Guduri Harsha Vardhan

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PEDDAPURAMRATHIPADU 

Present: Sri G.Harshavardhan, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

Tuesday, the 21st day of February, 2023

O.S. N O .249/2022

Between :

Vara Kantham, W/o Chinnayya, Age: 56 years, Housewife, Resident of D.No.3­12, water tank street, Oduru village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Ramachandrapuram J.C.J.C … Plaintiff

And

Vadlapati Viswas, S/o Musalayya, Age: 4 8years, Cultivation, Resident of Rayabhupalapatnam village, Peddapura mMandal, Peddapuram J.C.J.C. … Defendant

This Suit, coming on 06.02.2023, for Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri S.Narasimharao and Sri M.Sarveswararao, Advocates for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant has been set Ex­parte, for his failure, to appear before the Court, inspite of Service of Suit Summons on him and also written statement not filed on his behalf; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :­

J U D G M E N T 

This is a Suit filed by the plaintiff to declare the Plaintiff’s title over the

Plaint Schedule Property and consequently recover the possession of the same to Plaintiff on ejecting the Defendant there from; granting mesne profits of

Rs.1,000/­ for the year 2020­2021; future profits at Rs.1,000/­ per year till deliver the possession of the Plaint Schedule Property to Plaintiff and costs against the Defendant. 

2.The brief averments of the plaintiff are that one Vadlapati Abaddham who is the father of the plaintiff, and his brother, Vadlapati Nereyya jointly purchased the property to an extent of Ac.1.79 cents in Northern side out of

Ac.2.78 cents in full covered under Survey No.269/6 of Rayabhupalapatnam from one Nallala VeeraVenkata Satyanarayana under a Registered sale deed, 2

dated 22­04­1972. Subsequently, the said Vadlapati Abaddam and Vadlapati

Nereyya orally partitioned along with their other properties and in the said partition, the entire extent of Ac.1.79 cents fell to the share of Vadlapati

Abaddam. Subsequently, the extent of Ac.2.78 cent survey No.269./6 was subdivided as Ac.1.74 cents in 269/6A and the remaining extent of Ac.1.04 cents in 269/6B. After sub division of Survey No.269/6, the full extent of

Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.269/6A and an extent of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6B belonging to Vadlapati Abaddam. The

Government also issued Pattadar Pass Books in the name of Vadlapati

Abaddam for the said property under No.D.367749. 

Plaintiff further submits that while enjoying the said property, the said

Vadlapati Abaddham sold away the extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Western side of

Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.269/6A and an extent Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6B to one Sannapu Arjunudu under two registered sale deeds, dated 14­05­2003 and 12­03­2008. The remaining eastern side

Ac.0.80 cents out of Ac.1.74 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6A to his daughter,

Vara Kantham i.e., the Plaintiff herein under a Registered Sale deed, dated 14­ 05­2003 and since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. Plaintiff also purchased an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in R.S.No. 269/6A and Ac.0.05 cents in R.S.No.269/6B from the legal heirs of Sannapu Arjunudu i.e., Sannapu Suryakantham and her children under Registered sale deed dated 07­07­2010. The Government also recognized the title of the Plaintiff over the property to an extent of AC.1.74 cents in full in

R.S.No.269/6A and an extent of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents in

R.S.NO.269/6B and accordingly issued Pattadar pass book and title deed book.

Accordingly, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. 

Plaintiff further submits that she has been residing of Oduru village,

Ramachadnrapuram Mandal, which is far away to Rayabhupalapatnam and so she used to visit of her properties referred above now and then as and when requires and looking after the same personally. Since the said land is a dry land, the Plaintiff is raising green grass for cattle feed by using electric motor, which was situated therein. 

Plaintiff further submits that to the Southern side of the Plaintiff’s property i.e., Ac.0.05 cents in Survey No.269/6B of Rayabhupalapatnam, one

Pampana Satyanarayana was the owner of the remaining land of Ac.0.99 cents in R.S.No.269/6B. The said Pampana Satyanarayana reduced the level of the 3 said land along with his other land and he used to raise crops therein.

Subsequently, the said Pampana Satyanarayana sold away his property to the

Defendant. 

Plaintiff further submits that due to Coronoa Pandemic, Plaintiff idd not visit her properties in Rayabhupalapatnam, which are referred above since she has been residing in Oduru village. Taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s absence, in the month of August 2020, the Defendant high handedly encroached into the

Plaintiff’s property on the southern side to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents covered under survey No.269/6B of Rayabhupalapatnam, which is more fully and clearly described in the schedule attached hereto, and removed the Earth there from and merged into his land. 

Plaintiff subsequently came to know the high handed act of the

Defendant and encroachment made by him into Plaint Schedule Property, she visited the Plaint Schedule Property apart from her other property and noticed that the Defendant encroached into the plaint Schedule property by removing the earth and merging the same into his land. On noticing the encroachment made by the defendant, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate the

Plaint Schedule property by restoring it into actual position. Instead of vacating the plaint Schedule Property, the defendant gave evasive reply, but he did not choose to vacate the Plaint Schedule Property. Defendant has been continuing in unauthorized possession of the Plaint Schedule Property. Plaintiff has also got issued legal notice, dated 19­04­2021 to the Defendant calling upon him to vacate and deliver the Plaint Schedule Property by restoring the said land and pay Rs.1,000/­ towards damages for the year 2020­2021. Having received the said notice, the defendant did not choose to comply the same and continuing his unauthorized possession of the Plaint Schedule property. 

Plaintiff further submits that due to his illegal encroachment, the Plaintiff has been sustaining monitory loss and she estimates the loss at Rs.1,000/­ per year. Defendant is not entitled to continue in Plaint Schedule Property and he is liable to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and also he is liable to restore the said land and pay Rs.2,000/­ towards damages sustained by the Plaintiff for the years 2020­2021 and 2021­2022 apart from further future profits till deliver vacant possession of the Plaint Schedule

Property to the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitled to file the suit for declaration of her title over the plaintiff schedule property and consequently recovery of the Plaint schedule Property and the damages sustained by her etc.

Hence the suit. 

4

3. The Suit Summons, issued through the Court and Registered Post, were received by the Defendant personally. Yet, the Defendant had failed to appear

before the Court on the date of the first appearance. On 07.12.2022, the

Defendant was called absent, and there was no representation on his behalf.

Hence, the Service of Summons on the Defendant was held sufficient, and the

Defendant was set Ex­parte on the same day.

4.The Plaintiff Vara Kantham was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 are produced on her behalf to prove her claim. Ex.A1 is the Registration extract of the sale deed dated 11­06­1955 executed by Kalthuri Veerraju and others in favour of Nallala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana. Ex.A2 is the Registration

Extract of the sale deed dated 22­04­1972 executed by Nallala Veera Venkata

Satyanarayana in favour of Vadlapati Abaddham and his brother Nereyya.

Ex.A3 is the Registration Extract of the sale deed dated14­05­2003 executed by

Vadlapati Abaddham in favour of Plaintiff; Ex.A4 is the Registration Extract of the Sale deed dated 07­07­2010 executed in favour of Plaintiff by Sannapu

Suryakantham and others; Ex.A5 is the pass book issued by Revenue department in the name of Plaintiff; Ex.6 is the office copy of the legal notice

dated 19­04­2021 and Ex.A7 is the postal acknowledgment. 

5. Heard the Arguments on the side of the Plaintiff. 

6) Now, the points for determination are: 

1) Whether the plaintiff is the entitled to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant?

2) To what relief.

7 )POINT NO­1: The burden rests upon the plaintiff to prove that, the father of the Plaintiff by name Vadlapati Abaddham and his brother, Vadlapati

Nereyya jointly purchased the property to an extent of Ac.1.79 cents in

Northern side out of Ac.2.78 cents in full covered under Survey No.269/6 of

Rayabhupalapatnam from one Nallala VeeraVenkata Satyanarayana under a

Registered sale deed, dated 22­04­1972. 

Subsequently, the extent of Ac.2.78 cent survey No.269/6 was subdivided as Ac.1.74 cents in 269/6A and the remaining extent of Ac.1.04 cents in 269/6B. After sub division of Survey No.269/6, the full extent of

Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.269/6A and an extent of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6B belonging to Vadlapati Abaddam, and an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Western side of Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.269/6A and an extent Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6B to one 5

Sannapu Arjunudu under two registered sale deeds, dated 14­05­2003 and 12­ 03­2008 by Vadlapati Abaddam. The remaining eastern side Ac.0.80 cents out of Ac.1.74 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6A to his daughter, Vara Kantham i.e., the Plaintiff herein under a Registered Sale deed, dated 14­05­2003.

Plaintiff also purchased an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in R.S.No. 269/6A and Ac.0.05 cents in R.S.No.269/6B from the legal heirs of Sannapu Arjunudu i.e., Sannapu Suryakantham and her children under Registered sale deed

dated 07­07­2010. The Government also recognized the title of the Plaintiff over

the property to an extent of AC.1.74 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6A and an extent of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents in R.S.NO.269/6B and accordingly issued Pattadar pass book and title deed book. 

The Southern side of the Plaintiff’s property i.e., Ac.0.05 cents in

Survey No.269/6B of Rayabhupalapatnam, one Pampana Satyanarayana was the owner of the remaining land of Ac.0.99 cents in R.S.No.269/6B. The said

Pampana Satyanarayana reduced the level of the said land along with his other land and he used to raise crops therein. Subsequently, the said Pampana

Satyanarayana sold away his property to the Defendant. The Defendant did not contest the matter, moreover, the Plaintiff with corroboration of exhibits with pleadings in Plaint established her right over Plaint Schedule Property and her right to possession against the Defendant. 

The Defendant encroached into the Plaintiff’s property and plaintiff also pay Rs.1,000/­ towards damages for the year 2020­2021. Hence the plaintiff got issued Ex.A6 legal notice to the Defendant. But did not gave any reply.

Hence, the plaintiff entitled to file the suit for declaration of the Plaint Schedule

Property and the damages sustained by her. Under those circumstances, the plaintiff constrained to file this present suit.

8) To prove the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, mother of plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1. She filed her chief­ examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint stating that the defendant encroached her

Plaint Schedule Property and also damaged to the said site, for that damages the Plaintiff pay Rs.1,000/­.

9) Though the defendants received the summons from the Court, but they failed to appear before this Court. Hence, they are set­exparte. It appears that they have no objection to pass a decree against defendants for the suit claim.

Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 is conclusive proof and Ex.A1 to A7 are remained unchallenged and the claim of plaintiff is proved.

6

 In view of the above discussion, the Point is answered in favour of the

Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is determined against the defendant and in

favour of plaintiff.

11)POINT No.2: In view of findings in Point No.1 whether this suit is to be decreed with costs. 

12)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of Plaintiff declaring

Plaintiff has title over the Plaint Schedule Property and consequently entitled to recover the possession, granting mesne profits for the year 2020­2021 of

Rs.1,000/­ and future mesne profits till recovery of possession. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of February, 2023. 

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff :For Defendant:

 P.W.1: Vara Kantham ­ Nil ­

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 is the Registration extract of the sale deed dated 11­06­1995 executed by

Kalthuri Veerraju and others in favour of Nallala Veera Venkata

Satyanarayana. 

Ex.A2 is the Registration Extract of the sale deed dated 22­04­1972 executed by Nallala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana in favour of Vadlapati Abaddham and his brother Nereyya. 

Ex.A3 is the Registration Extract of the sale deed dated14­05­2003 executed by

Vadlapati Abaddham in favour of Plaintiff; 

Ex.A4 is the Registration Extract of the Sale deed dated 07­07­2010 executed in favour of Plaintiff by Sannapu Suryakantham and others; 

Ex.A5 is the pass book issued by Revenue department in the name of Plaintiff; 

Ex.A6 is the office copy of the legal notice and 7

Ex.A7 is the postal acknowledgment. 

For Defendant : ­ Nil ­

A J.C.J.

8

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PEDDAPURAMRATHIPADU 

Present: Sri G.Harshavardhan, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

Tuesday, the 21st day of February, 2023

O.S. N O .249/2022

Between :

Vara Kantham, W/o Chinnayya, Age: 56 years, Housewife, Resident of D.No.3­12, water tank street, Oduru village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Ramachandrapuram J.C.J.C … Plaintiff

And

Vadlapati Viswas, S/o Musalayya, Age: 4 8years, Cultivation, Resident of Rayabhupalapatnam village, Peddapura mMandal, Peddapuram J.C.J.C. … Defendant

 This is a Suit filed by the plaintiff to declare the Plaintiff’s title over the Plaint Schedule Property and consequently recover the possession of the same to Plaintiff on ejecting the Defendant there from; granting mesne profits of Rs.1,000/­ for the year 2020­2021; future profits at Rs.1,000/­ per year till deliver the possession of the Plaint

Schedule Property to Plaintiff and costs against the Defendant. 

Value of the suit :

(a) Value of the relief of declaration of Plaintiff’s title over the Plaint Schedule and consequentially for recovery of possession of the Plaint Schedule Proeprty after evicting the Defendant there from;

A land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents @ Rs.11,30,000/­ per acre which comes to

Rs.56,500/­ and the 3/4th value there on comes to Rs.42,375/­ 

On this a Court fee of Rs.2,392/­ is paid under section 24(a), Sch.I,

Art.1(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

Plaint presented on 12.09.2022 and filed on 12.09.2022

Cause of action for the suit arose on 07­07­2010, the date when the Plaintiff purchased the Plaint Schedule Property and some other property under the registered sale deed and when she came into possession of the same and in the month of August, 2020. When the Defendant encroached into the Plaint Schedule Property and subsequently, When the plaintiff noticed the said encroachment and demanded the defendant to vacant the same and deliver vacant possession of the same and on 19­04­2021, the date when the plaintiff 9 got issued legal notice to the defendant demanding him to vacate and deliver the Plaint schedule r0oerty and pay damages and at Rayabhupalapatnam, where the Plaint Schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this

Honourable Court. 

This Suit, coming on 06.02.2023, for Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri S.Narasimharao and Sri M.Sarveswararao, Advocates for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant has been set Ex­parte, for his failure, to appear before the Court, inspite of Service of Suit Summons on him and also written statement not filed on his behalf; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

(i) the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff.

(ii) Plaintiff has title over the Plaint Schedule property and consequently entitled to recover the possession, granting mesne profits for the year 2020­2021 of Rs.1,000/­ and future mesne profits till recovery of possession. 

(iii) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,156/­ towards costs of the suit.

Copy of schedule is herewith attached 

Given under my hand and the Seal of the court, this the 21st day of February, 2023.

Addl.Junior Civil Judge – cum Addl.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram.

Particulars of Costs

For Plaintiff For Defendant Rs.Rs. Stamp on Vakalat 2­00 No costs memo is filed. Stamp on Plaint 3,826­00 Advocate Fee 2,878­00 Process 150­00 Publication charge 1,200­00 Type charges 100­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Rs.8,156­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Addl.Junior Civil Judge – cum Addl.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram. Note: The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree.

10

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 3rd day of March, 2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PRATHIPADU

Memo of Costs For Plaintiff:

Stamp on VakalatRs. 2.00

Stamp on plaintRs.3,426.00

Pleader Fees Rs.5,436.00 Process FeeRs. 80.00

TotalRs.8,944.00

J.C.J.

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

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PEDDAPURAMRATHIPADU 

Present: Sri G.Harshavardhan, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

Tuesday, the 21st day of February, 2023

O.S. N O .249/2022

Between :

Vara Kantham, W/o Chinnayya, Age: 56 years, Housewife, Resident of D.No.3­12, water tank street, Oduru village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Ramachandrapuram J.C.J.C … Plaintiff

And

Vadlapati Viswas, S/o Musalayya, Age: 4 8years, Cultivation, Resident of Rayabhupalapatnam village, Peddapura mMandal, Peddapuram J.C.J.C. … Defendant

This Suit, coming on 06.02.2023, for Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri S.Narasimharao and Sri M.Sarveswararao, Advocates for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant has been set Ex­parte, for his failure, to appear before the Court, inspite of Service of Suit Summons on him and also written statement not filed on his behalf; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :­

J U D G M E N T 

This is a Suit filed by the plaintiff to declare the Plaintiff’s title over the

Plaint Schedule Property and consequently recover the possession of the same to Plaintiff on ejecting the Defendant there from; granting mesne profits of

Rs.1,000/­ for the year 2020­2021; future profits at Rs.1,000/­ per year till deliver the possession of the Plaint Schedule Property to Plaintiff and costs against the Defendant. 

2.The brief averments of the plaintiff are that one Vadlapati Abaddham who is the father of the plaintiff, and his brother, Vadlapati Nereyya jointly purchased the property to an extent of Ac.1.79 cents in Northern side out of

Ac.2.78 cents in full covered under Survey No.269/6 of Rayabhupalapatnam from one Nallala VeeraVenkata Satyanarayana under a Registered sale deed, 2

dated 22­04­1972. Subsequently, the said Vadlapati Abaddam and Vadlapati

Nereyya orally partitioned along with their other properties and in the said partition, the entire extent of Ac.1.79 cents fell to the share of Vadlapati

Abaddam. Subsequently, the extent of Ac.2.78 cent survey No.269./6 was subdivided as Ac.1.74 cents in 269/6A and the remaining extent of Ac.1.04 cents in 269/6B. After sub division of Survey No.269/6, the full extent of

Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.269/6A and an extent of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6B belonging to Vadlapati Abaddam. The

Government also issued Pattadar Pass Books in the name of Vadlapati

Abaddam for the said property under No.D.367749. 

Plaintiff further submits that while enjoying the said property, the said

Vadlapati Abaddham sold away the extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Western side of

Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.269/6A and an extent Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6B to one Sannapu Arjunudu under two registered sale deeds, dated 14­05­2003 and 12­03­2008. The remaining eastern side

Ac.0.80 cents out of Ac.1.74 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6A to his daughter,

Vara Kantham i.e., the Plaintiff herein under a Registered Sale deed, dated 14­ 05­2003 and since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. Plaintiff also purchased an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in R.S.No. 269/6A and Ac.0.05 cents in R.S.No.269/6B from the legal heirs of Sannapu Arjunudu i.e., Sannapu Suryakantham and her children under Registered sale deed dated 07­07­2010. The Government also recognized the title of the Plaintiff over the property to an extent of AC.1.74 cents in full in

R.S.No.269/6A and an extent of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents in

R.S.NO.269/6B and accordingly issued Pattadar pass book and title deed book.

Accordingly, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. 

Plaintiff further submits that she has been residing of Oduru village,

Ramachadnrapuram Mandal, which is far away to Rayabhupalapatnam and so she used to visit of her properties referred above now and then as and when requires and looking after the same personally. Since the said land is a dry land, the Plaintiff is raising green grass for cattle feed by using electric motor, which was situated therein. 

Plaintiff further submits that to the Southern side of the Plaintiff’s property i.e., Ac.0.05 cents in Survey No.269/6B of Rayabhupalapatnam, one

Pampana Satyanarayana was the owner of the remaining land of Ac.0.99 cents in R.S.No.269/6B. The said Pampana Satyanarayana reduced the level of the 3 said land along with his other land and he used to raise crops therein.

Subsequently, the said Pampana Satyanarayana sold away his property to the

Defendant. 

Plaintiff further submits that due to Coronoa Pandemic, Plaintiff idd not visit her properties in Rayabhupalapatnam, which are referred above since she has been residing in Oduru village. Taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s absence, in the month of August 2020, the Defendant high handedly encroached into the

Plaintiff’s property on the southern side to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents covered under survey No.269/6B of Rayabhupalapatnam, which is more fully and clearly described in the schedule attached hereto, and removed the Earth there from and merged into his land. 

Plaintiff subsequently came to know the high handed act of the

Defendant and encroachment made by him into Plaint Schedule Property, she visited the Plaint Schedule Property apart from her other property and noticed that the Defendant encroached into the plaint Schedule property by removing the earth and merging the same into his land. On noticing the encroachment made by the defendant, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate the

Plaint Schedule property by restoring it into actual position. Instead of vacating the plaint Schedule Property, the defendant gave evasive reply, but he did not choose to vacate the Plaint Schedule Property. Defendant has been continuing in unauthorized possession of the Plaint Schedule Property. Plaintiff has also got issued legal notice, dated 19­04­2021 to the Defendant calling upon him to vacate and deliver the Plaint Schedule Property by restoring the said land and pay Rs.1,000/­ towards damages for the year 2020­2021. Having received the said notice, the defendant did not choose to comply the same and continuing his unauthorized possession of the Plaint Schedule property. 

Plaintiff further submits that due to his illegal encroachment, the Plaintiff has been sustaining monitory loss and she estimates the loss at Rs.1,000/­ per year. Defendant is not entitled to continue in Plaint Schedule Property and he is liable to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and also he is liable to restore the said land and pay Rs.2,000/­ towards damages sustained by the Plaintiff for the years 2020­2021 and 2021­2022 apart from further future profits till deliver vacant possession of the Plaint Schedule

Property to the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitled to file the suit for declaration of her title over the plaintiff schedule property and consequently recovery of the Plaint schedule Property and the damages sustained by her etc.

Hence the suit. 

4

3. The Suit Summons, issued through the Court and Registered Post, were received by the Defendant personally. Yet, the Defendant had failed to appear

before the Court on the date of the first appearance. On 07.12.2022, the

Defendant was called absent, and there was no representation on his behalf.

Hence, the Service of Summons on the Defendant was held sufficient, and the

Defendant was set Ex­parte on the same day.

4.The Plaintiff Vara Kantham was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 are produced on her behalf to prove her claim. Ex.A1 is the Registration extract of the sale deed dated 11­06­1955 executed by Kalthuri Veerraju and others in favour of Nallala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana. Ex.A2 is the Registration

Extract of the sale deed dated 22­04­1972 executed by Nallala Veera Venkata

Satyanarayana in favour of Vadlapati Abaddham and his brother Nereyya.

Ex.A3 is the Registration Extract of the sale deed dated14­05­2003 executed by

Vadlapati Abaddham in favour of Plaintiff; Ex.A4 is the Registration Extract of the Sale deed dated 07­07­2010 executed in favour of Plaintiff by Sannapu

Suryakantham and others; Ex.A5 is the pass book issued by Revenue department in the name of Plaintiff; Ex.6 is the office copy of the legal notice

dated 19­04­2021 and Ex.A7 is the postal acknowledgment. 

5. Heard the Arguments on the side of the Plaintiff. 

6) Now, the points for determination are: 

1) Whether the plaintiff is the entitled to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant?

2) To what relief.

7 )POINT NO­1: The burden rests upon the plaintiff to prove that, the father of the Plaintiff by name Vadlapati Abaddham and his brother, Vadlapati

Nereyya jointly purchased the property to an extent of Ac.1.79 cents in

Northern side out of Ac.2.78 cents in full covered under Survey No.269/6 of

Rayabhupalapatnam from one Nallala VeeraVenkata Satyanarayana under a

Registered sale deed, dated 22­04­1972. 

Subsequently, the extent of Ac.2.78 cent survey No.269/6 was subdivided as Ac.1.74 cents in 269/6A and the remaining extent of Ac.1.04 cents in 269/6B. After sub division of Survey No.269/6, the full extent of

Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.269/6A and an extent of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6B belonging to Vadlapati Abaddam, and an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Western side of Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.269/6A and an extent Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6B to one 5

Sannapu Arjunudu under two registered sale deeds, dated 14­05­2003 and 12­ 03­2008 by Vadlapati Abaddam. The remaining eastern side Ac.0.80 cents out of Ac.1.74 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6A to his daughter, Vara Kantham i.e., the Plaintiff herein under a Registered Sale deed, dated 14­05­2003.

Plaintiff also purchased an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in R.S.No. 269/6A and Ac.0.05 cents in R.S.No.269/6B from the legal heirs of Sannapu Arjunudu i.e., Sannapu Suryakantham and her children under Registered sale deed

dated 07­07­2010. The Government also recognized the title of the Plaintiff over

the property to an extent of AC.1.74 cents in full in R.S.No.269/6A and an extent of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents in R.S.NO.269/6B and accordingly issued Pattadar pass book and title deed book. 

The Southern side of the Plaintiff’s property i.e., Ac.0.05 cents in

Survey No.269/6B of Rayabhupalapatnam, one Pampana Satyanarayana was the owner of the remaining land of Ac.0.99 cents in R.S.No.269/6B. The said

Pampana Satyanarayana reduced the level of the said land along with his other land and he used to raise crops therein. Subsequently, the said Pampana

Satyanarayana sold away his property to the Defendant. The Defendant did not contest the matter, moreover, the Plaintiff with corroboration of exhibits with pleadings in Plaint established her right over Plaint Schedule Property and her right to possession against the Defendant. 

The Defendant encroached into the Plaintiff’s property and plaintiff also pay Rs.1,000/­ towards damages for the year 2020­2021. Hence the plaintiff got issued Ex.A6 legal notice to the Defendant. But did not gave any reply.

Hence, the plaintiff entitled to file the suit for declaration of the Plaint Schedule

Property and the damages sustained by her. Under those circumstances, the plaintiff constrained to file this present suit.

8) To prove the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, mother of plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1. She filed her chief­ examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint stating that the defendant encroached her

Plaint Schedule Property and also damaged to the said site, for that damages the Plaintiff pay Rs.1,000/­.

9) Though the defendants received the summons from the Court, but they failed to appear before this Court. Hence, they are set­exparte. It appears that they have no objection to pass a decree against defendants for the suit claim.

Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 is conclusive proof and Ex.A1 to A7 are remained unchallenged and the claim of plaintiff is proved.

6

 In view of the above discussion, the Point is answered in favour of the

Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is determined against the defendant and in

favour of plaintiff.

11)POINT No.2: In view of findings in Point No.1 whether this suit is to be decreed with costs. 

12)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of Plaintiff declaring

Plaintiff has title over the Plaint Schedule Property and consequently entitled to recover the possession, granting mesne profits for the year 2020­2021 of

Rs.1,000/­ and future mesne profits till recovery of possession. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of February, 2023. 

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff :For Defendant:

 P.W.1: Vara Kantham ­ Nil ­

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 is the Registration extract of the sale deed dated 11­06­1995 executed by

Kalthuri Veerraju and others in favour of Nallala Veera Venkata

Satyanarayana. 

Ex.A2 is the Registration Extract of the sale deed dated 22­04­1972 executed by Nallala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana in favour of Vadlapati Abaddham and his brother Nereyya. 

Ex.A3 is the Registration Extract of the sale deed dated14­05­2003 executed by

Vadlapati Abaddham in favour of Plaintiff; 

Ex.A4 is the Registration Extract of the Sale deed dated 07­07­2010 executed in favour of Plaintiff by Sannapu Suryakantham and others; 

Ex.A5 is the pass book issued by Revenue department in the name of Plaintiff; 

Ex.A6 is the office copy of the legal notice and 7

Ex.A7 is the postal acknowledgment. 

For Defendant : ­ Nil ­

A J.C.J.

8

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PEDDAPURAMRATHIPADU 

Present: Sri G.Harshavardhan, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

Tuesday, the 21st day of February, 2023

O.S. N O .249/2022

Between :

Vara Kantham, W/o Chinnayya, Age: 56 years, Housewife, Resident of D.No.3­12, water tank street, Oduru village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Ramachandrapuram J.C.J.C … Plaintiff

And

Vadlapati Viswas, S/o Musalayya, Age: 4 8years, Cultivation, Resident of Rayabhupalapatnam village, Peddapura mMandal, Peddapuram J.C.J.C. … Defendant

 This is a Suit filed by the plaintiff to declare the Plaintiff’s title over the Plaint Schedule Property and consequently recover the possession of the same to Plaintiff on ejecting the Defendant there from; granting mesne profits of Rs.1,000/­ for the year 2020­2021; future profits at Rs.1,000/­ per year till deliver the possession of the Plaint

Schedule Property to Plaintiff and costs against the Defendant. 

Value of the suit :

(a) Value of the relief of declaration of Plaintiff’s title over the Plaint Schedule and consequentially for recovery of possession of the Plaint Schedule Proeprty after evicting the Defendant there from;

A land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents @ Rs.11,30,000/­ per acre which comes to

Rs.56,500/­ and the 3/4th value there on comes to Rs.42,375/­ 

On this a Court fee of Rs.2,392/­ is paid under section 24(a), Sch.I,

Art.1(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

Plaint presented on 12.09.2022 and filed on 12.09.2022

Cause of action for the suit arose on 07­07­2010, the date when the Plaintiff purchased the Plaint Schedule Property and some other property under the registered sale deed and when she came into possession of the same and in the month of August, 2020. When the Defendant encroached into the Plaint Schedule Property and subsequently, When the plaintiff noticed the said encroachment and demanded the defendant to vacant the same and deliver vacant possession of the same and on 19­04­2021, the date when the plaintiff 9 got issued legal notice to the defendant demanding him to vacate and deliver the Plaint schedule r0oerty and pay damages and at Rayabhupalapatnam, where the Plaint Schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this

Honourable Court. 

This Suit, coming on 06.02.2023, for Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri S.Narasimharao and Sri M.Sarveswararao, Advocates for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant has been set Ex­parte, for his failure, to appear before the Court, inspite of Service of Suit Summons on him and also written statement not filed on his behalf; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

(i) the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff.

(ii) Plaintiff has title over the Plaint Schedule property and consequently entitled to recover the possession, granting mesne profits for the year 2020­2021 of Rs.1,000/­ and future mesne profits till recovery of possession. 

(iii) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,156/­ towards costs of the suit.

Copy of schedule is herewith attached 

Given under my hand and the Seal of the court, this the 21st day of February, 2023.

Addl.Junior Civil Judge – cum Addl.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram.

Particulars of Costs

For Plaintiff For Defendant Rs.Rs. Stamp on Vakalat 2­00 No costs memo is filed. Stamp on Plaint 3,826­00 Advocate Fee 2,878­00 Process 150­00 Publication charge 1,200­00 Type charges 100­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Rs.8,156­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Addl.Junior Civil Judge – cum Addl.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram. Note: The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree.

10

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 3rd day of March, 2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PRATHIPADU

Memo of Costs For Plaintiff:

Stamp on VakalatRs. 2.00

Stamp on plaintRs.3,426.00

Pleader Fees Rs.5,436.00 Process FeeRs. 80.00

TotalRs.8,944.00

J.C.J.

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

1 OS 239/2021

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

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: PEDDAPURAM::

Present: Sri G.Harshavardhan,

Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Peddapuram. Friday, the Twenty first (21st) day of February, 2023

O.S.No.239/2021

Between:

Kudelli RAmana, S/o Brahmayya (late), Age: 37 years, Daily wage earner, R/o D.No.4-44, Rajapudi village of Jaggampeta Mandal. Peddapuram JCJ Court, East Godavari District. … Plaintiff

And

1.Thandangi Abbai, S/o Nagabbai, Age :43 years, Business, Caste: Kapu, R/o Rajapudi village of Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District, Peddapuram JCJ Court,

2.Thandangi Pedda Abbu, S/o Nagabbai, Age: 46 years, Cultivation, Caste: Kapu, Business, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, Peddapuram JCJ Court.

3.Boddu Abbai, S/o Simhachalam, Age: 54 years, Cultivation Caste: Kapu, Business, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggamepta Mandal, East Godavari District. Peddapuram JCJ Court

4.Boddu Durga Prasad, S/o Abbai, Age: 25 years, Cultivation, Caste: Kapu, Business, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, Peddapuram JCJ Court.

5.Garapati Nageswararao @ Nagabbai, Age: 70 years, Cultivation, Caste: Uppara, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District, Peddapuram JCJ Court

6.Garapti Tatabbai, S/o Nageswararao @ Nagabbai, Age: 45 years, Cultivation, Caste: Uppara, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. Peddapuram JCJ Court.

…..Defendants.

This Suit, coming on 01.02.2023, for Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri P.Nagendra Raju, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the

Defendants have been set Ex-parte, for their failure to appear before the

Court, inspite of Service of Suit Summons on them; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1 This is a Suit filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 1 and Section 26

C.P.C against the Defendants for permanent injunction restraining the

Defendants and their men, from ever, in any manner, interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff to the Plaint Schedule

Property with costs and such other reliefs.

2The brief facts of the plaint are as follows: - 2 OS 239/2021

The Plaint schedule property is a vacant house site for an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in S.No.397 of Rajapudi village of Jaggampeta Mandal and the

Plaintiff is absolute owner of the that property by the way of gift settlement deed executed by Kudelli Guruvulu, dated 10-06-2020. The Defendants have colluded with each other and they have hatched a plan to grab the Plaint

Schedule Property and on 07-09-2020 at about 9:30 A.M, they tried to lay thatched hut without having any manner of right. Then the Plaintiff questioned them, then the Defendants have abused the Plaintiff and her men in filthy language and also attacked them with sticks and knives and the plaintiff and his men received injuries. then the matter placed before village elders, they advised the defendants to pay some compensation, but the defendants did not hear the words of elders and they also tried to grab the plaint schedule property. On 08-09-2020 the plaintiff got reported to

Jaggampeta Police and registered a case in Cr.No.233/2020 for the offence under Section 324, 384 r/w 34 IPC and sections 3(1)®(3) and section s3(2)(va) of SC and ST (P.O.A) amendment Act, 2015 and it is numbered as 49/2021

before Honourable Spl. Judge for SC and ST cases, Rajamahendravaram.

Again on 10-01-2021 at about 9:00 A.M, the plaintiff was present in the Plaint Schedule Property, by that time all the Defendants have armed with

Spades and crowbars and have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and the plaintiff raised cries and on that the

Defendants left that place, by saying that they will occupy the Schedule property. Hence the Plaintiff has filed this suit.

3. On 18-08-2022, the Defendants were called absent, and there was no representation on their behalf and the Defendants has failed to file their written statement within a stipulated period of 90 days. Hence, the Service of Summons on the Defendants was held sufficient, and the

Defendants were set Ex-parte on the same day.

4. The plaintiff adduced the exparte evidence and got himself examined

P.W.1 and one Kudelli Kannarao is brother of the Plaintiff examined as P.W.2 3 OS 239/2021 and one Thatapudi SEshubabu who is one of the third party was examined as

P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A1 and Ex.A2.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point which stood up for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of Permanent injunction with costs as prayed for?

7. POINT:

It is the contention of plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property the Defendants making attempts to grab the Schedule property and attempting to trespass into the Schedule Property. Hence the suit to protect Plaintiff right and possession over the Schedule Property.

Hence, this suit.

8. In support of Plaintiff contention, plaintiff himself was examined as

P.W.1 and filed the chief-examination affidavit, which is nothing but replica of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 and A2. The court gone through Ex.A1 is the

Registered Gift settlement deed, dated 10-06-2020 infavour of Plaintiff relating to Plaint Schedule Property; Ex.A2 is the original unregistered will dated 27- 01-1994, stood in the name of Kudelli Guruvulu i.e., Executant of gift settlement deed dated 10-06-2020 in his favour. The defendants are tried t o grab the plaint schedule property and they also behaved high handedly against him.

9. P.Ws.2 and 3 also field their chief examination affidavits, they also submitted in the same manner of P.W.1 as P.W.1 is owner of the Plaint

Schedule property and he purchased the same from one Kudelli Guruvulu and the Defendants also tried to grab the same and they also abused P.W.1 in filthy language.

10. The evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 3, both oral and documentary i.e.,

P.W.1coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 to support the contention of the plaintiff in all aspects. Exs.A1 and A2 clearly prove the title of the plaintiff which was purchased from one Kudelli Guruvulu and the plaintiff also paid the tax to the

Government to the said property relating to the property. Basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the documents Exs.A1 and A2 clearly shows that 4 OS 239/2021 the Plaintiff is absolute owner of the Plaint Schedule Property and he paid the tax to the said Plaint Schedule Property. So, the relief claimed in the suit is

Permanent injunction along with costs.

11 . The evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged, as defendants remained exparte in the suit. The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff coupled with documentary evidence would clearly establish the contention of the plaintiff. Hence plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Permanent injunction as prayed for. Point is answered accordingly.

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of Plaintiff against the Defendants by way of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants and their men and hirelings claiming through them, from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the entire Plaint

Schedule Property.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of February, 2023.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 :Kudelli Ramana - None – P.W.2 : Kudelli Kannarao P.W.3 : Thatapudi Seshubabu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the Registered gift settlement deed dated 10-06-2020 in the name of Plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the original un-registered will dated 27-01-1994, stood in the name of Kudelli Guruvulu i.e., executants of Gift settlement deed dated 10-06- 2020 in favour of Plaintiff. FOR DEFENDANT: - N I L -

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPURAM.

5 OS 239/2021

DECREE AND JUDGMENT

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

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: PEDDAPURAM::

Present: Sri G.Harshavardhan,

Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Peddapuram. Friday, the Twenty first (21st) day of February, 2023

O.S.No.239/2021

Between:

Kudelli RAmana, S/o Brahmayya (late), Age: 37 years, Daily wage earner, R/o D.No.4-44, Rajapudi village of Jaggampeta Mandal. Peddapuram JCJ Court, East Godavari District. … Plaintiff

And

1.Thandangi Abbai, S/o Nagabbai, Age :43 years, Business, Caste: Kapu, R/o Rajapudi village of Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District, Peddapuram JCJ Court,

2.Thandangi Pedda Abbu, S/o Nagabbai, Age: 46 years, Cultivation, Caste: Kapu, Business, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, Peddapuram JCJ Court.

3.Boddu Abbai, S/o Simhachalam, Age: 54 years, Cultivation Caste: Kapu, Business, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggamepta Mandal, East Godavari District. Peddapuram JCJ Court

4.Boddu Durga Prasad, S/o Abbai, Age: 25 years, Cultivation, Caste: Kapu, Business, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, Peddapuram JCJ Court.

5.Garapati Nageswararao @ Nagabbai, Age: 70 years, Cultivation, Caste: Uppara, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District, Peddapuram JCJ Court

6.Garapti Tatabbai, S/o Nageswararao @ Nagabbai, Age: 45 years, Cultivation, Caste: Uppara, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. Peddapuram JCJ Court.

…..Defendants.

This is a Suit filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 1 and Section 26

C.P.C against the Defendants for permanent injunction restraining the

Defendants and their men, from ever, in any manner, interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff to the Plaint Schedule Property with costs and such other reliefs.

Value of the suit :

At this is a suit for Permanent injunction

Suit is valued on its National Value Rs.1,00,000/- (On this a court fee of Rs.3,426/- is paid under Section 26 (c ), SCh.1(a) (b) Art 1(c) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Acts.

Cause of action for the suit arose when the Plaintiff obtained a gift settlement deed from his brother Kudelli Guruvulu, with regard to the Plaint 6 OS 239/2021

Schedule Property on 10-06-2020 and he had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and the defendants have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property and they have also attacked on the Plaintiff and his men on 07-09- 2020 and on which the Plaintiff and his men have reported the matter to the police and investigation also completed and the same was numbed as SC 49/2021 at Honourable Special Judge fro SC and ST cases, Rajamahendravaram, and the same is pending and that again on 10-10-2021 at about 9:00 A.M, all the defendants have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Schedule Property and on that the plaintiff had raised cries and hence, the Defendants have left the place by saying that, on one day or the other, they will occupy the Plaint Schedule Property, even at blood shed and at Rajapudi village of Jaggampeta Mandal, wherein, the Plaintiff Schedule Property is situated, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

D E C R E E : This Suit, coming on 01.02.2023, for Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri P.Nagendra Raju, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the

Defendants have been set Ex-parte, for their failure to appear before the

Court, inspite of Service of Suit Summons on them; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows :

(i)That the suit is decreed with costs

(ii)directing the defendants and their men, and hirelings from ever, in any manner, interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff to the Plaint Schedule Property, granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from Plaint Schedule Property of the Plaintiff.

(iii)That the Defendant do also pay to the Plaintiff a sum of

Rs.3,428/- towards costs of the suit.

Copy of plaint schedule is attached hereto.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on the 21th day of February, 2023.

Addl.Junior Civil Judge – cum Addl.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram 7 OS 239/2021

PARTICULARS OF THE COSTS

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

No costs memo is filed No costs memo is filed.

Institution costs:

1. Stamp on vakalat 2 - 00

2. Stamp on plaint 3,426 - 00 -------------- Costs allowed :- 3,428 - 00 --------------

Addl.Junior Civil Judge – cum Addl.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram

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

1 OS 239/2021

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

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: PEDDAPURAM::

Present: Sri G.Harshavardhan,

Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Peddapuram. Friday, the Twenty first (21st) day of February, 2023

O.S.No.239/2021

Between:

Kudelli RAmana, S/o Brahmayya (late), Age: 37 years, Daily wage earner, R/o D.No.4-44, Rajapudi village of Jaggampeta Mandal. Peddapuram JCJ Court, East Godavari District. … Plaintiff

And

1.Thandangi Abbai, S/o Nagabbai, Age :43 years, Business, Caste: Kapu, R/o Rajapudi village of Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District, Peddapuram JCJ Court,

2.Thandangi Pedda Abbu, S/o Nagabbai, Age: 46 years, Cultivation, Caste: Kapu, Business, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, Peddapuram JCJ Court.

3.Boddu Abbai, S/o Simhachalam, Age: 54 years, Cultivation Caste: Kapu, Business, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggamepta Mandal, East Godavari District. Peddapuram JCJ Court

4.Boddu Durga Prasad, S/o Abbai, Age: 25 years, Cultivation, Caste: Kapu, Business, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, Peddapuram JCJ Court.

5.Garapati Nageswararao @ Nagabbai, Age: 70 years, Cultivation, Caste: Uppara, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District, Peddapuram JCJ Court

6.Garapti Tatabbai, S/o Nageswararao @ Nagabbai, Age: 45 years, Cultivation, Caste: Uppara, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. Peddapuram JCJ Court.

…..Defendants.

This Suit, coming on 01.02.2023, for Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri P.Nagendra Raju, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the

Defendants have been set Ex-parte, for their failure to appear before the

Court, inspite of Service of Suit Summons on them; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1 This is a Suit filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 1 and Section 26

C.P.C against the Defendants for permanent injunction restraining the

Defendants and their men, from ever, in any manner, interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff to the Plaint Schedule

Property with costs and such other reliefs.

2The brief facts of the plaint are as follows: - 2 OS 239/2021

The Plaint schedule property is a vacant house site for an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in S.No.397 of Rajapudi village of Jaggampeta Mandal and the

Plaintiff is absolute owner of the that property by the way of gift settlement deed executed by Kudelli Guruvulu, dated 10-06-2020. The Defendants have colluded with each other and they have hatched a plan to grab the Plaint

Schedule Property and on 07-09-2020 at about 9:30 A.M, they tried to lay thatched hut without having any manner of right. Then the Plaintiff questioned them, then the Defendants have abused the Plaintiff and her men in filthy language and also attacked them with sticks and knives and the plaintiff and his men received injuries. then the matter placed before village elders, they advised the defendants to pay some compensation, but the defendants did not hear the words of elders and they also tried to grab the plaint schedule property. On 08-09-2020 the plaintiff got reported to

Jaggampeta Police and registered a case in Cr.No.233/2020 for the offence under Section 324, 384 r/w 34 IPC and sections 3(1)®(3) and section s3(2)(va) of SC and ST (P.O.A) amendment Act, 2015 and it is numbered as 49/2021

before Honourable Spl. Judge for SC and ST cases, Rajamahendravaram.

Again on 10-01-2021 at about 9:00 A.M, the plaintiff was present in the Plaint Schedule Property, by that time all the Defendants have armed with

Spades and crowbars and have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and the plaintiff raised cries and on that the

Defendants left that place, by saying that they will occupy the Schedule property. Hence the Plaintiff has filed this suit.

3. On 18-08-2022, the Defendants were called absent, and there was no representation on their behalf and the Defendants has failed to file their written statement within a stipulated period of 90 days. Hence, the Service of Summons on the Defendants was held sufficient, and the

Defendants were set Ex-parte on the same day.

4. The plaintiff adduced the exparte evidence and got himself examined

P.W.1 and one Kudelli Kannarao is brother of the Plaintiff examined as P.W.2 3 OS 239/2021 and one Thatapudi SEshubabu who is one of the third party was examined as

P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A1 and Ex.A2.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point which stood up for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of Permanent injunction with costs as prayed for?

7. POINT:

It is the contention of plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property the Defendants making attempts to grab the Schedule property and attempting to trespass into the Schedule Property. Hence the suit to protect Plaintiff right and possession over the Schedule Property.

Hence, this suit.

8. In support of Plaintiff contention, plaintiff himself was examined as

P.W.1 and filed the chief-examination affidavit, which is nothing but replica of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 and A2. The court gone through Ex.A1 is the

Registered Gift settlement deed, dated 10-06-2020 infavour of Plaintiff relating to Plaint Schedule Property; Ex.A2 is the original unregistered will dated 27- 01-1994, stood in the name of Kudelli Guruvulu i.e., Executant of gift settlement deed dated 10-06-2020 in his favour. The defendants are tried t o grab the plaint schedule property and they also behaved high handedly against him.

9. P.Ws.2 and 3 also field their chief examination affidavits, they also submitted in the same manner of P.W.1 as P.W.1 is owner of the Plaint

Schedule property and he purchased the same from one Kudelli Guruvulu and the Defendants also tried to grab the same and they also abused P.W.1 in filthy language.

10. The evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 3, both oral and documentary i.e.,

P.W.1coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 to support the contention of the plaintiff in all aspects. Exs.A1 and A2 clearly prove the title of the plaintiff which was purchased from one Kudelli Guruvulu and the plaintiff also paid the tax to the

Government to the said property relating to the property. Basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the documents Exs.A1 and A2 clearly shows that 4 OS 239/2021 the Plaintiff is absolute owner of the Plaint Schedule Property and he paid the tax to the said Plaint Schedule Property. So, the relief claimed in the suit is

Permanent injunction along with costs.

11 . The evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged, as defendants remained exparte in the suit. The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff coupled with documentary evidence would clearly establish the contention of the plaintiff. Hence plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Permanent injunction as prayed for. Point is answered accordingly.

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of Plaintiff against the Defendants by way of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants and their men and hirelings claiming through them, from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the entire Plaint

Schedule Property.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of February, 2023.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 :Kudelli Ramana - None – P.W.2 : Kudelli Kannarao P.W.3 : Thatapudi Seshubabu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the Registered gift settlement deed dated 10-06-2020 in the name of Plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the original un-registered will dated 27-01-1994, stood in the name of Kudelli Guruvulu i.e., executants of Gift settlement deed dated 10-06- 2020 in favour of Plaintiff. FOR DEFENDANT: - N I L -

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPURAM.

5 OS 239/2021

DECREE AND JUDGMENT

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

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: PEDDAPURAM::

Present: Sri G.Harshavardhan,

Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Peddapuram. Friday, the Twenty first (21st) day of February, 2023

O.S.No.239/2021

Between:

Kudelli RAmana, S/o Brahmayya (late), Age: 37 years, Daily wage earner, R/o D.No.4-44, Rajapudi village of Jaggampeta Mandal. Peddapuram JCJ Court, East Godavari District. … Plaintiff

And

1.Thandangi Abbai, S/o Nagabbai, Age :43 years, Business, Caste: Kapu, R/o Rajapudi village of Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District, Peddapuram JCJ Court,

2.Thandangi Pedda Abbu, S/o Nagabbai, Age: 46 years, Cultivation, Caste: Kapu, Business, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, Peddapuram JCJ Court.

3.Boddu Abbai, S/o Simhachalam, Age: 54 years, Cultivation Caste: Kapu, Business, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggamepta Mandal, East Godavari District. Peddapuram JCJ Court

4.Boddu Durga Prasad, S/o Abbai, Age: 25 years, Cultivation, Caste: Kapu, Business, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, Peddapuram JCJ Court.

5.Garapati Nageswararao @ Nagabbai, Age: 70 years, Cultivation, Caste: Uppara, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District, Peddapuram JCJ Court

6.Garapti Tatabbai, S/o Nageswararao @ Nagabbai, Age: 45 years, Cultivation, Caste: Uppara, R/o Rajapudi village, Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. Peddapuram JCJ Court.

…..Defendants.

This is a Suit filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 1 and Section 26

C.P.C against the Defendants for permanent injunction restraining the

Defendants and their men, from ever, in any manner, interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff to the Plaint Schedule Property with costs and such other reliefs.

Value of the suit :

At this is a suit for Permanent injunction

Suit is valued on its National Value Rs.1,00,000/- (On this a court fee of Rs.3,426/- is paid under Section 26 (c ), SCh.1(a) (b) Art 1(c) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Acts.

Cause of action for the suit arose when the Plaintiff obtained a gift settlement deed from his brother Kudelli Guruvulu, with regard to the Plaint 6 OS 239/2021

Schedule Property on 10-06-2020 and he had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and the defendants have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property and they have also attacked on the Plaintiff and his men on 07-09- 2020 and on which the Plaintiff and his men have reported the matter to the police and investigation also completed and the same was numbed as SC 49/2021 at Honourable Special Judge fro SC and ST cases, Rajamahendravaram, and the same is pending and that again on 10-10-2021 at about 9:00 A.M, all the defendants have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Schedule Property and on that the plaintiff had raised cries and hence, the Defendants have left the place by saying that, on one day or the other, they will occupy the Plaint Schedule Property, even at blood shed and at Rajapudi village of Jaggampeta Mandal, wherein, the Plaintiff Schedule Property is situated, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

D E C R E E : This Suit, coming on 01.02.2023, for Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri P.Nagendra Raju, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the

Defendants have been set Ex-parte, for their failure to appear before the

Court, inspite of Service of Suit Summons on them; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows :

(i)That the suit is decreed with costs

(ii)directing the defendants and their men, and hirelings from ever, in any manner, interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff to the Plaint Schedule Property, granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from Plaint Schedule Property of the Plaintiff.

(iii)That the Defendant do also pay to the Plaintiff a sum of

Rs.3,428/- towards costs of the suit.

Copy of plaint schedule is attached hereto.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on the 21th day of February, 2023.

Addl.Junior Civil Judge – cum Addl.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram 7 OS 239/2021

PARTICULARS OF THE COSTS

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

No costs memo is filed No costs memo is filed.

Institution costs:

1. Stamp on vakalat 2 - 00

2. Stamp on plaint 3,426 - 00 -------------- Costs allowed :- 3,428 - 00 --------------

Addl.Junior Civil Judge – cum Addl.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram

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

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

PEDDAPURAM::

Present : Sri G.Harshavardhan,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

Tuesday, the 21st day of February, 2023.

O.S.No.94/2021

Between:

Valluri Venkatarao, S/o Veerraju, Age: 60 years, Cultivation, D.No.3-164, Bommala Ramalayam veedhi, Rayabhupalapatnam village, Peddapuram Mandal, Peddapuram J.C.J. court limits. … Plaintiff

And

Vadlapati Musalayya, S/o Venkanna, Age: 50 years, Seasonal Fruit Business, D.N.4-252, Near Ambedkar statue, SC peta, Rayabhupalapatnam village, Peddapuram Mandal. Peddapuram J.C.J …Defendant

This Suit, coming on 14.02.2023, for Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri D.V.S.S.Rama Chandrarao, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant has been set Ex-parte, for his failure though engaged Sri RVUM advocate for Defendant, to appear before the Court, inspite of Service of Suit Summons on him and also written statement not filed on his behalf; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff, seeking a Decree against the

Defendant and his Property, for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,46,505 /-, being the Principal and Interest due under the Suit Promissory Notes, dated 09-06- 2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- and on 10-06-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.90,000/- on the same day allegedly executed by the Defendant in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18 % per annum, and for subsequent interest, and Costs of the Suit.

2. The Case of the Plaintiff, as per the averments in the Plaint, in brief, is as follows:- 2

The Defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the

Plaintiff on 09-06-2018, for his necessities, i.e., for discharge of his Sundry debts, and the Defendant was executed a Suit Promissory Note, on the above date at Rayabhupalapatnam village of Peddapuram Mandal in favour of the

Plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same, with interest at 18 % per annum, and the

Defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.90,000/- from the

Plaintiff on 10-06-2018 , for his necessities, i.e., for his family expenses, and the Defendant was executed two Suit Promissory Notes, on the above date at

Rayabhupalapatnam village of Peddapuram Mandal in favour of the Plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same, with interest at 18% per annum, on demand, to him or to his order. Inspite of the several demands of the Plaintiff, the

Defendant failed to repay the same. The Defendant is intentionally evading to repay the amount, on one pretext or the other. But, the Defendant is going on promising the Plaintiff that he will pay the amount. Believing the words of the

Defendant, the Plaintiff waited with fond hope that the Defendant will pay the amount. The Plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 27-05-2021 to the Defendant by registered post with acknowledgment due demanding repayment of debt due under the suit promissory notes. The Defendant did not comply with demand nor gave any reply. The Defendant has no manner of right to evade, without paying amount to him. Therefore, the Plaintiff has filed this Suit for recovery of the Suit Promissory Note amount, along with interest and Costs of the Suit, from the Defendant.

3. On 23-03-2022 the Defendant was called absent, and there was no representation on his behalf and the Defendant has failed to file his written statement within a stipulated period of 90 days. Hence, the

Service of Summons on the Defendant was held sufficient, and the

Defendant was set Ex-parte on the same day.

4. The Plaintiff Valluri Venkatarao was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to

A5 are produced on his behalf to prove his claim and P.W.2 one of the 3 third party who is atester of this suit was examined as P.W.2.

5. Heard the Arguments on the side of the Plaintiff.

6.The Point for consideration is whether the Plaintiff is entitled

for recovery of the Suit amount, along with subsequent interest and

Costs, from the Defendant, as prayed for?

7. POINT:-

Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the averments of the plaint in his chief-examination, he produced Exs.A1 to

A5 and one of the third party/attester was examined as P.W.2.

P.W.1 deposed in his Chief Examination Affidavit, on par with the averments in the Plaint as the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/, Rs.1,00,000/- and also Rs.90,000/-- from him under three promissory notes dated 09-06-2018 and 10-06-2018 respectively with an interest of 18 % p.a. He demanded the defendant to repay his debt, but defendant has failed to repay the same, then he had issued legal notice on 27-05-2021 to the defendant demanded to repay the debt amount under promissory notes Exs.A1 to A3. Defendant has received the said notice under Ex.A4, but did not comply demand and has not given any reply to him. Hence this suit filed by him. The evidence of

P.W.1 remained unchallenged.

8. One of the third party is P.W.2 and he filed his chief affidavit, in his chief affidavit he followed the same version of P.W.1 as he was present by the transaction of P.W.1 and Defendant and he was one of the attester of the three promissory notes/Exs.A1 to A3 and another person

Nimmalapudi Veera Venkata Srinivas also attested the same and Kanuri

Veerabhadharao scibed the three promissory notes.

9. Since the Defendant had failed to appear before the Court, and written statement not filed after completion of stipulated period of 90 4 days, hence the defendant remained Ex-parte to the Proceedings of the

Suit, it can be said that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has remained unchallenged and undiscredited. On account of the said conduct of the

Defendant, an adverse inference can be drawn against the Defendant to the effect that the Defendant had admitted the Case of the Plaintiff, and that he has nothing to put-forth as a contest for the same.

10.It would be relevant to refer to Exs.A1 to A5, which are relied upon by the Plaintiff. Exs.A1 to A3 are the original promissory notes dated 09- 06-2018 and 10-06-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and

Rs.90,000/- executed by the Defendant; Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice got issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant dated 27-05-2021; and

Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgment return from the Defendant. As seen from the recitals therein, the promissory note was scribed by Kanuri

Veerabhadrarao, and the said Document was attested by two persons who are P.W.2 and/Marni Govindarao and Nimmalapudi kVeera V enkata Srinivas. The Defendant had signed in Exs.A1 to A3, i.e., upon the Revenue Stamps in Exs.A1 to A3.

11. By virtue of the unchallenged evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A1 to A5, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff has established his contentions that the Defendant had borrowed amount from him under Exs.A1 to A3, and that he failed to repay the same, inspite of his oral demands, and that he is liable to repay the amount due under Exs.A1 to A3, along with interest and Costs.

In view of the above discussion, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

12.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs against the defendant, directing the defendant shall to pay an amount of Rs.4,46, 5 505/- (Rs.1,54,000/- +1,53,950/- + 1,38,555/-) to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is also entitled to interest on principal sum of Rs.2,90,000/- at 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of realization.

Typed to my Dictation, by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 21 st day of February,

2023.

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

P.W.1 : Valluri Venkatarao

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 : Original Suit Promissory Note, dated 09-06-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the Defendant. Ex.A2 : Original Suit Promissory Note, dated 10-06-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the Defendant. Ex.A3 : Original Suit Promissory Note, dated 10-06-2018 for Rs.90,000/- executed by the Defendant. Ex.A4 : Office copy of legal notice got issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant dated 27-05-2021 Ex.A5 : is the Postal acknowledgment.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

NIL.

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Peddapuram.

6

Plaint presented on :09-06-2021 Plaint filed on:09.06.2021

DECREE AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

PEDDAPURAM::

Present : Sri G.Harshavardhan,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

Tuesday, the 21st day of February, 2023.

O.S.No.94/2021

Between:

Valluri Venkatarao, S/o Veerraju, Age: 60 years, Cultivation, D.No.3-164, Bommala Ramalayam veedhi,Rayabhupalapatnam village, Peddapuram Mandal, Peddapuram J.C.J. court limits.… Plaintiff

And

Vadlapati Musalayya, S/o Venkanna, Age: 50 years, Seasonal Fruit Business, D.N.4-252, Near Ambedkar statue, SC peta, Rayabhupalapatnam village, Peddapuram Mandal. Peddapuram J.C.J …Defendant

This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff, seeking a Decree against the Defendant and his Property, for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,46,505 /-, being the

Principal and Interest due under the Suit Promissory Notes, dated 09-06-2018

for Rs.1,00,000/- and on 10-06-2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.90,000/- on the same day allegedly executed by the Defendant in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18 % per annum, and for subsequent interest, and Costs of the Suit.

Value of the suit: Rs.4,46,505/-

Principal amount on promissory note Rs.1,00,000-00

dated 09-06-2018

Interest on Rs.1,00,000/- at 18% from Rs 54,000-00 09-06-2018 to 09-06-2021 -------------------- Total Rs.1,54,000-00 ---------------------

Principal amount on promissory note Rs.1,00,000-00

dated 10-06-2018

Interest on Rs.1,00,000/- at 18% from Rs 53,950-00 10-06-2018 to 09-06-2021 -------------------- Total Rs.1,53,950-00 ---------------------

Principal amount on promissory note Rs.90,000-00

dated 10-06-2018

Interest on Rs.90,000/- at 18% from Rs 48,555-00 10-06-2018 to 09-06-2021 -------------------- Total Rs.1,38,555-00 --------------------- 7

On this a court fee of Rs.4026 + Rs. 4,026 +Rs.3,826/- (Total 11,878) is paid under section 20 Sch.I Art.1(b) (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

The cause of action for the suit arose on 09-06-2018, and on 10-06-2019 when the Defendant borrowed amounts and executed three promissory notes in favour of Plaintiff at Rayabhupalapatnam village, and on 27-05-2021 whe nteh Plaintiff got issued legal notice to the Defendant demanding for repayment and on subsequent dates when the Defendant failed to repay the amounts, at Rayabhupalapatnam village of Pedapuram Mandal where the entire transaction is took place, and parties are residing within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court.

This Suit, coming on 14.02.2023, for Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri D.V.S.S.Rama Chandrarao, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant has been set Ex-parte, for his failure though engaged Sri RVUM advocate for Defendant, to appear before the Court, inspite of Service of Suit Summons on him and also written statement not filed on his behalf; and upon hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day,, this COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

(i) the defendant do pay to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.4,46,505/-;

(ii) that the defendant do pay interest on Principal sum of Rs.2,90,000/- at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of realization;

(iv) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.19,740/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the Seal of the court, this the 21st day of February, 2023.

Addl.Junior Civil Judge – cum Addl.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram.

Particulars of Costs

For Plaintiff For Defendant Rs. Rs. Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 No costs memo is filed. Stamp on Plaint 11,878-00 Advocate Fee 7,600-00 Process 160-00 Type charges 100-00 --------------- Rs.19,740-00 -------------- Addl.Junior Civil Judge – cum Addl.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram. Note: The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree.