lived happy for a period of one month and quarreled with rude manner and with cruel behavior and again left the society of the petitioner without the 7

HMOP NO. 15 OF 2024

consent of the petitioner. It is submitted that, in the year 2019 the petitioner transferred his self acquired property i.e., plot No.192 situated at Erravali Village in favour of respondent towards love and affection on her. Later on they obtained permission at Gram Panchayath, Erravalli and built new house and started residing at new house. As the plot No.192 is in her name, by taking advantage of that she started blackmailing the petitioner stating that she will sell the said house to third party. Several negotiations happened regarding the same, wherein she demanded money towards her permanent alimony in exchange of transfer of said plot.

Accepting the demands of the Respondent, the petitioner father gave

Rs.13,76,000/- in the shape of cash and on 24-07-2023 to the respondent executed sale deed in favour of father of the petitioner by name Gouni

Venkat Reddy after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.13,76,000/- and executed document vide No.7890/2023 and took her daughter Gouni

Kavya with her and residing at Kothakota. Since then she is not turn up to the petitioner on that the petitioner locked the doors of court for relief this court issued notice to the report through court and register post. The notice served on respondent in person.

8

HMOP NO. 15 OF 2024

12. As the respondent failed to appear before the court even after receiving notices through court and registered post also and did not choose to file any counter. Then she was set as exparte and the matter posted for pet evidence. The petitioner he himself got examined as PW1 In support of petitioner evidence Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 got marked which established that the marriage was took place between petitioner and respondent on 16-05- 2021. Further the petitioner placed the evidence of Banala Gopal who is third party and well known to the petitioner and responded examined as

PW2. Who supported the evidence of Pw.1.

13. As could be seen from the evidence on record as there is no circumstances for re-union of the couple. Further this court observed that the respondent did not turn up to court to file her counter and to defend her case on receipt of the notices from the court. It seems that the respondent has no interest to proceed with the petitioner in marital life.

Respondent must choose to contest the case by way of her appearance

before the court and place defence evidence. But respondent did not come

forward Hence this court strongly believe that the petitioner is intentionally avoided to attend the court proceedings on receipt of notices. Hence this court inclined to allow the present petition.

9

HMOP NO. 15 OF 2024

In the result, the petition is allowed without costs. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent held on 06-05-2009 is hereby dissolved from this day i.e. on 23-08-2024 by way of a court decree.

U/Sec.13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, correct and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of August, 2024.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC.ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Petitioners For Respondent.

PW1 Gouni Beesi Reddy None PW2 Banala Gopal

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioners For Respondent

Ex.P1 Wedding Card - Nil - Ex.P2 Marriage Photos Ex.P3 Aadhar card of petitioner (Compared with original and after marking returned the same to the witness) Ex.P4 Aadhar card of Respondent. (Compared with original and after marking returned the same to the witness)

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC.ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL

O.S.NO. 11 OF 2022 Dated: 03-09-2024

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL

TUESDAY, THIS THE 03rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

PRESENT: Smt. GANTA KAVITHA DEVI,

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

JOGULAMBA GADWAL.

O.S.NO. 11 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Savitri Bai Gangapa, Age: 50 years, Proprietor of Sree Madhava Creations, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 6-3-9 Gadwal Town, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

…Plaintiff.

AND

Buddu Sathyanarayana, Age: Major proprietor of Sri Srinivasa Hyderabad. Occ: Business, R/o 8-3-1060/B4, Sagar Society, Sri Nagar Colony, Arora Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

…Defendant.

Claim:- Suit for recovery of amount of Rs.30,66,510 /-.

***

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 30-08-2024 in the presence of

M/s. PUJARI SREEDHAR, Advocate for the plaintiff and Defendant was set- expate and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Court, FAC Addl. SCJ Court, Gadwal

O.S.NO. 11 OF 2022 Dated: 03-09-2024

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

1. This suit is filed under Order XXXVII Rule 1 & 2 CPC R/w Sec. 26 of

CPC by the sole plaintiff seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,66,510/-with interest and costs against the defendant.

2. That, the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other on 01-08-2021 in the month of August the Defendant had made an offer in purchasing the Handloom Sarees from the plaintiff and as per agreement happened between Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff agreed to sell the handloom Sarees for the total consideration of amount of

Rs.20,65,035/-.Out of total consideration of amount Rs. 20,66,510/-

Defendant have attempted to make part consideration on i.) 12-11-2021 through issuing a cheque having cheque number 000013 through Account

Number 1045533980 of Rs 58,344/-, again on ii)15-11-2021 through cheque number 000003 of Rs 1,50,000/-, Later on iii) 05-11-2021 through cheque number 000004 of Rs 1,50,000/- finally again on iv) 26-11-2021 through cheque number 000047 of Rs 2,00,000/- and all cheques issued through Kotak Mahindra Bank, of Srinagar Colony of Hyderabad Branch.

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Court, FAC Addl. SCJ Court, Gadwal

O.S.NO. 11 OF 2022 Dated: 03-09-2024

3

3. The Plaintiff further submits that, however on, i.) 22-12-2021 the cheque No. 000013 which was issued on 12-11-2021 was returned due to irregularly dawn amount in words and figures differ, ii) the cheque No.

000003 which was issued on 15-11-2021 was returned due to Funds insufficiency, iii) Later the cheque No.000004 which was issued on 05-11- 2021 was returned due Funds insufficiency, iv) The cheque No.000047 which was issued on 26-11-2021 was returned due to payment stopped by drawer (Defendant), here this clearly shows how the Defendant has deliberately failed to pay part consideration of total amount Rs. 5,58,344/- out of Rs 20,65,035/- to the Plaintiff.

4. The Plaintiff further submits that, on complying the legal duty to the transaction happened between Plaintiff and Defendant through Invoice

No. AU11/2021-2022, AU15/2021-22, AU19/2021-22, SP 16/2021-22,

SP17/2021-22, Plaintiff paid every central and state taxes, but however only with malafide intention in order to avoid further payment to Plaintiff,

Defendant had Suspended his GST which is effective from 24-08-2021, this clearly shows how Defendant have committed breach of contract and their malafide intention to commit cheat to avoid total consideration of agreed amount of Rs 20,66,510/- including the return charges

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Court, FAC Addl. SCJ Court, Gadwal

O.S.NO. 11 OF 2022 Dated: 03-09-2024

4 590+590+295. But the defendant failed to repay neither interest nor

principal amount even after several demands made by the plaintiff.

5. The cause of action arosed on 01-08- 2021, when the Defendant purchased the handloom sarees from the Plaintiff and as per the agreement when the plaintiff agreed to sell set of handloom sarees on 01- 08-2021,23-08-2021, 16-09-2021 and on 27-12-2021 when the Plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his counsel to Defendant calling upon the defendant to repay the amount and same till today Defendant haven't replied to the legal notice and still continues. Hence the suit.

6. Upon registering the suit, this court issued summons to the defendant and summons returned stating that the defendant left the village then the plaintiff filed petition U/order V rule 20 for seeking substitute service of summons to the defendant through paper publication. On that this court ordered for publication in Eenadu Telugu daily news paper basing on the said order, the publication got issued on 08-03-2024 in Eenadu Telugu daily news paper but inspite of giving publication also the defendant did not turn up to Court. Hence the defendant was set-exparte on 08-04-2024 and the matter posted for plaintiff’s exparte evidence.

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Court, FAC Addl. SCJ Court, Gadwal

O.S.NO. 11 OF 2022 Dated: 03-09-2024

5

7. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as Pw1 and Pw2 and in support of his evidence and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A13.

8. Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

9. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit Claim as prayed for or not?

10. POINT:-

PW1 who is the plaintiff filed her chief examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint. Through her Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 marked. Ex.A1 is the legal notice dated 10.02.2021. It shows that the defendant purchased handloom sarees from the plaintiff and Ex.A3 to

A7 are the bill vouchers and he is due of an amount of Rs.

20,65,035/-. On perusal of Ex.A1, it is appearing that the defendant failed to pay the amount of Rs. 20, 65,035/- to the plaintiff on his credit purchase.

11. As the defendant left from the given address this court ordered for substitute summons. He did not turn up to the on that publication issued in the daily news paper even after court to contest the matter

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Court, FAC Addl. SCJ Court, Gadwal

O.S.NO. 11 OF 2022 Dated: 03-09-2024

6 by way of filing written statement. Therefore the defendant is aware of suit filed by the plaintiff. The evidence of PW1 goes unrebutted and so also oral evidence of Pw1 corroborated with the documentary evidence. Therefore suit claim is proved. The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim from defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12. In the result, the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs. 30,66,510/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Ten only) with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter future interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 20, 66,510/- till the date of realization.

Dictation to the Steno and typed by him and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 03rd day of September, 2024.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Court, FAC Addl. SCJ Court, Gadwal

O.S.NO. 11 OF 2022 Dated: 03-09-2024

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

Pw.1 Savitri Bai Ganapa. Set Exparte Pw.2 P. Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1 is Legal Notice, dated 10-02-2021 Ex.A2 is Postal receipt, dated 04-08-2021 Ex. A3 is Receipt Vr. No. AU11/2021-22 for Rs. 4,19,685, Ex. A4 is Receipt Vr. No. AU15/2021-22 for Rs. 4,29,030, Ex. A5 is Receipt Vr. No. AU19/2021-22 for Rs. 2,04,646, Ex. A6 is Receipt Vr. No. AU16/2021-22 for Rs. 4,99,485, Ex.A7 is Receipt Vr. No. SP17/2021-22 for Rs. 5,12,190, Ex. A8 is Cheque No. 000013 for Rs.58,344/- of Kotak Mahindra Bank of Srinagar Colony of Hyderabad, Dated: 12-11-2021, Ex. A9 is Cheque No. 000003 for Rs.1,50,000/- of Kotak Mahindra Bank of Srinagar Colony of Hyderabad, Dated: 15-11-2021, Ex. A10 is Cheque No. 000004 for Rs.1,50,000/- of Kotak Mahindra Bank of Srinagar Colony of Hyderabad, Dated: 05-11-2021, Ex. A11 is Cheque No. 000047 for Rs.2,00,000/- of Kotak Mahindra Bank of Srinagar Colony of Hyderabad, Dated: 26-11-2021, Ex. A12 is Form GSTR/3B, dated 19-10-2021, Ex.A13 is Returned Postal cover, dated 22-12-2021.

DEFENDANT:- -Nil-

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

Smt. Ganta Kavitha Devi, Prl. SCJ, Court, FAC Addl. SCJ Court, Gadwal

Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL.

DATED THIS THE 4th DAY AUGUST OF 2022

PRESENT:- Smt. Kavitha Devi Ganta, (M.Com, LLM)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GADWAL.

EP. No. 14 OF 2019

IN

OS No. 158 OF 2017

Between:-

K.Yadagiri S/o K.Balaswamy age: 58 years R/o D.No.1-4-218 Bheem Nagar, Gadwal Town, Jogulamba Gadwal District. …Petitioner/D.Hr.

And

A.H.S.V.Prasad S/o A.Appa Rao (Late) Represented by its Joint Managing Director AGRI-Gold Farm States, India Pvt.Limited. …Respondent/JDrs.

This Petition coming before me for final hearing on 20-07-2022 in the presence of

Sri. R.Raghuram Reddy Advocate for the Petitioner/D.Hr. and Respondents/JDrs set ex- parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed Under Order 21 Rule-35(1) of CPC for delivery of possession of EP schedule property to the Decree-holder.

2. The decree-holder filed affidavit along with EP herein stated that the Hon’ble

Court was pleased to decree the suit filed by me against the Judgment debtor/Defendant in OS.No.158 of 2017 and decree was passed on 18-12-2018, even though the Judgment debtor failed to vacate the EP. Schedule property i.e., the house bearing No.1-4-218 (First

Floor) to an extent of 2000 square yards, situated in the limits of Bheem Nagar street of - 2 -

Gadwal town, Jogulamba Gadwal district. Further he submitted the said house is in dilapidated condition if the said house collapsed it is every possibility of causing danger to the by-passer, as such it is just and necessary to immediately evict the Judgment/debtor from the E.P. Schedule Property. Hence, He has no option except to approach the

Hon’ble court for evict the Judgment debtor from the EP. Schedule property to recover

the vacant possession to me and filed the above EP.

It is therefore prayed to deliver the possession of scheduled property to the petitioner.

This court issued notice to the JDr but the notices were not served to the Judgment debtor. Hence this court permitted the DHr to issue publication vide EA.No.468/2020 in

Eanadu Daily Telugu News Paper. As per the directions of this court the DHr issued notices to the JDr on 25-11-2021 in Eenadu Telugu Daily News paper. Even after also the JDr did not turn to court. Hence the JDr was set exparte on 05-01-2021.

3. On behalf of DHr. DHr himself examined as PW1.

5. Heard counsel for DHr.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the decree holder is entitled for recovery of possession.?

7. POINT:-The decree holder herein is examined as PW1 and he deposed that the decree was passed on 18-12-2018 in OS.No.158 of 2017 in his favour even though the

Judgment debtor failed to vacate the EP. Schedule property i.e., the house bearing No.1- 4-218 (First Floor) to an extent of 2000 square yards, situated in the limits of Bheem

Nagar street of Gadwal town, Jogulamba Gadwal district. Further he submitted the said house is in dilapidated condition if the said house collapsed it is every possibility of causing danger to the by-passer, as such it is just and necessary to immediately evict the

Judgment/debtor from the E.P. Schedule Property.

EP. No. 14 OF 2019

IN - 3 -

OS No. 158 OF 2017

The evidence of PW1 discloses that the judgment debtor has to deliver the petition scheduled property, and he failed to obey the Court Decree. Hence the decree holder is entitled for recovery of possession of EP schedule property through process of court.

Accordingly the point is answered.

8. In the result Execution Petition is allowed, with costs. Issue warrant for delivery of possession for putting the decree holder in possession of E.P. schedule property on payment of process. Call on 05-09-2022.

Dictated to the Typist typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, this the 4th day of August, 2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

DECREE HOLDER JUDGMENT DEBTORS

PW1.Yadagiri -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A1 is Decree Copy

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

TSJG010000832024

Presented on : 06-05-2024 Registered on : 06-05-2024 Decided on : 27-08-2024 Duration : 0 years, 3 months, 21 days

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge AT GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Presided Over by Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi

H.M.O.P/41/2024

Exhibit No.:

: Smt. Parnika @ Roja Rani Age: 29 Occupation : Address: Occ. House wife, R/o. Mylagadda Village of K.T. Doddi Mandal. Now present R/o. H.No.11- 14, Chintalapet, Gadwal Town Jogulamba Gadwal District.

VERSUS : G. Naresh Yadav @ G. Naresh Age: 37 Occupation : Address: Occ. Govt. Teacher R/o. 131, Mylagadda Village of K.T. Doddi Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Sri K. Narsimhulu Advocate for : appearing for G. Naresh Yadav @ G. Naresh: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 27-08-2024 )

ORDER

Petitioner is called present. Respondent is called absent. Petition U/R 108 (2) CRP filed and allowed. The case is advanced from 11-09-2024 to this day. Counsil for petitioner reported that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with case and she intend to not press the petition. Heard, perused the memo the petitioner is permitted to not press the petition. Hence the council for the petitioner endorsed that the petition is not pressed with the consent of the petitioner. Hence the petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Date : 27-08-2024 (Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi)

Senior Civil Judge

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS