Ms Jyothi Sake

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA.

Present : Ms.Jyothi Sake,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota.

Wednesday, this the 20th day of December’ 2017

C.C.No. 90 of 2017

Between :

State represented by The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srungavarapukota. …Complainant. And :

Rajana Srinivasa Rao,S/o.Prakasarao, aged 48 years, Jami village and Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming on 19.12.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri.V.Ramana, Advocate for accused, and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Srungavarapukota filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act,1968 in Crime

No.11/2017 .

2. The facts of the prosecution case in nutshell are as follows:-

On 27.01.2017 at about 4.30 p.m T.Geetharani,Prohibition and Excise Head Constable,

K.Srinivasa Rao, Prohibition and Excise Head constable, B.V.N.Bhushanarao, Prohibition and

Excise Sub-Inspector and Y.Raju, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector were conducting patrolling at Jami village and mandal to detect the excise offenders. At that time, the accused coming on opposite direction carrying with one bag on seeing the Excise officials the accused tried to ran away. Immediately Excise staff surrounded and caught hold of the accused and

B.V.N.Bhushanarao, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector deputed T.Geetharani,Prohibition and Excise Head Constable to secure mediators but in vain and verified the excise officials and found that the bag contained 08 Gold Riband Elite whisky each bottle contains 180 ml. Sri

Y.Raju, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector has drawn one sample bottle for the purpose of analysis, sealed and affixed identification slips duly signed by the accused and Excise officials , since the possesion of IML, bottles is an offence, after explaining the grounds of arrest, the 2 accused was arrested. Basing on the occurrence report registered a case in crime No.11/2017 under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act,1968. Excise officials served 41(a) Cr.P.C., notice on the accused and released him. Hence the case.

3. On 22.06.2017 the cognizance of offence was taken on file under 34 (a) of A.P. Excise

Act,1968, against the accused.

4. On 08.08.2017 accused was appeared, relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and upon hearing a charge was framed under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, against accused was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the Course of trial, the prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Ex.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 Gold Riband Elite whisky bottle was marked. The evidence of K.Srinivasa Rao,

Prohibition and Excise Head constable, B.V.N.Bhushanarao, Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector were given-up by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, hence their evidence was closed.

Hence, prosecution evidence was closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under section 313

Cr.P.C, with regard to the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and accused reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments for both sides.

9.The following point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/sec34(a) of A.P Excise Act?

10.POINT

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.3 and MO.1 marked. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was found 08 Gold Riband Elite whisky bottles each 180 ml. On questioning the accused revealed that he purchased the said bottles at some where with an intent to sell the same at higher price for his livelihood.

3

As per the evidence of PW.1, while he himself and his staff were conducting patrolling on 27.01.2017 at about 4.30 p.m at the junction , which leads from Jami to Kottam village to detect the excise offenders. On verification they found 08 Officers Choice Reserve whisky bottles each 180 ml. P.W.1 was deputd by B.V.N.Bhushanarao,Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector for securing mediators from the village, but in vain.. On which they found that the accused is in the possession of the said bottles without any license or permit. Since the possession of liquor without license or permit is an offence after explaining the grounds of arrest the accused was arrested under the cover of occurrence report/Ex.P.1.

As per evidence of P.W.2/Y.Raju deposed that on 27.01.2017 he recevied case property, record along with accused.. Basing on the Ex.P.1 occurrence report, he registered a case in

Cr.No.11/2017 Under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and issued F.I.R.Ex.P.2, later he served 41(a) Cr.P.c., notice on the accused and released him. Ex.P1/Occurrence report, Ex.P2 is the

FIR, and analyis report is marked as Ex.P.3. MO.1 is sample bottle of Officers Choice Reserve whisky bottle.

In the cross examination of P.W.1 by the learned defence counsel, PW.1 admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality. Ex.P1 is silent about to who to sent for securing mediators from the village as well as to where they have sent for securing mediators. Ex.P1 is silent about batch number as well as date of manufacturing of seized bottles. They did not inquiry in the lines that from whom the accused purchased the said bottles.

11.To prove the same no independent witnesses are neither cited as witnesses nor got examined before this court. The evidence of PW.2 clearly shows that the scene of offence is busy locality,he did not issue any written instructions to secure mediators. Basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Cr.no.11/2017 under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise

Act,1968 and the same was marked as Ex.P2. Later PW.2 served notice under section 41(a)

Cr.P.C and released him. Analyst report dated:20.03.2017 is marked as Ex.P.3. Remaining property was destroyed after obtaining necessary permission from the deputy commissioner,

Excise and Prohibition, Visakhapatnam. So also the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 are silent about to whom they tried to secure as mediators in this case. In the cross examination of PW.2, he 4 admitted that there is a delay of 47 days in sending the samples to the chemical analyst. But when no person was called to act as mediators in this case at the time of search and seizure of the property, the alleged search and seizure is doubtful in view of this court. When the prosecution case is not clear one and genuine one with regard to search and seizure, then the conviction of accused cannot be sustained. When, there is no reasonable explanation is given by the prosecution witnesses for non securing mediators to prove that the accused is in the possession of the case property on that the version of the prosecution is not reliable one. So also no independent witnesses are cited as witnesses in this case, on which the drafting of occurrence report at scene of offence is also doubtful in the mind of this court. Hence, when there is no reasonable explanation and no clear evidence to show that the case property was seized from the direct possession of the accused and when there is no corroboration with regard to the same i.e., the accused was in the possession of 08 Officers Choice Reserve whisky bottles each 180 ml, automatically the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Hence, this court of opinion that basing on the prosecution version the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused that the accused is in the possession of 07 whisky bottles is in his possession, at the time of conducting ride by the PW.1 and his staff. Hence, point no.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the accused.

12.This court has relied on the evidence of PW.1 and 2. As per the evidence of PW.1 and 2, admittedly the scene of offence is a busy locality. On which there may be several inhabitants are available at the scene of offence to secure them as mediators. In this case, Excise Officials tried to secure one of them as mediators in this case, but they failed to secure them as mediators in this case. Even though the police officials have power to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators as per procedure laid down under Code of Criminal Procedure, they failed to do so. In case of search and seizure in excise cases, as per section 17 to 20 of A.P.

Prohibition Act 1995 deems fit the procedure for the search of property. Under section 52, 53 and 55 of A.P. Excise Act 1968 deals with the procedure with search of the property in both these acts, the procedure laid down for the search of property or person is similar to the procedure laid down under section 100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As per section 100 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the presence of independent respectable 5 mediators at the place of search and seizure is always desirable. In case of failure to act as the mediators by following the procedure laid down under section 100(4) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, sometimes it destroyed the prosecution case.

As per section 100(4) Cr.P.C., is “Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.”

As per the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, it is very clear that they did not make any effort to secure any independent mediator either from the locality or from the scene of offence.

Ex.P1/Occurrence report is silent about to whom they tried to secure as mediators from that locality. From the above said discussion, it is very clear that the Excise Officials did not follow the correct procedure laid down under the Act or Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence the search and seizure conducted by the excise officials cannot be considered as genuine to come to a conclusion that the search and seizure conducted by the Excise Officials are in proper manner to prove the case against the accused. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the accused.

13, This court upon relining on the evidence of PW.1 and 2, it is very clear before this court that PW.2 failed to explain the boundaries of the scene of offence, so also the prosecution did not choose to adduce the evidence of any one of the witnesses other than PW.2, who ever present at the time of detect the offence. Further, PW.2 evidence is clearly showing that he reiterated the investigation conducted by him, so also sending sample to the chemical analysis test and receipt of analysis report/Ex.P.3 only. Except that his evidence, did not reveal anything with regard to commission of offence by the accused. So also PW.2 who prepared the occurrence report at the scene of offence did not mention the boundaries in the occurrence report, as well as, he did not prepare any rough sketch at the scene of offence. In view of this court it is bounden duty of the Investigation officer to conduct the investigation in all corners, failing which it creates any amount of doubt in the mind of the court with regard to conducting raids, detention of the accused at the scene of offence and seizure of the case property from the 6 possession of accused. Hence, basing on the entire evidence of PW1 and 2 the entire evidence is not clear to show that the accused is in possession of 08 Officers Choice Reserve whisky bottles. Even though the chemical analysis report/Ex.P.3 is clearly revealing that the samples which was sent by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kothavalasa vide C.E.No.567/2017 is contained Indian Made Liquor, when there is no specific and clear evidence against the accused that he is in the possession of the same and the sample was drawn from the possession of the accused is not made out. In view of this court no case was made out against the accused under section 34(a) A.P.Excise.Act.

The defence counsel argued that as per charge sheet filed by the prosecution the accused is in possession of 08 Gold Riband Elite Whisky each bottle containing 180ml, but as per evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 Excise officals categorically deposed that the accused is in possession of 08 Officer Choice Whisky each bottle containing 180ml and Exs.P.3 analysis report contents 08 Officer Choice Whisky bottle. From the above said discussion, it is very clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this court found that there is no case made out the accused on which this point is answered in favour of the accused.

14.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act,1968, and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure

Code for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in-force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. MO.1/one sample bottle of Officer

Choice whisky bottle, and un-marked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. Accused is directed to appear before the appellate authority if his presence is required

before the appellate authority. Accused is further directed to execute a self bond for Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees five thousand only).

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of December’ 2017.

Sd/-Jyothi sake

Judl., Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence : NONE

P.W.1 : P.Geetha Rani, P&E Head constable. P.W.2 : Y.Raju, P&E Sub-Inspector

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P.1- Occurrence report marked by P.W.1, dated:- 27.01.2017.

Ex.P.2-Original F.I.R. in Cr.no.11/2017 marked by PW.2, dated:- 27.01.2017.

Ex.P.3Chemical Analysis Report marked by PW.2, dated:-20.03.2017.

For Defence : Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1/one sample bottle of 08 Officer Choice Whisky bottle.

Sd/-Jyothi Sake

Judl., Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 CLASS: SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA

Present: Kum. Jyothi Sake,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Srungavarapukota.

Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2019.

C.C.No. 172/2017

Between Dwarampudi Venkata Krishnareddy, S/o Somi Reddy, aged 32 years, Resident of G.C.C.Road, Srungavarapukota, Vizianagaram District. ….Complainant.

And

Padam Narayanamma, W/o Saminaidu, aged 55 years, H.No. 11-239, Srinivasa Colony, Srungavarapukota village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

…..Accused.

This case is coming on 17.04.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.V.S.Ramarao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri M.Durga Prasad, Advocate for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a private complaint filed under sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C. by the complainant against the accused for the offence under Secs.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act 1881.

2. The brief contents of the Complaint are as follows:-

Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant on 20.10.2016 in S.Kota village and mandal, Vizianagaram District for the purpose of clearance of his family debts and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant on the same day, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a., either to the complainant or to his order, despite of demands made by the complainant, accused issued an Account Payee cheque bearing No. 000002 dated 10.08.2017 for

Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Srungavarapukota village and mandal, in favour of complainant towards part payment of the above said pronote and the complainant presented the said cheque through his Banker State Bank of India, Punyagiri Road

Srungavarapukota Mandal in the month of August, 2017 for collection and said cheque was bounced and returned with a memo dated 23.08.2017 with an endorsement that “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” from the Bank of India. Then the PW1 got issued a registered lawyer’s notice dated 30.08.2017 to the accused and the accused received said notice on 31.08.2017, but the accused neither paid the amount nor gave any reply to the complainant. Hence, the complaint.

2

3. After recording sworn statement, complaint was taken on file. The accused after receipt of summons appeared before this Court and received the copies furnished to him.

He was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and he denied all the allegations as mentioned in the complaint.

4. On behalf of the complainant himself is examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.6 are marked on his behalf.

5. Upon closure of complainant’s side evidence, accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C., about incriminating evidence appeared against him from complainant side witnesses and he denied the same. Defendant herself is examined as D.W.1 and no documentary evidence adduced on her behalf.

7. Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the subject matter of the cheque i.e., Ex.P2 is issued by the accused for a legally enforceable debt.?

2. If so, whether the accused rebutted the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

3. Whether the complainant proved the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act 1881?

8. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the counsel for the accused.

POINT No.1:

9. The case of the complainant basing on the evidence of P.W 1 coupled with

Exs.P1 to P6 is that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the complainant on 20.10.2016 under Ex.P1 and executed Ex.P1 in his favour.

Subsequently on repeated demands made by the complainant she issued Ex.P2 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 10.08.2017 towards part payment of the amount covered under the promissory note. Then the complainant presented the cheque under Ex.P2 on the same day through his banker SBI, S.Kota for collection and it was dishonoured for the reason ’funds insufficient’ and returned to the complainant along with Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 cheque return memo. Then the complainant got issued a legal notice under Ex.P5 which was acknowledged by the accused under Ex.P6 kept quite without sending any reply or making 3 payment. On the other hand the case of the accused basing on her evidence as

DW1 is that her son sailed with complainant and by force created number of documents and pledged the documents to P.W.1 and further submitted that due to ill-treatment by her son he committed suicide for several times and she is below poverty line so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10. As seen from the respective contentions admittedly the signature of the accused on EX.P2 belongs to her and there is no dispute on it. When once the accused admitted her signature, on the negotiable instrument, a presumptions has to be drawn in favour of the complainant under the provisions of Sec.118 of

Negotiable Instrument Act that it is drawn on for consideration and the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumptions under the provisions of Negotiable

Instruments Act that Ex.P2 is not for a legally enforcible debt and it went to the hands of the complainant in another transaction, but not for the present alleged transaction.

11. Let us see the evidence of accused whether rebutted any presumptions under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, that Ex.P2 is not for a legally enforceable debt. To discharge the burden accused examined herself as DW1. She filed her chief affidavit with a contention that her son sailed with complainant and by force created number of documents and pledged the documents to P.W.1 and further submitted that due to ill-treatment by her son he committed suicide for several times and she is below poverty line .Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Here the chief affidavit of DW1 did not show any probability to believe the contention of the accused and she neither denied nor admitted her signatures on the impugned documents. She was cross examined by the counsel for complainant and except putting suggestions by suggesting the case of the complainant regarding the present transaction which are all denied by the witness nothing was found material in the case of the accused. Here there is no specific defence in the case of the accused.

4

12. Let us see the evidence of the complainant side witnesses whether shows any probabilities to believe the version of the accused. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and his chief affidavit is nothing but reiteration of the contents of the complaint. Through PW1 his document under Exs.P1 and P2 were marked.

Ex.P.1 is the impugned promissory note dt. 20.10.2016 said to have been executed by accused when she borrowed Rs.7 lakhs from PW1. Ex.P2 is the impugned cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- dt.10.08.2017 towards part payment of the amount covered under Ex.P1. Here it is relevant to refer the cross examination of

DW1 who admitted that ExP2 cheque belongs to her account. So the signature of accused on Ex.P2 and the cheque leaf belongs to the accused from her account are not in dispute.

13. Let us see the cross examination of PW1. During the cross examination of PW1 nothing was elicited as material. In the cross examination of PW1 by the counsel for defence nothing was found to discard the evidence of complainant that accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs from PW1 and executed Ex.P1 in his favour and subsequently issued Ex.P2 towards part payment of amount covered under Ex.P1 which is for a legally enforceable debt. Not only that the entire chief affidavit of accused is also silent about the said contention that she did not receive the legal notice and her signature on the postal acknowledgment does not belongs to her. So absolutely the defence raised by the accused without any probabilities to believe her version that in the money transactions of her son with PW1 and blank documents containing her signatures went into hands of PW1 who got filled and filed this false complaint. The evidence of PW 1 is unshaky to disbelieve his version that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs for which she executed Ex.P1 and to discharge the said amount issued Ex.P2 which is for a legally enforceable debt. Absolutely there is no defence to disbelieve the version of the complainant that Ex.P2 is not for legally enforceable debt.

14. In view of the above discussion as the accused failed to show any preponderance of probabilities on her behalf to believe her defence that Ex.P2 is 5 not for a legally enforceable debt . On the other hand the evidence of complainant coupled with his documents proved his contention that Ex.P2 is of a legally enforceable debt. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

15. Point No.2: In view of the discussion in point No.1 as the accused failed to rebut the presumptions to disprove the contention of the complainant that

Ex.P2 is not for a legally enforceable debt. This point is also answered in favour of the complainant.

16. Point No.3: In view of the discussion in Points 1 and 2 the complainant who adduced sufficient evidence on his behalf that Ex.P2 is for a legally enforceable debt and when he presented the same for collection it was dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient in the account of the accused for which he got issued legal notice which was acknowledged by the accused which are all shows that the complainant complied all the necessary ingredients to bring the accused to home for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act and thereby he proved the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is also answered in favour of the complainant.

17. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, accordingly, she is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

I typed in my Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on the 25th day of April, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srungavarapukota.

6

18. On 04.01.2020 the accused appeared before this Court. Complainant also appeared before this Court. The complainant and the accused reported that they have compromised this case and requested the Court to take lenient view.

19. This Court already pronounced the Judgment by found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but on the date of pronounce of the judgment, the accused called absent, on that this Court issued NBW against her to secure presence and to hear on quantum of sentence.

20. Today i.e. on 04.01.2020 the accused appeared before this Court and the complainant also submitted that he has compromised this matter out of the Court.

Heard on question of sentence.

21. Considering the submissions made by the complainant and the accused, this Court is inclined to take lenient view while imposing the sentence.

22. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, accordingly she is convicted under section 255 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default of payment of fine, she shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused is appraised of her right to prefer an appeal against the conviction and sentence.

I typed in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 4th day of January, 2019.

Sd/- P.Pradeepa,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kothavalasa, FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srungavarapukota

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Complainant: For Defence:

PW-1: Dwarampudi Venkata Krishnareddy D.W.1 : Mulagapaka Lakshmi 7

Documents marked

For Complainant:

Ex.P-1: Original promissory note dated 20.10.2016.

Ex.P-2: Cheque bearing No.000002 dated 10.08.2017 for Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Srungavarapukota issued in favour of complainant by accused Ex.P-3: Cheque return memo dated 23.08.2017 issued by the Bank of India, Srungavarapukota Ex.P-4: Memo issued by State Bank of India dated 24.08.2017

Ex.P-5: Registered Lawyer’s notice dated 30.08.2017.

Ex.P-6: Acknowledgment dated 07.11.2012

For Defence: - Nil -.

Sd/- P.Pradeepa,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kothavalasa, FAC- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srungavarapukota 8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDL.. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA

Present:- Kum. Jyothi Sake, Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srungavarapukota

Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2019.

O.S.No. 27/2016

Between: Chirla Srinivasareddy, S/o Satyanarayanareddy, 36 yers, Hindu, Srinivasa Colony, S.Kota village and Mandal of Vizianagaram District.

............Plaintiff.

And : Jami Srinivasarao, S/o Tatarao, 27 years, Hindu, Railway Employee, Resident of Srinivasa Colony, S.Kota village and Mandal of Vizianagaram District.

............Defendant

This suit came up on 23.04.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Trinadha, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri R.Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.2,99,466/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety six thousand four hundred sixty six only) on the foot of promissory note.

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

The defendant Jami Srinivasarao borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from the plaintiff Chirla Srinivasarao on 22.12.2013 for his family necessities, executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day at

Srungavarapukota village, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum to the plaintiff or to his order. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the amount, due under above said promissory note, the plaintiff got issued lawyer’s notice to the defendant on 06.11.2015, but the defendant refused to receive the lawyer’s notice on 16.11.2015 through Registered Post and he did not paid any amount. Hence, the present suit is filed.

3.It is ultimately prayed the Court to decree the suit for Rs.2,99,466/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety nine thousand four hundred sixty six only) which include the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

4.On the other hand, the first defendant filed Written Statement denying the plaint allegations.

Defendant submitted that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from one Satthi Satyanarayanareddi of Sreenivasa Colony of Srungavarapukota at the 2 rate of 24% per annum who was the close relative of the plaintiff for his sister’s marriage, the said Sathi Satyanarayanareddi obtained signatures of the defendant on a different unfilled blank papers, promissory note and also received some cheque leaves for the purpose of security at the time of borrowing by the defendant, subsequently, the said

Staynarayanareddi issued legal notice tot he defendant on 26.08.2015, immediately after receipt of the said legal notice, the defendant approached at his house and paid entire amount in the presence of Cheepurapalli Chaitanya and one Nanada Nagaraju and requested him to return back the documents, which is signed by the defendant but the

Satyanarayana Reddi could not return back the said documents to the defendant, said that the documents would be returned back after few days, and after awaiting some more days, the defendant again approached him and requested him to return back the said documents, then he replied that all the documents which are signed by the defendant are misplaced and could not traced out, due to good faith on him the defendant believed the words and returned back from there. He further submitted that he submitted written report on 24.09.2015 against Satti Satyanarayana Reddi for return the un-filling blank promissory note, which is signed by the defendant, the police noticed to him on the next day of the complaint, in presence of Srungavarapukota police, the said Satti

Satyanarayanareddi admitted and agreed to return back the said blanked pronote with a week of said complaint, after completion of one week, the defendant approached the said police, the police called him but the said Satti Satyanarayana reddi did not attend before the police and did not return back the said pronote to the defendant even thought eh police of Srungavarapukota did not take any action against him since it is civil in nature and the said Satyanarayana bore grudge against him with an intention to get wrongful gain and handed over the said un-filling blank promissory note to the plaintiff who was the close relative and associate to the said Satti Satyanarayanareddi, and moreover there is no cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit and suit is also barred by limitation and prays to dismiss the suit.

5.On the basis of pleadings, this Court has formulated the following issues:-

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 22.12.2013 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount ?

3. To what relief for plaintiff ?

3

PROCEEDINGS AT THE STAGE OF TRIAL :-

6. At the stage of trial, plaintiff is examined as PW1. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.3. He examined one

Gogada Apparao who is the scribe of the Ex.A.1 promissory note as PW.2. One

Kadari Jayasankar who is the 1st attestor of the Ex.A.1 promissory note as PW.3.

7.After closure of the plaintiff side evidence, the defendant called upon to adduce his side evidence. The defendant himself is examined as DW1, one

Cheepurupalli Chaitanya is examined as DW2 and one Nanda Nagaraju is examined as D.W.3 on behalf of defendant. No documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defendant.

8. ISSUE Nos. 1 AND 2 :-

These issues are group up, since the point involved them and finding on them as a bearing on each other.

9. P.W.1 consistently stating on point averments mentioned in the plaint about borrowing amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and executed Ex.A-1 by the defendant. Inspite of repeated demands, defendant failed to repay the suit pronote debt. The scribe and 1st attester of Ex.A-1 are examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and they corroborated the evidence of

P.W.1 in all aspects.

10. The defendant is examined as D.W.1. He reiterated the averments of his written statement as his chief affidavit. During cross-examination DW1 admitted that the signature on revenue stamp in Ex.A.1 belongs to him so also on acknowledgment and he signed on acknowledged after receiving the legal notice from plaintiff.

11. DW2 and D.W3 filed their chief affidavits in lieu of their chief-examinations and submitted that the defendant after receipt of the said legal notice, themselves and defendant approached Satti Satyanarayanareddi at his house and paid entire amount in their presence and requested him to return back the documents which is signed by defendant, but said Satyanarayana could not return back the said documents to the defendant, the said Reddi told that the documents would be returned back after few days, because the said documents are kept in his office, believing the words of the said Satyanarayanreddi, they went away from there, after 4 awaiting some more days, they again approached him and requested him to return back the said documents, then he replied that all the documents which are signed byte defendant are misplaced and could not traced out due to good faith on his, they believed the words and then return back from there. During cross-examination DW2 deposed that himself and defendant are friends, he does not know whether defendant lodged report against Satyanarayana Reddi for return of documents which were obtained from Jami Srinivasarao (Defendant) at the time of borrowing amount, he does not know the other debts of defendant, he does not know when defendant borrowed amount from Chirla Srinviasarao (Plaintiff) and the defendant informed him that he received legal notice and then after 10 days they went to Satyanarayana

Reddi and paid Rs. 1,70,000/- to him but he did not give any receipt for receiving amount. He further deposed that he know that the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant for repayment of debt amount under promissory note. During cross- examination DW3 deposed that himself, defendant and DW2 are friends, he doe not know other debts of defendant except indebted to Chirla Srinivasarao, he does not know how much amount defendant borrowed from plaintiff. He admitted that he does not know about Chirla Srinivasarao except Satti Satyanarayana Reddi.

12. It is the contention of the D.W.1 that due to complaint filed by him against the

Satti Satyanarayana, he bore grudge against him with an intention to get wrongful gain and he handed over the un-filling blank promissory note which is signed by him to the plaintiff who is close relative and associate to the said Satti Satyanaraynareddi and filed the suit against him, but DW1 admitted in his cross-examination that the signature on revenue stamp in Ex.A.1 belongs to him so also on acknowledgement .

Whereas DW2 deposed in his cross-examination that he doe not know whether defendant lodged report against Satyanarayanareddi for return of documents which were obtained from Jami Srinivasarao (defendant) at the time of borrowing amount and he does not know when defendant borrowed amount from Chirla Srinivasarao (plaintiff). DW3 deposed in his cross-examination that he does not know how much amount defendant borrowed from plaintiff. So, Dws 2 and 3 have no knowledge about the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant and also for suit amount. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 consistently established that the D.W.1 borrowed the amount and executed the Ex.A.1 promissory note. The suggestions made by the defendant counsel have been refuted conveniently by the PW.1 to PW.3.

5

13. The evidence of Pws 1 to 3 corroborated each other to show that the defendant who had borrowed an amount from the plaintiff executed Ex.A.1 which is true, valid and supported by consideration. Exs.A.1 to A.3 and defendant admitted his signature on

Ex.A.1 and receiving legal notice from the plaintiff and further shows that the defendant failed to repay the amount inpsite of receiving legal notice which was acknowledged by the defendant. So the evidence of PW1 to PW3 discharged the burden of plaintiff by proving his contention that Ex.A.1 is true, valid and supported by consideration and accordingly the defendant failed to discharge his onus not only he not even tried to elicit any material in their cross-examination, when Pws 2 and 3 stated about their presence at the time of transaction and the defendant who signed on Ex.A.1 in their presence which is material to consider the contention of plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A.1 which remains unchallenged even in their cross-examination.

14. Basing on above discussed documents, the plaintiff established suit claim as the defendant failed to produce any receipt for the repayment of the amount due under

Ex.A.1 promissory note and so the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly the issue nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

15.ISSUE NO.3 :- As discussed in issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff proved his case, hence the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

16. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.2,99,466/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety nine thousand four hundred and sixty six only) against defendant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from date of the decree till the date of realization over the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only).

I typed in my Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- S.Jyothi,

Junior Civil Judge, -cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srungavarapukota.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Plaintiff :- For Defendant :- P.W.1: Chirla Srinivasareddy D.W.1: Jami Srinivasarao P.W.2: Gogada Apparao D.W.2: Cheepurupalli Chaitanya P.W.3: Kadari Jayasankar D.W.3: Nanda Nagaraju 6

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff:- Ex.A.1 : Original Promissory note dated 22.12.2013 for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A.2: Office copy of Lawyer’s notice dated 06.11.2015.

Ex.A.3: Postal Acknowledgment dated 16.11.2015

For Defendant : NIL.

Sd/- S.Jyothi,

Junior Civil Judge, -cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srungavarapukota 7

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA

Present:- Kum. Jyothi Sake, Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarapukota

Wednesday, this the 24th day of April, 2019.

O.S.No. 71/2013

Between: Kandregula Apparao, S/o Ramunaidu, Hindu, 60 years, R/o Bhavani Nagar, Tennu Boddavara BO, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

............Plaintiff.

And : Kandregula Tatarao, S/o Ramunaidu, Hindu, 58 years, R/o Bhavani Nagar, Tennu Boddavara BO, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

............Defendant

This suit came up on 22.04.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.T.V.Ramanaji, Sri G.Chittibabu and Sri D.Trinadh, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri V.Eswararao, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff is having a right of way through the plaint ‘A’ schedule rasta, ABCD of plaint plan to go to his land for ingress and agress, for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his men and servants from any way interfering with the enjoyment of the plaintiff’s right of way through plaint ‘A’ schedule rasta, ABCD of the plaint plan and from making any obstruction by the defendant in the plaint schedule rasta and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the shed constructed by the defendant in the plaint ‘B; schedule, ABEF of the plaint plan, if the defendant fails to remove it, direct the plaintiff to get the same removed with his costs and direct the defendant to pay such costs to him and to pay costs of the suit.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

After death of the plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff, the defendant and their brother

Krishna partitioned their joint family lands among them under a joint agreement on 11.02.1995 agreeing the plaint ‘A’ schedule rasta/way as joint bullock car in width 18 links retained from Araku Road to stream and in between defendant’s lands there is only a way to the plaintiff's land to his ingress and agress, the plaintiff has no any other way except the plaint ‘A’ schedule rasta, the S.Kota Revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and other lands. The plaint schedule rasta is meant for ingress and aggress to the plaintiff’s land and the plaint 2 ‘A’ schedule rasta ABCD way of the plaint plan which is left fo the purpose of way/rasta only which the defendant also admitted in the partition agreement but the most part of the original partition agreement is eaten by white ants. He further submitted that in the month of February, 2013 due to differences between the families of defendant and plaintiff, the defendant forcibly raised a shed in the 1st week of March, 2013 in the plaint ‘A; schedule rasta, which is shown as ‘B’ schedule and showing ABEF of plaint plan and obstructed the plaint ‘A; schedule way through the shed and the defendant started proclaiming from the 3rd week of March, 2013at Bhavani Nagar village that he would trespass into the plaint ‘A’ schedule rasta and occupy it, as such, all attempts of the plaintiff became in vain. Hence the suit.

3) The brief averments of the written statement of the defendant is as follows :- The defendant denied all the material allegations of plaint and submitted that all the three brothers i.e., the plaintiff, the defendant and their brother Krishna are having equal shares in the site situated towards west of the R & B Road proceeding to Araku, the rasta to their lands towards west from the R & B road was situated towards extreme south of the vacant site called as Kallam Deppi (in which part of the same the defendant erected his sheds) subsequently partitioned among the three brothers equally, the southern portion was allotted to the defendant, the middle portion was allotted to the plaintiff and the northern portion was allotted to their brother Krishna, as the same rasta is more useful to the two brothers namely the plaintiff and the defendant, and since it is inconvenient tot he plaintiff to go to his land from around the site of the defendant, all the three brothers at the request of the plaintiff concluded another agreement dated 19.10.2012, according to the said agreement the rasta to the lands beyond the vacant site or kallam deppi of the 3 brothers was intended to be formed in between the portions of the plaintiff and defendant by closing the earlier rasta shown as A schedule and marked as ABCD in plaint plan, accordingly the new Rasta was formed in between the portions of the plaintiff and the defendant in the vacant site or Kallam Deppi abutting the

R & B road, later the plaintiff erected his sheds in his site, there is no obstruction to go to the lands of the parties behind the site towards west jointly through that Rasta, and the same was formed at the wish of the plaintiff himself, but suppressing the truth, the plaintiff filed the suit with malice to cause wrongful loss to the defendant by dragging him into unwanted litigation and hardship, the defendant filed the latest agreement concluded in between the plaintiff, the defendant and their other brother dated 3 19.10.2012 into the Honourable Court for kind perusal, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the defendant and the defendant would suffer loss and injustice if the false claim of the plaintiff is allowed and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

5) Upon perusal of pleadings and upon hearing both sides, the following issues were framed for the purpose of trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is having right over the Rasta ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to prohibitory injunction. ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction against the defendant ?

4. To what relief ?

6)On behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief- examination and got marked Ex A1, PW1 did not turn up for cross-examination and the evidence of PW1 is eschewed and no oral or documentary evidence is adduced by the defendant.

7).Heard both sides.

8)ISSUE Nos.1 to 3 :

9) To avoid repetition, since these issue nos. 1 and 2 are closely interlinked, it would be just and convenient of the evidence available on record is appreciated while answering these issues together and, hence, these issues are being answered together.

10) On careful perusal of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed his chief affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 and his evidence is eschewed on 15.04.2019 though several opportunities given to him for his cross-examination. Further the counsel for plaintiff reported no further evidence. On behalf of defendant, no oral or documentary evidence adduced and the counsel for defendant reported no evidence on defendant side.

11) On perusal of the document filed by the plaintiff Ex.A.1 is the pattadar pass book

12) PW1 filed chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination by reiterating the contents of the plaint, but PW1 did not turn up for cross-examination and his evidence is eschewed.

4

13) On a careful perusal of the plaint pleadings Exhibit A.1 which the plaintiff has not proved his possession right over the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule. It is settled law in a suit for declaration and for mandatory injunction it is essential for a plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit schedule property ‘A’ and ‘B’ as on the date of filing of the suit and in the instant case, the plaintiff did not turn up for cross-examination and further

PW1 did not adduced any documentary evidence to prove his right and possession over the plaint schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ property. In view of above discussion and in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has not proved his case and therefore, he is not entitled as prayed for. Accordingly, the issue nos. 1 to 3 are answered against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.4 :

14) In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

I typed in my Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- S.Jyothi,

Junior Civil Judge, -cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srungavarapukota.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Plaintiff :- P.W.1: Kandregula Apparao (Eschewed)

For Defendant :- None.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff :- For Defendant : Ex.A.1: Pattadar Pass book -Nil-

Sd/- S.Jyothi,

Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srungavarapukota 5

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA

Present:- Kum. Jyothi Sake, Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srungavarapukota

Wednesday, this the 24th day of April, 2019.

O.S.No. 92/2015

Between:

Avagadda Ramesh Naidu, S/o Late Raghavapatrudu, Hindu, 35 years, R/o Veeranarayanam village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

............Plaintiff.

And :

Kilaparthi Mangunaidu, S/o Lakshmana, Hindu, 44 years, R/o S.Kota Seetharamapuram village, Kondagangubudi (BO), Vepada mandal, Vizianagaram District.

............Defendant.

This suit is coming on 22.04.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.T.V.Ramanajee, Sri G.Chittibabu and Sri D.Trinadh, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri B.Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is suit filed by the plaintiff prays to pass preliminary decree for a sum o fRs.

2,92,500/- witn subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization, in case of default of the said amount of Rs. 2,92,500/- directing sale of the plaint schedule property for payment of sale proceeds to the plaintiff towards discharge of the debt, in case of sale proceeds are not sufficient to discharge the debt, pass personal decree against the defendant for the balance amount if any and for costs of the suit.

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

On 17.02.2009 the defendant borrowed Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff at S.Kota for his necessities etc., and executed a registered mortgage deed on the same day in favour of the plaintiff with the terms and conditions i.e., i) the defendant agreed to pay interest Rs. 2/- per hundred per month which equals to Rs. 3,000/- per month and to pay every month and endorse the same on the mortgage deed, ii). That the time fixed for repayment of the mortgage deed is 2 years from the date of execution of the mortgage deed, iii). That the defendant agreed to pay interest on interest (Compound interest) on the default interest and principle amount and iv) that in case the amount borrowed under the Mortgage Deed is not sufficient to satisfy the sale proceeds for the mortgage deed and agreed to pay the same from other properties of the defendant etc., and the 2 defendant mortgage the plaint schedule property and on repeated demands, the defendant did not pay any amount towards mortgage deed to the plaintiff but started taking time for the same but in vain, and the plaintiff got issued a registered Lawyer’s notice dated 21.05.2013 to the defendant who acknowledged the same on 28.05.2013 but neither replied no paid any amount to the plaintiff, as such all the attempts fo the plaintiff became in vain. Hence, the suit is filed.

3.The defendant filed written statement by denying the allegations in the plaint and submitted that he is a small farmer and he is not doing any business and he is not getting any huge amounts from the agricultural produce, hence the Acts of 7 of 1977 and 45 of 1987 are applicable to this case, as such the interest is claimed at higher rate, he agreed to pay the principal amount to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 6 % per annum and pays to decree the suit for the principal amount due under the mortgage only together with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the last payment of interest til the date of realization with costs on confessional scale.

4. The points for determination are :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree against the defendants as prayed for? and

2. To what relief?

5. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and one Imandhi Venkata Sivarao who is the scribe of

Ex.A.1 registered mortgage deed, is examined as PW2 on behalf of plaintiff. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the defendant. .

6. Issue No.1::-

PW1 filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination by reiterating the contents of the plaint and in his cross-examination Pw1 deposed that he got issued legal notice to the defendant for the payment of amount M.Jagannadham, M.Srinivasarao are the attestors of Ex.A.1. He admitted that the defendant is an agriculturist.

7. One Imandhi Venkata Siva Rao is examined as PW2 and he deposed that the is the 3rd party and scribe herein, on 17.2.2009 the defendant borrowed Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff at S.Kota for his necessities etc. and executed a registered mortgage deed on the same in favour of the plaintiff in his presence and also in the presence of 3 the attesters namely 1). M.Jagannadham and 2). M.Srinviasrao and he further submitted that after execution fo Edx.A.1 by the defendant who attested on it and the attesters namely 1). M.Jagannadham and 2). M.Srinivasarao affixed their signatures on Ex.A.1 mortgage deed in his presence and subsequently the Ex.A.1 was taken to the S.R. Office,

S.Kota where the S.R. questioned the defendant about receipt of consideration amount for

Rs. 1,50,000/- and the defendant admitted to have received the same from the plaintiff and subsequently the S.R. registered it and subsequently the attesters acted as identification witnesses and affixed their signatures in the office so far his knowledge is concerned. During cross-examination he deposed that he witnessed the consideration passed by the plaintiff to defendant, the defendant asked him to scribe mortgage deed, the defendant brought attester and he is an agriculturist.

8.Upon perusing the documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3, they shows that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,92,500/- by mortgaging his property, agreeing to pay interest at 24% per annum under Ex.A.1. Subsequently failed to pay any amount, hence the plaintiff preferred present application for recovery of suit amount.

9. Further, the defendant did not challenge the evidence of P.W.1 or the contents in the documents produced by him under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3. The testimony of PW.1 and the contents in the document Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3 remained un-rebutted by defendant and the case of plaintiff is appearing to be probable and reliable. Under these facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree.

12. Issue No.2 :-

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs and plaintiff is entitled to recovery an amount of Rs.2,92,500/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety two thousand five hundred only) from the defendant with future interest on the principal amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. The time for redemption is six months.

I typed in my Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- S.Jyothi,

Junior Civil Judge, -cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srungavarapukota.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Plaintiff :- For Defendant :- None P.W.1: Avagadda Rameshnaidu P.W.2: Imandhi Venkata Sivarao

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

For Plaintiffs :- For Defendant : -Nil-

Ex.A.1 : Registered simple mortgage deed, dt. 17.02.2009

Ex.A.2 : Registered Lawyer’s notice, dt. 21.05.2013 .

Ex.A.3 : Postal Acknowledgment, dt. 28.05.2013

Sd/- S.Jyothi,

Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srungavarapukota 5