Smt. K.aruna Kumari

1fair

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KAKINADA

Present: Smt K.Aruna Kumari III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Monday, this the 31st day of December, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.207 of 2016

Between:

1. Govala Vishnu Lalitha

2. Govala raja jaya Siddardha yadav @ Siddu (2nd plaintiff being minor rep by his mother and natural guardian)

... Plaintiffs

AND

Govala Ramana … Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 18.12.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Jawahar Ali, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri MVJ Ramagopal, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed by plaintiffs for recovery of amount of Rs.3 lakhs being the arrears of maintenance for past three years i.e. upto 11.4.2013 to 10.4.2016 and direct the defendant to pay Rs.21,500/- per month to both the plaintiffs for future maintenance and to create charge for the amounts payable under the above claims and for costs.

2.Averments of the Plaint in brief are that:

The 1st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and their marriage took place on 24.02.2000 at Vakalapudi, Kakinada as per Hindu Rites and Caste customs. The defendant and his people, prior to the marriage, demanded an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, scooter and 12 sovereigns of gold.

Hence, the plaintiff’s people paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and two FDRs worth

Rs.1.00 lakh along with 12 sovereigns of gold and Hero Honda Motorcycle as desired by the defendant. After the marriage, the 1st plaintiff joined in joint family of the defendant and thereafter went to Vijayawada where the defendant is working along with Sare saman worth Rs. 50,000/-. Right from the beginning the defendant used to harass the 1st plaintiff stating that the dowry and 2fair presentations provided by them are not sufficient and also suspecting the character of the 1st plaintiff and when she questioned his acts, the accused used to beat her black and blue and he also used to harass to en-cash the F.D.Rs. The 1st plaintiff bore all the harassments with a hope that there will be change in the attitude of the defendant.

(a)During their wedlock, the 1st plaintiff has given birth to a male child i.e., the 2nd defendant and even then also there is no change in the attitude of the defendant used to harass the 1st plaintiff in one way or other and finally in the year 2004, he necked out the plaintiffs for want of additional dowry and since then the plaintiffs are residing at the house of 1st plaintiff’s parents’ house at

Kakinada. The defendant has intentionally deserted the 1st plaintiff and also not providing any maintenance. The 1st plaintiff is unable to meet the educational expenses and medical care to the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff for her maintenance and also for the maintenance of 2nd plaintiff had borrowed loans from several others. Hence, the 1st plaintiff has filed a petition in M.C. No. 22 of 2005 claiming maintenance at Rs. 2,000/- for the 1st petitioner and Rs. 1,500/- to the 2nd petitioner, whereas, an amount of Rs.1,500/- to the 1st petitioner and

Rs. 1,000/- to the 2nd petitioner were granted by the III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada. But, the defendant in stead of paying the said amount, dragging the matter on one pretext or other. Due to increase in the cost of living, the 1st plaintiff has filed a petition for enhancement of maintenance in Crl.M.P.No. 1841 of 2013 in M.C. No. 22 of 2005 and it was allowed on 28.7.2014 by enhancing the maintenance at Rs. 3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and

Rs. 1,500/- to the 2nd petitioner. But, the defendant did not pay any amount till date. There is no appeal or revision are pending on the said orders. The amount of Rs. 4,500/- granted is not at all sufficient for the maintenance of the plaintiffs.

(b)The defendant presently working as Constable in Railway Protection Force and earning Rs. 40,000/- per month and also getting Rs. 15,000/- towards other allowance and he is also having movable and immovable properties at Kakinada worth Rs. 50.00 lakhs and earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Hence, the 3fair defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the 1st plaintiff and Rs. 10,000/- per month to the 2nd plaintiff. Since there is a willful default on the part of the defendant, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for maintenance i.e., pas maintenance and future maintenance at Rs. 21,500/- per month excluding the maintenance amount of Rs. 4,500/- already granted to the plaintiffs in maintenance case (Rs. 25,000/- - Rs. 4,500 = Rs. 21,500/-). The defendant being the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd plaintiff he is morally and legally liable to maintain the plaintiffs.

(c)The defendant also has got site an extent of 1258 sq. yards in S.No. 211 of Vakalapudi Gram panchayat of Kakinada Rural along with Asbestos sheet shed bearing No. 1-244 and the defendant in order to harass the plaintiffs he is trying to alienate his share over the said properties to 3rd parties. Hence, the plaintiffs prayed to create a charge over the same ie., plaint schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to claim maintenance from the defendant at Rs.

21,500/- per month and also Rs. 7,74,000/- towards past maintenance for the last 3 years from 11.4.2013 to 10.04.2016 at the rate of Rs. 2,58,000/- per year, but the plaintiffs are restricting their claim to a tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards past maintenance for the last 3 years and claiming future maintenance at Rs.

2,58,000/- per year. Hence, the present suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint and further averred that the suit filed by the plaintiff is neither just nor maintainable under law. The suit for arrears of maintenance and maintenance is not maintainable under law. In M.C No. 22 of 20015 an order was already passed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the 1st plaintiff and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the 2nd plaintiff. The defendant preferred a revision and as per the orders in revision the defendant has been paying Rs. 1,500/- per month. Thereby, the suit for recovery of maintenance is not maintainable under law.

(a)The defendant never harassed the plaintiffs and the 1st plaintiff herself has left the company of he defendant and the defendant never neglected to maintain 4fair the plaintiffs. The defendant is ready and willing to have custody of the 2nd plaintiff and maintain him. The 2nd plaintiff was being spoiled by the 1st plaintiff and her relations. The salary of the defendant is not more than Rs. 7,997/- and thereby the defendant is unable to maintain himself with the said salary. The defendant is not having any movable properties. The property mentioned in the suit schedule is in dispute and suits are also pending before the Hon’ble III Addl.

District Judge, Kakinada. Thereby, the defendant is not in possession of any

movable and immovable properties. The defendant is already paying maintenance at rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month as per the directions in the revision and the suit of the plaintiffs for arrears of maintenance is barred by limitation. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for past maintenance of Rs. 3,00,000/- as prayed for?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future maintenance as prayed for?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for to get charge over the suit schedule property?

4.To what relief.

5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiffs, 1st plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and also got examined PW.2 and PW.3 and and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of defendant, the defendant got examined himself as

DW.1.

7. ISSUE No.1:

The contents of chief evidence affidavit filed by PW.1 are similar to the plaint averments. In cross examination PW.1 deposed, defendant filed OP under sec.9 of HM Act against her for restitution of conjugal rights. By July, 2018 2nd plaintiff completes 16 years and he is studying Intermediate 1st year. The maintenance amount of 2nd plaintiff was not deposited and her maintenance amount deposited regularly. PW.1 also deposed, he did not obtain the sale certificate of defendant and FDRs which are in the name of herself and her son 5fair are in the custody of defendant. She denied that the orders passed vide Ex.A.2 in

MC 22/2005 are dismissed.

8.PW.2 the mother of 1st plaintiff filed chief evidence affidavit narrating the facts of the case as stated by PW.1. In cross examination PW.2 deposed, defendant filed OP 9/2016 against PW.1 for restitution of conjugal rights. Rs.1 lakh fixed deposit in the name of PW.1 is still existing in the bank. The fixed deposits are in the name of herself and her husband since 1997 and the amount in the said fixed deposits was redeposited in the name of PW.1 in the year 2006.

PW.1 filed suit OS 1313/;2006 restraining the defendant not to encash the fixed deposit amount which is in the name of PW.1. PW.2 denied to the suggestion that she was not presented 12 sovereigns of gold and Rs.50,000/- of cash towards dowry to the defendant. Further she deposed that she presented gold ornaments of 10 sovereigns to her daughter. She further deposed that cases are pending with regard to properties of the defendant. PW.2 admitted that maintenance amount is being deposited into the account of PW.1.

9.PW.3 Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Vijayawada Division, South

Central Railway examined on behalf of plaintiff on the summons issued by court.

He furnished pay particulars of the defendant vide Ex.A.3 for the month of June, 2018.

10.In cross examination PW.3 deposed, defendant is working as Head

Constable at Divisional Reserve Company, Vijayawada. If the office does not send the Divisional Reserve Company for security to the railway coash the travel allowance will not be issued to the staff. If the defendant was not deputed to the work of security to the railway coach, the travelling allowance of Rs.4,250/- per month will be deducted from the net salary of the employee.

11.On the other side, the defendant filed written statement and also got examined himself as DW.1. The defendant in his evidence says, he is working as 6fair

Head constable on railway protection force, Vijayawada and as per Ex.A.3 he is getting net salary of Rs.11,000/-. The allegation of plaintiff that he is getting salary of Rs.50,000/- per month and got the properties are all false. Further the defendant says, his properties are in dispute in civil court in OS 167/2013 which is pending on the file of VI ADJ Court, Kakinada on his vacant site. He filed separate suit OS 289/2018 against the 1st plaintiff and her father and mother when they tried to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the property.

The defendant also stated when 1st plaintiff refused to join him inspite of demands and he filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights, inspite of that the 1st plaintiff along with 2nd plaintiff did not join him. As per the orders of MC 22/2005 he is depositing maintenance amount into the court and the said amount was lying in deposit in the III Addl. JFC Magistrate court, Kakinada and that the petition to enhance the maintenance amount to Rs.3,000/- per month to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.1,500/- per month to the 2nd plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff encashed the fixed deposit by filing suit OS 1313/2006 on the file of I

Addl. Jr.Civil Judge, Kakinada. The other allegations made by plaintiff are false and she never demanded for any dowry as alleged in the plaint. The maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- is sufficient to both the plaintiffs and plaintiffs have no right to claim maintenance at Rs.21,500/- per month and they are also not entitled for any future maintenance.

12.In the cross examination DW.1 admitted that he is a Central government employee joined in the year 1998 as Trainee for one year and continued in the service till today. He is having account separately in SBI, Vijayawada for deposit of his salary and he do not remember his account number and he will produce bank pass book into the court. He also deposed, he is not having parents and he filed suit in the extent of property of 1284 Sq.yards in OS 167/2013 on the file of

Hon’ble VI ADJ Court, Kakinada and on his property separate suit is filed in his

name in OS 289/2018 and the property in the said suit extent is 90 Sq.yards which is situated at Kakinada. DW.1 also admitted, he filed OP against 1st plaintiff for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was dismissed on merits. He also 7fair admitted, plaintiffs filed enhancement petitions for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.1,500/- to the 2nd plaintiff in Crl.MP 1841/2013 and court ordered the said maintenance. Whereas witness added, the said petition is dismissed and has given the dismissal order to his counsel and do not know whether it was filed before the court or not. DW.1 denied to the suggestion that he is in possession of original FDR receipts. He also denied to the suggestions that monthly he is drawing more than Rs.70,000/- and that to avoid payment of maintenance to the plaintiff he is deposing falsely that he is not drawing

Rs.70,000/- per month.

13.From the evidence adduced by both the parties as discussed above, 1st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and 2nd plaintiff is the son of defendant. The plaintiffs are claiming past and future maintenance from the defendant, the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that they are entitled for the maintenance claimed by them from the defendant. The marriage of 1st plaintiff with the defendant was performed on 24.2.2000 at Vakalapudi as per Hindu rites and customs. The defendant admitted that 1st plaintiff is legally wedded wife and there is no dispute with regard to their marriage. 1st plaintiff says, at the time of their marriage on the demand of defendant, her parents gave Rs.50,000/- cash, 2 FDRS worth of Rs.1 lakh, 12 sovereigns of gold and Hero honda Motor cycle which was supported by PW.2-mother of 1st plaintiff. Except the oral evidence of

Pws.1 and 2, there is no documentary proof adduced by plaintiff. During their wedlock plaintiff given birth to the 2nd plaintiff. There is no dispute about the birth of 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiffs are living separately from the defendant due to the harassment of the defendant and defendant necked out them in the year 2004 and since then plaintiffs are residing in the house of parents of 1st plaintiff at Kakinada. The version of plaintiffs denied by defendant stating that they are false allegations. They are living separately. Defendant filed OP for restitution of conjugal rights against the 1st plaintiff to join with him, inspite of that, 1st plaintiff did not join with the defendant. Later the OP filed by defendant for divorce and

OP filed by 1st plaintiff for restitution of conjugal rights were clubbed and in that, 8fair the OP filed by 1st plaintiff was allowed and the OP filed by defendant was dismissed directing the defendant to take back the 1st plaintiff to his matrimonial home but the defendant has not taken her to his home and they are living separately.

14. In the meanwhile plaintiffs filed MC in the year 2005 on the file of III

AJFCM Court, Kakinada and as per Ex.A.1 the order in MC 26/2005 defendant is directed to pay rs.1,000/- to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.500/- to the 2nd plaintiff per month. The defendant is paying the said amount. Due to hike in cost of living, plaintiffs filed enhancement petition in Crl.MP1841/2013 in MC 22/2005 and the same was allowed granting monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.1,500/- to the 2nd plaintiff is also evident from Ex.A.2.

Whereas defendant says, the said Crl.MP was dismissed and he given copy of the dismissal order to his counsel, but it was not filed in the court to prove the said dismissal order. The defendant is not paying the enhanced maintenance amount to the plaintiffs. The contention of the plaintiffs is, the enhanced maintenance amount of Rs.4,500/- per month to both the plaintiffs is not sufficient to meet their necessities.

15. They are claiming maintenance for both plaintiffs at Rs.21,000/- per month. In that, Rs.15,000/- to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd plaintiff deducting Rs.4,500/- maintenance granted by III AJFCM Court, Kakinada. 2nd plaintiff was studying I Year Intermediate as per the evidence of 1st plaintiff and defendant. In the present social conditions, Rs.4,500/- per month to the 2nd plaintiff is not sufficient to meet their needs like food, shelter, clothes, medicines and education expenses of 2nd plaintiff. Therefore, the plea of the plaintiff seeking for maintenance from the defendant is not illegal and it is bonafide and genuine.

But they are entitled for the amount claimed by them from the defendant towards maintenance passed from 11.4.2013 to 10.4.2016 restraining their claim only to a tune of Rs.3 lakhs and future maintenance at Rs.21,500/- per month to 9fair both plaintiffs (excluding) are entitled to be paid by defendant has to be looked into.

16.Here the plaintiffs have not given any explanation or calculation for claiming Rs.21,500/- for both the plaintiffs i.e. Rs.15,000/- to the 1st plaintiff and

Rs.10,000/- for 2nd plaintiff (excluding Rs.4,500/-). Here the plaintiffs are already granted Rs.4,500/- per month towards maintenance, that amount was deducted from the maintenance amount claimed by them in this suit. Whether the said amount can be paid by the defendant or not, on this aspect, the defendant says though he is working as Head Constable in Railway Protection force and his monthly salary is 50,701/-, the deductions from his salary at Rs.39,482/- and the net salary is only Rs.11,219/-. In the deductions the court attachment amount Rs.1,500/- which was being paid to the plaintiffs is also included.

Plaintiffs argues, the said pay particulars of the defendant is not correct and it was manipulated by the defendant by managing his higher authorities. But plaintiffs failed to prove the said allegation by filing correct calculations of pay particulars of the defendant. Hence Ex.A.3 has to be looked into.

17.In addition to the salary, the defendant will be paid travelling allowance of

Rs.4,250/- per month if he was deputed to the work of security to the railway coach. If he was not deputed to the said work, the above said amount has to be deducted from his net salary. With regard to the said properties of the defendant, the schedule property which was pleaded by plaintiff to give charge over the said property is an extent of 1258 Sq.yards at Vakalapudi Gram Panchayat is worth of

Rs.1 crore as per the evidence of PW.1. On that, the defendant filed OS 167/2017 which is pending on the file of VI ADJ Court, Kakinada. Pws.1 and 2 deposed that, suit is pending on that property. Defendant also filed separate suit

OS 289/2018 on his other property which is an extent of 90 Sq.yards situated in

Kakinada. Suits are pending with regard to both the properties. But the defendant will get absolute rights or share in those properties as per the disposal of the said civil suits. Whether the said suits were filed by defendant to avoid 10fair payment of maintenance to the plaintiffs or not cannot be concluded at this stage because they are filed for partition between the defendant and other shareholders claiming rights in those properties.

18. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, though the defendant is having movable and immovable properties, the properties are in dispute and they are pending before the court. The defendant is an government employee and he has source of income to pay maintenance to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 because they are his legally wedded wife and legitimate son respectively and they were not diversed from him but living separately. As plaintiffs have no sufficient source of income to lead their life with basic necessities, it is the bounden duty of the defendant to provide maintenance to them as he had source of income. Here the defendant is paying Rs.1,500/- to the plaintiffs and further the court enhanced the said maintenance upto Rs.4,500/- to both the plaintiffs to be paid by the defendant. But the defendant is not paying the said enhanced amount. Here the plaintiffs are deducted the said maintenance amount granted by the court and claiming Rs.21,500/- to both the plaintiffs from 11.4.2013 to 10.4.2016 towards past maintenance, but restricted their claim to a tune of Rs.3 lakhs and claiming future maintenance of Rs.21,500/- per month. Whereas the defendant is getting net salary of Rs.11,290/- per month, the enhanced maintenance of Rs.4,500/- is not sufficient to both the plaintiffs in the present social conditions of the society and as the defendant has no other responsibilities like health problems etc., the defendant is directed to pay past maintenance for the last three years from 11.4.2013 to 10.4.2016 at Rs.4,000/- to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd plaintiff, total Rs.7,000/- (Rs.7000 x 36 months) and the defendant further directed to pay Rs.4,000/- to the 1st plaintiff and

Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd plaintiff towards future maintenance.

19.Issue No.3:

As per the result of the cases on the suits filed by defendant, to the shares allotted to him on his properties ordered to be charged over the plaint schedule 11fair property for the amounts payable towards future and past maintenance of the decree.

20.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant. The defendant is directed to pay past maintenance for the last three years from 11.4.2013 to 10.4.2016 at Rs.4,000/- pm to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.3,000/- pm to the 2nd plaintiff and further directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.3,000/-pm to the 2nd plaintiff towards future maintenance and further, as per the result of the cases on the suits filed by defendant to the share allotted to him on his properties ordered to be charged over the plaint schedule property for the amount payable towards past and future maintenance of the decree.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.III), transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court, on this the 31st day of December, 2018.

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge Kakinada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant:

PW.1: G.Vishnu LalithaDW.1: G.Ramana PW.2: M.Satyanarayanamma PW.3: :K.Siva Kumar

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1/-- True copy of order in MC 22/2005 Ex.A.2/-- Certified copy of order in Crl.MP 1841/2013 Ex.A.3/-- Pay particulars of defendant

For Defendant : Nil

III ASCJ

KKD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KAKINADA.

Present:-Smt K.Aruna Kumari, III Addl. Senior Civil Judge. FAC I Addl. Senior Civil Judge.

Tuesday, the 21st day of August, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.209/2016

Between:-

Balasadi Manga…Plaintif

And

1. Pinapothu Arjuna Rao

2. Pinapothu Sarojini ...Defendants

This suit is coming on 20.8.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.S.R.Acharyulu, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri B.Gokula Krishna, Advocate for defendants 1 and 2 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 for recovery of Rs.7,53,333/- with subsequent interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and to award costs and other reliefs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the sister of 1st defendant and 2nd defendant is the wife of 1st defendant. On 10.3.2014 the defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff for their business purpose and executed demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a., to the plaintiff or order. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not pay any amount and postponed the same on one pretext or other. Thereupon the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 21.3.2016 to the defendants and the defendants received the same, but did not pay any amount or did not give any reply. Hence the present suit is filed for recovery of the suit debt.

2

3.The 1st defendant filed written statement which was adopted by the 2nd defendant, denying the averments in the plaint except admitting the relationship. Further contended that husband of the plaintiff worked as employee in 1st defendant business. The plaintiff and her husband used to borrow amounts from 1st defendant. In the year 2012 the 1st defendant only borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Swamy, who closely associated with plaintiff’s family and at the time of borrowing amount from Swamy, she obtained the signatures of 1st defendant on blank promissory note. In the year 2014, 1st defendant towards discharge of amount to Swamy, he gave

Rs.1,50,000/- and interest to plaintiff and requested her to discharge the debt. As the plaintiff is sister to 1st defendant and also due to his business pressure, he did not ask her to return blank promissory note. The 1st defendant sold his property in December, 2015 for Rs.1,29,00,000/-. The plaintiff and her husband requested 1stdefendant to lend them

Rs.15,00,000/- and accordingly the plaintiff and her husband jointly borrowed

Rs.15,00,000/- from 1st defendant on 10.1.2016 for discharging their sundry debts and family expenses. In May, 2016 the 1st defendant demanded the plaintiff and her husband to discharge debt, for which they requested 1st defendant some more time to discharge the debt. Several times, the 1st defendant demanded the plaintiff and her husband to discharge the debt, for which they both picked up quarrels and gave harsh reply. The 1st defendant placed the matter before elders and the elders admonished plaintiff. The plaintiff and her husband with an evil idea got fabricated the blank promissory note containing the signature of 1st defendant which was obtained from Swamy while discharging the loan amount borrowed from the said Swamy. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend such a huge amount and there is no consideration between plaintiff and defendants. The present promissory note is fabricated and it is not legally enforceable against 1st defendant as well as 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is house wife and 3 there is no need her to borrow such a huge amount. There is no need to borrow amount from his worker. There are no merits in the suit and the suit is filed only to harass the defendant. The Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit and the suit is not maintainable under law. Hence the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:-

1)Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not?

2)Whether any consideration is passed under suit promissory note or not?

3) Whether the plaintif is entitled for suit amount or not?

4) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 is marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, D.W.1 was examined and no documents are marked on behalf of defendants.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants and they argued reiterating their pleadings and the evidence on record.

7. ISSUE NOS.1 to 3:

“Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not?

&

Whether any consideration is passed

under suit promissory note or not?

&

Whether the plaintif is entitled for

suit amount or not?”

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from her on 10.3.2014 for their 4 business purpose and executed demand promissory note in her favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., to her or her order on demand. Later on repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not repay the said amount, as such he got issued legal notice on 21.3.2016 to the defendants.

8.To prove execution of suit promissory note dt:10.3.2014 by the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and she stated in her chief affidavit by reiterating the averments in the plaint. The plaintiff also marked the suit promissory note dt:10.3.2014 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff as in Ex.A.1, office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff dt:21.3.2016 as in Ex.A.2 and postal acknowledgements of the defendants 1 and 2 as in Exs.A.3 and A.4 respectively.

9.Apart from her oral testimony, the plaintiff also examined her husband, who is the 1st attestor of Ex.A.1 promissory note by name Balasadi

Amrutha Rao as P.W.2. P.W.2 stated in his chief affidavit that the plaintiff is his wife, 1st defendant is his brother-in-law and 2nd defendant is wife of 1st defendant. On 10.3.2014 defendants jointly borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from his wife for their business purpose and executed demand promissory note in favour of his wife/plaintiff. At the time of transaction, himself, his wife/P.W.1, defendants, scribe and other person by name K.Chiranjeevi were present.

Defendants brought scribe, K.Chiranjeevi/2nd attestor and necessary papers.

Both defendants signed on the demand promissory note/Ex.A.1 after receiving Rs.5,00,000/- from his house in their presence. Himself and

K.Chiranjeevi observed while defendants put their signatures on demand promissory note/Ex.A.1 and they observed while himself and K.Chiranjeevi attesting Ex.A.1 demand promissory note and the entire transaction took place in their presence.

5

10.On the other hand, the 1st defendant himself was examined as

D.W.1. He stated in his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of the written statement. He stated that in the year 2012 the 1st defendant only borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Swamy, who closely associated with plaintiff’s family and at the time of borrowing amount from Swamy, she obtained the signatures of 1st defendant on blank promissory note. In the year 2014, 1st defendant towards discharge of amount to Swamy, he gave

Rs.1,50,000/- and interest to plaintiff and requested her to discharge the debt. As the plaintiff is sister to 1st defendant and also due to his business pressure, he did not ask her to return blank promissory note. The 1st defendant sold his property in December, 2015 for Rs.1,29,00,000/-. The plaintiff and her husband requested 1stdefendant to lend them

Rs.15,00,000/- and accordingly the plaintiff and her husband jointly borrowed

Rs.15,00,000/- from 1st defendant on 10.1.2016 for discharging their sundry debts and family expenses. In May, 2016 the 1st defendant demanded the plaintiff and her husband to discharge debt, for which they requested 1st defendant some more time to discharge the debt. Several times, the 1st defendant demanded the plaintiff and her husband to discharge the debt, for which they both picked up quarrels and gave harsh reply. The 1st defendant placed the matter before elders and the elders admonished plaintiff. The plaintiff and her husband with an evil idea got fabricated the blank promissory note containing the signature of 1st defendant which was obtained from Swamy while discharging the loan amount borrowed from the said Swamy.

11.From the evidence adduced by both the parties as discussed above, it discloses that as this is the money suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of loan amount with interest under the suit promissory note from the defendants 1 and 2, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendants jointly borrowed the loan amount from the plaintiff on executing 6 suit promissory note. The plaintiff has proved the said fact by examining himself as P.W.1 and with the support of oral evidence of P.W.2 who is one of the attestors of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note and with the documentary proof of Ex.A.1. So, the plaintiff has discharged the initial burden by proving that the suit promissory note is executed by defendants 1 and 2 and borrowed loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.3.2014.

12.Whereas the defendants on the other side denied the case of the plaintiff and execution of Ex.A.1 by them after borrowing the loan amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The contention of the defendants is also that the plaintiff is the sister of 1st defendant. The plaintiff and her husband worked as employees in their business and used to borrow amounts from him. The plaintiff had no capacity to lend such a huge amount.

13.The allegations of the defendants is also that in the year 2012,

D.W.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Swamy, who is closely associated with plaintiff’s family and at that time, the said Swamy obtained blank promissory note from him and obtained his signature on blank promissory note. In the year 2014 towards discharge of the amount to

Swamy, 1st defendant gave Rs.1,50,000/- and interest to plaintiff, who is his sister and requested to discharge the debt. Later he did not ask the plaintiff to return back promissory note as plaintiff is his sister and also due to his business pressure. In the month of December, 2015, he sold his property for

Rs.1,29,00,000/-. The plaintiff and her husband requested him to lend them

Rs.15,00,000/- to discharge their sundry debts and family expenses, then he lent Rs.15,00,000/- to them and in March, 2016 he demanded plaintiff and her husband to discharge the debt which was borrowed by them. But they requested some time and later picked up quarrels and gave false reply. Then he placed the matter before elders and elders admonished the plaintiff and her husband. Then the plaintiff and her husband fabricated the empty 7 promissory note containing his signatures which was obtained by Swamy at the time of borrowing Rs.1,50,000/- and filed the suit falsely against him and his wife. There is no consideration passed to them under the suit promissory note and they have no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff and her husband, who are his workers.

14.To prove the said facts as narrated by the defendants, the defendants have not examined the said Swamy from whom 1st defendant borrowed the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and discharged the same through the plaintiff. The defendants also not given any notice to said Swamy after receipt of legal notice under Ex.A.2 from the plaintiff stating that he borrowed amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Swamy in the year 2012 and discharged the said amount through plaintiff. The defendants also not examined any of the elders who admonished the plaintiff and her husband when they quarreled with the 1st defendant for not discharging the loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- taken from the 1st defendant by them. The 1st defendant has filed suit against the plaintiff and her husband for recovery of loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from them. Here, the defendants also taken another plea in the evidence that the signatures on Ex.A.1 are not of their signatures, whereas in the written statement, the version of defendants is the empty promissory note containing with the signature of 1st defendant which was obtained by Swamy was fabricated by the plaintiff. So, two different versions were taken by the defendants. One is that the blank promissory note containing his signature is fabricated by the plaintiff and another version is the signatures on suit promissory note under Ex.A.1 were not belongs to them. So, two contradictory versions were taken by the defendants. The plea which was newly taken in the evidence of D.W.1 that the signatures on Ex.A.1 suit promissory note are not belong to them is new development of their defence only taken in their evidence without pleadings had no validity to consider it. Even then to prove that aspect, the 8 defendants have not taken any steps to send their disputed signatures to the

Expert. As such the defendants miserably failed to prove that from Swamy 1st defendant has taken loan of Rs.1,50,000/- in the year 2012 and discharged the same in the year 2014 through plaintiff and the plaintiff without returning blank promissory note of 1st defendant got fabricated it as a suit promissory note and falsely filed this suit. P.Ws.1 and 2 only admitted that Swamy is their neighbour and denied remaining defence taken by defendants about their transactions with Swamy.

15.Now to say that the defendants have no necessity to borrow

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff, the defendants have not furnished any document or evidence about their financial status. The defendants also not adduced any evidence to show that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend

Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendants. Moreover, it was elicited in the cross- examination of P.W.1 that P.W.1 lent an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as she owned an extent of Ac.1.00 of land and getting Rs.30,000/- per year from that land. She owned a white ration card. She earned Rs.5,00,000/- by pledging his gold ornaments and also his agricultural earnings. P.W.1 also deposed that she can produce the document on the date of transaction she has money of Rs.5,00,000/-. But P.W.1 has not filed any of such documents.

Whereas the defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff had no land and she has not given Rs.5,00,000/- by pledging her gold ornaments and from agricultural earnings thereby not shown any probabilities to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff that she had no capacity to lend loan amount. It is true P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted in their evidence that the husband of plaintiff/P.W.2 previously worked under 1st defendant and 1st defendant used to give Rs.260/- as daily wages. At present P.W.2 is working in Government

General Hospital, Kakinada, on outsourcing and getting Rs.5,000/- per month towards salary. Previously for how many years back P.W.2 worked at 1st defendant and when 1st defendant gave Rs.260/- as daily wages to him is not 9 specified by the defendants. At present, the husband of plaintiff getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month due to his working in Government General

Hospital, Kakinada and the plaintiff is having lands and getting Rs.30,000/- per annum on her lands and plaintiff has categorically stated that by pledging gold ornaments, she earned Rs.5,00,000/- and also by agricultural earnings, she lent the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendants. There is no hard and fast rule that the defendants cannot borrow loan amount from the plaintiff because the husband of plaintiff worked under them. As the plaintiff and defendants are close relatives even though plaintiff’s husband worked under D.1, with their close intimacy and relationship they can also borrow the amounts from one another as they are relatives. So, it proves that the plaintiff has financial capacity to lend Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendants which was disproved by the defendants from their evidence.

16.In the written arguments, the defendants have raised another allegation that Ex.A.1 is not valid under law as per Section 12 of Indian

Stamp Act which deals with cancellation of adhesive stamps. It has explained as follows:

1) (a) Whoever affixes any adhesive stamp to any instrument chargeable with duty which has been executed by any person shall, when affixing such stamp, cancel the same so that it cannot be used again; and

(b) Whoever executes any instrument on any paper bearing an adhesive stamp shall, at the time of execution, unless such stamp has been already cancelled in manner aforesaid, cancel the same so that it cannot be used again.

2) Any instrument bearing an adhesive stamp which has not been cancelled so that it cannot be used again, shall, so far as such stamp is concerned, be deemed to be unstamped.

3) The person required by sub-section (1) to cancel an adhesive stamp may cancel it by writing on or across the stamp his name or initials or the name or initials of his firm with the true date of his so writing, or in any other effectual manner.

10

As per the above Section, Ex.A.1 is not signed by 2nd defendant across it. Hence Ex.A.1 is not valid under law. The said allegation was raised by the defendants only in the arguments, but not in the pleadings and in the evidence, had no legal validity to consider it. Inspite of that Section 12 of

Indian Stamp Act deals with cancellation of adhesive stamps in the circumstances which are mentioned in Section 12 (1)(a)(b), (2) and (3) that if a person write on the stamp or across the stamp his name or initial on any instrument, such stamp cannot be used again unless such stamp has been already cancelled. Here on Ex.A.1, 1st defendant has signed on the revenue stamp whereas 2nd defendant signed under the stamp. The said provision of

Law which was explained in Section 12 of the Indian Stamp Act is not applicable to the circumstances of this case because the stamp which was affixed on the suit promissory note was signed by 1st defendant that it was signed by 2nd defendant beneath it, the intention of the 2nd defendant was signing beneath, it clearly shows that it was executed by defendants 1 and 2 after taking consideration from the plaintiff. Moreover the defendants have admitted in their written statement and pleadings that the signatures of the defendants on blank promissory note which were signed by them was given by them to one Swamy at the time of taking loan of Rs.1,50,000/- though it was discharged by them according to their version, it was admitted by the defendants that it was signed by them. Now they cannot take the different plea that the signatures were forged on the suit promissory note which is contrary to their own pleadings.

17.The learned counsel for the defendants relied on the decision in “Putta Lakshmi Narayana Reddy vs. Putta Mysura Reddy”, reported in 1996 (2) A.L.D. 1242 the said ruling is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case because in the above citation the transaction of suit promissory note was executed in favour of the plaintiff by his younger 11 brother in the partition of their properties and plaintiff unable to prove the partition and the value of the difference in the partition how it was adjusted, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the suit.

Here, the facts and circumstances of this case are totally different from the facts and circumstances of the citation referred above because the plaintiff has categorically proved both from oral and documentary evidence that the defendants have borrowed loan amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from them and executed Ex.A.1 suit promissory note in their favour, but not executed promissory note with regard to the value of difference in the partition between them and to adjust those difference.

18.No doubt, there are some inconsistencies in the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to denominations and the number of bundles of cash received by the defendants from the plaintiff at the time of suit transaction. But those inconsistencies are minor variations not effecting the case of the plaintiff about the transaction of Ex.A.1 by the defendants.

19. Therefore, the plaintiff has proved both from oral and documentary evidence that the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.3.2014 and executed promissory note in the presence of attestors and scribe and failed to discharge the loan amount even after issuing the legal notice which was evident from Exs.A.2 to A.4 and not discharged the said debt even as on today after filing this suit. Hence, the plaintiff has proved the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants and the same is supported by consideration. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendants.

20.On the other side, the defendants failed to rebut the presumption under Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act that the suit promissory note is 12 not supported by consideration and also failed to prove that the suit promissory note is fabricated and forged one. So, the plaintiff has clinchingly established that the suit transaction under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants and the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

21. ISSUE No.4:- "To what relief?"

In view of the findings on issue Nos.1 to 3, this suit is liable to be decreed as prayed for.

22. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.7,53,333/- with costs and subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Grade II Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this the 21st day of August, 2018.

Sd/- K.Aruna Kumari,

III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif:-

P.W.1 : Balasadi Manga (plaintiff) P.W.2 : Balasadi Amrutha Rao (1st attestor of Ex.A.1 promissory note & husband of P.W.1)

For Defendants :-

D.W.1 : Pinapothu Arjuna Rao (1st defendant) 13

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif :-

Ex.A.1 /10.03.2014:Suit promissory note executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-.

Ex.A.2 /21.03.2016:Office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants.

Ex.A.3 / --- :Postal acknowledgements of the 1st defendant.

Ex.A.4 / --- :Postal acknowledgements of the 2nd defendant.

For Defendants :- NIL

Sd/- K.Aruna Kumari,

III A.S.C.J.,

FAC I A.S.C.J.,

Kakinada.

1fair

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KAKINADA

Present: Smt K.Aruna Kumari III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Monday, this the 17th day of December, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.389 of 2018

Between:

Pendem Veera Raghavulu, S/o.late Veerraju, 67 years, Cultivation, Repuru,

Kakinada Rural Mandal. .. Plaintiff

AND

1. Magapu Padmavathi, W/o.Venkata Ramana, 55 years, Housewife, D.No.70- 2-50/1, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada.

2. Magapu Sivaji, S/o. Venkata Ramana, 55 years, Housewife, D.No.70-2-50/1, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada

3. Thotakura Vijaya Shanthi, W/o.Srinubabu, 37 years, Business, D.No.70-2- 50/1, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada. … Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 11.12.2018 for plaintiff’s hearing in the presence of Sri VNVV Srirama Murthy, Advocate for plaintiff and defendants have been chosen to remain ex-parte, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed to pass a usual mortgage preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the sale of plaint schedule property and for recovery of the suit amount with subsequent interest thereon till the date of realization and to grant such time as the court pleases for redemption of the mortgage after the expiry of which, making the defendants debarred to redeem the same and direct the sale of the plaint schedule property and to order costs of the suit.

2.Averments of the Plaint in brief are that:

The 1st defendant is the mother of defendants 2 and 3. On 19.11.2015 one

Magapu Venkata Ramana @ Venkanna and the defendants 1 and 2 are jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,35,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of their family expenses and to discharge their debts agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on the even date and they jointly executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff and on the demand of plaintiff, the said

Venkata Ramana and defendants 1 and 2 deposited the title deeds sands in his 2fair name i.e. registered gift deed dt.5.3.1999 pertaining to the schedule property towards security and they created an equitable mortgage over the plaint schedule property by way of deposit of title deeds and they received the consideration from the plaintiff on 19.11.2015 i.e. at the time of execution of demand promissory note in the presence of witnesses and scribe. Inspite of repeated demands made by plaintiff during the life time of Magapu Venkata Ramana @ Venkanna, the defendants 1 and 2 simply postponing the same on one pretext or other.

Subsequently on 24.6.2016 the said Magau Venkata Ramana died intestate leaving behind the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs. The estate of the deceased Venkata

Ramana was devolved upon the defendants 1 to 3 as such, they are liable to discharge the mortgage debt due to the plaintiff. On 1.6.2018 the plaintiff got issued notice to the defendants to clear the mortgage debt due to the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 got returned the said notice by endorsing as door locked. The 3rd defendant received the said notice on the same address. That itself shows the high handedness of the defendants by influencing the postal authorities. Hence the suit against the defendants 1 to 3.

3. The defendants received the summons from the court but did not choose to file written statement and remained exparte.

4.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree as prayed for?

5. To substantiate the claim of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also got examined PW.2 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8. Ex.A.1 is the promissory note dated 19.11.2015 executed by defendants 1and 2 in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A.2 is registered gift deed dt.5.3.1999 in favour of Magapu Venkata

Ramana, Ex.A.3 is memorandum f deposit of title deeds dated 26.3.2015 executed by Magapu Venkata Ramana in favour of Central Bank of India, Ex.A.4 is the mortgage release deed executed by Central Bank of India in favour of Magapu

Venkata Ramana, Ex.A.5 is the office copy of legal notice got issued by plaintiff,

Exs.A.6 to A.8 are returned covers from defendants 1 to 3 respectively. PW.1 in his chief evidence affidavit reiterated the plaint averments.

3fair

6.PW.2 one of the attestors to suit promissory note filed his chief evidence affidavit supporting the case of plaintiff and further stated that at the time of execution of suit pronote, he along with MVV Satyanarayana stood as attestors and the suit pronote was scribed by Karedla Srinivas.

7. As the defendants remained exparte, cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 not done. The defendants have not shown any interest to contest the case of plaintiff or to prove their case against the plaintiff. On the other side, the plaintiff has proved both from his oral evidence coupled with oral evidence of PW.2 and documentary evidence Exs.A.1n to A.8 that, the defendants 1 and 2 along with one Magapu

Venkata Ramana having borrowed an amount of Rs.2,35,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a demand promissory note in his favour by depositing the title deeds stands in the name of Magapu Venkata Ramana pertaining to plaint schedule property and created an equitable mortgage over the plaint schedule property by way of deposit of title deeds and received the consideration agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. But subsequently the said Magapu Venkata Ramana died intestate leaving behind the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs and that the defendants failed to repay the said debt inspite of repeated demands made by plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants 1 to 3 as the estate of the deceased Magapu Venkata Ramana was devolved upon them. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the estate of deceased Magapu Venkata Ramana which is lying in the hands of defendants 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs.3,81,796/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.2,35,000/-. Time for redemption is three months.

Typed to dictation by the Steno (Gr.III), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17 h day of December, 2018.

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge Kakinada 4fair

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant:

PW.1: P.Veera Raghavulu (Chief) None PW.2 : Shaik Aadam

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1/-- Promissory note dated 19.11.15 executed by defendants 1 and 2 along with Magapu Venkata Ramana Ex.A.2/-- Registered gift deed dt.5.3.1999 executed by M.Adinarayana in favour of M.Venkata Ramana Ex.A.3/-- Memorandum of deposit of title deeds dt.26.3.2015 executed by M. venkata Ramana in favour of Central Bank of India Ex.A.4/-- Mortage release deed executed by Central bank of India in favour of M.Venkata Ramana Ex.A.5/-- Office copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff Ex.A.6/-- Returned cover from 1st defendant Ex.A.7/-- Returned cover from 2nd defendant Ex.A.8/-- Returned cover from 3rd defendant.

For Defendant : Nil

III ASCJ

KKD

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

KAKINADA.

Present: Smt. K.Aruna Kumari, III Additional Senior Civil Judge FAC I Additional Senior Civil Judge

Tuesday, the 31st day of July, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.492 of 2017

Between:

Chandala Trimurthulu ..Plaintiff.

And

Chandala Sandhya Veera Durga ..Defendant.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale dt:2.1.2017 by directing the defendant to execute the regular sale deed and for any reasons the defendant do not execute the sale deed, the Court may pleased to execute the sale deed on behalf of the defendant and alternatively if the suit is not decreed for specific performance of agreement of sale dt:2.1.2017 Court may be pleased to decree the suit for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a., from the date of suit till realization of amount by creating charge over the plaint schedule property and for costs.

This suit is coming on this day advanced from 21.8.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

On allowing I.A.280/2018, the suit is advanced to today. On the memo filed by plaintiff, this suit is dismissed due to not press of this suit by plaintiff.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31st day of July,

2018.

Sd/- K.Aruna Kumari,

III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- K.Aruna Kumari,

III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

KAKINADA.

Present: Smt. K.Aruna Kumari, III Additional Senior Civil Judge FAC I Additional Senior Civil Judge

Friday, the 27th day of July, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.559 of 2017

Between:

Chandala Rambabu..Plaintiff.

And

Chandala Trimurthulu ..Defendant.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale dt:11.7.2013 by directing the defendant to execute the regular sale deed and for any reasons the defendant do not execute the sale deed, the Court may pleased to execute the sale deed on behalf of the defendant and alternatively if the suit is not decreed for specific performance of agreement of sale may be pleased to decree the suit for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest by creating charge over the plaint schedule property and for costs.

This suit is coming on this day advanced from 5.9.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Surya Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri K.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

On allowing I.A.269/2018, suit is advanced to today. In view of not press memo filed by plaintiff and counsel, this suit is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of July,

2018.

Sd/- K.Aruna Kumari,

III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/-K.ArunaKumari,

III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.