Sri J.sujin Kumar, Mobile Court, Atp

1 APAN040028512023

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile) for

trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar,

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 25th day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case No.872 of 2023

(Crime No.74 of 2021 of B.K.Samudram Upgrade Police Station) Between:-

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Inspector of Police, B.K.Samudram Upgrade Police Station. …Complainant.

AND

Pasupula Nallapa Reddy, aged 39 years S/o P.Obula Reddy, Siddarampuram Village, B.K.Samudram Mandal.… Accused * * * * * *

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri R.Veerajineyulu, Advocate

for accused, upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record,

this court delivers the following:

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

1.The State through Inspector of Police, B.K.Samudram Upgrade

Police Station, filed charge sheet against Accused in Crime No.41 of 2021 for the offences punishable under sections 171-E, 188 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C” for the sake of brevity) alleging that on 08.02.2021 accused had violated the model code of conduct and committed offence of bribery by 2 trying to distribute money to the voters and inducing them to cast their votes in favour of One Pasupula Narayana Reddy during Gram Panchayat elections.

2. Shorn needless details, the case of prosecution as culled out from the charge sheet is as follows:

On 08.02.2021 at around 11:30 PM, near the SC Colony of

Siddarampuram Village, B.K. Samudram Mandal, PW.1, the then Mandal

Agriculture Officer, B.K. Samudram, along with PW.4, a police constable, found the accused distributing money, allegedly intended to be given to voters of the SC

Colony in Siddarampuram Village. Upon enquiry by PW.1, the accused voluntarily confessed to the commission of the offence, stating that he was distributing money to influence the voters of the SC Colony to vote in favor of one Pasupula

Narayana Reddy in the upcoming Gram Panchayat elections.

Subsequently, PW.1 and PW.4 produced the accused along with the seized cash amounting to Rs. 1,03,370/- before PW.5. PW.5, in turn, formally seized the property produced by PW.1 and PW.4 under a cover of police proceedings drafted by him. Based on these proceedings, PW.5 registered a case in Crime No. 411/2021 under Sections 171-E and 188 of the Indian Penal

Code.Thereafter, PW.5 released the accused upon serving a notice under

Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the accused is liable to be punished under

Sections 171-E and 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence the charge sheet

3.This Court took cognizance of case for the offences punishable under section 171-E, 188 of Indian Penal Code against accused and numbered the case as CC.No.872 of 2023.

4.On 22.02.2024, copies of documents was furnished to accused as 3 contemplated under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

5.On 28.11.2024, Accused was examined under section 251 of

Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him for the offences punishable U/Secs.177-E and 188 of Indian Penal Code in

Telugu language, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the case was posted to trial.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined LW.1, LW.3,

LW.4, LW.2 and LW.6 as PW.1 to PW.5 respectively and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 beside Mo.1 and Mo.2. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.5. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence was closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in Telugu, for which he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defense counsel for Accused.

9.Perused the entire material available on record.

10.Now the points that arises for determination are:

(1) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

Accused for the offences punishable under section 177-E of Indian Penal

Code beyond reasonable doubt?

(2) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

Accused for the offences punishable under section 188 of Indian Penal

Code beyond reasonable doubt?

11.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 beside Mo.1 and Mo.2. PWs.2, 3, 4 and 4 are direct witnesses, PW.1 is the defacto-complainant, PW.5 is the investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the report of PW.1 dated 09.02.2021, Ex.P2 is

Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2, Ex.P3 is Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.3, Ex.P4 is the original First Information Report, Ex.P5 is the

Police proceedings dated 09.02.2021, Ex.P6 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence, Mo.1 is the FDR bearing No.785937 for an amount of Rs.1,03,370/- issued by Union Bank of India, District Court complex, Ananthapuramu and Mo.2 is the Voter list from serial number 1495 to 1776 (total 6 pages).

12. The Stand of Accused is of total denial. He contended by way of suggestion that he never committed any offence and false case has been foisted against him.

13. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3, coupled with the contents of Ex.P1 and supported by the testimony of PW.5, the Investigating Officer, conclusively establishes that during the period of the Model Code of Conduct for the Gram Panchayat Elections, 2021, the accused distributed money to voters, thereby inducing them to cast their votes in favour of one Pasupula Narayana Reddy. As such, the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 171-E and 188 of the Indian

Penal Code. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor therefore requested the

Hon’ble Court to convict the accused for the aforesaid offences

14.On the other hand, the learned Defence Counsel submitted that there is no direct evidence to establish that the accused violated the Model Code of Conduct promulgated by a public servant or committed the offence of bribery by distributing money to voters. He further contended that, in view of the express bar contained under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., the accused cannot be prosecuted under Section 188 of the IPC, as no complaint, as contemplated 5 under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., has been filed before the Court by the concerned public servant.

Furthermore, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 171-

E of the IPC, he argued that prior permission of the Court is necessary for registering a case, as the alleged offence is non-cognizable in nature. In light of the above, he submitted that the evidence of PW.1, being an official witness, is insufficient to conclusively connect the accused to the present case. Therefore, he requested this Hon’ble Court to acquit the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

15.In view of rival contentions, entire evidence is perused and this court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions of both sides.

16.For the sake of convenience and for proper appreciation of contentions raised by learned defence counsel, point No.2 is taken up for discussion before answering point No.1.

POINT No.2:

To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 188 of IPC, prosecution has to establish that accused disobeyed the order duly promulgated by public servant. In order to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 188 of IPC. Prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:

(1) That, there must be an order promulgated by a public servant.

(2) That, the public servant must have been lawfully empowered to promulgate such order.

(3) That, a person having knowledge of such order and directed by such order (a) to abstain, from certain act, or (b) to take certain order with 6 certain property in his possession or under his management, has disobeyed such direction.

(4) That, such disobedience causes or tends to cause (i) obstruction, annoyance, or injury, or risk of it, to any person lawfully employed, or (ii) danger to human life, health or safety, or (iii) a riot or affray.

17.According to PW.1, accused disobeyed the code of conduct orders which were passed during Gram Panchayat Elections 2021. It is the specific contention of the learned defence counsel that the prosecution failed to file copy of said proceedings. and further in view of specific bar contained under section 195 of Cr.P.C, complaint ought to have been given by public servant who issued order and so accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under section 188 of IPC. In view of such contentions it is relevant to note the following decisions:

(1) K. Satyanarayana and another V. State of A.P. and another reported in 2012 (3) ALT (Crl.) 224 (A.P).

In this case, it was alleged that A1 to A4 violated the Election code issued in connection with the Assembly elections and they were alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of Indian Penal Code. In that context, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:

“By virtue of Section 195 (1) (a) (i) Cr.P.C, the Court should not take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC except on a written complaint given by the complainant. In the present case, admittedly, the corresponding report was filed by the Constable of

Ramachandrapuram police Station and subsequently the charge sheet was filed by the concerned Inspector of that police station. Thus, there has been clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of

Cr.P.C. Therefore taking cognizance in the present case is not tenable and accordingly the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Nobody should be prosecuted without the authority of law and doing so would amount to clear 7 abuse of process of law and harassment.”

It was further held in Para No.20 that:

“Section 195 (a) (i) Cr.P.C bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order.”

It was also held in para No. 25 as follows:

“ Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarized to the effect that there must be a complaint by the Public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of section 195 Cr.P.C are mandatory. Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court cannot assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction.” (2) Velagapudi Babu Rao Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2012 (3) ALT (Crl.) 236 (A.P.)

As seen from the facts of the said case, A1 to A4 who are members of

Political party were alleged to have caused obstruction and annoyance to the public in a protest against the hike of Petrol, gas charges in violation of

Prohibition orders promulgated in Vijayawada city under section 30 of A. P. Police

Act. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that:

“In any event, the Sub-Inspector of Police cannot be said to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 195 (1) of Cr.P.C. Since taking cognizance of the offence is barred under section 195 (1) Cr.P.C in the absence of any complaint in writing by the public servant, allowing the case to continue is nothing but abuse of process of law.”

18.In the present case on hand, PW.1 was not official who issued order 8 relating to model code of conduct. They even failed to say as to whether the said order was regulatory or prohibitory order. There is no whisper in his evidence about the person who issued the said order. Prosecution did not file any copy of order said to be issued by the Government. If really there was such order, it is beyond comprehension of this court as to what prevented to secure the said order. Apparently, no written complaint as per section 2(d) of Cr.P.C has been given by the public servant, who said to have issued order relating to model code of conduct during the general elections 2021.

19.Indisputably, section 195 (1) (a) Cr.P.C bars taking cognizance of offence punishable under section 188 of Indian Penal Code, except upon the written complaint of the complainant who was said to have promulgated the orders. As discussed above, in the present case, the case was registered on the basis of mahazar. Admittedly, he is not the person who promulgated the orders said to have been violated by accused. Therefore, in the light of the principle of law laid in the above referred decisions, the court is of the view accused cannot be held liable for the offence punishable under section 188 of Indian Penal Code.

So, the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 188 of Indian Penal Code, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered against the prosecution.

20. POINT No.1:

It is also the allegation of the prosecution that the accused committed an act of bribery by distributing cash to voters, thereby inducing them to cast their votes in favour of Pasupula Narayana Reddy. In order to prove this allegation, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4. However, PWs.2 and 3 did not support the prosecution's case and were declared hostile by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor. It is pertinent to mention that the testimony of PWs.2 and 3 is 9 of no assistance in establishing the material allegations levelled against the accused. As regards the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, it reveals that on 08.02.2021 at about 11:30 PM, acting on credible information, they proceeded to the SC

Colony of Siddarampuram Village in B.K. Samudram Mandal and found the accused distributing money to voters, requesting them to vote for Pasupula

Narayana Reddy. Their testimony further indicates that, during the enquiry, the accused confessed to distributing money to voters in exchange for their support.

Consequently, they apprehended the accused and seized cash amounting to

Rs.1,03,370/-, along with voter slips numbered 1495 to 1776 (six pages), from his possession. Additionally, the testimony of PW.5 establishes that he registered the case in Crime No. 41/2021 for the offences under Sections 171-E and 188 of the

IPC, pursuant to Ex.P4 FIR. He also recorded the seizure of Rs.1,03,370/- and the aforementioned voter slips, as produced by PW.1 and PW.4, under cover of

Ex.P5 police proceedings. However, it is evident from PW.5’s testimony that he did not obtain prior permission of the Court for registering the present case nor examined by voters who were induced by the accused to cast their votes in favour of the contesting candidate. These are crucial loopholes in theory of case set out by the prosecution.

21.It is also the core contention of the learned defence counsel that

PW.5-investigating officer did not obtain permission from the Court to register the case against accused as required under section 155(2) Criminal Procedure Code because the offence punishable under section 171-E of IPC. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the decision reported in 2016(1) ALT (Crl.) 16 AP between

M. Shiva Shankar and another Vs. State of Telangana – wherein the Hon’ble

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and for the 10 State of Andhra Pradesh held in para No.4 that “Having regard to all the above discussion, so far as the offence under section 181 of Indian Penal Code concerned it must be only by private complaint as offence affecting the administration of justice or the live and the report registered as a crime as if a cognizable offence and investigation taken up and filing of charge sheet for its taking of cognizance per se taken from any permission accorded to take cognizance in the non cognizable offences by the learned Magistrate is per se unsustainable as outcome of non application of judicial mind and there is no such permission even for bar to the police to register as if a cognizable offence for its un-sustainability.”.

As per the said decision, the cognizance of offence under section 171(E) of

Indian Penal Code taken without permission from the Court to register the First

Information Report is per se unsustainable. Herein the case, it is an undisputed fact that PW5 or any other police officials did not seek permission from the Court /

Magistrate under section 155(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to register the case

against accused for the offence punishable under sections 171-E of Indian Penal

Code which is a non cognizable offence. As such, the facts and decisions of the above referred case are squarely applicable to the present case.

22.In the light of the above decision of Hon’ble High court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and for the state of Andhra Pradesh in between M. Shiva Shankar and another Vs. State of Telangana case, the very factum of registration of case for the offence punishable under section 171(E) of

Indian Penal Code without obtaining permission under section 155(2) Criminal

Procedure Code and taking of cognizance under section 171–E of Indian Penal

Code are unsustainable. So, both on legal and factual matrix, the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients to bring home the guilt of the accused 11 for the offence punishable under section 171-E of Indian Penal Code beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No.1 is also answered against the prosecution.

23.In view of the discussion made under points 1 and 2, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under sections 171E, 188 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, this court has left with no other option except to acquit the accused

24.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 171E, 188 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted for the same

U/Sec.255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure code.

MO.1 : Fixed deposit receipt bearing No.785937 for an amount of

Rs.1,03,370/- OF Union Bank of India, District Court branch, Ananthapuramu is ordered to be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time.

MO.2 : Voter list from serial number 1495 to 1776 (total 6 pages) is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS(Mobile)

For trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

ANANTHAPURAMU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

12

FOR PROSECUTION FOR Accused

PW-1M.Shyamsundar Reddy:: NONE ::

PW-2P.Loknath Reddy

PW-3T.Suryanarayana

PW-4V.Surendra Kumar

PW-3P.Sai Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Report of PW.1 dated 09.02.2021

Ex.P-2Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P-3Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P-4First Information Report.

Ex.P-5Police proceedings dated 09.02.2021

Ex.P-6Rough sketch of the scene of offence

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 : Fixed deposit receipt bearing No.785937 for an amount of Rs.1,03,370/-

OF Union Bank of India, District Court branch, Ananthapuramu

MO.2 : Voter list from serial number 1495 to 1776 (total 6 pages)

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS(Mobile)

For trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

ANANTHAPURAMU

//True Copy// 13

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS(Mobile)

ANANTHAPURAMU

14

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (mobile) for trial of

cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Present: J.Sujin Kumar, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu

Calendar Case No.782 of 2023

Complainant : Inspector of police, B.K.Samudram Upgrade Police Station,

Crime No. 41 of 2021 of B.K.Samudram Upgrade Police Station Accused: Pasupula Nallapa Reddy, aged 39 years S/o P.Obula Reddy, Siddarampuram Village, B.K.Samudram Mandal Date of Report or Appearanc/ Released Commen Close of Sentence Offence Complaint Apprehensi on bail cement trial Order on of of trial accused 08.02.202109.02.2021------07.3.2025 21.4.202525.4.2025

Offences :- Offences punishable under sections 171-E, 188 of IPC.

Finding :- Found not guilty

Sentence of Order:- In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 171E, 188 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.255(1) of

Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure code.

MO.1 : Fixed deposit receipt bearing No.785937 for an amount of Rs.1,03,370/-

OF Union Bank of India, District Court branch, Ananthapuramu is ordered to be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time.

MO.2 : Voter list from serial number 1495 to 1776 (total 6 pages) is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS(Mobile) For trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

ANANTHAPURAMU

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu. DIS.No. Dt. //True Copy//

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS(Mobile)

ANANTHAPURAMU

APAN040035602018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

ANANTAPURAMU

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anantapuramu. Wednesday, this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.888/2016

Between:

1. B. Kondappa, S/o. Late B. Pakkirappa (Died)

2. G. Bhanu Prakash, S/o. Babaiah, Hindu, aged 28 years, Employee, D.No.27/416-A, Ambedkar Nagar, Ananthpauramu. (2nd plaintiff added as per orders in I.A.No.74/2024, dt.20.02.2024)

...Plaintiffs.

And

B. Narayana Reddy, S/o. Perumal Reddy, Hindu, aged 48 years, R/o. Baddalapuram Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

...Defendant.

This suit came up on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.R.K. Mohan, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri G. Ramgopal and Sri T. Ranga Reddy, Advocates for the defendant and having stood over till this day for consideration. Upon perusing the material papers on the record and after hearing arguments of both sides, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The suit was originally instituted by the deceased first plaintiff against the defendant, seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents, men, relatives, and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, along costs. Following the demise of the first plaintiff, the second plaintiff was brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased first plaintiff pursuant to the order passed in I.A. No. 74/2024, dated 20.02.2024.

Page 2 of 11

2. The brief averments of the neat copy of plaint filed by the plaintiff no.2 are as follows:

a) The first plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, having acquired it through a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2003. Since the date of purchase, the first plaintiff had been in continuous, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property. No person other than the first plaintiff had any right, title, or possession over the suit schedule property.

b) The vendor of the first plaintiff had acquired the property by way of succession from his mother, one Smt. Nagamma. Said Nagamma had, in turn, obtained the property under a registered partition deed dated 28.05.1992. The first plaintiff's daughter owns the land adjacent to the suit schedule property, and both properties have been jointly cultivated by the first plaintiff and his daughter without any physical demarcation. All relevant documents clearly establish the first plaintiff’s lawful title and possession over the suit schedule property.

c) The defendant has no right, title, or interest whatsoever in the suit schedule property. He is neither in possession of the property nor entitled to it in any manner. However, the defendant, being a person of political influence and having a considerable following, is attempting to unlawfully trespass into the suit schedule property and dispossess the first plaintiff.

Such an act, if carried out, would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the first plaintiff, which cannot be compensated in monetary terms.

d) The first plaintiff, being a law-abiding citizen with no political or external support, was left with no alternative but to approach this Hon’ble Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his

Page 3 of 11 men, agents, relatives, and servants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

e) That the first plaintiff passed away on 21.03.2020. Prior to his death, he had executed a registered Will dated 16.03.2020, bequeathing the suit schedule property to the second plaintiff. In view of the same, the second plaintiff has stepped into the shoes of the deceased first plaintiff as his legal representative and has now become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, as per the orders passed in I.A. No. 74/2024 dated 20.02.2024. Hence the suit.

3.After entering in to appearance through his counsel, the defendant filed written statement by denying all the material averments of the plaint and took the following contentions:

a) The property covered in Survey No.135/9 and the property in Survey

No.135/15 originally belonged to Anjinappa, son of Dubba Nallappa, and

Nagappa, son of Anjinappa. One Chedulla Gurappa, son of Nagappa, represented by his grandfather Sanjappa, purchased an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in Survey No.135/9 from Juturu Anjinappa, son of Nallappa, and

Nallappa, son of Anjinappa, for valid consideration of Rs. 200/- under a registered sale deed dated 14.10.1942. From the date of purchase,

Chedulla Gurappa was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.

b) The original registered sale deed dated 14.10.1942 was lost, reportedly while still in the custody of the original vendors, as stated by them.

c) Upon the demise of Chedulla Gurappa, his legal heirs—his wife G.

Kullayamma and two sons, G. Venkatesh and G. Gurappa—succeeded to

Page 4 of 11 the property. Subsequently, the said heirs sold an extent of Ac.0.40 cents out of Ac.0.46 cents in Survey No.135/9 to the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 17.09.2016. The boundaries of the said property are as follows:

East: Survey No.135/17

West: Road and land in Survey No.131

North: Remaining land in Survey No.135/9

South: Survey Nos.138/19 and 135/19

d) Additionally, an extent of Ac.0.051/2 cents in Survey No.135/15 along with a 1/4th share in the well was also sold to the defendant through the same registered sale deed. The defendant, by virtue of the said sale, has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property from the date of purchase and holds absolute right, title, and interest over the same. No other person has any manner of right, title, interest, or possession in the said property.

e) The boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule filed by the plaintiff are incorrect and fictitious. The vendors of the plaintiff had no right, title, interest, or possession in respect of the suit schedule property.

Consequently, the alleged registered sale deed dated 28.06.2003 and the alleged partition deed dated 28.05.1992 do not confer any lawful rights on the plaintiff.

f) The plaintiff is put to strict proof regarding the alleged right and title of his predecessors—namely, Juturu Nagamma (his mother) and Juturu

Adinarayana (his paternal uncle).

g) It is false and baseless to allege that the defendant has no right over the suit property. The plaintiff and her father have fabricated two separate sale

Page 5 of 11 deeds, each for Ac.0.23 cents in the same survey number, and have filed separate suits based on false boundaries and forged documents with an intention to falsely establish title over the suit property.

h) There is no cause of action for the present suit. The alleged cause of action, which is founded upon created and fabricated documents, is invalid and devoid of legal sanctity. Thus the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.

4. On considering the submissions of both sides and basing upon the pleadings and documents, the issues were settled on 25.11.2024:

i. Whether the deceased plaintiff No.1 was in the lawful possession

and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the present suit and consequent to the death of deceased plaintiff

No.1, the plaintiff No2 came into the possession of the suit schedule property under the strength of registered will dated 16.03.2020 executed by deceased plaintiff No.1?

ii. Whether the plaintiff No.2 is entitled for suit relief of permanent

injunction in respect of suit schedule property, as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?

5.During trial, the 2nd plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits A.1 to A.3.

6.No evidence has been adduced on behalf of defendant. Hence, the defendant’s side evidence is closed.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of

PW.1, coupled with the documentary evidence marked as Exhibits A.1 to A.3, clearly establishes that the first plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the defendant has been interfering with such possession. It was further submitted that, upon the death of the first plaintiff, the second plaintiff, being the legally entitled successor, has stepped into the shoes of the deceased and is now entitled to the decree sought in the suit.

Hence, it is prayed that the suit be decreed accordingly

Page 6 of 11

8.On the other hand, no arguments are adduced by the defendant counsel and so, this Court has treated the arguments of the defendant as nil.

9.Heard the counsel for plaintiff and Perused the entire material available on record.

10. ISSUE No.I:

In order to establish the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the 2nd plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and submitted documentary evidence marked as Exhibits A.1 to A.3. Exhibit A.1 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 28.06.2003 executed in favor of the deceased Plaintiff No.1, which confirms the ownership and possession of the suit schedule property by the deceased Plaintiff No.1. Exhibit A.2 is the original registered Will dated 16.03.2020, executed by the deceased Plaintiff No.1, bequeathing the suit schedule property to the 2nd plaintiff. Exhibit A.3 consists of three photographs and a Compact Disc that visually support the claim of possession. The documentary evidence, particularly Exhibits A.1 and A.2, unequivocally disclose that the first plaintiff was the lawful owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property prior to his death.

Furthermore, Exhibit A.2 (the Will) clearly establishes that the 2nd plaintiff succeeded to the property upon the death of the first plaintiff and is now in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, in accordance with the terms of the Will.

11.Upon considering the oral evidence, the testimony of PW.1 (the plaintiff) is consistent with the contents of the plaint. PW.1 testified that the first plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2003. From the date of purchase, the first plaintiff had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. It was further stated that, except for the first plaintiff, no one else had any right,

Page 7 of 11 title, or possession over the suit schedule property. The vendor of the first plaintiff had acquired the property by succession from his mother, Smt. Nagamma, who, in turn, had obtained it under a registered partition deed dated 28.05.1992.

Additionally, PW.1 testified that the first plaintiff's daughter owned adjacent

property to the suit schedule property, and both lands were cultivated jointly by the first plaintiff and his daughter, without any demarcation. PW.1 also stated that the defendant had no right, title, or possession over the suit schedule property.

Despite this, the defendant, who is alleged to have a significant political following, was attempting to trespass onto the property and dispossess the first plaintiff.

PW.1 asserted that if the defendant succeeded in his attempts, the first plaintiff would suffer substantial loss and injustice, which could not be compensated in monetary terms. The first plaintiff, being a law-abiding citizen without any political backing, had no choice but to file this suit for a permanent injunction against the defendant.

The evidence of PW.1 further establishes that upon the death of the first plaintiff, he succeeded to the suit schedule property under a registered Will executed by the first plaintiff on 16.03.2020. Exhibit A.2, the original registered

Will, clearly bequeaths the suit schedule property in his favour Following the death of the first plaintiff, he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property, as per the provisions of the Will. Having lawfully inherited the property, he maintained continuous possession of the suit schedule property after the first plaintiff's death.

12.Based on the testimony of PW.1, it is clear that the first plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the defendant attempted to interfere with this possession. The defendant’s specific contention, as outlined in his written statement, is that the vendors of the plaintiff had no right, title, interest, possession, or enjoyment over the property.

Page 8 of 11

Therefore, the defendant argues that the registered sale deed dated 28.06.2003 and the partition deed dated 28.05.1992 are invalid and do not confer any rights on the plaintiff. However, the defendant has failed to substantiate his claims with any documentary evidence. He did not enter the witness box to testify, nor did he present any oral or documentary evidence to support his allegations. Moreover, the defendant did not cross-examine PW.1, which could have been an opportunity to discredit his testimony.In the absence of any evidence from the defendant, and with the unchallenged and credible testimony of PW.1, it is evident that the first plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Upon the death of the first plaintiff, PW.1 (Second plaintiff) by virtue of the registered Will, succeeded to the property and continued in possession. The defendant’s claim to the property remains unsubstantiated, and his attempts to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession are without merit

13.As per the previous paragraphs, the documentary evidence and oral testimony clearly establish that the first plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property before his death. The first plaintiff acquired the property under a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2003 and was in exclusive possession of the property from that date until his death. The recitals in

Exhibits A.1 to A.3, which include the sale deed and the registered Will executed by the first plaintiff, clearly show that the first plaintiff held ownership and control over the property prior to his passing. Following the death of the first plaintiff, the second plaintiff, as the legal heir under the registered Will dated 16.03.2020 (Exhibit A.2), inherited the suit schedule property. The second plaintiff has continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property without interruption.

This is further corroborated by the testimony of PW.1, who confirmed that the second plaintiff, having succeeded to the property under the Will, has maintained lawful possession and control of the suit schedule property since the death of the

Page 9 of 11 first plaintiff. Despite these clear evidences of possession, the defendant has failed to produce any documentary evidence or oral testimony to dispute the plaintiff's claims. The defendant did not enter the witness box to testify or challenge the documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff, nor did he cross- examine PW.1 to raise any suspicion about the plaintiff's possession of the property, both before and after the death of the first plaintiff.

14.Had the defendant truly been in possession of the property, he would have taken legal steps, such as issuing a notice or filing proceedings, to assert his rights. The failure of the defendant to take such actions, coupled with the absence of any counter-evidence, leads the Court to draw an adverse inference against the defendant’s contentions.

15.In conclusion, the first plaintiff's possession of the suit schedule property before his death and the succession of the second plaintiff under the registered Will remain undisputed. This is firmly supported by the documentary evidence, including Exhibits A.1 to A.3, and the oral testimony of PW.1.

Therefore, the Court finds no reason to doubt the validity of these documents or the testimony of PW.1. As such, the second plaintiff's claims to the suit schedule property are established beyond dispute.

16.In view of the above discussion, the Court holds that the first plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property prior to his death. The evidence, including Exhibits A.1 to A.3, supports that the first plaintiff purchased the property and was in exclusive possession of it from the date of purchase until his death. Furthermore, upon the death of the first plaintiff, the second plaintiff, as the legal heir under the registered Will dated 16.03.2020, succeeded to the property and has continued to be in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The second plaintiff’s possession is thus

Page 10 of 11 established . Therefore, the Court finds that both the first plaintiff, prior to his death, and the second plaintiff, after his death, were in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant has failed to produce any evidence to dispute the plaintiff's possession, either before or after the death of the first plaintiff. As such, the second plaintiff has successfully established his rightful possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the issue No.I is answered in favour of the 2nd plaintiff and against the defendant.

17. ISSUE NO’S. II AND III :

In view of the above discussion and the findings in Issue No.1, the

Court holds that the first plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property prior to his death. Upon the death of the first plaintiff, the second plaintiff, as the legal heir under the registered Will dated 16.03.2020, succeeded to the property and continued to be in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same.

The evidence of PW.1 further establishes that the defendant has attempted to interfere with the possession of the first plaintiff over the suit schedule property, both during the lifetime of the first plaintiff and after the death of the first plaintiff, when he came into possession. The defendant did not cross- examine PW.1 nor did he produce any evidence to support his claims. Thus, the

Court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 regarding the defendant's interference with the plaintiff's possession.

18.In light of these circumstances, the Court deems it just and appropriate to grant the relief of permanent injunction, to prevent the defendant from continuing his unlawful interference, thereby ensuring the ends of justice are met. For the reasons stated above, the Court holds that the second plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant, his men,

Page 11 of 11 agents, and servants. Accordingly, Issue Nos. II and III are answered in favor of the second plaintiff and against the defendant.

19.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, granting a permanent injunction in favor of the second plaintiff, restraining the defendant, his men, agents, and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the second plaintiff.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/-J.Sujin Kumar

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anantapuramu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: G. Bhanu Prakash

FOR DEFENDANT:

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Exhibit A.1: Certified copy of the Registered sale deed executed in favour of deceased plaintiff No.1, dated 28.06.2003 Exhibit A.2: Original will executed by deceased plaintiff No.1/B. Kondappa,

dated 16.03.2020

Exhibit A.3: Photos (3 in number) with Compact Disc

FOR DEFENDANT:

- NIL -

Sd/-J.Sujin Kumar

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Anantapuramu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: J.SUJIN KUMAR,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu, FAC-III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 7th day of April, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 284 of 2023

UCO Bank, a corporate body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head office at 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata, with a branch office at Ananthapuramu, represented by its Branch Manager, Ananthapuramu. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1. S.Sayed Jabeer, S/o S.Shameer, aged 34 years, Muslim,

2. S.Shameer, aged 68 years, Muslim, Both are Residents of D.No.9C-59, Opp.Old Petrol Bunk, Main Road, Kalyandurgam, Ananthapuramu District – 515761.

… Defendants.

* * * * *

This suit came up on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri T.Raja Ram, Advocate for the plaintiffbankand defendants remained ex-parte and having stood over till this day for consideration. Upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing learned counsel for plaintiff, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of a sum of ₹4,11,443/- from the defendants, with subsequent interest and for other appropriate reliefs.

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

2

The defendants approached the plaintiff bank for financial facility to a loan of ₹1,39,375/- for prosecuting 1st defendant’s B.Tech (CSE) in Sri Krishna Devaraya

Engineering College, Gooty under Education Loan Scheme. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank has agreed to sanction the loan in favour of the 1st defendant on 26.08.2008 for 1,39,375/-. The 2₹nd defendant also agreed to stood as co-borrower for the said loan transaction. Both defendants have agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the bank and also agreed to repay the said loan amount with interest at 13.75% per annum subject to fluctuations as per guidelines of RBI from time to time. The defendants further agreed to repay the loan amount with 60 monthly equal installments after completion of one year the course or six months after getting employment whichever is earlier, for which they have jointly executed an agreement for education loan and deed of Hypothecation on 27.08.2008 in favour of the plaintiff bank.

The plaintiff bank opened an account in the name of 1st defendant with account No.17500610002513 and permitted him to operate the account. The 1st defendant operated the account and availed the loan facility. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendants acknowledged the debt on 30.08.2012, 27.07.2015, 30.06.2018 and 25.05.2021 respectively agreeing to repay the outstanding loan amount. Later, they failed to repay the outstanding loan amount. As per the account extract, the defendants have to pay the outstanding amount of ₹4,11,443/- as on 31.10.2022. Hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit for recovery of loan amount.

3.The defendants having received summons, failed to appear before this court and remained exparte to the suit proceedings on 26.09.2023 and 12.05.2023 respectively.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff bank, its Manager representing the said bank was examined as P.W.1 and also got marked Exs. A1 to A9. Ex. A1 is the Original loan application, dated 26.08.2008, Ex.A2 is the Original loan sanction letter, Ex.A3 is 3 the Original Agreement for education executed by the defendant Nos’.1 and 2,

Ex.A4 is the Original deed of hypothecation executed by the defendants, dated 27.8.2008, Exs.A5 to A8 are Acknowledgments of debt executed by the 1st defendant, dated 30.08.2012, 27.07.2015, 30.06.2018 and 25.05.2021 respectively and Ex.A9 is the Account statement of the 1st defendant vide account

No.17500610002513 dated 31.10.2022.

5.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for Plaintiff Bank. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is that:

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of entire suit amount

from defendants as prayed for ?

7. POINT :

It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendants being the original borrower and co-borrower are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding loan amount of ₹4,11,443/- as on 31.10.2022 with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, the Manager of the plaintiff bank who is representing the said bank is examined as P.W.1. Her evidence is just replica of the pleadings. It shows that on 26.8.2008, the defendants have made an application for sanction of Education

Loan for ₹1,39,375/- for prosecuting Engineering education under Ex.A1. The plaintiff bank sanctioned the same to the defendants under Ex.A2 and the defendants availed loan amount of ₹1,39,375/- from the plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the same with interest at 13.75% per annum subject to fluctuations as per

RBI guidelines. As security, the defendants have jointly executed agreement for education loan and deed of hypothecation (Exs.A3 and A4) on the same day in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendants have agreed for all the terms and conditions of the plaintiff bank, including the repayment of loan with the rate of interest and all other relevant particulars relating to loan transaction under Ex.A3.

His evidence further shows that later the defendants have executed 4 acknowledgments of debt on 30.08.2012, 27.07.2015, 30.06.2018 and 25.05.2021 (Exs.A5 to A8). But, the defendants did not repay the loan amount, except the amount shown in the account statement (Ex.A9) and hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit for recovery of outstanding of ₹4,11,443/- with future interest at the rate of contract, as disclosed in the account statement of the 1st defendant(Ex.A9).

8.The contents of Ex. A1 -Original loan application, dated 26.8.2008, Ex.A2-

Original loan sanction letter and Exs.A3 to A8-Original agreement for education loan, deed of hypothecation and acknowledgments of debt executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank corroborate the version of PW.1 regarding receiving of education loan amount for prosecuting the 1st defendant Engineering education and that the 2nd defendant stood over as co-borrower for the said loan transaction and so, they are jointly and severally liable to discharge the loan amount to the plaintiff bank. Ex. A9- computerized statement of account of the 1st defendant shows that the defendants have to pay outstanding balance amount of ₹4,11,443/- as on 31.10.2022. Since the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the authenticity of Ex. A1 to A9 are undisputed and unrebutted by the defendants, the court finds no reason to discard the same.

9.In such circumstances, the court holds that the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding balance amount of ₹4,11,443/- with subsequent interest, as agreed under Exs.A3 and A4-

Agreement for education loan and deed of Hypothecation with subsequent interest.

The Court has returned the plaint with objection that how the suit is within limitation as original agreement, dated 27.08.2008 and acknowledgment of D1 dated 30.08.2012 and the same was complied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff by stating that there is a specific term/condition agreed by the defendants that they have agreed to repay the loan amount within 60 monthly equal installments from the expiry of one year from the date of completion of course or six months after getting employment whichever is earlier. Apparently, the suit is filed with in the 5 period of limitation (three years) from the date of last acknowledgment of debt,

dated 25.05.2021. Since the defendants did not pay the loan amount and did not

even turn up to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff bank, regarding their liability, the court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendants.

Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff bank is able to establish that the suit documents relied upon by the plaintiff bank are true, valid and binding on the defendants and thus, the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendants. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank, directing the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of ₹4,11,443/- (Rupees Four lakh eleven thousand four hundred forty three only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of ₹1,39,375/-(Rupees one lakh thirty nine thousand three hundred seventy five only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this court, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- J.SUJIN KUMAR,

II Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu, FAC III Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW.1: Smt.P.Jyothi, Manager NONE (Exparte) 6

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex. A1: Original Loan application, dated 26.08.2008. Ex. A2: Original loan sanction letter. Ex. A3: Original agreement for education loan by D1 and D2. Ex. A4: Original deed of hypothecation by D1 and D2. Ex. A5: Acknowledgment of debt executed by D1 dated 30.08.2012. Ex. A6: Acknowledgment of debt executed by D1 dated 27.07.2015. Ex. A7: Acknowledgment of debt executed by D1 dated 30.06.2018. Ex. A8: Acknowledgment of debt executed by D1 dated 25.05.2021. Ex. A9: Account extract.

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

II Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu, FAC III Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: J.SUJIN KUMAR,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu, FAC-III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 7th day of April, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 284 of 2023

UCO Bank, a corporate body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head office at 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata, with a branch office at Ananthapuramu, represented by its Branch Manager, Ananthapuramu. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1. S.Sayed Jabeer, S/o S.Shameer, aged 34 years, Muslim,

2. S.Shameer, aged 68 years, Muslim, Both are Residents of D.No.9C-59, Opp.Old Petrol Bunk, Main Road, Kalyandurgam, Ananthapuramu District – 515761.… Defendants.

Suit for recovery of Rs.4,11,443/- being the amount due as per account extract and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 4.11.2022

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction of Rs.4,11,443/- and a court fee of Rs.6,626/- is paid U/sec.20 of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on the date when the defendants approached the plaintiff bank for education loan of Rs.1,39,374 to the 1st defendant and on 27.08.2008 when the loan has been sanctioned to 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant agreed to stand as surety for the said loan and both the defendants agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the loan transactions and when they have agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at 13.75% p.a have jointly executed all necessary documents in favour of the bank and when the 1st defendant availed the loan facility, and when the defendants became defaulters in repayment of the loan installments and on the date when 1st defendant has fallen due and on 30.08.2012, 27.7.2015, 30.6.2018 and 25.5.2021 when the 1st defendant executed acknowledment of debt acknowledging the liability, and on all subsequent dates of demands on the defendants for repayment of the amount due, but in vain, all at Ananthapuramu, within the jurisdication of this Hon'ble court.

This suit coming on 07.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Raja Ram, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants having been called absent, remained exparte, this court doth order and pass a decree:-

i) that the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank, directing the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of ₹4,11,443/- (Rupees Four lakh eleven thousand four hundred forty three only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of ₹1,39,375/-(Rupees One lakh thirty nine thousand three hundred seventy five only); ii) that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,628/- towards costs of the suit;

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 07th day of April, 2025.

FAC- III Addl.Junior Civil Judge Anantapuramu.

Table of costs for

Plaintiff Defendant

Stamp on plaint6,626.00--

Stamp on vakalat2.00--

Stamp on process-----

TOTAL:-6,628.00-Nil- (Fee and Cost Memo not filed)

FAC-III Addl.J.C.J./ATP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu. FAC-III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 07th day of April, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.98 of 2025

C.Chandra Sekhar, S/o.C.Ramakrishanaiah, aged about 50 years, Agriculture & Business, R/o.Maruru Village, Rapthadu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.… Plaintiff

Vs.

G.Veera Brahamam, PC.No.1063, S/o.G.Veeraiah, aged about 40 years, C/o.14th Battalion, APSP, Janthaluru Post, B.K.Samudram Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Defendant * * * * *

The Suit came on 07.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri L.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffand defendant remained exparte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of

Rs.2,43,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Three Thousand only) being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt 05.06.2022 for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and for costs.

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

2

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty

Thousand only) from the plaintiff on 05.06.2022 for his personal and family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and executed a demand promissory note on the dame day in favour of the plaintiff. In spite of made several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay any amount either towards principal or interest due under the promissory note. Hence the suit.

The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 15.11.2024. Hence the suit.

3.On the other hand, despite deemed service of summons, the defendant did not appear before the court and remained ex-parte to the suit proceedings. Hence, the suit is posted for plaintiff’s evidence on 10.02.2025.

4.The plaintiff in support of his contentions got examined PW1. He also got exhibited the original promissory note dt.05.06.2022 as Ex.A1, Ex.A2 is Office copy of Legal Notice, dated 15.11.2024, Ex.A3 is Postal Receipt, dated 16.11.2024 and

Ex.A4 is Unserved Postal Cover.

5.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for Plaintiff. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of entire suit amount from

defendant as prayed for ?

7. POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to pay

Rs.Rs.2,43,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Three Thousand only) under suit 3 promissory note dt. 05.06.2022 with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, he got examined himself as PW1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief examination. The said chief examination is just replica of his pleadings.

The evidence of PW1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 promissory note, goes to show that on 05.06.2022, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as

Ex.A1 from the plaintiff (PW1) and he executed marked promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 for Rs.1,50,000/- as Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff (PW1), agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and inspite of his repeated demands, the defendant did not repay the debt amount.

8.Since the evidence of PW1 as well as the contents of Ex.A1, remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff with his evidence is able to establish that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding upon the defendant. As the defendant did not repay the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note inspite of several demands of the plaintiff, the court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against him. Apparently, the suit is filed within the period of limitation. Hence, the Court holds that the plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim and so, he is entitled to recover the suit amount. Accordingly, the Point is answered in favour of the plaintiff in the following manner:

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,43,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Forty Three Thousand only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the 4 rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6 percent per annum till the date of realization on principal amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Court, this the 07 th day of April, 2025.

II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu. FAC- III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW1 : C.Chandra Sekhar NONE.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTFF:

Ex.A1 : Original demand promissory note, executed by the defendant infavour of plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/-.

Ex.A2 : Office copy of Legal Notice, dated 15.11.2024.

Ex.A3 : Postal Receipt, dated 16.11.2024.

Ex.A4 : Unserved Postal Cover.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

II Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu. FAC-III Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

5

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu. FAC-III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 07th day of April, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.98 of 2025

C.Chandra Sekhar, S/o.C.Ramakrishanaiah, aged about 50 years, Agriculture & Business, R/o.Maruru Village, Rapthadu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.… Plaintiff

Vs.

G.Veera Brahamam, PC.No.1063, S/o.G.Veeraiah, aged about 40 years, C/o.14th Battalion, APSP, Janthaluru Post, B.K.Samudram Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Defendant

Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,43,000/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note, dt: 5.06.2022 executed by the defendant infavour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with 24% p.a. and claimed at the same rate as the defendant is not an agriculturist and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 06.01.2025

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at

Rs.2,43,000/- and a court fee of Rs.4,926/- is paid u/sec 20 of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 05.06.2022 at Maruru Village, Rapthadu

Mandal, Ananthpuramu District. When and where the defendant borrowed the amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- and executed the suti pronote in favour of plaintiff and on subsequent days when the plaintiff made several demands on the defendant on 15.11.2025, when the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant and the legal notice was not served on him but he managed him but the defendant failed to pay the amount. All these are happend at

Maruru Villag, Rapthadu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, which situated within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble court.

6

The suit came on 07.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

L.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffand defendant remained exparte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and Decree;

1) that the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,43,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Three

Thousand only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6 percent per annum till the date of realization on principal amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

Fifty Thousand only), and

2) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 9,593/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 07th day of April, 2025.

II. ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC-III. ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANANTAPURAMU.

TABLE OF COSTS

PLAINTIFFDEFENDANT

Stamp on plaint4,926-00Stamp on plaint-

Stamp on vakalat2-00Stamp on vakalat-

Stamp on processStamp on process- 70-00 Proc.wrg.chargesProc.wrg.charges- 50-00 Typing chargesTyping charges- 50-00 Publication chargesPublication charges--

Advocate fee 4,495-00Advocate fee -

TOTAL9,593-00 TOTAL-NIL-

FAC-III AJCJ/ATP

Case Historyhttp://172.17.40.130/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.p...

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Addl. Jr. Civil Judge

Case No. :PRC/0000018/2024 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH S.H.O IV town PS Vs R.joythi

Date : 07-04-2025

Business: Order Pronounced in the open court (V.S.O). The accused(A1) obtained bail as per the order dated 12.07.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.349/2022, The A2 to A4 have obtained bail as per the order dated 13.07.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.345/2022 in Cr.No.161/2022 of Ananthapuramu IV Town Police Station on the filed of Spl.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu

and they shall be continued on bail until the conclusion of the trial U/sec.209(b) of Cr.P.C., The entire record of the case and documents and articles, if any which are to be produced in evidence shall be submitted to the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Ananthapuramu U/sec.209(c) of Cr.P.C.,

The Public Prosecutor, Ananthapuramu has to be notified of committal of this case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Ananthapuramu U/sec.209(d) of Cr.P.C., On questioning the the accused 1, 2 and 4 they stated that they have means to engage an advocate. When A1, A2 & A4 are questioned about the means, they submitted that they have got means to engage counsel to conduct the trial of the case before the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Anantapuramu. In the result, the case against A1, A2 & A4 is committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Anantapuramu under section 209 (a) of Criminal Procedure Code, as the offence alleged against accused 1, 2 and 4 under sections 115, 116, 120-B r/w 34 IPC and 25(1) (B)(b) Arms Act, is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions. The office is directed to submit the case records, case property and other material if any, to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Anantapuramu. Accused are directed to appear before the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Anantapuramu, after receipt of summons. Case against Accused No.3 was abated on account of his death. Nature of Disposal: COMMITTED TO SESSIONS Disposal Date: 07-04-2025 Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Addl. Jr. Civil Judge 1 of 101/05/25, 3:45 pm