Sri. K. Jayaram Reddy

IN THE COURT OF THE I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :

HYDERABAD

PRESENT : K. JAYARAM REDDY, B.Com.,LLB.

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

THURSDAY, THIS THE 18 th DAY OF APRIL, 2019

O.S.NO. 1294 OF 2015

BETWEEN

Mr. G.Srinivas Rao, S/o. Late G. Ramchander Aged : 44 years, Occ: Bank Employee, R/o. H.No. 4­1­1110/A, 1st floor, Boggulkunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad …. Plaintiff

And

1. Smt. B.Padma, W/o. B. Narender Aged: 50 years, Occ: House Keeping ICSE Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad Courth Circle, TSSD DSL Hyderabd – 500 001. R/o. H.No. 4­1­1110/A, Part of 2nd floor, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad – 1.

2. Mr. Vinay S/o. B. Narender Aged: 28 years, Occ: Cfar Mechanic, Besides Kameneni Hospital, R/o. H.No. 4­1­1110/A, Part of 2nd floor, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road,

Hyderabad – 1. ….. Defendants

This Suit is coming on 10.04.2019 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri Shiv Shanker, Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri. M.Papa Reddy, Counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T 

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs: 

a) “To direct the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property 

O.S.No. 1294 OF 2015 Page No.2

b) To direct the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and interest of Rs.2,61,539/­ 

c) To direct the defendant to pay future rents from the date of filing of the suit till actual handing over the suit schedule property at 10 % enhancement of rent.

d) To award future interest @ 24 % interest on Rs.2,61,539/­ from the date of filing of the suit till actual handing over the suit schedule property and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the the plaint are that the the plaintiff is the absolute owner of House bearing No. 4­1­1110/A, admeasuring 88.0 sq.yards equivalent to 72.0 sq.meters situated at Boggulkunta, Hyderabad having acquired from his mother through Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide document No.1474/2003 dated 15.05.2003 on the file of Joint Sub Registrar

Office, Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad. The name of the plaintiff is mutated vide PTIN No.1080400816 and the property consisting of ground, first and second floor. The defendant no.1 was aware that the property belongs to plaintiff right from 2003 onwards. The defendant No. 1 is the blood sister of plaintiff and defendant no.1 had married one Mr. B.Narender and during the marriage, plaintiff’s parents have already given sufficient dowry and other articles. The defendant no. 1 is blessed with 2 daughters and 1 son who is defendant no.2. The defendant no.1 had approached plaintiff in the month of June, 2004 and requested the plaintiff to allow her to stay in the house in 2nd floor as she was facing some marital problem with her husband. The defendant no.1 is none other than plaintiff’s own blood sister and the plaintiff demanded rent from defendant @ Rs.4,000/­ per month with 10 % enhancement for every two years. The defendant no.1 requested the plaintiff to allow her to pay the amount periodically as she was already facing marital problem and promised to pay as soon as she gets a job. Since defendant no.1 is none other than the blood sister, the plaintiff agreed to collect the rent at a

O.S.No. 1294 OF 2015 Page No.3

later date and defendant no.1 orally agreed to pay the rent periodically and this was witnessed by plaintiff’s present tenant and also his friend. The defendant no.1 had not kept her word and every time she was requesting plaintiff to wait for some time for payment. Subsequently, defendant no. 1 had taken up various jobs and earning money right from 2005 onwards and defendant no.2 also working and earning but giving some lame excuses for payment of rent and defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 postponed the payment of rental amounts of the 2nd floor portion. In the meanwhile defendant no.1 had performed the 1st daughter marriage in 2014 and claimed that defendant no.1 have incurred expenditure and defendant no.1 requested plaintiff for some time. Inspite of Job in TSSPDSL the defendant no.1 never fulfilled the payment of rents. Even though the defendant no.2 is earning, the defendant no.1 never paid the rents to the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 with the approval of defendant no.1, broken the electrical meter in the ground floor on 02.09.2015 and also threatened the plaintiff that they will not pay rents and if plaintiff asks rents he will be physically harmed. Since plaintiff is a law abiding citizen and a bank employee, he lodged a complaint on 04.09.2015 at Narayanguda Police with regard to to physical assault and criminal intimidation of the defendant no.2. The complaint is still pending and in the meanwhile the Electricity Department has changed the meter.

Hence the suit.

3.The defendant no.1 filed written statement admitting the relationship with the plaintiff, but she denied the rest of the allegations. The Defendant no.2 has adopted the written statement of defendant no.1. The contention of the defendants is that neither the plaintiff has any exclusive right, title or interest in the suit property nor he has let out the suit schedule property to the defendants. There is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The plaintiff is guilty of gross suppression of material facts and misrepresentation and has indulged into the present litigation with the sole intention of evicting the Defendants from the suit property by hook or by crook and knock away their valid and valuable share in the suit property. The

O.S.No. 1294 OF 2015 Page No.4

very fact that the plaintiff never sought to make any claim in respect of alleged rents since the date of inception of the alleged inception of the lease itself goes to show that the entire story has been booked by the plaintiff to somehow maintain the suit and seek eviction of the Defendants from the suit schedule property without any valid rights. In so far as the legal notice dt.

16.12.2015 is concerned the Defendants have got issued a prompt reply to the same and the plaintiff had also issued a rejoinder making untenable and false allegations. As there has never been a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the question of complying with legal notice or payment of the alleged arrears of rent does not arise. The property bearing

No. H.No.4­1­1110/A, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad was purchased by the father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 in the name of his wife i.e., their mother.

The mother of the parties does not have any income in the year 1971 when the said property was purchased and therefore for all practical purposes the said property belonged to the father. In the said circumstances the mother of the parties ie., Smt. Kausalya Bai doesn't have any right, title or interest to execute any document much less alleged Gd, dt. 12.05.2003 in favour of the plaintiff. In fact the Defendants were startled to know about the execution of the alleged document only on receipt of the legal notice dt.16.12.2015. In the said circumstances, the alleged Gift Settlement Deed dt. 12.05.2003 neither creates nor confers any valid title upon the plaintiff as is sought to be claimed by him. The said property was self acquired and absolute property of the father ie. Late Sri. Ramchander. That out of the wedlock of their parents, the plaintiff, defendant no.1, two sons and four daughters were born as such all of them have their 1/6th share in the same. When the defendant no.1 demanded the plaintiff to give her 1/6th share in the said property, the plaintiff refused to give her share and has initiated the present proceedings with a malafide intention of usurping the valuable rights of the defendant no.1 and other siblings. The alleged Gift Settlement Deed, dt. 12.05.2003 is a created and fabricated document brought into existence by the plaintiff to knock away the valuable rights of the other co­owners in the same. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

O.S.No. 1294 OF 2015 Page No.5

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

1. Whether the legal notice dt.16.12.2015 is legally valid and binding on the defendants ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction and recovery of possession of schedule property from the Defendants as prayed for ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent and future rent with interest from the Defendants as prayed for ?

4. To what relief ?

5. During the course of trial Pws.1 to PW.6 are examined and Exs.A­1 to

A­13 on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, DW­1 is examined and no document is marked on behalf of the Defendants.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.The counsel for the plaintiff submitted his written arguments reiterating the plaint averments. He further argued that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property having acquired from his mother through Gift Settlement Deed. Due to marital problems the defendant no. 1 who is the own sister of the plaintiff approached the plaintiff and requested him to allow her to stay in the house in the 2nd floor and she agreed to pay the rent @ 4,000/­ per month with 10 % enhancement for every 2 years. He further argued that the defendant no.1 requested the plaintiff to allow her to pay the amount periodically as she was facing her marital problem and promised to pay as soon as she get a job. Even after getting the job the defendant no.1 did not pay the rent. The defendant no. 2 is the son of the defendant no.1 and with the approval of his mother the defendant no. 2 had broken electrical meter in the ground floor for which the plaintiff filed police case and after giving legal notice for eviction, the suit is filed. The plaintiff has proved his case with all the relevant documents and evidence hence prayed for decree of the suit.

O.S.No. 1294 OF 2015 Page No.6

8.The learned counsel for the Defendants submitted his arguments reiterating the written statement averments. He further argued that the there is no jural relationship and landlord and tenant between the parties. The mother of the plaintiff is not the absolute owner to gift the suit schedule property as the father of the plaintiff acquired the said property with his own earnings and got registered the same in the name of the mother of the plaintiff and defendant no.1. He further argued that only to knock away the share of the defendant no.1, the plaintiff colluded with his another sister and created false Gift Deed. He further argued that the defendant no.1 has been living in the suit schedule house since long time and that at the time of execution of alleged Gift Deed the father of the plaintiff was alive but his signature was not obtained. The defendant no.1 has no knowledge about the

Gift Deed. The defendant no.1 is entitled for 1/6th share along with her brothers and sister and that the plaintiff has purposefully not examined his brother. The defendant no.1 is not the tenant of the plaintiff therefore the question of payment of rents to the plaintiff does not arise. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

ISSUE Nos.1 AND 2: 

9. This is a suit is filed for Eviction and recovery of arrears of rents.

Therefore there should be the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that there is tenant and landlord relationship. A careful perusal of the record would goes to show that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is an admitted fact. The defendant no. 1 is the sister of plaintiff, the defendant no.2 is the son of the defendant no.1. It is also admitted fact that the defendant no. 1 is living in the suit schedule house and she has marital problems with her husband.

10.The plaintiff is examined as Pw.1. He filed affidavit in lieu of his chief examination reiterating the plaint averment. The evidence of Pw.1 would

O.S.No. 1294 OF 2015 Page No.7

goes to show that, due to her marital problems the defendant no.1 approached him and requested to allow her to stay in the suit schedule house. Accordingly, the plaintiff permitted her to stay in the 2nd floor and she admitted to pay the rents. However, there is no written rental Agreement between the parties. According to the plaintiff it is an oral Agreement.

Further it is an admitted fact that no rent has been paid by the defendant no.1. The contention of the PW1 is that his mother was the original owner of the suit schedule property and she executed Ex.A­1 Gift Deed in his favour as such, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

11.Besides the plaintiff, the attestors of Ex.A­1 Sale Deed are examined as

PW.2 and PW.5 who filed affidavits and in lieu of their chief examination. The evidence of PW.2 would goes to show that though he said to be the attesting witness of Ex.A­1, there is no mention about the execution of Gift Deed in his chief examination. Except stating that the Defendant no.1 is facing marital problems and she was staying in the house of the plaintiff on rent basis, the evidence of PW.2 is silent about the execution of Ex.A1 Gift Deed. Thus the evidence of PW.2 is of no use to prove the execution of Ex.A­1 Gift Deed.

12.Coming to the evidence of another attesting witness PW.5, his evidence would goes to show that he visited the Sub­Registrar’s Office on 12.05.2003 there he signed the Gift Deed along with G.Mallesh. But in his cross examination

PW.5 admitted that he and PW.1 worked together in same department for 12 years. Thus, it clearly appears that there is close relationship between the plaintiff and PW.5. Further, in his cross examination PW.5 clearly admitted that he does not know whether the mother of the plaintiff signed on the document in

English or Telugu. He further admitted that he did not see whether she signed the Gift Deed or affixed her thumb impression. He further admitted that he does not know whether the mother of the plaintiff has executed any other document in respect of of suit property. Thus the evidence of PW.5 is not inspiring the confidence of the court to prove the execution of gift deed. If really PW.5 was present at the time alleged execution of gift deed he would have deposed clearly

O.S.No. 1294 OF 2015 Page No.8

about the signature of mother of the plaintiff. The evidence of Pw.2 and PW.5 is not corroborating with each other about the execution of gift deed.

13.PW6 is the witness to the Rectification Deed. He deposed that the

Rectification Deed was executed infavour of the plaintiff by his mother. But in his cross examination PW.6 has failed to say the name of the friend of the plaintiff who were present at the time of execution of Rectification Deed.

Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant no.1 is having knowledge about the execution of Gift Deed in her cross examination

Defendant no.1 who is examined as DW.1 denied the execution of Gift Deed by her mother. 

14. Further according to the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 approached him the month of June 2004 and requested him to allow her to stay in the suit schedule house. But in his cross examination, the plaintiff/PW.1 clearly admitted the defendant no.1 has been residing in the suit schedule property since about 1992.

Further PW.2 also admitted that the defendant no. 1 has been residing in the suit property since his child hood. The plaintiff has suppressed the fact that the defendant no.1 had been living in the house since before 2004. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he was gifted the house while the defendant no.1 was living in the house. 

15.The contention of PW.2 who is aged about 45 years would goes to show that the defendant no.1 was residing in the suit schedule property since his child hood. As per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 it clearly appears that the defendant has been residing in the suit schedule property since before 2004.

Thus the allegations of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 approached him to stay in his house in the year 2004 is nothing but false. Further in his cross examination PW.1 clearly admitted that his mother knows reading and writing

Telugu to some extent but Ex.A­1 contains the thumb impression of the mother of the plaintiff. Though, the defendant no.1 contended that her father purchased the suit schedule property in the name of their mother, in his cross examination

O.S.No. 1294 OF 2015 Page No.9

PW1/plaintiff has failed to say who paid sale consideration of suit schedule property. PW.1 stated that since he was born in the year 1971 he cannot say whether his father had paid the sale consideration of the suit schedule property.

Moreover, the plaintiff/PW.1 admitted his mother was a house wife. Thus the plaintiff has failed to prove the source of income of his mother to purchase the suit schedule property. Thus, the version of the defendants that the father of the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property in the name of defendant no.1 cannot be ruled out completely. Further the alleged Ex.A­1 Gift Deed was executed in the month of May, 2003. But the signature of the father of the plaintiff was not obtained in the said Gift Deed. The sister of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 is examined as PW.3. She admitted that she came to know about the Gift Deed after its registration. Thus, PW.3 is also not having any knowledge about the execution of alleged Gift Deed. She further admitted at the time of execution of Ex.A­1, the defendant no.1 was not present. Further, the plaintiff has failed to examine his another brother. PW.4 who is the witness to the damage of the electrical meter work and filing of police case. The evidence of PW.4 is of no use to prove the tenant and landlord relationship. 

16.The plaintiff has also filed the other documents which are marked as Ex.

A­4 to A­11 which are the postal acknowledgments and postal receipts, legal notice and electricity bills which shows the correspondence between the parties and the electricity bill in the name of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendants argued that mere entries in record would not confer any exclusive right to the plaintiff. Admittedly, the suit schedule property would stands in the name of the plaintiff at present. The defendant is not disputing the same. Ex.A­2 property tax receipt was issued to the plaintiff through which it can be inferred that the suit schedule property is mutated in the name of the plaintiff but as stated supra it clearly elicited that the defendant no.1 has been residing in the suit schedule property since 1992. In her cross examination the defendant no.1 stated that she had stayed with her mother in the suit house prior to her death for 15 years. According to the plaintiff his mother died in the year 2007. Thus, the defendant no. 1 had been living in the suit schedule property since before

O.S.No. 1294 OF 2015 Page No.10

2004 therefore, the contention of the counsel for the defendant that there is no jural relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties cannot be ruled out completely. Though the plaintiff stated that he allowed the defendant no.1 to live in the suit schedule property in her cross examination defendant no.1/DW.1 deposed at the instance of her father she shifted from 1st floor to the 2nd floor of the suit house. By virtue of evidence of DW.1 it can be inferred that the defendant no.1 had been living in the suit schedule property with the consent of her father. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since, the plaintiff has failed to prove the relationship, the legal notice dt 16.12.2015 has no effect and not binding on the defendants. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property. Accordingly these issues are answered infavour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3:

17.The contention of the plaintiff is that he is entitled to recover the arrears of rents and future rent with interest from the Defendants but in view of the findings of this court over the issue nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff has failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. The plaintiff has alleged there is an oral tenancy but no amount is paid by the Defendants towards the rent. The version of the plaintiff that since the defendant no.1 is his own sister he did not pressed her for rent for years together is not believable.

Since, the jural relationship is not established the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of rents. Accordingly this issued is answered infavour of the

Defendants and against the plaintiff. In view of the findings of this court over the issues no.1 to 4, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

ISSUE NO.4:

18. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. In view of the relationship of the parties there is no orders as to costs.

O.S.No. 1294 OF 2015 Page No.11

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, partly typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th day of April, 2019.

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD.

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: G.Srinivas Rao DW1: B.Padma P.W.2: G.Mallesh P.W.3: Mrs.Avula Laxmi PW4: Y.Suresh Babu PW5: G.Gananeshwar Rao PW6: Mr.Rajesh Sisodia

EXHIBITS MARKED 

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex A1 is Copy of the Gift Settlement Deed Doc No.1474/03 showing the proof of the title of the property in favour of the plaintiff

Ex A2 is The property Tax vide PTIN No.1080400816 

Ex A3 is Copy of legal notice dt.16­12­2015 sent to D1 and D2

Ex A4 is Original Postal Receipts dt.16­12­2015 ie. proof of sending legal notice to D1

Ex A5 is Original Postal Receipts dt.16­12­2015 ie. proof of sending legal notice to D2

Ex A6 is Original Postal Acknowledgement received from D1 dt.19­12­ 2015

Ex A7 is Original Postal Acknowledgement received from D1 dt.19­12­ 2015

Ex A8 is O/c of complaint given to Asst. Engineer, Sultan Bazar

Division, Koti, Hyd regarding breaking of meter.

O.S.No. 1294 OF 2015 Page No.12

Ex A9 is O/c of Electricity Bill slip of the plaintiff

Ex A10 is Original reply legal notice sent by the defendants dt.28­12­ 2016 (Received on 21­12­2016)

Ex A11 is O/c of the rejoinder notice sent to the counsel of the defendants and also to the defendants dt.03­02­2016

Ex.A12 PAN Card of Gnaneshwar Gandla

Ex.A13 Employ ID card of G.Gnaneshwar

FOR DEFENDANT:­ ­none­

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :

HYDERABAD

PRESENT : K. JAYARAM REDDY, B.Com.,LLB.

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

THURSDAY, THIS THE 18 th DAY OF APRIL, 2019

O.S.NO. 1570 OF 2014

Between: State Bank of India, Small & Medium Enterprises City Credit Centre (SMECCC), 3­6­263 & 264, 2nd and 3rd floor, CCPL Sterling Building, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. Rep. by Manager, Mr. K.Mahesh Chakravarthy, S/o. Lakshman Naik, Aged about: 44 years, Occ: Manager, R/o. Hyderabad. … Plaintiff

And

1.M/s. Mahaveer Auto Spares, Rep. by its Proprietor, Smt. Rita J.Vora, Aged: 33 years, Occ: Business, H.No. 6­33/4&5, Balaji Mansion, Kukatpally Y Road, Hyderabad – 500 018.

R/o. H.No. 3­5­1119/1/B/1A, Anu Nilayam, Rajmohalla, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

2. Jitendra Vora, S/o. Dhirajlal Vora, Aged : years, Occ: Business,

3. DhirajLal Vora, S/o. Kewalchand Vora, Aged: Occ: Business Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are R/o. H.No. 3­5­1119/1/B/1A, Anu Nilayam, Rajmohalla, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 15.04.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of M.P. Sanjay, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants remained ex­parte after publication and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

O.S.NO. 1570 of 2014 Page No.2

: J U D G M E N T :

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,72,056/­ along with interest under

CC Loan A/c, and costs from the Defendant nos. 1 to 3.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the State Bank of

India (Incorporated under State Bank of India Act,1955) having its Corporate

Centre at Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office and

Administrative Office at Hyderabad and one of the branches at Small & Medium

Enterprises City Credit Centre (SMECCC), 3­6­263 & 264, 2nd and 3rd floor, CCPL

Sterling Building, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. The defendant No.1 is the borrower and the defendant nos. 2 and 3 are the guarantors to defendant no.1.

The defendant no.1 is in the business of auto spares doing business in the name and style of M/s. Mahaveer Auto Spares. That the defendant no.1 is doing business from the premises H.No.6­33/4&5, Balaji Mansio, Kukatpally “Y” Road,

Hyderabad. Originally, the said cash credit facility is sanctioned by State Bank of Indore, Kukatpally Branch, Hyderabad on 06.04.2000 vide CC A/c. No.

53052108331 for the limit of Rs.3,00,000/­ for working capital needs. The defendants executed Agreement for cash credit, dt.06.04.2000 and Defendants also executed all other necessary document in favour of State Bank of Indore at the time of sanction of cash credit facility. The defendant has renewed the cash credit facility from time to time as per the Agreement. Thereafter, the State

Bank of Indore has enhanced the cash credit facility along Rs.1,00,000/­ at the request of the defendant no.1 vide extended CC Loan Agreement, dt.

O.S.NO. 1570 of 2014 Page No.3

28.04.2005 other defendants also executed other necessary loan documents in favour of plaintiff bank. The total cash credit amount comes to Rs.4,00,000/­.

The defendant no.1 renewed the cash credit loan amount from time to time by executing undertakings and also Promissory Note. The State Bank of Indore merged with State Bank of India vide circular dt. 25.08.2010. The defendant no.1 failed to serve the cash credit facility and she became irregular maintaining cash credit facility loan account and defendant no.1 became willful defaulter.

The plaintiff bank issued reminder notice, dt. 16.01.2012 to the defendant no.1.

The defendant no.1 replied to the demand notice through her letter dt.

22.01.2013 stated to adjust their fix deposit of Rs.1,60,000/­ which is lying with the plaintiff bank against the overdraft facility. The plaintiff bank has issued legal notice, dt. 15.05.2013 to the defendant no.1 and demanded to regularize the loan account. The defendant no.1 replied to the legal notice through her letter, dt. 25.06.2013 requested the plaintiff bank to adjust the fix deposit to the

CC loan account and also to take away the goods and other material which is hypothecated to the bank and adjust the loan amount. The plaintiff bank informed the defendant through letter 10.07.2013 that bank has already adjusted their fixed in the CC loan account along together with interest vide

STDR No.53052110311 and STDR No.63013410186 after interest adjusting the amount there is an outstanding amount is Rs. 2,35,899/­ along with interest.

But the said letter is returned unserved. The defendant no.1 executed the revival letter, dt. 21.02.2014 confirming the CC loan account. The defendant no.1 has given under taking through her letter dt.28.02.2014 and requested the plaintiff bank to grant 6 to 8 months time to close the CC loan amount. Even after giving so much time the defendant no.1 failed to pay the balance CC loan

O.S.NO. 1570 of 2014 Page No.4

account of Rs.2,72,056/­ along with interest. That the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the balance CC loan amount of Rs.2,72,056/­ along with further interest. Hence, the present suit is filed.

3.The defendants having received summons not appeared before the court.

Hence, they were set exparte.

4.During the course of trial, the manager of the plaintiff bank is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A43. No evidence is produced and no document is marked on behalf of the defendants.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the Defendants as prayed for?

2. To what relief ?

7.Point No. 1 :­The court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of

PW1. He filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination reiterating the plaint averments. The evidence of Pw1 would goes to show that the defendant no.1 has availed cash credit facility sanctioned by the Plaintiff Bank for an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/­. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the guarantors to the defendant no.1. After availing the cash credit facility the defendant no.1 has become willful defaulter. Basing on the demand of the plaintiff bank, the defendant no.1 addressed a letter, dt. 22.01.2013 to adjust their fixed deposits of Rs.1,60,000/­ and thereafter, the defendant no.1 requested the plaintiff bank to adjust the

O.S.NO. 1570 of 2014 Page No.5

fixed deposits of the CC Loan A/c., and also to take away goods and other material which is hypothecated to the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank informed to the defendant through letter, dt. 10.07.2013 that the bank has already adjusted their fixed deposits in the CC Loan account along together with interest vide STDR No.53052110311 and STDR No.63013410186 after interest adjusting the amount there is an outstanding amount is Rs. 2,35,899/­ along with interest.

8.Besides the oral evidence, the plaintiff has filed the documents which are marked as Exs.A1 to A43. Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 are the security terms and conditions, Loan sanction letter , Agreement for cash credit, Guarantee

Agreement, Promissory Note, DP note delivery letter, letter of defendant no.1, confirmation letter and letter of defendant no.1. On perusal of Exs.A1 to A10 and A12 Loan confirmation letter, it appears that the defendant no.1 has availed cash credit facility by the plaintiff bank and the defendant nos.2 and 3 are the guarantors. Ex.A11,A13 to A16, A18,A19, A33, A34 and A41 are the revival letters which extended the limitation from time to time. Further as per Ex.A42 defendant no.1 address a letter dt. 28.2.2014 and requested the bank to grant 6 to 8 months time to clear the CC loan account.

Ex.A17 renewal confirmation letter, Ex.A20 Debit confirmation letter, A21 is the extended loan Agreement, Ex.A22 is the extended cash credit Agreement,

Ex.A23 is the letter of the defendant for confirming enhancement of laon.Ex.A24 is the Promissory Note.Ex.A26 to A32 are the loan arrangement letters, loan acknowledgment letters and E Circular. Ex.A35 is the reminder notice.Ex.A36 is the letter of the defendant. Ex.A37 is the legal notice. Ex.A38 to A40 are the

O.S.NO. 1570 of 2014 Page No.6

letters of the defendant and returned covers.Ex.A43 is the account statement. As per Ex.A43 Accounts statements there is an outstanding amount of

Rs.2,72,055.57/­.

9.The evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged as the defendants never chose to cross examine PW1 and never chose to proceed with the suit. Thus, upon consideration of the unchallenged testimony of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A43 this court is of the view that the claim of the plaintiff is proved. Since the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the guarantors, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants. This point is answered accordingly infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 

10.Point No. 2: In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally for a sum of

Rs.2,72,056/­ with subsequent interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principle amount of

Rs.2,35,899/­.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th day of April, 2019.

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

O.S.NO. 1570 of 2014 Page No.7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS: PW1: I. Krishnam Raju, EXPARTE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Security terms and condition.

Ex.A2Loan sanction letter dt.6­4­2000.

Ex.A3Agreement for cash credit dt.6­4­2000.

Ex.A4Guarantee agreement dt.6­4­2000.

Ex.A5Arrangement letter (TErms and conditions) dt.6­4­2000.

Ex.A6Promissory note, dt.6­4­2000.

Ex.A7DP note delivery letter dt.6­4­2000.

Ex.A8Letter of defendant no.1 dt.6­4­2000.

Ex.A9Confirmation letter dt.26­4­2000.

Ex.A10 Letter of defendant no.1 dt.7­3­2001.

Ex.A11 Revival letter.

Ex.A12 Loan confirmation letter dt.31­3­2002.

Ex.A13 Revival letter.

Ex.A14 Revival letter.

Ex.A15 Revival letter dt.17­7­2002.

Ex.A16 Revival letter dt.17­7­2002.

Ex.A17 Renewal confirmation letter dt.28­2­2005.

Ex.A18 Revival letter dt.28­2­2005.

Ex.A19 Revival letter dt.28­2­2005.

Ex.A20 Debit confirmation letter dt.28­2­2005.

Ex.A21Extended loan agreement dt.28­4­2005.

Ex.A22Extended cash credit agreement dt.28­4­2005.

Ex.A23Letter of defendant for confirming enhancement of loan, dt.28­4­ 2005.

Ex.A24Promissory note, dt.28­04­2005.

Ex.A25DP note, dt.28­4­2005.

Ex.A26Loan arrangement letter dt.28­4­2005.

O.S.NO. 1570 of 2014 Page No.8

Ex.A27Loan acknowledgment letter (D2 and D3) dt.27­2­2008.

Ex.A28loan acknowledgment letter (D1) dt.27­2­2008.

Ex.A29Loan renewal letter dt.30­3­2009.

Ex.A30Loan confirmation letter dt.9­5­2009.

Ex.A31E circular 7 dt.25­8­2010.

Ex.A32debit confirmation letter dt.30­12­2010.

Ex.A33revival letter dt, (D1) 25­3­2011.

Ex.A34revival letter (D2) dt.25­3­2011.

Ex.A35reminder notice dt.16­1­2012.

Ex.A36letter of defendant dt.22­1­2013.

Ex.A37Legal notice, dt.15­5­2013.

Ex.A38Letter of defendant dt.25­6­2013.

Ex.A39Reply to the defendant dt.10­7­2013.

Ex.A40Return cover.

Ex.A41Revival letter dt.21­2­2014.

Ex.A42Letter of defendant t.28­2­2014.

Ex.A43Accounts statement.

FOR DEFENDANT:NIL

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT :

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : K. JAYARAM REDDY, B.Com., LLB.

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

THURSDAY, THIS THE 21 st DAY OF APRIL, 2022

S.O.P . No. 115 of 2021

Between:

1. Smt. Marunganthi Anusha Reddy, W/o. Late Sri Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy, Aged: 30 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 7-1-304/7/109, Uday Nagar, S.R. Ngar, B.K.Guda, Hyderabad, Telangana State 500 038.

2. Master Marunganthi Adithya Reddy, S/o. Late Sri Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy, Aged: 2 ½ months, Occ: Infant, Being Minor rep. by his natural Mother, Smt. Marunganthi Anusha Reddy, W/o. Late Sri Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy, Aged: 30 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 7-1-304/7/109, Uday Nagar, S.R. Ngar, B.K.Guda, Hyderabad, Telangana State 500 038.… Petitioners

AND

1. Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its HR Department, G. Sneha Reddy, Occ: HR, HDC -3, Block 6-7, M/s. Divyasree NSL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., IT/ITES SEZ, Sy.No. 66/1, Hyderabad – 500 032, Telangana, India.

Alternative Address:- Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its HR Department, G. Sneha Reddy, Occ: HR, Accenture Intelligent Operations # 8/1, Prestige Technopolis,

Page No.2 of 9 SOP.No. 115 of 2021

Bangalore 560029, Karnataka State, Email: india.hr.dp@accenture.com.

2. Smt. M. Aruna Reddy, W/o. M.Laxma Reddy, Aged: 60 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No. 7-1-304/7/109, B.K.Guda, Hyderabad, Telangana State – 500 038.

3. All concerned. … Respondents

This Petition is coming on 01.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Pavan Kumar Pujari, Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri. Sanjay Kishore, Counsel for the respondent no.1, Sri. K.

Rajeshwar Rao, Counsel for the respondent no.2 and none appeared for all concerned/R3 though paper publication is ordered and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

O R D E R

This Petition is filed under section 372 of Indian Succession Act for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioners in respect of petition schedule EDIL and Provident Fund benefits of the deceased Late Sri Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that, the petitioner No.

1 is the wife and petitioner no. 2 is the son of Late Sri Marunganthi

Raghunath Reddy who died on 1.05.2021. The respondent no. 2 is the mother of the deceased. The husband of the petitioner no. 1 was

Page No.3 of 9 SOP.No. 115 of 2021 an Employee with the respondent no.1 company vide Employee

Code No. 11490223. After the death of her husband, the petitioner no.1 approached the respondent no.1 claiming the petition schedule

EDIL and Provident Fund benefits. The respondent no. 2 has given no objection certificate but the respondent no. 1 demanded Succession

Certificate. The petitioner is also trying to apply the District Disaster

Management Authority for interim relief due to to sudden death of her husband but the District Disaster Management also insisted for

Succession Certificate. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondent no.1 filed counter and admitted that Late Sri

Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy was the Employee of respondent no.1 company and joined as a Platform Experience Analyst on 17th

November, 2017 and he died on 1.5.2021. The respondent no.1 submitted that an amount of Rs. 7,05,000/- is to be processed in respect of Employee Deposit Link Insurance and an amount of Rs.

45,327/- has to be processed in respect of Provident Fund of the deceased. The respondent no.1 directed the petitioners and respondent no. 2 through e-mail and informed that Succession

Certificate is required for the amount payable with respect to EDIL and Provident Fund of the deceased. The respondent no.2 has given no objection certificate for disbursement of the benefits in favour of

Page No.4 of 9 SOP.No. 115 of 2021 the petitioners. In the light of e-mail dt. May 20, 2021 and no objection certificate furnished by the respondent no.2, the respondent no. 1 made payment towards (a) group term life insurance, (b) future service liability (c) full and final settlement and

(d) gratuity infavour of the petitioners. The petitioner shall produce

Succession Certificate to claim EDLI and PF. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

4.The respondent no.2 filed counter and admitted the relationship with the deceased. The respondent no. 2 is the mother- in-law of the petitioner no.1 and grand mother of petitioner no.2. She admitted that the deceased was the employee of the respondent no.1 company with employee ID No. 11490223. The respondent no.2 reported no objection to release entire terminal benefits amounts of the deceased but the name of the respondent no. 2 has to be incorporated as legal heir of the deceased as she is the mother of the deceased. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

5.A publication was given and no objections are received from the third parties/respondent no.3.

6.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner no.1 is examined as

Page No.5 of 9 SOP.No. 115 of 2021

Pw.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-12 are marked on behalf of the petitioners. On the other hand, no oral evidence is adduced and no document is marked on behalf of the respondents.

7.Heard on both sides and perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is

1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of

Succession Certificate as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

9. Point No.1: This Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of Pw.1 who filed affidavit in lieu of her chief examination reiterating the petition averments. It has been brought on record through the evidence of Pw.1 that she is the wife, petitioner no. 2 is the son and the respondent no. 2 is the mother of the deceased Late Sri

Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy who died on 01.05.2021. The husband of Pw.1 was an Employee of respondent no.1 company and after the death of her husband, the petitioner no.1 approached the respondent no.1 and claimed the petition schedule EDIL and PF benefits of the deceased. The respondent no. 2 has given no objection but the respondent no.1 insisted for Succession Certificate.

Page No.6 of 9 SOP.No. 115 of 2021

10.Besides the oral evidence, the petitioners have filed Exs.P-1 to

P-12. Ex.P1 and P2 are the Certificate of Marriage and Wedding

Invitation Card. On perusal of Ex.P1 and P2, it clearly appears that the petitioner no.1 is the wife of the deceased. However the respondent no.2 admitted the relationship of the parties. Ex.P3 is the report which shows that the deceased Late Sri Marunganthi

Raghunath Reddy was tested Covid positive. Exs. P4 and P5 are the death certificate of deceased Late Sri Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy who died on 1.5.2021. Ex.P6 is the birth certificate of petitioner no.2. Ex.P7 is the Aadhar Card of the petitioner no.1. Ex.P8 is the

Aadhar Card of the deceased Late Sri Marunganthi Raghunath

Reddy. Ex.P11 and P12 are the PAN cards of petitioner no.1 and the deceased Sri Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy. Ex.P9 is the Employee

ID Card of the deceased Late Sri Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy.

However, in view of counter filed by the respondent no. 1, it is an admitted fact that the deceased Late Sri Marunganthi Raghunath

Reddy was the Employee of respondent no.1 and he joined services on 17.11.2017. Ex.P10 is the application of the petitioner for interim relief under section 12 of Disaster Management Act.

11.In view of counter filed by the respondent no. 1, it is an admitted fact that the deceased Late Sri Marunganthi Raghunath

Page No.7 of 9 SOP.No. 115 of 2021

Reddy was the employee of respondent no.1. Further basing on the no objection certificate given by the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 1 processed/made payment towards (A) Group Term

Life Insurance (B) Future Service Liability and ( C ) Full and Final

Settlement and (D) Gratuity. As per the counter filed by the respondent an amount of Rs. 7,05,000/- has to be processed in respect of EDLI and an amount of Rs. 45,227/- has to be processed in respect of PF of the deceased and the respondent no. 1 demanded

Succession Certificate to process the said amounts. Admittedly, the respondent no. 2 is the mother of the deceased and she is also class- 1 legal heir. The respondent no.2 reported no objection to release the entire terminal benefits including EDLI infavour of the petitioners.

However, the respondent no. 2 requested to declare her as legal heir of the deceased. Since the respondent no.2 is the class 1 legal heir of the deceased her request can be considered to decleare the respondent no. 2 is also the legal heir of the deceased. Further inspite of issuance of paper publication no objections are received from the third parties. Thus in view of evidence of Pw.1 coupled with

Exs. P1 to P12 and since the respondent no. 2 reported no objection,

Succession Certificate can be granted in favour of the petitioners in respect of petition schedule EDLI and PF amounts of the deceased.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

Page No.8 of 9 SOP.No. 115 of 2021

12. P oint No.2:In the result, the petition is allowed declaring the petitioners and respondent no.2 as the legal heir of Late Sri

Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy. Issue Succession Certificate in favour of the Petitioners in respect of petition schedule properties.

The Petitioners shall pay the requisite court fees for issuing the

Succession Certificate. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21 st day of April, 2022.

Sd/-

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER S :F OR RESPONDENTS :

Pw.1: Marunganthi Anusha Reddy, Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1is the Certificate of Marriage dt.06-03-2019

Ex.P2is the Marriage Wedding Invitation Card 28-02-2019

Ex.P3is the Lab Report from Medcis dt.21-04-2021

Ex.P4is the Death Certificate dt.01-05-2021 of the deceased M.Raghunath Reddy issued by the VCARE Hospital, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

Ex.P5is the Death Certificate of the deceased Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy issued by the GHMC, dt.20-05-

Page No.9 of 9 SOP.No. 115 of 2021 2021

Ex.P6is the Birth Certificate of Marunganthi Adhitya Reddy issued by the GHMC dt.22-06-2021

Ex.P7is the Aadhaar Card of the Petitioner No.1

Ex.P8is the Aadhaar Card of the Deceased Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy

Ex.P9is the Employee ID Card of the deceased Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy issued by the Respondent No.1 company.

Ex.P10is the Application filed by the petitioner interim relief under section 12 of Disaster Management Act to District Disaster Management Authority.

Ex.P11is the PAN Card of the Petitioner No.1

Ex.P12is the PAN Card of the deceased Marunganthi Raghunath Reddy F or Respondents :Nil

Sd/-

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT :

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : K. JAYARAM REDDY, B.Com., LLB.

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

THURSDAY, THIS THE 21 st DAY OF APRIL, 2022

S.O.P . No. 47 of 20 21

Between:

1. Potti Malathi Lakshmi Kumar, W/o. Late Potti Satyanarayan, Aged: 49 years, Occ: Housewife.

2. Potti Venkata Lakshmi Greeshma, D/o. Late Potti Satyanarayan, Aged: 24 years, Occ: Student,

3. Potti Rachana Sree, D/o. Late Potti Satyanarayan, Aged: 22 years, Occ: Student,

All R/o. H.No. Plot No. 1162, Road No. 56, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.… Petitioners

AND

1. SBI Life Insurance, O/o. 4th Floor, D.No. 6-3-1090/D/4, The Grand, Raj Bhavan Rd, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by Regional Manager.

2. All Concerned parties. … Respondents

This Petition is coming on 19.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Mohan Rao, Counsel for the Petitioners and

Sri. K. Srinivas, Counsel for the respondent no.1 and none appeared for all concerned/R2 though paper publication is ordered and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court

Page No.2 of 7 SOP.No. 47 of 2021 passed the following:

O R D E R

This is a Petition filed under section 372 of Indian Succession

Act for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioners in respect of petition schedule property.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that, the petitioner no.1 is the wife and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of the deceased Late Sri. Potti Satyanarayana who died intestate on 14.04.2020 leaving behind the petitioners as legal heirs. During his life time the deceased Late Sri Potti Satyanarayana had purchased petition schedule Insurance Policies from the respondent no. 1. The details of the petition schedule Insurance Policies are as follows:

SCHEDULE PROPERTY

S.No.Name of thePolicy No. Amount Insurance 1SBILife1R392003210Rs. 22,95,576/- Insurance Policy 2SBILife1R001013107Rs. 15,16,656/- Insurance Policy

When the petitioners approached the respondent no. 1 for issuance of petition schedule Insurance Policies, the authorities demanded

Page No.3 of 7 SOP.No. 47 of 2021

Succession Certificate. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondent no.1 filed counter and admitted that the policies bearing nos. 1R001013107 and 1R392003210 were issued with dates of commencement as 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2017 respectively for basic sum assured of Rs.12,00,000/- and

Rs.18,00,000/- respectively in favour of Sri Potti Satyanarayana. The insured member Mr. Potti Satyanarayana is reported to have died on 14.04.2020. The claim is admitted under both the Policies and an amount of Rs.24,19,930.78/-ps is payable under policy bearing no.

1R392003210 and an amount of Rs.15,63,167.89/-Ps is payable under policy no.1R001013107. Both the policies are assigned in favour of M/s. R S Brothers Retail India Pvt. Ltd. The respondent no.1 is ready to pay the said amount to the legal heirs certified by the court.

4.A publication was given and no objections are received from the third parties.

5.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner no.1 is examined as

Pw.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-9 are marked on behalf of the petitioners. On the other hand, no oral evidence is adduced and no document is

Page No.4 of 7 SOP.No. 47 of 2021 marked on behalf of the respondent.

6.Heard on both sides and perused the record.

7.Now the point for determination is

1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of

Succession Certificate as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

8. Point No.1: This Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of Pw.1 who filed affidavit in lieu of her chief examination reiterating the petition averments. It has been brought on record through the evidence of Pw.1 that she is the wife and the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of Late Sri Potti Satyanarayana who died on 14.04.2020 leaving behind the petitioners as legal heirs. During his life time, Late Sri Potti Satyanarayana had purchased the petition schedule insurance policies from the respondent no.1. When the petitioners approached the respondent no.1 to claim the insurance policies, the respondent no.1 demanded Succession Certificate.

9.Besides the oral evidence, the petitioners have filed Exs.P-1 to

P-9. Ex.P1 is the death certificate of Late Sri Potti Satyanarayana who died on 14.04.2020. Ex.P2 to P4 are the Aadhar Cards of the petitioners which reveals their identity particulars. Ex.P5 is the

Page No.5 of 7 SOP.No. 47 of 2021

Aadhar Card of the deceased Late Sri Potti Satyanarayana. Exs.P6 and P7 are the letters issued by the respondent no. 1 regarding the bonus amount. Ex.P8 and P9 are the SBI Life insurance requirement letters issued by the respondent no.1 regarding the bonus amount.

10.Though the petitioners have filed Exs.P6 to P9, in view of the counter filed by the respondent no. 1 it is an admitted fact that the petition schedule insurance policies were issued in the name of Late

Sri Potti Satyanarayana and he reported to have died on 14.04.2020.

In view of the counter it is an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.

24,19,930.78/- is payable under policy bearing no.1R392003210 and an amount of Rs. 15,63,167.89/- Ps is payable under policy no.

1R001013107.

11.The evidence of Pw.1 remained uncontradicted as the counsel

for the respondent no. 1 reported no cross examination. In view of

Exs.P2 to P4, the petitioners have proved their identity particulars.

On perusal of Exs.P2 to P4 it clearly appears that Late Potti

Satyanarayana is the husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Further inspite of issuance of paper publication no objections are received from the third parties. Thus in view of evidence of Pw.1 coupled with Exs.P1 to P9 this court is of

Page No.6 of 7 SOP.No. 47 of 2021 the view that the petitioners are entitled for Succession Certificate in respect of petition schedule insurance policies. Accordingly, this point is answered.

12.Point No.2:In the result, the petition is allowed. Issue

Succession Certificate in favor of the Petitioners in respect of petition schedule property along with accrued bonus to the petitioners. The Petitioners shall pay the requisite court fees for issuing the Succession Certificate. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21 st day of April, 2022.

Sd/-

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER S :F OR RESPONDENTS :

Pw.1: Potti Malathi Lakshmi Kumari, Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1is the Original Death Certificate of Late Potti Satyanarayana, dt.14-04-2020

Ex.P2is the Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.1 issued by Government of India.

Ex.P3is the Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.2 issued by

Page No.7 of 7 SOP.No. 47 of 2021

Government of India.

Ex.P4is the Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.3 issued by Government of India.

Ex.P5is the Aadhaar Card of deceased.

Ex.P6is the SBI, Life Insurance requirement letter regarding the bonus amount dt.08-08-2020 (Policy No.IR392003210).

Ex.P7is the SBI, Life Insurance requirement letter regarding the bonus amount dt.10-08-2020 (Policy No.IR001013107).

Ex.B8is the SBI Life Insurance requirement letter regarding the bonus amount dt. 08-08-2020 (Policy No.IR392003210).

Ex.B9is the SBI Life Insurance requirement letter regarding the bonus amount dt. 10-08-2020 (Policy No.IR001013107). F or Respondents :Nil

sd/-

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURT : AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : K. JAYARAM REDDY, B.Com.,LLB.

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

I/c. II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 20 th DAY OF APRIL, 2022

O.S.No. 614 of 20 21

BETWEEN

M/s. Kothari Ispat, having its business at 502, Amogh Plaza, adjacent Hotel Kakatiya, Begumpet, Hyderabad, rep., by its Proprietor Sri Ashish Kothari, S/o. Suresh Kothari, aged 36 years … Plaintiff

AND

M/s. Umashankar Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Having its office at Plot No.39, 2nd Phase, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Hosur, Karnataka 635 109 Rep., by its Director, Sri Nand Kumar, S/o. not known, aged major,… Defendant

This suit coming on 08.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K. Waghray, Counsel for the Plaintiff and the

Defendant remained ex-parte and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

: JUDGMENT :

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of money of Rs.24,18,489.19/- with future interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization with costs.

Page No.2 of 6 OS..No. 614 of 2021

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that, the plaintiff is in the business of trading of Sponge Iron and they are the suppliers of Sponge

Iron. The plaintiff supplies Sponge Iron to various parties all over India and different parties from different places used to place orders and the plaintiff used to supply to them. The defendant approached the plaintiff for the purpose of their business requirement and placed orders for supply of Sponge Iron in the year 2019 and the plaintiff has agreed to supply the required material. Whenever the defendant used to place orders for supply of Sponge Iron, the plaintiff used to issue invoices for the required quantity and the material used to be delivered at the defendant’s place. At request of the defendant for credit facilities the plaintiff has agreed to provide credit facilities to the defendant. In the initial period of transactions the defendant was regular in making payment, however during the course of transactions the defendant started delaying the payment by giving one reason or other. As per the accounts the defendant has to pay the balance outstanding amount of

Rs. 21,88,678/-. The last payment of Rs.5,00,000/- lakhs was made on 11.02.2020. The plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice to the defendant on 15.03.2021 demanding the payment of outstanding of Rs.

21,88,678/- with interest @ 18 % per annum and the said legal notice was returned as party refused. The defendant is liable to pay principle outstanding amount of Rs. 21,88,678/- along with interest of Rs.

Page No.3 of 6 OS..No. 614 of 2021 2,29,811.19/- Ps total comes to Rs. 24,18,489.19/-. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant was set exparte as he refused to receive the summons through RPAD.

4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff is examined as Pw.1 and

Exs.A1 to A18 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, no oral evidence is adduced and no document is marked on behalf of the defendants.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is,

1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover

the suit amount from the defendant as

prayed for ?

2) To what relief ?

7. Point No. 1: This Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of Pw.1 who filed affidavit in lieu of his chief examination reiterating the plaint averments. It has been brought on record through the evidence of Pw.1 that the defendant approached the plaintiff for supply of sponge iron in the year 2019 and the plaintiff

Page No.4 of 6 OS..No. 614 of 2021 has agreed to supply the required material. Whenever the defendant used to place orders for supply of sponge iron, the plaintiff issued invoices for the required quantity and the material used to be supplied at the defendant’s place. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff has provided credit facilities. Initially the defendant was regular in making payments however, during the course of transactions the defendant started delaying the payment by giving one reason or other. The last payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-was made on 11.02.2020 and the defendant is liable to pay the balance outstanding amount of Rs. 21,88,678/- with interest of Rs.

2,29,811.19/- ps. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dt.

15.03.2021 which was returned as party refused.

8.Besides the oral evidence, the plaintiff has filed Exs.A1 to A18.

Ex.A1 to A15 are the invoices through which the plaintiff had supplied the material to the defendant. Ex.P16 is the office copy of legal notice, dt. 15.03.2021. The said notice was returned unserved under Ex.A17. Ex.A18 is the statement of account along with certificate under section 65 of Indian Evidence Act. As per Ex.A18 the balance outstanding payable by the defendant is Rs. 21,88,678/-.

9.The evidence of Pw.1 remained unchallenged as the defendant

Page No.5 of 6 OS..No. 614 of 2021 never chose to proceed with the suit and to cross examine Pw1. Thus upon consideration of unchallenged testimony of Pw.1 coupled with the Exs.A1 to A18 this court is of the view that the claim of the plaintiff is proved. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

10.Point No.2 :In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount amount Rs. 24,18,489.19/-(Rs. Twenty Four Lakhs Eighteen

Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Nine and Nineteen paise only) with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal outstanding of Rs.

21,88,678/-(Rs. Twenty One lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Eight only).

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 20 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

I/c. II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Page No.6 of 6 OS..No. 614 of 2021

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: Pw.1: Ashish Kothari, Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1is the Tax Invoice, dt. 03-08-2019. Ex.A2is the Tax Invoice, dt. 08-08-2019. Ex.A3is the Tax Invoice, dt. 07-09-2019. Ex.A4is the Tax Invoice, dt. 12-09-2019. Ex.A5is the Tax Invoice, dt. 16-09-2019. Ex.A6is the Tax Invoice, dt. 20-09-2019. Ex.A7is the Tax Invoice, dt. 13-10-2019. Ex.A8is the Tax Invoice, dt. 17-10-2019. Ex.A9is the Tax Invoice, dt. 20-10-2019. Ex.A10 is the Tax Invoice, dt. 05-11-2019. Ex.A11 is the Tax Invoice, dt. 05-11-2019. Ex.A12 is the Tax Invoice, dt. 15-11-2019. Ex.A13 is the Tax Invoice, dt. 24-01-2020. Ex.A14 is the Tax Invoice, dt. 28-01-2020. Ex.A15 is the Tax Invoice, dt. 17-02-2020. Ex.A16 is the Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.15-03-2021. Ex.A17 is the Original returned postal envelop, dt.22-03-2021. Ex.A18 is the Statement of accounts, dt.21-10-2021 along with Certificate. FOR DEFENDANT:NIL

Sd/-

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

I/c. II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD