Sri.J.Rama Murthy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: R.R. DISTRICT

AT L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI J. RAMA MURTHY, B. Sc.,LL.B.,

IIIADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JANUARY, 2012

O.S.NO.3945 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

Sri Madadi Rama Krishna Reddy, ..Plaintiff

AND

1. Sri N. Sudershan Rao,

2. Sri S. Mohan Reddy, ..Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Narasimha, counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri S. Venkateshwarlu, counsel for defendant no.2 and the defendant no.1 called absent and set ex-parte and upon perusal of the material records and upon hearing the arguments, the matter having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction, to restrain the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and with costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property, which is plot Nos.289, admeasuring 170 sq. yards, Sy No.30 of Sahebnagar

Kalan, Village, Rangareddy District, from Sama Ranga Reddy, represented by his agreement-cum-GPA Holders V.V. Raghavaiah and N. Kalyan Chakravarthy, under a registered sale deed. The vendor of the plaintiff acquired several plots bearing

Nos.289, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309 admeasuring 170, 167, 167, 167, 167, 167 sq.

yards, respectively. Total admeasuring 1005 sq. yards, in Sy Nos.30 to 33, 49 and 50, of Sahebnagar Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District, from the original pattedars, namely Sama Venkat Reddy and 8 others, under a registered released deed.

Plaintiff has obtained permission from L.B. Nagar Municipality, for construction of the house. He has also paid betterment charges and development charges to 2

HUDA. Plaintiff after depositing the original title deeds obtained loan from bank, for construction of house. On 20-11-2006 and again on 26-11-2006, the defendants came to the suit schedule property and tried to stop the work under progress, without having any right or title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff prevented the illegal acts of the defendant. Plaintiff approached the Vanasthalipuram Police

Station on 27-11-2006, to give a complaint against the defendants, but the police advised to approach appropriate Civil Court. Therefore, the plaintiff filed this suit.

3. Defendant no.1was called absent and he is set ex-parte.

4. Defendant No.2 stated in his written statement that, he filed a suit in OS

No.582/2006, on the file of Hon'ble VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, against S. Ranga Reddy and others, for declaration and cancellation of registered sale deed, in respect of the suit schedule property. He has also filed an IA not to alienate the property and the said court was pleased to pass orders on 14-09-2006.

Therefore, the sale deed of the plaintiff is not valid as per law. According to defendant no.2, he acquired title over the suit schedule plot. He never prevented the workers of the plaintiff to stop the work and he denied the allegation of the plaintiff, in respect of the same. According to defendant no.2, there is no cause of action to file the suit, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is barred by limitation and he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trail :-

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

2. To what relief?

6. When the suit is at the stage of trial, counsel for defendant no.2 has filed a memo, that defendant no.2 died on 2-5-2011. Since it is a suit for perpetual injunction, suit again defendant no.2 is abated.

7. The plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A9 are marked, on behalf of the plaintiff.

8. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

3

9. ISSUE NO.1 :- The evidence of the plaintiff is that, he purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.A1 sale deed. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed

dt:19-06-2006, which is disclosing that, plaintiff purchased the suit schedule

property from V.V. Raghavaiah and M. Kalyan Chakravarty, who are GPA Holders of Sama Ranga Reddy. Plaintiff filed Ex.A2 agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, showing that the same was executed by Sama Ranga Reddy, in favour of V.V. Raghavaiah and Kalyan Chakravarthy, in respect of the suit plot. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the release deed, executed by Sama Shanker Reddy and 8 others, in favour of Sama Ranga Reddy, in respect of the suit plot and other plots.

Ex.A4 and A6 are the miscellaneous receipts issued by L.B. Nagar Municipality, in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A5 is the counter foil of Canara Bank, in respect of payment of Rs.1880/- by the plaintiff, towards the developmental charges to

HUDA. Ex.A7 is the proceedings issued by the Commissioner, L.B. Nagar

Municipality, in favour of the plaintiff, for construction of the house dt:13-10-2006.

Ex.A8 is the sanctioned plan in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A9 is the Encumbrance

Certified dt:28-11-2006, showing the transaction of the suit plot by the plaintiff. It is already discussed that defendant no.1 did not contest the suit and defendant no.2 died and against whom the suit was abated. Therefore, the evidence of the plaintiff supported by the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A9, show that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour, as such, he is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed, by granting perpetual injunction by restraining defendant no.1, his men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over he suit schedule property. There shall be no order as to the costs.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th day of January, 2012.

III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

4

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED :- FOR PLAINTIFF :- FOR DEFENDANTS :- PW.1Sri Madadi Rama Krishna Reddy, -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED :- FOR PLAINTIFF :- Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed dt:19-06-2006, Ex.A2 agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the release deed, e Ex.A4&A6 are the miscellaneous receipts issued by L.B. Nagar Municipality, Ex.A5 is the counter foil of Canara Bank, Ex.A7 is the proceedings issued by the Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Municipality

dt:13-10-2006,

Ex.A8 is the sanctioned plan, Ex.A9 is the Encumbrance Certified dt:28-11-2006,

FOR DEFENDANTS :- -NIL-

III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: R.R. DISTRICT

AT L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT; SRI J.RAMA MURTHY,B. Sc.,LL.B.,

IIIADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

O.S.NO.765 of 2010

BETWEEN:

1. Sri A. Narender Reddy,

2. Sri A. Parashuram Reddy ..PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS

AND

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, reptd., by its Deputy Commissioner, ..REPONDENT/DEFENDANT

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Nyayapathi Prashanth, Counsel for the petitioners and the defendant called absent and he was set ex-parte and upon perusal of the material records and upon hearing the arguments, the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction, to restrain the defendant, its officers and labour, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for demolition of shed, along with the rooms raised, adjacent to the premises No.2-4-1030/1, in Sy No.134, situated at

Samathapuri, Nagole Cross Roads, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, with costs.

2. The brief averments in the affidavit are that the plaintiffs are joint owners of 3,600 sq. yards, in Sy No.134, situated at Samathapuri, Nagole X Roads,

Rangareddy District and they got the same the registered partition deed document No.14443/2006. The plaintiffs have constructed the house in the year 2006 and they left some part such as outside plastering to the rooms and white washing etc. In the month of October 2010, the defendant officials threatened to demolish the shed, alleging that, the plaintiffs have not obtained any permission for the same. The plaintiffs informed that, they 2 have completed the construction and the action sought to be initiated, by the defendant officials without issuing any notice under MCH Act is illegal and arbitrary. The plaintiffs further requested the defendant officials, that they are ready to pay the compounding fees, if any, for the purpose of regularization of the shed. The defendant officials could not succeed in the ill motives, due to timely intervention of local people and resistance of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have issued a notice to the defendant on 19-10-2010, that the construction is old one and that they are not doing any fresh construction at the site and requested the defendant officials, who informed about the fees to get the construction regularized. The respondent having received the notice have not passed any orders. The plaintiffs have not encroached the land of the neighbours or public in general. The defendant officials again came on 14- 12-2010 and attempted to demolish the shed, but the plaintiffs resisted them with the help of the neighbours and locality people. The defendant officials failed to pass any orders on the notice issued by the plaintiffs u/s.685.

Therefore, the plaintiffs have stated that they have made out a prima facie case without balance of convenience and they prayed to grant interim injunction.

3. The defendant was called absent and the written statement was not filed, even after expiry of 20 days and there was no representation, as such, the respondent was set ex-parte.

4. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

5. Plaintiff no.1 is examined as PW.1, on behalf of the plaintiffs and Ex.A1 and A2 are marked.

6. Heard the plaintiff counsel.

7. POINT :- PW.1 who is the plaintiff no.1 has reiterated in his chief affidavit as to 3 the contents of the plaint. According to PW.1, himself and the second plaintiff were the joint owners of 3,600 sq. yards in Sy No.134, situated at Samathapuri,

Nagole Cross Roads, Rangareddy District and he filed Ex.A1 certified copy of the partition deed dt:29-09-2006, which is disclosing that A. Purushotham

Reddy, who is plaintiff no.2 was allotted Ac.2.19 1/2gts, in Sy No.130 part, 131 part, 134 part and 137 part and A. Narender Reddy, who is plaintiff no.1 was allotted Ac.2.19 ½ gts in Sy No.130 part, 131 part and 134 part, situated at Nagole Village. Ex.A2 is the notice u/s.685 of the HMC Act, dt:19-10- 2010, issued by plaintiff no.1 to the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.3, LB

Nagar, R.R. District. The said notice is disclosing that, they are the owners and possessors of the property in Sy No.134 of Uppal Mandal, situated at

Nagole Cross Roads, Nagole, R.R. District and they have constructed six rooms and one shed, without obtaining any permission. But they are ready to get the same regularized and they have not applied for regularization proceedings and requested to inform about the total fees to be paid for the purpose of regularization. It is further stated that, they have constructed the shed in the year 2006, as such demolishing the same by the defendant officials does not arise. He further requested to inform the total fees to be paid for the process of regularization. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiffs have constructed a shed and six rooms abetting the said shed without obtaining permission from the defendant officials. Ex.A2 is showing that, they have requested the defendant officials to inform about the fees to be paid for regularization of their construction. Ex.A2 is clearly showing that, it has been receive by the GHMC, L.B. Nagar. But the defendant officials did not file any written statement and they were set ex-parte. In the said circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for.

Accordingly, this point is answered, in favour of the plaintiffs.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed, by granting perpetual injunction, to restrain the defendant, its officers and labour, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for demolition of shed, along with the rooms raised, adjacent to the premises No.2-4-1030/1, in Sy No.134, 4 situated at Samathapuri, Nagole Cross Roads, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District. No order as to the costs.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 7th day of February, 2012.

III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED :- FOR PLAINTIFFS :- FOR DEFENDANT :- PW.1 Sri A. Narender Reddy, -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS :- Ex.A1 certified copy of the partition deed dt:29-09-2006. Ex.A2 is the notice u/s.685 of the HMC Act, dt:19-10-2010,

FOR DEFENDANT :- -NIL-

III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: R.R. DISTRICT

AT L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI J. RAMA MURTHY, B. Sc.,LL.B.,

IIIADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2012

O.S.NO.127 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

Smt. M. Padma ..Plaintiff

AND

Sri M. Krishna, ..Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Sudarshan Reddy, counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant called absent and set ex-parte and upon perusal of the material records and upon hearing the arguments, the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction, to restrain the defendant, his men and agents from removing or damaging the memorial tombs in the suit schedule property, with costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that, the husband of the plaintiff and the defendant are own brothers and they are the sons of Late Ramaiah. The husband of the plaintiff and the defendant succeeded the estate of their father Late Ramaiah and both of them are living separately along with their families in separate portions of H.

No.2-7-18, inherited from their father. Though the name of M. Narsimha, who is the husband of the plaintiff is recorded in the revenue records, himself and M. Narsimha, are the joint owners of 0.24 gts in Sy No.681/1/A. M. Ramaiah, died long back and his body is cremated in the suit schedule property. The mother of Late Ramaiah, died before the death of Late Ramaiah and her body was also cremated in the suit schedule property. Wife of Late Ramaiah died in the year 2004 and her body was also cremated in the suit schedule property. The husband of the plaintiff got constructed memorial tombs. Till the death of husband of the plaintiff on 21-06-2010, 2 the family of the plaintiff used to perform yearly ceremonies at the memorial tombs, but the defendant never attended the same. But he was demanding the husband of the plaintiff to remove the stones in order to dispose of the property. The husband of the plaintiff got constructed a room near the tombs and obtained electricity connection.

Subsequent to the death of husband of the plaintiff on 21-06-2010, the defendant took advantage and tried to remove the tombs with the help of his men and the plaintiff resisted his illegal acts with the help of neighbours. The defendant along with his men came to the tombs on 2-4-2011 and again on 5-4-2011 and tried to remove the tombs. But the plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendant. Since the defendant proclaimed that he would remove the tombs, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3. The defendant was called absent and he was set ex-parte.

4. Now the point for consideration is :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

5. Plaintiff is examined herself as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A3 are marked

6. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

7. POINT:- The plaintiff has reiterated in his chief examination as to the contents of the plaint. She filed Ex.A1 pahani for the year 2009-2010, which is showing that,

M. Narsimha, who is the husband of the plaintiff is the pattedar of 0.24 gts of land, in

Sy No.681/1/A, which is the suit survey number. Ex.A2 is the death certificate showing that M. Narsimha, who is the husband of the plaintiff died on 21-06-2010,

Ex.A3 are three photographs with a CD, showing the tombs. As per the version of the plaintiff, herself and the defendant are the joint owners of 0.24gts of land and according to her, the tombs of her in-laws and her husband, were constructed in the suit schedule property. It is already discussed, that defendant did not contest the suit.

Therefore, it appears that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and there is balance of convenience in her favour, as such, she is entitled for perpetual injunction.

Accordingly, the point is answered against the plaintiff.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed, by granting perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant, his men and agents from removing or damaging the memorial tombs in the suit schedule property. No order as to the costs.

3

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 4th day of December, 2012.

III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED :- FOR PLAINTIFF :- FOR DEFENDANT :- PW.1 Smt M. Padma. -NIL- EXHIBITS MARKED :_ FOR PLAINTIFF :- Ex.A1 pahani for the year 2009-2010, Ex.A2 is the death certificate of M. Narsimha, Ex.A3 are three photographs with a CD, FOR DEFENDANT :- -NIL-

III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:R.R.DISTRICT

AT L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI J. RAMA MURTHY, B. Sc.,LL.B.,

IIIADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2012

O.S.NO.55 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

Sri M. Shantha Kumar, ..Plaintiff

AND

1. All concerned,

2. Sri K. Raju, ..Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri MG. Vidya Sagar, counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants called absent and remained set ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed to declare the plaintiff as the legal heir of Late Smt M.

Chenamma.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is an electrician. Late Smt

M. Chenamma, is the wife of the plaintiff and she died on 14-02-2005, leaving behind the plaintiff, as the only legal heir of her. During the life time of Smt M.

Chenamma, she purchased plot no.3 in Sy No.95, admeasuring 300 sq. yards, situated in Nagole Village, LB Nagar Municipality, through a registered sale deed dt;13-08-1990. Subsequently, a house is constructed on the said plot by obtaining permission from the Municipality. The plaintiff is intending to dispose of the property to defendant no.2. But defendant no.2 insisted for legal heir certificate.

Therefore, the plaintiff approached the Tahsildar, Uppal in the month of April 2010, for issuance of legal heir certificate, but the Tahsildar, advised to approach the civil court to obtain the same. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

2. Defendant nos.1 and 2 were also called absent and they were set ex-parte.

3. Now the point for consideration is :- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as legal heir of Late Smt M.

2

Chenamma?

4. Plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 and A2 are marked.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6. POINT:- Plaintiff has reiterated in her chef affidavit as to the contents of the plaint. He filed Ex.A1 death certificate which is showing that, Late Smt M.

Chenamma, died on 14-02-2005. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the sale deed PW.1 which is executed in favour of Smt M. Chenamma, W/o. Shanta Kumar, in respect of Plot no.3 admeasuring 200 sq. yards, in Sy No.95, situated at Nagole Village, LB

Nagar Municipality.

7. Sec.34 of Specific Relief Act says that any person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property, may institute the suit against any person denying, or interest to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit sought for any relief. Provided no court shall make any such declaration, whether the plaintiff being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. In the suit on hand, the plaintiffs prayed for mere declaration and they did not seek any relief ancillary or subsidiary to that. Defendant nos.1 and 2 did not contest the suit and they were set ex-parte. I like to rely upon a decision reported in 2009 (6) LT 221 between V. Hanya Naik and others vs M. Krishna Reddy and others, in which it is held that :

“No court shall grant mere relief of declaration, if the plaintiff being in possession to claim other ancillary relief, did not pray for it.

8. In-view of the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the legal proposition, it can be said that the plaintiffs are not entitled for relief as prayed for.

Accordingly, the point is answered against the plaintiffs.

9. In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 4th day of January, 2012.

3

III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS : FOR DEFENDANTS : PW.1 Sri M. Shantha Kumar, -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1 is the death certificate of Late M. Chenamma, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of sale deed dt:13-8-1990,

FOR DEFENDANTS : -NIL-

III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:R.R. DISTRICT:

AT L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI J. RAMA MURTHY, B. Sc.,LL.B.,

IIIADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY, 2012

O.S.NO.296 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

Smt Rajakumari Mardha, ..Plaintiff

AND

Sri G. Mallikarjun Rao, ..Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Venkateshwarlu, Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant called absent and he was set ex-parte and upon perusal of the material records and after hearing the arguments, the matter having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.86,330/- with subsequent interest and costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff on 16-03-2000, through a cheque drawn on AP Mahesh

Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd, Chaitanyapuri Branch, Hyderabad and the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favor of the plaintiff, aggrieving to repay with interest at 36% per annum. When the defendant postponed the repayment of loan amount on one pretext or the other, the defendant got issued a legal notice dt:24-11- 2009. The defendant refused to receive the notice, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3. After the receipt of summons, the defendant is present. The defendant failed to fie the written statement and as he was called absent and there was no representation, the defendant was set ex-parte.

4. Now the point for consideration is :- “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount, as prayed for?

2

5. Plaintiff is examine as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A3 are marked, on his behalf.

6. Heard the plaintiff counsel.

7. POINT:- It is the evidence of the plaintiff, that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from her, on 16-03-2007, through cheque No.033251, drawn on AP Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Chaitanyapuri Branch, Hyd and the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at 36%per annum. Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded for several times,but the defendant postpone to repay the loan amount on one pretext or the other. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 legal notice dt:24-11-2002. The defendant refused to receive the legal notice and the plaintiff received Ex.A3 unserved postal cover. It is already discussed that, the defendant having received the summons, failed to file the written statement and he did not contest the suit. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 supported by the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A3 established that, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.86,330/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization, on Rs.30,000/-.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of January, 2012.

III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

FOR PLAINTIFF :- FOR DEFENDANT :

3

PW.1 Smt Rajakumari Marda, -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 legal notice dt:24-11-2002, Ex.A3 unserved postal cover,

FOR DEFENDANT : -NIL-

III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGAREDDYDISTRIC

T