K Madhu Swamy

1

In the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) ::

Narasaraopet

Present:-Sri K. Madhu Swamy,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet,

Thursday, this the 2nd day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P No. 315/2023 and H.M.O.P No. 229/2024

H.M.O.P.No. 315/2023:

Between: Duddu @ Pasupuleti Aswini D/o. Pasupuleti Lakshmana Rao w/o. Duddu Saikrishna, Hindu, Aged about 27 yrs., House Wife, D.NO.1-171, Bandivaripalem village, Santhamaguluru Mandal , Bapatla District.

...Petitioner.

- And -

Duddu Saikrishna s/o. Anjaneyulu, D.No.6-3-96/3, Premnagar, Hyderabad – 500004, Hyderabad City Civil Courts.

...Respondent.

H.M.O.P.No.229/2024:

Between: Duddu Saikrishna s/o. Anjaneyulu, Aged 32 yrs., D.No.6-3-96/3, Premnagar, Hyderabad – 500004, Hyderabad City Civil Courts.

...Petitioner.

- And -

Duddu Aswini D/o. Pasupuleti Lakshmana Rao w/o. Duddu Saikrishna, Hindu, Aged about 27 yrs., House Wife, D.NO.1-171, Bandivaripalem village, Kopparam, Santhamaguluru Mandal , Bapatla District.

...Respondent.

These petitions are coming on 13-03-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.G.S.P Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner in HMOP. 315/2023 and Advocate for the respondent in HMOP.229/2024 and Sri K. Sunil Singh, Advocate for the Respondent in HMOP. 315/2023 and Advocate for the petitioner in HMOP.229/2024 and upon considering the material on record, hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

2

COMMON ORDER

1)The petitioner in HMOP. 315/2023 i.e., wife filed the petition under

Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, directing the

Respondent to take back the Petitioner to lead marital life. Whereas the

Respondent in HMOP. 315/2023(FCOP No. 835/2021 transferred from the court of

Principal Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad CCC) i.e., husband filed HMOP.229/2024

under Section 13 (1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage with the Petitioner on the ground of cruelty.

Subsequently,as per orders in TOP NO.328/2024 on the file of Prl.

District Judge, Guntur Dt. 24-09-2024, HMOP 229/2024 was clubbed with

HMOP No. 315/2023 and common evidence has been recorded in HMOP.

229/2024.

The brief averments of the petition in HMOP. 315/2023 are as

follows:

2. The Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent and their marriage was took place on 5.8.2020 at Venkateswara Swamy Temple,

Narasaraopet in the presence of the elders of both sides as per Hindu custom and usage and their marriage was arranged marriage. The petitioner's parents belong to Bandivaripalem village, Santhamagulur

Mandal, Bapatla District and they got four daughters. The petitioner is the third daughter to their parents. The father of the petitioner is an agriculturist and he got educated his children with his hard labour. The petitioner is studied B.Sc. B.Ed. The Respondent parents approached the father of the petitioner through one Thota Koteswararao, Burnpet, Narasaraopet and requested him to give her daughter in marriage to the Respondent who is their youngest son. The Respondent's parents did not demand dowry since it is the second marriage to the Respondent and the Respondent got divorced 3 from his first wife. The Respondent's parents further informed that the

Respondent is 25 years old and he is a Chartered Accountant and working as Audit Manager, in Sagar and Associates, Chartered Accountants,

Hyderabad and drawing salary of Rs.2,50,000/- Lakhs per month. Saying so, convinced the Petitioner's parents and the parents of the Petitioner agreed for the said marriage by considering that the petitioner will have bright future.

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was performed on 5.8.2020 at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Narasaraopet in a simple manner. Immediately after the marriage the petitioner joined the respondent at Narasaranpet. The Respondent did not take the Petitioner to Hyderabad for leading marital life and he used to visit Narasaraopet now and then under the parents of Respondent started showing their true colours and harassed the petitioner for not bringing dowry. The Father and mother of the respondent started harassing the petitioner saying the petitioner is not suitable girl for them and if the respondent married any other girl they would have got huge dowry. The brother of the Respondent Kali Vara Prasad and his wife who are residing at Narasaraopet also harassed the Petitioner. All of them used to treat the Petitioner as servant maid as she came from a poor family. During the initial days of the marriage, the Respondent looked after the Petitioner well. But, at the instigation of his parents, the brother-in-law, co-daughter-in-law he started harassing the petitioner for dowry.

i) The Petitioner submits that during the second month of the marriage i.e. in the month of September,2020, the Petitioner got pregnancy and the

Respondent and his parents were not happy and used to say that the

Petitioner is a burden on them. The petitioner was made to do all household works without any cooperation of other woman folk in the house. The mother-in-law of the petitioner used to taught and criticize the petitioner 4 continuously saying that the Petitioner did not know how to cut onions even and not know how to cook food tasty. The petitioner was not even allowed to sit on the chair in the house. When the petitioner informed about the ill-treatment by in-laws to Respondent, the respondent used to support his parents. The parents of the Respondent used to carry false stories against the petitioner and on that the Respondent used to get angry and quarrel with the petitioner. The petitioner informed to her parents regarding the harassment meted out to her at in-law's place at Narasaraopet. The parents of the petitioner and elders requested the father-in-law and mother-in-law to allow the respondent and petitioner to live together at Hyderabad for leading happy marital life. Accordingly, the respondent taken the Petitioner to

Hyderabad and there the father-in-law and mother-in-law also stayed with

Respondent and Petitioner and they continued their harassment and did not allow the Respondent and Petitioner to sleep on one cot. The father-in-law of the Petitioner used to sleep with the Respondent and the mother-in-law with the Petitioner and tried their level best to separate the Respondent and

Petitioner ii) The Petitioner further submits that again the Petitioner was taken to

Narasaraopet and she stayed with her in-laws and Respondent and stayed at Hyderabad. The petitioner suffered with nausea and vomiting in the third month pregnancy, in spite of that the Petitioner was not allowed to take rest and the father-in-law of the petitioner used to say why she is not feeling sleepy saying his wife that is mother-in-law of the petitioner did not have such complaints during pregnancy even though she gave birth to two children. Unable to bear the harassment, the Petitioner and her parents approached the Narasaraopet II Town, Police Station for counseling. There the Police did not counseling and advised the Misti-dent and his parents to 5 look after the petitioner well. After the said counseling, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the Petitioner denied food and used to scold the petitioner and threatened that they will kill the petitioner. On 15.11.2020, the father-in- law of the petitioner kicked the petitioner on her. stomach during the third month of the pregnancy and the petitioner informed the same to her parents.

Immediately on receipt of such information, the parents of the petitioner came to Narasaraopet and placed the matter before elders and the respondent's parents convinced the petitioner's family members that they will look after the petitioner properly. Believing their version, the parents of the petitioner left to their village by leaving the petitioner with them. Even subsequently also the Respondent and his family members torched the

Petitioner by all means and caused mental agony to the petitioner by demanding amounts from her family members for which she expressed her inability. Subsequently on 2211.2020, the Respondent and his family members met the Petitioner in Indiscriminately and caused mental agony to the petitioner. Even after also the petitioner parents tried their level best to convince the respondent and his family members and requested them to allow the petitioner to lead family life with the Respondent for which they bluntly refused. Subsequently, the petitioner gave birth a girl (Named as

Nandini). In fact about her ill-health condition, delivery and other important occasions were informed to the Respondent and his family members by the petitioner, but no one came over to look after the welfare of the petitioner and her child. In fact having lost hopes of re-union and also harassment in the hands of the Respondent and his family members on 21.3.2021, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Santhamagulur Police Station which was registered as case in Crime No.65/2021 for offences under section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Having expected the 6 report given by this petitioner the respondent's parents filed false suit in

OS 146/2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet

for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and her family members from interfering with the property with ulterior motive and to create false evidence. Besides that the respondent and his family members are screening the properties with an ulterior motive expecting filing cases of maintenance by the Petitioner. The petitioner and her parents never tried to encroach the house or any property of the respondent or his family members at any point of time. In fact, the Respondent is doing job and drawing salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month, besides that the Respondent is having house site and other properties including a house at Burnpet, Narasaraopet The

Respondent's parents have been doing money lending business with money sent by the Respondent at Narasaraopet and other places. The Respondent and his parents are very influential people having support of rowdy elements and are having influence in police department also. Subsequent to above mentioned forcibly threatened acts the Petitioner parents and well wishers made several attempts to pacify the respondents and his parents to lead marital life but in vain.

Iii) The petitioner submits that the Respondent is under the influence of his parents and he is not dutiful and conscious of his responsibility towards the petitioner and her child and who are not able to maintain themselves.

The petitioner submits that she is innocent and she did not commit any cruelty against the respondent or his family members in any manner, at any point of time. The petitioner married the respondent to lead happy marital life but the influence of his parents, brother and sister-in-law, the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and without any valid reasons deserted the petitioner on 25.11.2020 within months by which time the petitioner is having 7 third month pregnancy. The Respondent and his parents did not visit the girl child and for no fault of the child even, she is deprived of love and affection from father and grand parents. The petitioner is ready to join along with the minor child to lead happy marital life by ignoring all the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the Respondent and his parents, brother and sister-in-law. The petitioner has sent several messages to the

Respondent to take her back and also the child. The petitioner also sent the photos of the child through Whatsapp to the Respondent. But he did not respond and he blocked the petitioner cell number. It is very unfair on the part of the respondent to desert the petitioner and the child and leave them to the fate. The petitioner is living with a fond hope that the Respondent will realize his mistakes and take her back to matrimonial home along with child who is very cute. In fact, the Respondent filed family court original petition 67/20-23 on the file of Hon'ble Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad with an intention to harass the petitioner with an ulterior motive.

Subsequently, the petitioner transferred the same from the Hon'ble Family

Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to 13th Addl. District Court, Narasaraopet and the same is pending for consideration. In fact, till today either the petitioner or his family members never demanded any amount either from the Respondent or his family members till today even though the parents of the petitioner not in a position to maintain the petitioner and her minor child.

In fact, the petitioner and her minor child eke out the lively hood at the mercy of her parents and family well wishers. Even though the Respondent and his family members well known about the financial position of the petitioner and her family members, the Respondent did not provide single pie to maintenance to her 8 iv) In fact, even though the Respondent and his family members harassed the petitioner by way of different modes. The Petitioner, is ready and join the Respondent to lead happy marital life with him, by leave all the harassment made by them by considering the welfare and bright future of the minor child. Hence, the Petitioner is constrained to file this petition for restoration of conjugal life with the Respondent under section 9 of Hindu

Marriage Act. In fact, the Petitioner not filed similar type of petition on Hindu

Marriage Act in any court. There is no collusion between the petitioner and respondent in filing the present petition.

The averments of the counter in HMOP.119/2021 are as follows:

3. The Respondent filed the counter and denying the averments in the petition and further contended that the Petitioner herein has not approached the Court with clean hands, hence the HMOP is liable to be dismissed inlimini. The Petition is filed with an evil motive and for the purpose of filing the HMOP before this Court. This present petition is filed with vexatious and frivolous facts which are out rightly denied by the Respondent. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. The Petition is not maintainable as the respondent filed for divorce OP at Hyderabad. The same was transferred to

XIII Addl. District Court, Narasaraopet as per the order of Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India and it was re-numbered as H.M.OP. No. 67 of 2023 but not alleged by petitioner herein in the present HMOP at Para No.6 of this

Petition. In the above mentioned OP the petitioner herein has not filed the

Counter even 4 years lapsed. For counter blast the Petitioner has filed the present case and not maintainable. The Respondent is working as an

Assistant Auditor in a private firm and his monthly income is Rs. 30,000/- only. The marriage took place on 05.08.2020 at Venkateswara Swami

Temple, Narasaraopet, Guntur District in the presence of the elders 9 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. As per the customs of the

Community, marriage was to be performed in the Petitioner's house or with their administration. Whereas due to the present circumstances of pandemic, the financial difficulty of the Petitioner's family and on request of the Petitioner's family, the marriage was performed in the House of the

Respondent and all the expenses were incurred by the Respondent's family.

The family of the Petitioner promised that the expenses will be paid after 2-3 months. The Respondent further submits that at the time of marriage, he had purchased Jewellery exclusively for the Petitioner nearly 42 grams, the same was given to her. There is no female child in the house of parents of the

Respondent, they always treated the Petitioner as their own daughter. The total expenses incurred by the Respondent for the marriage is Rs. 5,50,000/- which has not been repaid by the family of the Petitioner till date. At the time of marriage also, the family of the Respondent had made it clear that they do not have any demands and that the marriage should be simple. At the request of the petitioner and her family members only expenses were increased. After the marriage, when the Petitioner came to live with the

Respondent, she started complaining about the size of the flat. She started complaining that the flat is very small and that she does not want to live there. The Petitioner started creating problems and insisted that the

Respondent shifts to a 2BHK flat or a 3 BHK flat. Despite the Respondent's efforts to explain the Petitioner about his financial condition, she remained adamant on shifting and created an inhabitable environment in the house

I) The Petitioner never treated the Respondent with any love and affection. The Petitioner is in the habit of dis-respecting the elders and has insulted the parents of the Respondent on many occasions. The Respondent is affectionate towards his parents and considers it his duty to take care of 10 them in old age whereas the Petitioner is forcing the Respondent not to look after his parents and stay away from them. The incidents of dis-respecting and her adamant behavior were told to middle man/mediators who has arranged the marriage after the marriage mediator initiation and who is the relative of the Petitioner. Petitioner expressed her apologies in 3-4 occasions and promised to maintain good conduct in the Respondents house, but the petitioner behavior became more worse than previous and continued same disrespect in addition to that petitioner started recording of Respondents phone calls conversations made to Petitioner and conversations of

Respondent's parents. Further, Petitioner's nature is more adulterous and harassed the Respondent mentally by expressing her feelings in the name of dream that "respondent has asked petitioner to stay with his office colleagues" (phone call proof available). Further, petitioner expressed that these things are quite common now-a-days and told respondent that she used to see a third grade movies with her male friends. Respondent have called petitioners parents to tell about petitioner cruel behavior and her vicious adultery feelings on 12.11.2020. The parents of the petitioner, along with their hench men came upon the house (Narasaraopet) of the parents of

Respondent and tried to assault the Respondent and his parents on 13-11- 2020 without intension of listening to petitioners behavior. It is further submitted that with a sudden attack by petitioner, with the support of petitioner parents and their henchmen, respondent father has fallen down due to high BP and the respondent father has undergone Bypass heart surgery just one year i.e., in the month of May, 2019, before the attack. After recovery of respondent's father, complained to the police about the incident on 25.11.2020 and ultimately the Petitioner expressed sorry and promised that she would maintain peaceful and cordial relations with the Respondent 11 and his family and petitioner left to her parents house on 26.11.2020. It became very habitual behavior of Petitioner to harass the respondent and his parents and ultimately expressing sorry. Thereafter, Petitioner parents demanded rupees one crore to settle the differences between the

Respondent and Petitioner. Then the true intentions of the Petitioner and her family of extorting money from the family of the Respondent came up. It is further submitted that the petitioner bring the Holy Bible with in the four walls and request to change into the Christianity. This respondent does not agree for that. The Petitioner and her parents threatened that they would demolish the house and also enter the house and would not allow the Parents of the

Respondent to remain in the house and they would forcefully occupy the house, if their demands were not settled. The parents of the Respondent fearing that they would enter the house forcefully made a report to the police by sending it by registered post on 15-3-2021. In counter to above complaint made by respondents parents, Petitioner filed a false 498A case against

Respondent, Respondent's Parents and Respondent's brother and his wife on 22.03.2021. Petitioner included the names of Respondent's brother and his wife who stay at Guntur along with their two children to cause hardship and to get advantage of settling the demanded amount. Respondent along with his parents and his brother and his wife attended Police station and submitted all the proofs in person and by registered post including threatening calls of petitioner and her parents in pen drive in proof of complaint made by the Petitioner was false and concocted. But, Police has not considered anything and filed charge sheet and not even discussed about documents or submissions made by Respondent. Petitioner and her parents have influenced Police department that much, that all witnesses were petitioner's relatives except two witnesses. Those two witnesses came 12 to know that they are named as witnesses and expressed that neither police enquired us nor we went to any police station and submitted the written

Affidavit which were filed in Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh against

Quash petition filed vide crl p. 2511 of 2022. Petitioner is not interested to keep the matrimonial tie intact between her and her husband and she is interested only in extorting money from her husband and in laws. With that aim in her mind she is proclaiming that she would take forceful possession of the Respondent's parents house. The Petitioner and her parents are very much interested in extortion of money from the Respondent herein. Thus the

Petitioner who is not interested to lead the marital life with her husband and in laws resorted to illegal tactics and making forceful attempts in order to encroach above said property situated at Narasaraopet and extortion of money from the Respondent herein.

ii) The Petitioner and her parents created nuisance at the house of the parents of the Respondent and gave life threatening calls to the

Respondent. The Respondent was also threatened by the parents of the

Petitioner that they would break the locks of the property situated at

Narasaraopet and take over its possession. When the situation went out of control, the parents of the Respondent filed an Injunction suit against the

Petitioner and her family members and their men restraining them from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of their house. That vide order dated 24.03.2021, the civil judge was pleased to grant interim

Injunction in favour of the Respondent's parents and restrained the

Petitioner from ever interfering in peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property. The Respondent had received several life threatening calls at the behest of the Petitioner extorting money. Under the above circumstances, the Respondent filed the divorce petition before the Family 13 court at Hyderabad which is transferred to XIII Addl. District, Narasaraopet as per Orders of Honorable Supreme Court of India. The Petitioner since the date of the marriage treated the respondent in very cruel manner on account of her greediness for money and property and kept the petitioners name and also because of sadistic mentality which attitude can be seen on the part of the petitioner and because of these cruel acts of the petitioner, and suffered depression in life and came to conclusion that there is no possibility of resumption of matrimonial relationship with the respondent as such the petitioner is approaching this Court to dissolve her marriage with the respondent by way of decree. Hence, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.

The brief averments of the petition in HMOP.229/2024 are as

follows:

4. The petitioner got married with the Respondent on 05-08-2020 at

Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Narasaraopet, Guntur District nearest house of the the petitioner. The marriage took place between both Petitioner and respondent in the presence of elders of the petitioner in accordance with

Hindu Rights and Customs and the said marriage was an arranged marriage. As per the Customs of Community marriage has to performed with respondents house or with their administration. Whereas due to the present circumstances of pandemic and the parents of the respondent have no money at particular point of marriage time and on request of the respondent's family marriage was performed in the House of the Petitioner and the Respondents promised that incurred expenses will be paid after 2-3 months. They have purchased Jewellery exclusively for the respondent nearly 42 grams, the same was given to the respondent as there is no female children in the house of parents of the Petitioner treating that the 14 respondent, given the status as her daughter though she is daughter in law.

The total incurred marriage expenses are Rs. 5,50,000/-. The respondent joined with the company of the petitioner at his native place and by seeing the petitioner's house the respondent was astonished as the respondent is living in a said Town (Narasaraopet). The respondent's parents are not interested to send her daughter Hyderabad where the Petitioner is living but on the Elder's interference, the respondent alone came along with the

Petitioner and lived together at Hyderabad only 10-15 days happily and after visiting the Hyderabad and on entering into the present flat she is not interested to live in the flat and also the Living area is very small than the comparatively in the village house from the day onwards the respondent asked to vacate the single bed room flat and asked to shift the double bed room or triple bed room. Though the Petitioner explained and the present financial position of the Petitioner particular pandemic time and also petitioner requested respondent adjust for a moment due to the COVID and with other circumstances. The respondent is silent and against started after one or two days the same parody of fact. The respondent started harassing the petitioner to setup double or triple bed room accommodation at

Hyderabad after 10 days from the date of joining. Thereby the petitioner within few days of his marital life caused lot of mental agony by the respondent. The respondent never treated the petitioner with love and affection and the respondent even did not provide bear requirements to the petitioner. The respondent always chatting in the Cell without doing house hold work. The respondent never given honour to the petitioner, and she independently took decisions and insulting before the family members so many times in the marital home. The Respondent did not relish the love and affection of petitioner with his parents. The Respondent always pick up 15 quarrel with the petitioner and his parents and she is giving adamant and sinuous replies and demanded to set up separate family and she is not looking the parents of the petitioner. The petitioner is more affectionate with his parents and also his duty to look after his old parents. The father of the

Petitioner underwent heart surgery on 9-5-2019 in KIMS Hospital,

Hyderabad. The parents of the Petitioner herein used to visit Hyderabad frequently for health check up and also used to live with their youngest son in their old age. The respondent did not relish the living of plaintiffs with their youngest son at Hyderabad and used to pick up quarrels without any justifiable reason. The respondent on four or five occasions created scenes and ultimately she apologized for what she did to her husband. On 13-11- 2020 the respondent with the support of her parents also came upon the house (Narasaraopet) of the parents of petitioner tried to assault her husband and his parents. There upon the parents of the given report to the police and ultimately the respondent expressed sorry and promised that she would maintain peace and cordial relations with her husband and in laws.

While the respondent and her husband came to Narasaraopet on 25-11- 2020 from Hyderabad again the respondent pick up the quarrel with the in laws and threatened that they would demolish the house and also enter the house. The respondent and her parents used to make threatening calls that they would not allow the Parents of the Petitioner to remain in the schedule property and they would occupy the house forcefully and demanded for settlement of their monetary claim. First they have claimed one crore and ultimately came down to twenty lakhs to settle the differences between the respondent and Petitioner. The parents of the Petitioner fearing that they would enter the house forcefully made a report to the police by sending it by registered post on 15-3-2021.

16

i) The respondent within 10 days after the marriage picked up the quarrel with the Petitioner and insisted that the in laws shall not live with her husband during her stay with him for which the Petitioner did not agree. The respondent used to behave arrogantly and neglected the welfare of her husband and in laws. The respondent and her parents made a call that she would see the end of Petitioner and his parents. From this it is clear that the respondent is not interested to keep the matrimonial tie intact between her and her husband and she is interested only in extorting money from her husband and in laws. With that aim in her mind she is proclaiming that she would take forceful possession of the schedule property. In fact the respondent left the matrimonial home on 26-11-2020 and proclaimed that she was 3rd month pregnant. From that day on wards the respondent has no connection what so ever either with her husband or with her in laws. The respondent and her parents are very much interested in extortion of money from the petitioner herein. Thus the respondent who is not Interested to lead the marital life with her husband and in laws resorted to illegal tactics and making forceful attempts in order to encroach above said property situated at Narasaraopet and extortion of money from the petitioner. The petitioner made all efforts to reconcile with the respondent 5-6 times but the respondent never changed as early and threatened the petitioner and his parents with dire consequences and left the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was informed the same and this petitioner gave a complaint in the

Punjagutta police station at Hyderabad on 27-02-2021 and Complaint was received and Police were acknowledged the complaint vide

HYD/PG_HYD/270221/00966, dated 27/02/2021 at present the respondent, parents of the respondents and hench persons not responding. The respondents and her parents created dire consequences in the 17

Narasaraopet as well as calls from Cell and created nuisance at Petitioner residence. The respondent and the crew of persons calling on cell and they are threatened and they say, that they will break the locks of the property situated at Narasaraopet. The said property was belongs to parents of the petitioner as per settlement the property gifted in the 2016 Itself, the same was informed the respondent prior to marriage itself. Under such situations, the parents of the petitioner filed an Injunction suit against the respondent herein and their hench men.

ii) Under the said dire consequences, the petitioner got a telephone call from 9885445421 and stated that the respondent filed a complaint against this petitioner and Police were not informed the contents of the complaint.

One of her relative today came to the Petitioner house and informed that already a complaint was given in the Santhamagulur, Police Station at any stage, Police will come and arrest you, if you are not settled the matter as stated by the parents of the respondent i.e., to pay Rs.20 lakhs as compensation. The petitioner after suffering both physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the respondent and now the petitioner is totally vexed and there is no other alternative remedy, petitioner is approaching this Court for the Decree of divorce on the grounds of Cruelty.

The averments of the counter in HMOP. 229/2024 are as follows:

5.The respondent denied most of the allegations in the petition and further contended that the respondent's parents belong to Bandivaripalem

Village, Santha Maguluru Mandal, Prakasam District and they got four daughters. The respondent Is 3rd daughter to their parents. The father of respondent is an agriculturist and he got educated his children with his hard labour The respondent studied BSc, B.Ed. The petitioner's parents approached the father of the respondent through one Thota Koteswara Rao, 18

Burnpet, Narasaraopet to give the respondent in marriage to petitioner who is their youngest son. The petitioner's parents did not demand dowry since it is the 2nd marriage to their son and the petitioner got divorce from his first wife. The petitioner's parents further informed that petitioner is 25 years old and he is a Chartered Accountant and working as Audit Manager in Sagar and Associates, Chartered Accountants, Hyderabad and drawing Rs 2.50 lakhs salary per month. Saying so convinced the respondent's parents and the parents of the respondent agreed for the said marriage by considering that the respondent will have bright future. The, marriage between the petitioner and respondent was performed on 05.08.2020 at Sri

Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Narasaraopet In a simple manner.

Immediately after marriage, the respondent Joined the petitioner at

Narasaraopet. The petitioner did not take the respondent to Hyderabad for leading marital life and he used to visit Narasaraopet now and then. The parents of petitioner started showing their true colours and harassed the respondent for not bringing dowry. The father and mother of petitioner started harassing the respondent saying the respondent is not suitable girl for them and if the petitioner married any other girl they would have got huge dowry. The brother of the petitioner Kall Vara Prasad and his wife who are residing at Narasaraopet also harassed the respondent. All of them used to treat the respondent as servant maid as she came from a poor family. During the Initial days of marriage, the petitioner looked after the respondent well.

But at the Instigation of his parents, brother-in-law and co daughter-in-law, he started harassing the respondent for dowry.

i) During the second month of marriage, i.e., September, 2020, the respondent got pregnancy and the petitioner and his parents were not happy and used to say that the respondent is a burden on them. The respondent 19 was made to do all house hold works without any assistance. The mother-in- law of the respondent used to taunt and criticize the respondent continuously saying the respondent did not know how to cut onions and do not know how to cook food tasty. The respondent was not even allowed to sit on a chair

When the respondent informed about the ill treatment by the in-laws to petitioner, the petitioner used to support his parents. The parents of the petitioner used to curry false stories against the respondent and on that the petitioner used to get angry and quarrel with the respondent. The respondent informed her parents regarding the harassment meted out to her at in-laws place at Narasaraopet. The parents of the respondent and elders requested the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent to allow the petitioner and respondent to live together at Hyderabad for leading happy marital life. Accordingly the petitioner taken the respondent to Hyderabad and there the father-in-law and mother-in-law also stayed with petitioner and respondent and they continued their harassment and did not allow the petitioner and respondent to sleep on one cot. The father-in-law of the respondent used to sleep with the petitioner and mother- In-law with the respondent and tried their level best to separate the petitioner and respondent.

ii) Again the respondent was taken to Narasaraopet and she stayed with her In-laws and petitioner stayed at Hyderabad. The respondent suffered with severe nausea and vomiting in the 3rd month of pregnancy, inspite of that the respondent was not allowed to take rest and the father-in- law of the respondent used to say why she is feeling sleepy saying his wife le, mother-in-law of respondent did not have such complaints daring pregnancy even though she gave birth to two children. Unable to bear the harassment, the respondent and her parents approached the Narasaraopet 20

II Town Police Station for counselling. There the police did counselling and advised the petitioner and his parents to look after the respondent well. After the said counselling, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner denied food and used to scold the respondent and threaten that they will kill the respondent. On 15.11.2020 the father-in-law of the respondent kicked the respondent on her stomach during the 3 month of pregnancy and the respondent informed the same to her parents Immediately on receiving such information, the parents of the respondent came to Narasaraopet and infact the matter before elders and the petitioner's parents convinced the respondent's family members that they will look after the respondent properly. Believing their version, the parents of respondent left to their village by leaving the respondent with them. Even subsequently also, the petitioner and his family members tortured the respondent by all means and caused mental agony to respondent by demanding amounts from her family members for which she expressed her inability. Subsequently on 22.11.2020, the petitioner and his family members beat the respondent indiscriminately and caused mental agony to the respondent. Even after also, the respondent's parents tried their level best to convince the petitioner and his family members and requested them to allow the respondent to lead family life with petitioner for which they bluntly refused. Subsequently, the respondent gave birth to a girl (named as Nadini). In fact, about her health condition, delivery and other important occasions were informed to the petitioner and his family members by the respondent, but no one came over to look after the welfare of respondent and child. Infact, having lost hopes of reunion and also harassment in the hands of the petitioner and his family members, on 21.03.2021 the respondent lodged a complaint before

Santhamagulur Police station which was registered as case in Cr.No. 65 of 21 2021 for offences under section 498-A IPC and section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Having expected the report given by this respondent, the petitioner's parents filed false suit in O.S.No. 146 of 2021 in the court of the

Principal Junior Civil Judge. Narasaraopet for permanent injunction

restraining the respondent and her family members from interfering with the property with ulterior motive and to create false evidence. Besides that, the petitioner and his family members are screening the properties with a ulterior motive expecting filing of cases of maintenance by the respondent. The respondent or her parents never tried to encroach the house or landed property of the petitioner. Infact the petitioner is doing job and drawing salary of Rs 2,00,000/- per month, besides that the petitioner is having house site and other properties Including a house at Burnpet, Narasaraopet. The petitioner's parents have been doing money lending business with money sent by the petitioner at Narasaraopet and other places. The petitioner and his parents are very Influential people having support of rowdy elements and are having Influence in police department also. Subsequent to above mentioned forcibly threatened acts the respondent's parents and well wishers made several attempts to pacify the petitioner and his parents to lead matrimonial life but in vain.

Iii) The petitioner is under the influence of his parents and he is not dutiful and conscious of his responsibilities towards the respondent and their child who are not able to maintain themselves. she is innocent and she did not commit any cruelty as alleged by the petitioner or in any other manner. The respondent married the petitioner to lead happy married life but under the influence of his parents, brother and sister-in-law, the petitioner treated the respondent with cruelty and without any valid reasons deserted the respondent within months by which time the respondent is having third 22 month pregnancy. The petitioner and his parents did not visit the girl child and for no fault of the child she is deprived of love and affection from father and grandparents. The respondent is ready to join the petitioner along with the child to lead happy marital life by ignoring all the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the petitioner and his parents, brother and sister in law.

The respondent has sent several messages to the petitioner to take her back and also the child. The respondent also sent the photos of the child through whatsapp to petitioner. But he did not respond and he blocked the respondent's cell number. It is very unfair on the part of the petitioner to desert the respondent and the child and leave them to their fate. The respondent is living with a fond hope that, the petitioner will realize his mistakes and take her back to matrimonial home along with the child.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6.Both the petitions are clubbed together as per the Orders in

TOP 328/2024 on the file of Hon’ble Prl. District Court, Guntur and common evidence has been recorded in HMOP.229/2024. Hence, for the sake of convenience and easy understanding, the parties will be referred as arrayed in HMOP.229/2024.

7.During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P.9 were marked on behalf of the Petitioner and R.w.1 and

R.w.2 were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the

Respondent.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

9.Now, the following points that arise for consideration are:-

1)Whether the Petitioner/Husband is entitled to seek the dissolution of the marriage dated 05-08-2020 in between petitioner and respondent by way of divorce?

23

2) Whether the Respondent/Wife is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights?

3) To what relief?

9.Point Nos.1 & 2:-

It is the case of the petitioner that, his marriage with the Respondent has performed on 05-08-2020 at Venkateswara Swamy Temple,

Narasaraopet near his house as per Hindu Rights and Customs and after the marriage, his marriage was consummated. Other hand respondent also contended that her marriage was performed with the petitioner on 05-08-2020 at Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Narasaraopet in a simple manner and after the marriage, she joined with the petitioner and her marriage was consummated. Hence, there is no dispute about the marriage and also consummation of the marriage.

10. It is the allegation of the petitioner that his marriage was performed with the respondent during Covid-19 time, as such, the parents of the

Respondent have no money to give him and requested to perform the marriage at his house and her parents promised that incurred expenses will be paid two or three months. Then, they have purchased jeweler for respondent nearly 42 grams as there is no female children in their house.

They have spent marriage expenses nearly Rs.5,50,000/-.

11. To support the contention of the petitioner, he was examined as P.w.1.

Ex.P1 to P.9 were marked. Ex.P1 Wedding invitation. Ex.P2 Two gold ornaments Bills stands in the name of Anjaneyulu who is father of P.w.1.

Ex.P3 Gas Bill stands in the name of P.w.1. Ex.P4 Certified Copy of

Judgment & Decree in O.S 146/2021 on the file of PJCJ Court,

Narasaraopet. Ex.P5 Certified Copy of Petition in O.P No.315/2023. Ex.P6 24

Certified Copy of Counter in O.P No.315/2023. Ex.P7 Certified Copy of interim order in Crl.M.P NO. 2511/2022. Ex.P8 Discharge Summary of

D.Anjaneyulu. Ex.P9 Acknowledgment of Complaint given to SHO,

Panjagutta,P.S Dt.27-02-2021.

12. As per Ex.P.2, petitioner contended that at the time of marriage, they have presented 42 grams of gold to the respondent. On perusal of the same, the said two gold ornament receipts are stands in the name of father of the petitioner and same was purchased on 3-8-2020 which is prior to two days of marriage. Hence, it can safely presumed that it was purchased by the petitioner family to present the same to the respondent. Hence, petitioner has proved that the said gold ornaments were presented to the respondent.

13. Other hand respondent have not denied the said fact in her counter as well as in her chief examination that petitioner family has not given the said gold ornaments to her. So, it can be safely presumed that the

Respondent had admitted the said fact. Further on perusal of counter as well as Chief Examination, respondent have not denied that family of the petitioner have spent marriage expenses and spent Rs.5,50,000/-. Hence, it can be safely presumed that marriage was performed by the parents of the petitioner. Moreover on perusal of chief examination of the respondent, she clearly contended that petitioner parents did not demand dowry since the marriage is second marriage to the petitioner. So, it is clear that there is no question of dowry between petitioner family and respondent family. Hence, petitioner have proved the said allegation against the respondent.

14. The another allegation of the petitioner is that respondent has demanded the petitioner to vacate the single bed room flat and asked to shift the double or triple bed room flat at Hyderabad and harassed him mentally and which cause mental agony to him. The Respondent has not 25 shown any love and affection and not provided minimum requirements and always chatting in the phone without taking care. To support the contention of the petitioner, he was examined as P.w.1, he contended before this court that respondent used to harass him to shift family to double or triple bed room flat at Hyderabad after 10 days of joining with him. To support his contention, no independent witnesses were examined and no documentary proof has filed before this court to show that respondent demanded him to shift family to double or triple bed room flat at Hyderabad. During cross examination, P.w.1 has deposed that their marriage was performed on 05-08-2020 and they have shifted their shelter to Hyderabad around 20 or 21-08-2020. Except the said fact, petitioner has not deposed anything in his cross examnation about demand of Respondent to shift family to double or triple bed room flat at Hyderabad. However, on careful scrutiny of evidence of P.w.1, he contended that respondent has harassed him to shift his shelter to single to double bed room flat. But there is no clinching evidence before this court that respondent has harassed him. On perusal of the record and in cross examination of P.w.1, he himself deposed that he and respondent lived for 2 ½ months. Whereas the marriage of the petitioner was took place on 05-08-2020 and in his chief examination he stated that respondent left his company on 26-11-2020. So, within 2 ½ months, they have separated.

Further in his cross examination, P.w.1 himself deposed that due to adamant and cruel behaviour of the respondent, he send the respondent from the house. Thus, it is clear that petitioner and respondent lived only 2 ½ months but not 3 ½ months and there is no evidence that in the said period respondent has harassed the petitioner to shift their shelter to double or triple bed room flat. Hence, petitioner have failed to prove the above allegation against the respondent.

26

15. The another contention of the petitioner is that respondent never treat him with love and affection and even did not provide minimum requirements to him and respondent always chatting in the Cellphone without taking care of the house. To support his contention, he was examined as P.w.1 and contended that respondent never treat him with love and affection. On perusal of the record, petition and respondent lived only 2 ½ months. So, the question of showing love and affection does not arise since couple lived together very short period and petitioner should give some time to respondent to get confidence on the petitioner. So, that respondent can adjust with the petitioner on initial days of marriage. However, in cross examination of P.w.1, he stated that due to adamant and cruel behaviour of respondent, he sent the respondent. Thatself proves that petitioner himself send the respondent, but respondent herself not leave the company of the petitioner. Hence, petitioner has failed to prove the above allegation against the Respondent.

16. The another contention of petitioner is that, respondent did not provide minimum requirements to him. But petitioner has not specifically stated that what are those minium requirements. So, non mentioning of the minium requirements of the petitioner specifically, does not say that the respondent has not acted as dutiful wife towards the petitioner. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that petitioner and respondent lived only for 2 ½ months and it can be said that in the said 2 ½ months of short span, one spouse cannot expect from another spouse to act of their comforts. In initial stage of marriage, it is difficult to adjust emotionally and all other means in between the spouses, so it takes some time to another spouse to adjust with husband. So, the period which was lead by the petitioner and respondent is only 2 ½ months, as such, it cannot be said that respondent have not acted 27 as a dutiful wife. Hence, the above allegation of the petitioner cannot be considered.

17. The another allegation of the petitioner is that respondent used to pick up quarrels with the petitioner without any justifiable reason and respondent created a scene and she apologized for what she has done to the parents of the petitioner. While the respondent came along with him to

Narasaraopet on 25-11-2020 from Hyderabad again she pick up the quarrel with his parents and threatened that they would demolish the house and also enter the house and the Respondent and her parents used to make threatening calls that they would not allow his parents to remain in the house and they would occupy the house forcibly and demanded for settlement of their monetary claim. So, petitioner and his parents were apprehended and filed suit in O.S. 146/2021 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet and the said suit was decreed.

18. To support the contention of the petitioner/P.w.1, P.w.2 and P.W.3 have examined and they also deposed same facts as stated by the P.w.1 in their chief examination. During cross examination of P.w.2, he deposed that since marriage petitioner and respondent resided at Hyderabad. He did not know the disputes between petitioner and respondent at Hyderabad. He cannot say the date, month and year, when relatives of Respondent came to

Narasaraopet. So, as per the said fact, it is clear that P.W.2 is not aware the disputes in between petitioner and respondent, even he did not depose the date, month and year when relatives of respondent came to house of petitioner at Narasaraopet. In fact, if P.w.2 was present at the time of galata, what prevented him to say the alleged incident. Non deposing the date, month and year of the incident creates suspicion over the evidence of

P.w.2. Hence, it can be presumed that P.W.2 was not present at the time of 28 alleged incident if occurred.

19. Like wise P.W.3 has supported the case of P.W.1 in his chief examination. In cross examination P.w.3 deposed that one person of the respondent came to the house of petitioner and made galata. But, he cannot say the address particulars of the said person and he has not asked the name and particulars of the said person. So, without having any details of said person, P.W.3 simply deposed that one relative of respondent came to the house of petitioner and made galata is untenable and same cannot be considered. Hence, the petitioner have failed to prove the above allegation against the respondent.

20. It is an admitted fact that mother of the petitioner have filed

OS.146/21 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet and the said

suit was decreed. Other hand respondent have categorically contended

before this court that, she and her parents never tried to encroach the house

of the petitioner and their family property at any point of time. For which, she has given no objection to grant injunction in the said suit. Thus, it is clear that respondent has no intention to enter into the house of petitioner forcibly.

So, the allegation of the petitioner that respondent intended to demolish or enter into house forcibly is false.

21. The another allegation of the petitioner is that respondent within 10 days after marriage picked up quarrel with him and insisted that the in-laws shall not live with her husband during her stay with him, for which, he did not agree. The Respondent used to behave arrogantly and neglected the welfare of petitioner and his parents. The respondent and her parents made a call that she would see the end of him and his parents. The Respondent is proclaiming that she would take forcible possession of house property.

29

22. To support the contention of the petitioner, he was examined as

P.W.1 and he contended that respondent used to harass him that their in- laws should not come to her house at Hyderabad. To support his contention, P.w.2 and P.w.3 who are independent witnesses have examined.

They have supported the contention of Petitioner/P.w.1 in their chief examination, but in cross examination P.w.2 and P.W.3 have not supported the case of petitioner/P.w.1. Hence, the evidence of P.w.2 and P.w.3 cannot be considered.

23. Coming to the evidence of P.w.4 who is mother of P.w.1 that she and her husband went to Hyderabad for treatment. When they reside in the house of petitioner at Hyderabad, some of the persons of respondent used to come to the house and create nuisance, for which, she and her husband and petitioner went to Police Station along with P.w.3 and filed a report to police at Punjagutta, P.S.

24. To support their contention, they have relied upon

Ex.P.9/Acknowledgment of the Complaint given to SHO, Punjagutta, P.S

Dt.27-02-2021. On perusal of Ex.P.9, it was mentioned that respondent used to picked quarrel with the petitioner and his parents for small reasons and later she has apologized to the petitioner. Further, it was mentioned that one person by name Anand came to their house and made galata. Whereas in cross examination of P.w.4, she has not deposed the name of the person who came to their house and made galata at Hyderabad. She simply deposed that one person belong to respondent, but she cannot say age and descriptive particulars of said person. If really the said person came to their house, certainly they will ask the details of that person whether he is relative of respondent or not. But, they unable to depose the said fact before this court and also unable to depose the reason for quarrel took place at 30

Hyderabad. So, it cannot be said that one person has came to the house of the petitioner and made galata. Moreover petitioner have not filed the stage of the said case filed against the said person. If really the complaint was registered which was filed against the said person, it is the duty of the petitioner to file the documentary proof to show the stage of the said complaint, whether it was investigated and filed charge sheet or not, but he simply stated that one person came to their house, but they do not know the details of the said person. Except filing Ex.P.9, no other document was filed

before this court with regard to the said complaint. Ex.P.9 itself does not

sufficient to say that one person of the respondent came to the house of petitioner and made galata. It shows only prima-facie allegation against the said person. Even petitioner nor his mother has not deposed the name of the person who came to their house and made galata. P.w.3 who is third party to the case also not supported the case of the Petitioner. Hence, Petitioner failed to prove the above allegation against the respondent.

25. The another allegation of the petitioner is that respondent herself left the matrimonial house on 26-11-20. After left from the petitioner she has given birth to the child and at the time of leaving, she informed that she was 3rd month pregnancy.

26. To support the contention of the petitioner, he was examined as

P.w.1 and categorically contended that respondent herself left the house of petitioner on 26-11-2020. To support his contention, no independent witnesses were examined and there is no clinching evidence before this court to show that respondent voluntarily left the company of the petitioner.

During cross examination of P.w.1, he himself admitted that due to adamant and cruel behaviour of the respondent, he himself sent the respondent from his house. Thus, it is clear that petitioner himself sent the respondent from 31 his house, but respondent not voluntarily left the company of the petitioner.

Hence, the allegation of the petitioner that respondent voluntarily left he company of the petitioner on 26-11-2020 is false.

27. At the time of arguments, counsel for petitioner has contended that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was irretrievable break down since long time and in support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in AIR Online 2007

SC 347 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,

“Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be

concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a

fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such

cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant

regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.

When we take into consideration aforementioned factors along with an

important circumstance that the parties are admittedly living separately for more than sixteen and half years the irresistible conclusion would be that matrimonial bond has been ruptured beyond repair because of the mental cruelty caused by the respondent.”

28. In the present case counsel for petitioner contended that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was irretrievably break down and they are living separately since long time. Whereas respondent have denied the contentions of the petitioner and stated that their marriage was performed on 05-08-2020 and they lived together only for 3 months, thereafter, they have been living separately and in the year, 2021 the present O.P was filed by the petitioner. So, respondent contended that immediately after separation, petitioner have filed this petition, as such, there is no long period of continuous separation between petitioner and respondent. This court agrees with the contention of the respondent, that the long period of continuous separation of the petitioner and respondent should be that they should live separately before filing the O.P, but after filing of the OP in the year, 2021 to till today cannot be counted as period of separation. The delay was caused due to transferring of O.P from Family Court, Hyderabad to 32

XIII Addl. District Court, Narasaraopet from there to this court. So, the said delay cannot be considered as long period of separation in between the parties. Hence, the above decision relied by the petitioner is no way related to the facts of the present case. So, the contention of the petitioner cannot be considered.

29. The another contention of the petitioner is that, respondent has filed 498-A IPC case against the petitioner and his family members and same was numbered as C.C 626/21 at Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Addanki,

Prakasam District and same is pending. So, petitioner contended that respondent has filed false 498-A case against the petitioner, for which respondent has caused mental cruelty to the petitioner and his family members. Hence, petitioner is entitled for granting of divorce. Whereas respondent denied the contention of the Petitioner and stated that the said

C.C 626/21 was still pending before Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

However mere filing 498-A IPC case against the petitioner and his family, does not amounts to cruelty. When the said case was ended with acquittal, then it can be conclude that respondent has filed false case against the petitioner. At this juncture, it cannot be said that the criminal case was false case. So, the said allegation made by the petitioner cannot be considered.

30. Further counsel for the petitioner contended in his written arguments and submitted that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a ground for granting divorce and he has relied upon a decision of Naveen Kohli Vs.

Neelu Kohli reported AIR 2006 SC 1675 and also relied upon a decision of

Jayachandra Vs Aneel Kaur reported in AIR 2005 SC 534 where in the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,

33

“Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a

sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce,

it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no

doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is

found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld.

The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which

has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for

the parties.”

31. In present case petitioner contended that their marriage was brok down long back and since 5 to 6 years they are living separately. So, their marriage was irreparably breakdown and it is not possible for reunion.

Whereas respondent denied the contention of the Petitioner and stated that respondent and petitioner lived together for 3 months and immediately after that the petitioner filed this petition in the year, 2021 at Family Court,

Hyderabad, thereafter, it was transferred to XIII Addl. District Court,

Narasaraopet and later to this court. Hence, it is only an administrative delay. However respondent contended that petitioner never accepted her to join with him , so, the said delay cannot be construed as an sufficient length of time of separation. This court agrees with thew contention of respondent, the separation in between petitioner and respondent would be sufficient time without filing any petition, then it can be believed that the separation of the petitioner and respondent is the sufficient length of time. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioner cannot be considered. The facts and circumstances of the above decisions cannot be applicable to the facts of the present case.

32. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove that respondent has harassed him both mentally and physically and petitioner have failed to prove the ingredients of cruelty.

34

Counter allegations of the Respondent in this petition as well as in

HMOP 315/2023. :-

33. It is the allegation of the respondent that petitioner have not taken her to Hyderabad to lead matrimonial life with him and he used to visit

Narasaraopet now and then under the parents of petitioner started showing their true colours and harassed her for not bringing dowry and they are stating that she is not suitable girl for them and if the petitioner married any other girl they would have got huge dowry. In support of her contention, she was examined as R.w.1 and no documents filed on her behalf. The

Respondent contended that parents of the petitioner used to harass her to bring dowry and also used to state that she is not suitable to the petitioner. In support of her contention, Respondent has examined R.w.2. He also supported the case of Respondent in his chief examination. During cross examination of R.w.1, she deposed that on one or two occasions they went to Hyderabad, but they stayed at Narasaraopet. So, as per the said fact, it is clear that petitioner and respondent lived at Hyderabad and weekends they used to come to Narasaraopet to see the parents of the petitioner. So, the contention of the respondent that petitioner never took her to Hyderabad to lead marital life is false. Likewise in cross examination of R.w.2 he deposed that he did not know whether petitioner has residing at Hyderabad. Further he stated that petitioner used to go to Hyderabad for job, but Respondent and her parents are insisting the Petitioner to take the respondent. So, as per the said fact, it is clear that after the marriage petitioner has kept the respondent in her parents house at Narasaraopet. Later, he has taken the

Respondent to Hyderabad to lead marital life and weekends they used to come to Narasaraopet. So, as per the said fact that R.w.2 has pleaded ignorance that he did not know whether petitioner was residing at 35

Hyderabad. In fact if he was acted as mediator at Hyderabad, he might have aware that whether petitioner is living at Hyderabad. Simply impleading ignorance of the said fact is no way useful to the case of respondent. Other hand petitioner has examined, P.w.3 who is third party and P.w.4 who is mother of Petitioner have categorically deposed that petitioner and respondent lived at Hyderabad for sometime and P.w.4 went to Hyderabad for treatment of her husband/father of the petitioner. So, the petitioner has proved that they have lead their matrimonial life at Hyderabad. Whereas respondent has failed to prove that petitioner has not taken her to

Hyderabad. Hence, respondent failed to prove the above allegation against the petitioner.

34. Further respondent has contended that parents of the petitioner demanded to bring dowry. To support his contention, R.w.2 was examined.

He has not deposed in his chief examination that parents of the petitioner has demanded dowry from the respondent. On careful scrutiny of chief examination of R.w.1 and R.w.2 they clearly admitted that petitioner and his family members have not taken any dowry from them. So, the question of harassment of Respondent by the petitioner for additional dowry does not arise. However, it is the duty of the respondent to establish before this court, but the respondent has failed to do so. Mere making allegation against the parents of the petitioner is no way useful to the case of the respondent.

There is no sufficient evidence to believe the contention of the respondent that petitioner have demanded the dowry from the respondent. Hence, the respondent has failed to prove the above allegation against the petitioner.

35. The another allegation of the respondent is that petitioner used to work as Chartered Accountant and working as Audit Manager in Sagar and

Associates, Chartered Accountants,Hyderabad and drawing salary of 36

Rs.2,50,000/- p.m. Whereas petitioner have denied the contention of the respondent and stated that he is working as assistant to Chartered

Accountant and he is getting only Rs.30,000/- p.m., but not Rs.2,50,000/- p.m. On perusal of the record, respondent has not filed any pay slip of the petitioner to show that he is getting Rs.2,50,000 p.m., It is the duty of the respondent to establish the said fact before this court, but respondent has failed to do so. Hence, there is no documentary proof before this court to believe the allegation of the respondent that petitioner is earning

Rs.2,50,000/- p.m. Hence, the allegation of the respondent cannot be considered in that aspect.

36. On perusal of the allegation of the petitioner and counter allegation of the respondent and the entire oral and documentary evidence placed before this court, this court is of the opinion that, the entire dispute in between petitioner and respondent surrounded the house property of petitioner family, that the respondent and her family members will forcibly encroached the house property. Except the said reason, there is no other serious disputes in between the petitioner and respondent in connection with the matrimonial life of Petitioner and Respondent to break down the marital tie between the petitioner and respondent. Already this court has elaborately discussed the above supra about the said point.

37. Having careful scrutiny of both oral and documentary evidence on either side place before this court, Petitioner/Husband has failed to prove the ingredients of cruelty alleged against the Respondent. Hence,

Petitioner/Husband is not entitled for relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered negative to the

Petitioner/Husband(Petitioner in HMOP 229/2024). Whereas, the

Respondent / Wife (Respondent in HMOP 229/2024) has proved the 37 allegations against the Petitioner. Hence, the Respondent / Wife (Petitioner in HMOP 315/2023) is entitled for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered in favour of the

Respondent / Wife (Petitioner in HMOP 315/2023).

Point No.3:-

38. In the result, HMOP 229/24 is dismissed and HMOP 315/23 is allowed and directing the Respondent / Husband (Petitioner in HMOP 229/2024) to take the Petitioner / Wife (Respondent in HMOP 229/24) for leading matrimonial life within three months from the date of this order. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs in both petitions.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 2nd day of April, 2026.

Prl. Civil Judge,(Senior Division) Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:-

P.W.1: Duddu Sai Krishna.

P.W.2: Pattan Asmathunnisa.

P.W.3: Syed Ahmed Hussain.

P.W.4: Duddu Lakshmi Leela Kumari.

For Respondent:-

R.W.1: Duddu @ Pasupuleti Aswini.

R.W.2: Thupuri Nageswara Rao.

38

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:-

Ex.P1: Wedding invitation. Ex.P2: Two gold ornaments Bills stands in the name of Anjaneyulu who is father of P.w.1. Ex.P3: Gas Bill stands in the name of P.w.1. Ex.P4: Certified Copy of Judgment & Decree in O.S 146/2021 on the file of PJCJ Court, Narasaraopet. Ex.P5: Certified Copy of Petition in O.P No.315/2023. Ex.P6: Certified Copy of Counter in O.P No.315/2023. Ex.P7: Certified Copy of interim order in Crl.M.P NO. 2511/2022. Ex.P8: Discharge Summary of D.Anjaneyulu. Ex.P9: Acknowledgment of Complaint given to SHO, Panjagutta,P.S Dt.27-02-2021.

For Respondent: NIL

Prl. Civil Judge,(Senior Division) Narasaraopet.

.*-*-****

In the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) :: Narasaraopet

Present:-Sri K. Madhu Swamy,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet, Thursday, this the 2nd day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P No. 315/2023

Between: Duddu @ Pasupuleti Aswini D/o. Pasupuleti Lakshmana Rao w/o. Duddu Saikrishna, Hindu, Aged about 27 yrs., House Wife, D.NO.1-171, Bandivaripalem village,

Santhamaguluru Mandal , Bapatla District. ...Petitioner.

- And -

Duddu Saikrishna s/o. Anjaneyulu, D.No.6-3-96/3, Premnagar, Hyderabad – 500004,

Hyderabad City Civil Courts. ...Respondent.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner U/s.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directing the respondent to take back the Petitioner to lead marital life. This being a petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a Court fee of Rs.10/ is paid as per Schedule II Art I(vii) of APCF and SV Act, 1956. Cause of action for the petition arose 5-8-2020 when the respondent married the petitioner at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Narasaraopet and they lived happily for some time and and subsequently, when the couple shifted the family to Hyderabad and subsequently when the respondent brought the petitioner to Narasaraopet and leave her are her parents house and Respondent and his family members necked out the petitioner from the house on 25-11-2020 and at Narasaraopet where marriage took place is within the jurisdiction of this court. This petition is coming on 13-03-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.G.S.P Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri K. Sunil Singh, Advocate for the respondent, and upon considering the material on record, hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:- 1.That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; and

2. That directing the Respondent/Husband to take the Petitioner/Wife for leading matrimonial life within three months from the date of this order;

3. That each party do bear their own costs; (CM&FC not filed on either side)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 2nd day of April,2026.

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

Prl. Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

(CM & FC not filed on either side.)

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

PCJ (SD), NRT.

Addl. Senior Civ

In the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) :: Narasaraopet

Present:-Sri K. Madhu Swamy,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet,

Thursday, this the 2nd day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P No. 229/2024

Between: Duddu Saikrishna s/o. Anjaneyulu, Aged 32 yrs., D.No.6-3-96/3, Premnagar,

Hyderabad – 500004, Hyderabad City Civil Courts. ...Petitioner.

- And -

Duddu Aswini D/o. Pasupuleti Lakshmana Rao w/o. Duddu Saikrishna, Hindu, Aged about 27 yrs., House Wife, D.NO.1-171, Bandivaripalem village,

Kopparam, Santhamaguluru Mandal , Bapatla District. ...Respondent.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner U/s.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage of the Petitioner with Respondent on the ground of cruelty. This being a petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a Court fee of Rs.10/ is paid as per Schedule II Art I(vii) of APCF and SV Act, 1956. Cause of action for the petition arose 5-8-2020 when the Petitioner married the Respondent at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Narasaraopet and they lived happily for some time and and subsequently, when the couple shifted the family to Hyderabad and subsequently when the petitioner brought the Respondent to Narasaraopet and did not turn up and at Narasaraopet where marriage took place is within the jurisdiction of this court. This petition is coming on 13-03-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Sunil Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri S.G.S.P Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the respondent, and upon considering the material on record, hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:- 1.That the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

2. That each party do bear their own costs; (CM&FC not filed on either side)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 2nd day of April,2026.

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

Prl. Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

(CM & FC not filed on either side.)

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

Narasaraopet. Prl. Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Narasaraopet.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET

Present: Sri K. Madhu Swamy,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet.

Monday, this the 16th day of March, 2026

O.S No. 137 / 2018

Between:

1.Chattu Veeraiah s/o. Musalaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years, agriculturist, Door No 1-94, 5th ward, Pakalapadu village, Sattenapalli Mandal & JCJC.

2.Chattu Brahmam, s/o. Musalaiah, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Agriculturist,

R/o. 1st ward , Door No 1-97, Jonnalagadda village,

Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

3.Chattu Siva

W/o. Brahmam, Hindu, aged about 40 yrs, R/o. Door No. 6-317,

Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

4.Chattu Venkata Siva Naga Raju s/o. Brahmam, Hindu, aged about 13 yrs., R/o. Door No. 6-317,

Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

5.Chattu Rama Koteswari

D/o. Brahmam, Hindu, aged about 12yrs., R/o. Door No. 6-317,

Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

[Plaintiffs 4 & 5 are being minors rep. by their natural guardian next friend their mother i.e, 3rd plaintiff) [As per the orders in I.A.No. 870/25 dated 14-11-25 was amended.) … Plaintiffs.

And

1. Chattu Ramaiah

S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu, aged about 40 years, cultivation, R/o. Rajaka veedhi,

D.No. 4-24, Bukkapuram village Nadendla Mandal, Chilakaluripet JCJC.

2. Chattu Sreenu

S/o Kotaiah, aged about 30 years, cultivation, R/o Rajakaveedi, D.No 4-24,

Bukkapuram village, Nadendla Mandal, Chilakaluripet JCJC.

2 3.Chattu Ankamma

S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu, aged about 35 years, cultivation, R/o. Rajaka veedi,

D.No 4-24, Bukkapuram village Nadendla Mandal, Chilakaluripet D.M.C.

4.Chattu Arjaneyulu

S/o. Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged about 23 years, cultivation, R/o. Rajaka veedhi,

D No 4.24. Bukkapuram village Nadendla Mandal & Chilakaluripet DMC

5. Kamineni Brahmaiah [Died]

6. Koritala Nageswara Rao

S/o. Anjaneyulu, Hindu, aged about 55 years, cultivation R/o. Bodrai center,

Door No 6-32 Jonnalagadda village. Narasaraopet Mandal & D.M.C

7. Chattu Koteswara rao [Died]

8. Chattu Arjun [Died]

9. Chattu Sri Ramulu

S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu , aged about 44 yrs, cultivation, R/o.Jonnalagadda Village,

Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

10.Chattu Ramulamma w/o. Ankamma, Hindu, aged about 50 yrs, cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda Village & JCJC.

(As per the orders in I.A. No. 562/18 dated 4-11-2020 the defendants 7 to 10 are added as defendants] 11.Kamineni Anjali Devi

W/o. Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 56 yrs. House wife,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

12. Kamineni Srikanth s/o. Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 40 yrs, cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

13. Kamineni Narendra Kumar s/o. Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 38 yrs., cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

14. Kamineni Rajani Latha

D/o. Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 36 yrs. House wife,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal and JCJC.

[As per the orders in I.A. No. 342/2024 dated 27-2-25 the defendants 11 to 14 are added as defendants] 3

15. Chattu Adilakshmi w/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 63 yrs., House wife,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

16. Chattu Malleswari

D/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 47 yrs., cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

17.Chattu Venkata Ratnam s/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 44 yrs. Cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

18.Chattu Prasad s/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 41 yrs. Cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

19. Chattu Anjaneyulu s/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 yrs. Cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

[As per the orders in I.A. No. 345/24 dated 27-2-25 the defendants 15 to 19 are added as defendants]

20. Chattu Padma w/o. Arjun, Hindu, aged about 58 yrs. House wife,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

21. Chattu Sudhakar s/o. Arjun, Hindu, aged about 43 yrs. cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village. Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

22. Chattu Krishna Veni w/o. Manohar, Hindu, aged about 38 yrs. House wife,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

23. Chattu Nandu s/o. Manohar, Hindu, aged about 22 yrs., student

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

24. Chattu Siri

D/o. Manohar, Hindu, aged about 19 yrs., Student

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

[As per the orders in I.A. No. 348/24 dated 27-2-25 the defendants 20 to 24 are added as defendants] … Defendants.

4

This suit is coming before me on 02-02-2026 for hearing in presence of

Sri V. Papa Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri B. Anil Kumar, Advocate for

Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and of Sri C.Chinnapa Reddy, Advocate for Defendant

No.6 and Defendant Nos.9, 10 to 24 remained exparte and Defendant Nos. 5, 7 and 8 died during pendency of suit and upon considering the material on record, hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs to declare them as absolute owner of

Item Nos. 1 & 2 of Plaint Schedule Properties and for consequential Permanent

Injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents and followers from any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Plaint

Schedule Properties and also declare that Registered Sale Deed Dt. 28-7-2016 vide Doc.No. 10854/2016 executed by the Defendants 7 to 10 in favour of 6th Defendant in respect of the Item No.2 of Plaint Schedule Property as null and void and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- that the defendants 1 to 3 are own brothers and the 4th defendant is the elder brother's son of the defendants 1 to 3 by name Krishna Rao. The defendants 1 to 3 and father of the 4th defendant is sons of Kotaiah and Subbamma. The parents of Kotaiah by name Chattu Veeraiah and Kistamma. The said Chattu Veeraiah

S/o. Musalaiah and Kistamma who is the wife of Chattu Veeraiah got three male issues by name 1. Durgaiah. 2. Kotaiah and 3. Musalaiah and 4 female issues by name 1. Namepalli Yallamma w/o. Subba Rao 2. Namepalli Eswaramma w/o.

Anjaneyulu 3. Gollapalli Subbamma w/o. Venkaiah and 4. Namepalli Venkamma w/o. Pullaiah. The said Chattu Veeraiah and Kistamma was performed the marriages of all of their children and they paid amount to their daughters at the time of their marriages and their daughters were orally relinquished their right in 5

Hindu joint family properties of Chattu Veeraiah. The wife of Chattu Veeraiah by name Kistamma was predeceased to Chattu Veeraiah. The said Chattu Veeraiah was died intestate leaving behind his male children i.e., Durgaiah Kotaiah and

Musalaiah as his legal heirs. The item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is situated in Kesanupalli Revenue limits in D.No. 281-D in an extent of Ac. 0-19 cents and also in D No 309-A in an extent of Ac 11-05 cents out of those extent of lands in an extent of Ac 3-75 cents was purchased by Chattu Musalaiah

S/o. Narasaiah and Chattu Veeraiah Sio Musalaiah under registered sale deed

dated 12-7-1912 from Chevuri Kesavulu S/o Narasimhaiah. The item No.2 of the

plaint schedule property is a vacant site in Narasaraopet Mandal Jonnalagadda village grama kantham in an extent of 50 Sq.yards which was purchased by

Chattu Veeraiah S/o. Musalaiah under Regd. Sale Deed dated 09-03-1957 from

Chattu Rangaiah and 4 others. The said Chattu Musalalah S/o. Narasaiah having three male issues by name 1.Ankaiah 2. Ramaiah and 3. Veeraiah and female issue by name Subbamma. The said Chattu Musalalah was died intestate leaving behind his three sons as his legal heirs. Immediately after death of

Chattu Musalaiah the self acquired property of Chattu Musalaiah i.e., half share of item No 1 of the plaint schedule property fell into the share of Chattu Ramaiah in Hindu Joint family oral partition among his brothers and the said Chattu

Ramaiah was sold out his share of in his Hindu joint family property was sold out under Registered sale deed dated 27-5-1917 to Kontala Seshaiah The oral partition of Hindu Joint family of Chattu Musalaiah the item No 1 of the plaint schedule property fell into the share of Chattu Veeraiah who is paternal grandfather of the plaintiffs and also the defendants 1 to 3 and paternal grandfather of the 4 defendant The said Chattu Veeraiah who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 was died intestate in 1965 leaving behind his 3 sons as his legal heirs After death of Chattu Veeraiah the Hindu 6

Joint family properties of Chattu Veeraiah was orally partitioned among his 3 sons and in that oral partition the item No 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties fell into the share of Musalalah S/o, Veeraiah and he had been in possession and enjoyment over the item No. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties till his death and the said Chattu Musalaiah was died intestate on 31-1-1985 leaving behind his wife Kotamma and his sons Chattu Brahmam

Koteswara Rao Chattu Veeraiah and Gollapalli Sakunthala W/o.Venkata Rao and Bojju Thirupathamma Immediately after death of the said Chattu Musalaiah his wife Kotamma was took over the Item No 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties and she had been to look after the plaint schedule properties and she had been distributed mesne profits to his sons and daughters to their respective share in Hindu Joint family properties to them But the wife of Musalaiah ie.

Kotamma who is the mother of the plaintiffs was died on 19-1-2000 leaving behind the plaintiffs and his elder brother Koteswara Rao as her legal heirs

Immediately after the death of Chattu Kotamma w/o Musalaiah their elder son by name Koteswara Rao i.e., brother of the plaintiffs was taken over the possession and enjoyment over the item No. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties as kartha of Hindu Joint family But in 2004 Hindu joint family properties of Chattu

Musalaiah was partitioned among his 3 sons and in that oral partition the item No 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties fell into the share of the plaintiffs and since then the plaintiffs has been in joint possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties continuously without interruption from anybody but the defendants 1 to 4 nowhere concerned to the plaint schedule property and also quiet strangers to the plaint schedule properties but the defendants 1 to 4 collude in illegal manner with the defendants 5 and 6 and hatched a plan in order to get wrongful gain to grab the plaint schedule property to defeat the right of the plaintiffs in item No. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties and try to create 7 forgery and fabricated documents towards the item No. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties In this respect the 5 defendant created forgery and fabricated document in respect of the item No 1 of the plaint schedule property and also the 6th defendant created forgery and fabricated documents with the help of the defendants 1 to 4 in respect of the item No 2 of the plaint schedule properties On the basis of the above forgery and fabricated documents the defendants 1 to 6 managed the revenue authorities and mutated the name of the defendants 1 to 4 in Revenue records and get pattadar pass book and title deed and also mutated the name of the defendants 1 to 4 on online revenue records in respect of the item No. 1 of the plaint schedule properties and on the basis of the documents got issued by the Revenue authorities the defendants 1to 4 try to alienate in illegal manner the item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property in favour of the 5th defendant without having any manner of right over the item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property In the same way the defendants 1 to 4 collude with the 6th defendant in respect of the Item No 2 of the plaint schedule property and try to alienate the item No. 2 of the plaint schedule property under forgery and fabricated document in favour of the 6th defendant without any manner of right over the item No. 2 of the plaint schedule properties in order to defeat the right of the plaintiffs in item No. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties without having any manner of rights. The plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property including title and possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties. The defendants or any others nowhere concern to the plaint schedule property in any manner. In this respect the plaintiffs were made several oral requisitions personally through mediators to stop the illegal activities towards the plaint schedule properties but all the efforts were made in vain. Moreover the defendants 1 to 6 hatched a plan and also made an illegal attempt on 13-2-2018 try to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over 8 the plaint schedule properties But timely intervention of village elders, the defendants 1 to 6 were failed in their illegal attempts. Even though the defendants 1 to 6 are publicly proclaimed in the village they would disposes the plaintiffs from the Item No. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in any manner. The plaintiffs are lonely persons and also the plaintiff is residing at

Pakalapadu village of Sattenapalli mandal as such all the defendants to take an advantage of the innocence of the plaintiffs the defendants try to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties. The defendants are politically numerically and financially very strengthen but the plaintiffs are innocence persons and they are not in a position to resist the illegal activities of the defendants without the orders of the court. As such the plaintiff got issued registered legal notice dated 19-2-2018 and also 5-3-2018 to the defendants and all the defendants received the notices and kept quite. The defendants neither reply to the registered legal notices got issued the plaintiffs nor not to stop their illegal activates towards the plaint schedule properties. But all the efforts made by the plaintiffs but in vain. Hence, the suit.

3. Other hand, Defendant No. 3 filed Written Statement which was adopted by Defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4 and denied the contention of the Plaintiff and further stated that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit and in fact, the plaintiffs came to the Court with unclean hands and the relief as prayed for is not maintainable under law. The schedule property and some other property originally belonged to Chattu Veeraiah who got the same through his ancestors and in fact, the said Chattu Veeraiah and his family members i.e. Chattu

Durgaiah, Chattu Kotaiah and 3) Chattu Tirupataiah Musalaiah along with his female children namely Mallamma, Eswaramma, Subbayamma and Venkamma respectively are in joint possession and enjoyment of the estate of the family property including the suit schedule property. After the demise of the said 9

Chattu Veeraiah and his wife, the female children took amounts out of the joint family towards their shares and since then, the schedule property and some other property are in joint possession and enjoyment of the estate of

Chattu Veeraiah including the suit schedule properties. While enjoying the joint family properties, partition took place and in the said partition, an extent of

Ac.1-74 cents fell to the share of Durgaiah an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in which

Item No.1 is a part thereof, fell to the share of fell to Chattu Kotaiah and an extent of Ac.1-15 cents fell to the share if Tirupataiah Musalman. According to the partition, the respective sharers are in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective sharers of properties. Since partition, the said Ac.2-00 cents is in exclusive, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said Chattu Kotaiah and fact, the Revenue Authorities having considered valid right, title, interest, continuous possession and enjoyment of the said Chattu Kotaiah, mutated the name of the said Chattu Kotaiah in its records. While enjoying the said Ac-2-00 cents with his own right, title and interest, the said Chattu Kotaith died on 6-11-1996. After his demise, his wife namely, Subbamma, his legal heirs le.

Krishna Rao, Ramaiah/D2, Sreenu/D3 and Ankamma/D4 having succeeded his estate, are in joint possession and enjoyment of the said Ac.2-00 cents. So also, the said Subbamma was also died on 11-2-2018. Later, the said Krishna Rao died intestate in the year 2003 and his wife predeceased and after their demise, his legal heirs, namely, Anjaneyulu/ D1, Aruna and Anusha having succeeded the estate of their parents, Anjaneyulu/D1, Aruna and Anusha have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the said Ac.2-00 cents along with other defendants with absolute rights, title and interest to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiff also.

i) While enjoying the said Ac.2-00 cents, family partition took place between the legal heirs of the deceased Krishna Rao and his brothers including this 10 defendant herein and a partition deed dated 19-3-20018 was reduced into writing which was registered as document No.3789 of 2018. As per the partition Deed, an extent of Ac.0-55 cents fell to the share of this Defendant, an extent of Ac.0- 55 cents fell to the share of 2nd defendant, Ac.0-45 cents fell to the share of 3rd

Defendant and Ac.0-45 cents fell to the share of the 4th defendant and since the date of partition, all the respective sharers Le. this defendant and defendants 2 to 4 have been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares uninterruptedly. The property to an extent of Ac. 1-74 cents fell to the share of

Durgalah, was sold by his legal heirs, namely, 1) Koteswara Rao 2) Srinivasa

Rao and 3) Edukondalu to one Kamineni Brahmaiah/5th defendant herein under a registered Sale deed, dated 10-7-2008 vide doc. No.9030/2008 and having taken the delivery of the possession of the said property, the purchaser/5" defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with his own right, title and interest. The property to an extent of Ac.1-15 cents fell to the share of Chattu Tirupataiah Musalaiah, sold by his legal heirs, namely, Kotamma,

Koteswararao, Veeraiah / P1, and Brahmam /P2 to S. Annamma under a registered Sale Deed, dated 29-6-1989 vide document No.4711/1989 and delivered the possession of the said property to their purchaser.

ii) Under the above said circumstances, the plaintiffs have no right over the property i.e. an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in which item No.1 is a part thereof and that too, item no.1 of the suit schedule property is not in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs at any point of time and thus, the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. The plaintiffs intentionally suppressed the above facts got filed the suit against the defendants without any manner of right over thereof.

In fact, the defendants including this defendant are in peaceful possession of the property l.e. an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in which item No.1 is a part thereof in pursuance of the partition deed, as stated above. Due to family grudges, the 11 plaintiffs with a view to harass and blackmail these defendants got filed the suit.

Since the date of division, this defendant has been in separate possession and enjoyment of the property i.e. an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in which item No.1 is a part thereof with their own right, title and interest. The plaintiffs issued legal notices Dt. 19-2-2018 and Dt. 5-3-2018 with false allegation. The Plaintiff came to the court without any manner of right over the property to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in which Item No.1 is a part thereof. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The Defendant No. 6 filed Written Statement and denied the contention of the Plaintiff and further stated that he never purchased the property from the family members of the plaintiffs at any point of time and in fact, only to harass and blackmail this defendant, the plaintiffs intentionally and wantonly got filed this suit. He purchased the property i.e. item no.2 of the suit schedule property from his vendors, who got right, interest and title over thereof. The said fact is also well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Item No.2 of the suit schedule property is no way concerned to the family properties of the plaintiffs as claimed by them.

In fact, item No.2 of the suit schedule property is the absolute property of this defendant as he purchased the same without notice and thus, the said property is not at all joint family property and thus not considered the same as joint family property and thus question of division in respect of the said property does not arise at all. In fact, item No.2 of the suit property is the separate property of this defendant and in fact, since the date of his purchase under Sale Deed, dated 29- 7-2016 vide document No. 10854/2016, this defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property uninterruptedly to the knowledge of one and all. Under the above said circumstances, the plaintiffs came to the

Court in respect of item no.2 of the suit schedule property with unclean hands.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

12

5.Basing on the above pleadings, this Court framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the Plaintiffs got Item No. 1 and 2 of Plaint Schedule Properties during oral partition in the year, 2004 and whether they are entitled for Declaration that they are absolute owners of Item No.1 and 2 of Plaint Schedule Properties as prayer for ?

2. Whether the Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties as on the date of filing suit, and whether they are entitled for Permanent Injunction against Defendant as prayed for ?

3. Whether the registered Doc.No.10854/2016 Dt. 28-7-2016 executed by D.7 to D.10 in favour of D.6 in respect of Item No.2 of suit schedule property is collusive document and liable to be declared as null and void and not binding on plaintiff?

4. To what result?

6. On behalf of the Plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.w.5 were examined and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.36 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.6 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5 were marked. Though, chief affidavit of P.w.1 was initially filed on 28-2-2022. Later, on 22-9-2022 counsel of plaintiff filed a memo to eschew the Chief Affidavit of P.w.1 due to his ill-health and same is permitted. Hence, evidence of P.w.1 was eschewed. Likewise chief affidavit of

P.w.3 was filed and same was eschewed on 12-9-2023.

7. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 : -

It is the case of 2nd plaintiff is that, Chattu Veeraiah and Kistamma has performed the marriages of all their children and they paid amount to their daughters at the time of their marriages and their daughters were orally relinquished the night in Hindu joint family properties of Chatti Veeraiah. The wife of Chattu Veeraiah by name Kistamma was predeceased to Chattu Veeraiah.

The said Chattu Veeraiah has died intestate leaving behind his male children i.e.,

Durgaiah, Kotaiah and Musalaiah as his legal heirs. The Item No.1 of the plaint 13 schedule property is situated in Kesanupalli Revenue limits in D. No. 281-D in an extent of Ac. 0-19 cents and also in D No. 309-A in an extent of Ac 11-05 cents out of those extent of lands in an extent of Ac. 3-75 cents was purchased by

Chattu Musalasah S/o. Narasaiah and Chattu Veeraiah S/o. Musalaiah under

Registered Sale Deed Dated 12-7-1912 from Chevuri Kesavulu S/o.

Narasimhaiah. The Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is a vacant site in

Narasaraopet Mandal, Jonnalagadda village grama kantham in an extent of 50

Sq yards which was purchased by Chattu Veeraiah S/o. Musalaiah under Regd.

Sale deed dated 09-03-1957 from Chattu Rangaiah and 4 others. The said

Chattu Musalaiah s/o. Narasaiah having 3 male issues one by name 1.Ankaiah 2.Ramalah and 3.Veeraiah and female issue by name Subbamma. The said

Chattu Musalaiah was died intestate leaving behind his 3 sons as his legal heirs.

Immediately, after death of Chattu Musalaiah, the self acquired property of

Chattu Musalaiah i.e., half share in item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property fell into the share of Chattu Ramaiah in Hindu Joint family oral partition among his brothers and the said Chattu Ramaiah was sold out his share of in his Hindu joint family property under Regd. sale deed dated 27-5-1917 to Koritala Seshaiah.

The oral partition of Hindu Joint family of Chattu Musalaiah the item No 1 of the plaint schedule property fell into the share of Chattu Veeraiah who is their paternal grandfather and also the defendants 1 to 3 and paternal grandfather of the 4th defendant. The said Chattu Veeralah who is their grandfather and the defendants 1 to 3 was died intestate in 1965 leaving behind his 3 sons as his legal heirs. After death of Chattu Veeraiah, the Hindu Joint family properties of

Chattu Veeraiah was orally partitioned among his 3 sons and in that oral partition the item No. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties fell into the share of

Musalaiah S/o. Veeraiah and he had been in possession and enjoyment over the item No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties till his death and the said 14

Chattu Musalaiah was died intestate on 31-1-1985 leaving behind his wife

Kotamma and his sons Chattu Brahmam Koteswara Rao Chattu Veeraiah and

Gollapalli Sakunthala W/o. Venkata Rao and Bojju Thirupathamma. Immediately after death of the said Chattu Musalaiah his wife Kotamma was took over the item No. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties and she had been to look after the plaint schedule properties and she had been distributed mesne profits to his sons and daughters to their respective share in Hindu Joint family properties to them. But the wife of Musalaiah i.e., Kotamma who is their mother was died on 19-1-2000 leaving behind them and his elder brother Koteswara Rao as her legal heirs. Since then Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of Plaint Schedule

Properties. Thereafter, oral partition was took place. In the said oral partition,

Item Nos.1 and 2 of Plaint Schedule Properties fell to the share of plaintiff and

Plaintiffs have been possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are no way concerned with the Plaint Schedule Properties. Plaintiffs came to know that Defendant No.5 created forged and fabricated document in respect of

Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule Property and Defendant No.6 created another forged document with the help of Defendant Nos.1 to 4 in respect of item No.2 of

Plaint Schedule Property. The said two documents are forged documents and the same were not binding upon the plaintiffs. The allegation under the said two documents are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The Defendant

Nos. 1 to 6 are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs. Then plaintiffs issued a legal notice to Defendants on 19-02-2018 and on 5-3-2018 .Though they have received notices and kept quiet.

Subsequently, when suit is pending, Defendant Nos.1 to 5 colluded with

Defendant Nos.7 to 10 and brought into existence of sale deed Dt. 28-7-2016 in the name of Defendant No.6 in respect of Item No.2 of Plaint Schedule Property.

15

By knowing the same plaintiff has issued registered Notice to them and they have received legal notice and kept quiet.

8. To support the contention of 2nd Plaintiff, he was examined as P.w.2 .

Ex.A.1 to A.35 were marked. Ex.A1 Registered Sale Deed executed by Chekuri

Kesavulu. Ex A2 Regd. sale deed Dt. 9-3-1957 in the name of Chattu Veeraiah.

Ex.A3 Original E.C Dt.11-01-2016 in respect of the Item No.1 of plaint schedule property. Ex.A4 office copy of the registered Notice Dt. 05-03-2018 got issued by plaintiffs to the defendants. Ex.A5 office copy of the regd. Notice Dt. 15-02-2018 got issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants. Ex.A6 Postal receipts (9 in No.) dt.

19-02-2018. Ex.A7 Postal receipts Dt. 5-3-2018 6 in Nos. Ex.A8

Acknowledgments 8 in No. Dt. 7-3-2018. Ex.A9 RSR copy Dt. 27-03-2018 in respect of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. (Subject to objection as it is a true copy not certified copy) Ex.A10 Original endorsement Dt. 27-03-2018 under RTI

Act. Ex.A11 FMB in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property

Dt.27-03-2018. (Subject to objection as it is a true copy not certified copy)

Ex.A12FMB in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property Dt. 27-03- 2018. (Subject to objection as it is a true copy not certified copy) Ex.A.13

Returned cover Dt. 6-3-2018 one in number. Ex.A14 Returned cover Dt. 24-02- 2018. Ex.A15 Original house tax receipts 3 in Nos. for 1991, 2001,2006. Ex.A16

Postal acknowledgments 6 in Nos. Dt.21-02-2018. Εx.Α17 Death certificate of

Chattu Koteswara Rao Dt. 15-09-2015. Ex.A18 Death certificate of Chattu

Musalalah Dt.18-10-2014. Ex.A19 Death certificate of Chattu Kotaiah Dt. 18-10- 2014. Ex.A20 Certified copy of order in Writ Petition No.17614/2021 towards the

Item No.1 of the Plaint schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff. Ex.A21

Original Mee-seva copy of ROR Dt.25-08-2020 in favour of sister of plaintiffs towards the part of the Item No.1 of the Plaint schedule property. Ex.A22 Original

Mee-seva copy of ROR Dt.26-10-2020 in favour of 2nd plaintiff towards the part of 16 the Item No.1 of the Plaint schedule property. Ex.A23 Original 1-B Dt. 08-08-2022 in favour of 2nd plaintiff towards Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. Ex.A24

Original 1-B Dt. 08-08-2022 in favour of 1st plaintiff towards item No.1 of the Plaint schedule property. Ex.A25 Original endorsement Dt. 11-07-2022 from

Panchayat Secretary of Jonnalagadda village towards item No.2 of the Plaint schedule property. Ex.A26 Office copy of the regd. Notice Dt.15-04-2021 got issued by the plaintiff to the Defendants. Ex.A27 Original postal receipt 10 in

Nos. Ex.A28 Unserved returned registered legal notice covers of D.1 to D.4.

Ex.A29 Registered reply notice Dt.02-03-2018 got issued by the defendants 1 to 4 to the Plaintiff. Ex.A30 Acknowledgments 5 in No. Dt.17-04- 2021. Ex.A31 Original mee-seva copy of ROR Dt.25-02-2021 in favour of 2nd plaintiff. Ex.A32 Original mee-seva copy of Adangal in favour of 2nd Plaintiff.

Ex.A33 Original Mee-seva copy of ROR in favour of 1st Plaintiff. Ex.A34 Original

Mee-seva copy of Adangal in favour of 1st Plaintiff. Ex.A35 Original Mee-seva copy of Registered Sale Deed in favour of D.7.

9. As per Ex.A.1 and A.2 plaintiff has categorically contended before this court that after oral partition, their ancestors have been in possession and enjoyment of Plaint Schedule Properties. Subsequetly, Item No.1 and 2 of Plaint

Schedule Properties were fallen to the share of Musalaiah. Ever since, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death leaving behind his legal heirs and the said Musalaiah is none other than the father of the plaintiff.

Thereafter, their mother Kotamma have succeeded Item No.1 and 2 of Plaint

Schedule Properties. Ever since their mother cultivating the Plaint Schedule

Properties and distributing the mesne profits to the Plaintiffs. Later, their mother died. Thereafter, oral partition was took place and plaintiffs have got the Plaint

Schedule Properties.

17

10. To support the contention of 2nd plaintiff, he has relied upon Ex.A.9/RSR,

Ex.A.11/FMB in respect of Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule Property and Ex.A.12

FMB in respect of Item No.2 of Plaint Schedule Property which were marked subject to objection as original copy was not filed. Further to support their contention, they filed Ex.A.15 Original House Tax Receipts 3 in number , Ex.A.21

ROR Dt. 26-10-2020 in favour of sister of 2nd plaintiff and Ex.A.22 ROR in favour of 2nd Plaintiff in respect of Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule Property. As per the said documents, plaintiffs contended that they have been in possession and enjoyment of Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule Property and they also relied upon

Ex.A.24 origimnal 1B Dt. 8-8-2022 stands in the name of 1st plaintiff in respect of

Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule Property and also relied upon Ex.A.25 original endorsement from Panchayat Secretary, Jonnalagadda village in respect of Item

No.2 of Plaint Schedule Property. So, plaintiffs contended that they have succeeded in Item Nos. 1 & 2 of Plaint Schedule Properties and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

11. During cross examination of P.w.2 he deposed that, there is no documentary proof to show that son of Charttu Veeraiha has partitioned their ancestral properties. There is no revenue record in the name of three sons of

Chattu Veeraiah after the said Partition. The elder son of Veeraiah has got

Ac.1.75 cents at Pothavarappadu village towards his share in the Partition. The 2nd son of Chattu Veeraiah namely Kotaiah got Ac.1.15 cents at Pothavarappadu village towards his share in the Partition. In the said Partition his father got the

Item No.1 of the schedule property. So as per the said fact, it is clear that in one instance 2nd Plaintiff contended that there is no document to show that sons of

Chattu Veeraiah has partition their ancestral property and also there is no revenue record. In another instance, P.w.2 contended that in oral partition Chattu

Veeraiah got Ac.1.75 cents and Kotaiah got Ac.1.15 cents and his father has got 18

Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule Property. So, P.W.2 has deposed two different versions in his cross examination, but there is no registered document in the name of father fo the plaintiffs by name Musalaiah to show that ever since date of partition, he has been in possession of Item Nos.1 of Plaint Schedule Property and he is absolute owner of the Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule Property. Except oral contention of Plaintiffs, there is no documentary proof. Likewise in cross examination of P.W.2, he deposed that his mother, himself and his brothers sold an extent of Ac.1.15 cents in S.No. 39/3 of Pothavarappadu village to one

Annamma under a Registered Sale Deed Doc.NO.4211/1989 and the said property is not the ancestral property of his family and the said property gifted by his maternal grand mother to his mother as Pasupukumkuma. So, without any documentary proof, it cannot be said that mother of plaintiff has got Ac.1.15 cents in Pothavarappadu village. Even it is not the case of Plaintiffs that mother of the plaintiffs have got land in the said Survey Number. So, it cannot be said that plaintiffs family has got Ac.1.15 cents and they sold the same to one Anamma.

Hence, plaintiffs have proved the said fact before this court. Even plaintiffs have not filed any revenue record stands in the name of their mother nor grand mother to an extent of Ac.1.15 cents in S.No.39/3 of Pothavarappadu village. So, without any piece of document , it cannot be said that the said property belongs to grand mother of plaintiffs. Hence, the contention of the plaintiffs cannot be believed.

12. Further in cross examination of P.W.2 he admitted that Plaintiffs and other family members were sold an extent of Ac.1.15 cents in S.No.39/3 of

Pothavarappadu village to one Anamma under Ex.B.1 and also another property under Ex.B.2. Further he admitted that all the tax receipts and other revenue records filed before this court are obtained by him, subsequent to filing of the suit. On perusal of the said documents, it is evidenting the same. So, the 19 documents filed by the Plaintiffs are obtaining during pending the suit, as such, the said documents are hit by lis pendency and same cannot be considered.

13. Further in cross examination of P.w.2, he stated that Item No.2 of Plaint

Schedule Property is an extent of 50 square yards of gramakantam land. He has no documentary proof to show that Item No.2 was fell to the share of his father in the said oral partition. He has no documentary proof to show that Item No.2 of

Plaint Schedule Property is in their possession. As per said fact it is clear that there is no registered document in the name of plaintiff that item no.2 was fallen to the share of Musalaiah who is father of Plaintiffs. Even Plaintiffs are not having any Revenue Record to show that item no.2 of Plaint Schedule Property was in their possession. So, without any registered document, it cannot be said that

Plaintiffs are absolute owner of Plaint Schedule Properties and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

14. To support the contention of Plaintiffs, P.w.4 was examined and he has stated that the Plaint Schedule Properties are the ancestral properties of the

Plaintiffs and the Defendants and in their joint family oral partition, the properties are fell into the share of Chattu Musalaiah and ever since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. After his death, the plaintiffs have succeeded the Plaint Schedule Properties. During cross examination of

P.w.4 he stated that plaintiffs have filed the suit for Partition of Plaint Schedule

Properties. Plaint Schedule Properties are consisting of two items and Survey

No. is 309A an extent of Ac.1.87 ½ cents and 50 square yards of site. The Plaint

Schedule Properties are ancestral properties of Plaintiffs. So,as per the said fact, it is clear that P.W.4 was not aware of the relief sought by the plaintiffs and he contended that plaintiffs are sought for Partition of Plaint Schedule Properties.

Hence, the evidence of P.w.4 is contrary to the relief sought by the plaintiffs.

20

15. Further in cross examination of P.W.4, he deposed that he has seen the title document of the plaintiff, but he cannnot say the nature, month and year of the said document. The said document is partition deed between Ch.Musalaiah and his brother. The partition deed is not only for Plaint Schedule Properties and also other properties were mentioned under the said document. So, as per the evidence of P.W.4 the oral partition was took place in between Musalaiah and his brother. Whereas plaintiffs contention in plaint as well as chief affidavit of P.w.2, they stated that oral partition was took place in between brothers of Musalaiah and Musalaiah, but there is no written document. So, the evidence of P.W.4, that he has saw the written document is contrary to the pleadings of plaint as well as chief affidavit of P.W.2. Hence, the evidence of P.W.4 cannot be considered.

16. Further to support the case of Plaintiffs, P.W.5 was examined. He also supported the case of P.W.2 in his chief affidavit. During cross examination he deposed that Musalaiah has executed registered Sale Deed in favour of his children i.e., plaintiffs in respect of Plaint Schedule Properties. He did not know whether the 2nd Plaintiff has the Pattadar Pass Book or Revenue Title deed Book to the schedule properties. So, as per the evidence of P.w.5, he deposed that

Musalaiah has executed registered Sale Deed in favour of Plaintiffs. Whereas in plaint pleadings as well as in chief affidavit of P.W.2, Musalaiah has died intestate leaving behind his legal heirs. So, the evidence of P.W.5 that Musalaiah has executed registered document in favour of Plaintiffs is false. Moreover, P.w.2 has not filed any Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deed Books in respect of Plaint

Schedule Properties, as such, it cannot be said that plaintiffs are absolute owners of Plaint Schedule Properties. Hence, the evidence of P.W.5 cannot be considered.

21

17. Other hand Defendant No.3 was examined as D.w.1. The Defendants denied the contentions of the Plaintiffs and stated that item no.1 of Plaint

Schedule Property is an extent of Ac.2.00 cents at Kesanapalli Village. Chattu

Veeraiah and his wife Kistgamma are his grand parents and they were blessed with three sons and four daughters. Out of four children, his father is Chattu

Kotaiah, he and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and one Late Krishnarao are the children of Late Chattu Kotaiah. Defendant No.4 is the son of his deceased brother Krishnarao. The Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and late Koteswara Rao are the sons and one Sakuntalamma is the daughter of his paternal uncle of Late Chattu

Musalaiah. The legal heirs of his paternal uncle namely Durgaiah was not impleaded as party to the suit. His paternal grand father Chattu Veeeraiah was an Agriculturist and he has got an extent of Ac.6.00 cents of land. Out of the total extent Ac.4.00 cents consisting of Ac.1.74 cents in D.No.40/8 and Ac.1.15 cents in D.No.39/3 situated at Potavarappadu village and Item No.1 of suit schedule property is an extent of Ac.2.00 cents situated in D.No.309/A2C is situated at

Kesanupalli village. Hence, Item No.1 is part and parcel of Ac.3.74 cents of

Kesanupalli village. The said total extent of Ac.3.75 cents was jointly purchased by paternal grandfather of Chattu Veeraiah and one Chattu Musalaiah under a

Registered Sale Deed Dt. 7-9-1912 under Ex.A.1. In oral partition half share fell to Chattu Musalaiah and the remaining share fell to the share of his grandfather.

The son of Chattu Musalaiah namely Ramaiah sold the half share of his father to

Koritala Seshaiah under a Sale Deed Dt. 27-5-1917. The half share of his grandfather which is Item No.1 was found to be Ac.2.00 cents. After death of their grand father, oral partition was took place with their children and in the said oral partition Ac.1.74 cents was fallen to the share of his senior paternal uncle

Ch.Durgaiah and remaining 1.15 cents was fell to the share of Ch.Musalaiah who is father of plaintiffs. Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule Property was fell to the 22 share of his father Ch.Kotaiah. The children of Chattu Durgaiah sold the said

Ac.1.74 cents under a Registered Sale Deed Dt.10-07-2008 under Ex.B.2.

Plaintiffs and their mother sold Ac.1.15 cents under Ex.B.1. So, no property was left to family of plaintiffs.

18. To support the contention of D.w.1, Ex.B.4 was marked. Ex.B.4 Certified

Copy of Partition Deed Dt. 19-03-2018. During cross examination of D.w.1,

Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 were marked and said documents were admitted by P.w.2.

Thus, it is clear that no property was left to family of plaintiffs in the said survey number. Again Plaintiffs have claiming right and title in Item Nos.1 and 2 of

Plaint Schedule Properties cannot be considered. Plaintiffs have failed to file registered document before this court to show that they are absolute owners of

Plaint Schedule Properties. Without filing any registered document, it cannot be said that Plaintiffs are absolute owners of Plaint Schedule Properties.

19. During cross examination of D.w.1, he deposed that the land Ac.2.00 cents is ancestral property and it was got through their ancestors to his grand father, thereafter to their father. Further in cross examination of D.w.1 he deposed that in Registered Partition Deed under Ex.B.4, he got Ac.0.55 cents towards his share, he and his mother together has sold Ac.1.56 cent in S.No.36/2 and 41/2A under Registered Sale Deed Dt. 20-06-1998 and also sold Ac.0.48 cents of land situated in S.No.40/6A and 40/6C under Ex.A.36. So, as per the said fact, Defendants have sold Ac.1.56 cents and another Ac.0.48 cents under two registered Sale Deeds. So, plaintiffs and Defendant No.3/D.w.1 are not absolute owners of Plaint Schedule Properties.

20. To support the contention of D.w.1, D.w.2 and D.w.3 who are third parties to the suit are examined. They deposed that they know Item No.1 of

Plaint Schedule Property . Their lands are situated on the northern and southern 23 side of Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule Property. The Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule Property. Likewise D.w.3 has also deposed the same facts as deposed by D.w.2. So, in one voice D.w.2 and 3 stated that they are having lands adjacent to item no.1 of plaint schedule property and Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of Item No.1 of Plaint

Schedule Property. During cross of D.w.2, he deposed that the suit was filed for land of Ac.2.00 cents. Except nothing was elicited in the cross examination of

D.w.2 as well as in cross examination of D.w.3. So, D.w.2 and 3 have categorically stated that Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of Plaint

Schedule Properties till their sale.

21. Further to support the contention of D.w.1, D.w.4 was examined. He deposed that he is having agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.35 cents on western side abutting to the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties. During cross examination, he deposed that item no.1 consisting of Ac.1.90 cents. Since his childhood Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. So, as per the evidence of D.w.4, he has saw Defendant

Nos.1 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and he is having land on western side of item no.1 of plaint schedule property. So, D.w.4 supported the case of Defendants in his cross examination.

22. Coming to the evidence of Defendant No. 6 who was examined as D.w.5, deposed that he purchased item no.2 of suit schedule property from Chattu

Koteswara Rao and others under a Registered Sale Deed Dt. 29-7-2016 . While bargain was held the Plaintiffs assured him that to purchase Item No.2 of suit schedule property. Ever since date of purchase he has been in possession and enjoyment of Item No.2 of Suit Schedule Property. To support his contention he 24 has filed Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed Dt. 29-07-2016 stands in his name. As per the said document, Defendant No.6 categorically contended that he has purchased item No.2 of Suit Schedule Property and ever since date of purchase he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. During his cross examination he deposed that at about 10 years back he has purchased the property. The 2nd plaintiff is not having any property surrounding to Ex.B.5 property.

23. To support the contention of D.w.5, D.w.6 who is vendor of D.w.5/D.6 was examined. He categorically deposed that he has sold Item No.2 of Suit schedule Property to 6th Defendant under Registered Sale Deed under Ex.B.5.

Ever since Defendant No.6 was in possession and enjoyment of the same.

During cross examination of D.w.6 he deposed that plaintiffs have not acted as attestors to Ex.B.5. Except , his oral statement there is no document that at the time of measurement of Item No.2 of suit schedule property, Plaintiff No.2 was present. He has not filed any documents to show that he was in possession and enjoyment of Item No.2 of schedule property prior to Ex.B.5. He got Item No.2 of schedule property and they have not entered into Partition Deed. It was not mentioned in Ex.B.5 that he and his brothers have partitioned their ancestral property and he got Item No.2 of schedule property.

24. So, as per the said facts, plaintiffs contended that D.w.6 is not exclusive owner of Suit Schedule Property. But he has sold the same to Defendant No.6 under Ex.B.5 without any right and title over the Suit Schedule Property. Hence,

Defendant No.6 is not absolute owner. Whereas, Defendants have denied the contentions of the Plaintiffs and further stated that Defendant No.6 has purchased item no.2 of suit schedule property from D.w.6 under registered Sale 25

Deed and ever since the date of purchase Defendant No.6 has been in possession and enjoyment of Item No.2 of suit schedule property.

25. To rebut the contentions of Defendants, plaintiffs have not filed any registered document before this court to show that they are absolute owners of

Item No.2 of Suit Schedule Property. Without filing any registered documents, plaintiffs cannot say that they are having right and title over Item No.2 of Suit

Schedule Property. It is settled law that plaintiffs should establish their right and title over the Suit Schedule Properties. Initial onus of proof always lies upon the plaintiffs to prove their right and title over the Item Nos. 1 & 2 of Suit Schedule

Properties. But, Plaintiffs failed to prove the same. Hence, plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of Declaration of right and title over the Suit Schedule

Properties .

26. Having considered the entire evidence placed before this court, Plaintiffs have failed to prove their right and title over the Suit Schedule Properties and also failed to prove their possession over the Suit Schedule Properties. Hence, they are not entitled for the relief as prayed for. Hence, Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered negative to the Plaintiffs.

Issue No.3:-

27. It is the case of Defendant No.6 that he has purchased Item No.2 of Suit

Schedule Property from Chattu Koteswara Rao and others under a Registered

Sale Deed Dt. 29-07-2016. At that time 2nd Plaintiff was also actively present when the site i.e., Item No.2 of Suit Schedule Property was measured . Ever since date of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of Item No.2 of Suit Schedule Property. Prior to his purchase, his vendors have been in possession and enjoyment of Item No.2 of Suit Schedule Property.

26

28. To support the contention of Defendant No.6/D.w.5, he has relied upon

Ex.B.5 Dt.29-7-2016. As per the said document, it is evident that Defendant No.6 purchased Item No.2 of Suit Schedule Property from Defendant Nos.7 to 10.

Whereas, Plaintiffs contended that the said document Dt.28-07-16 is collusive document and same is not binding upon the Plaintiffs. Then, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to file registered document to show that they are the absolute owners of

Item Nos.2 of Suit Schedule Property. But, Plaintiffs have failed to establish their right and title over Suit Schedule Property. Once the Plaintiffs have failed to prove their right in Item No.2 of Suit Schedule Property, it cannot be said that

Ex.B.5 is an invalid document. Initial onus of proof always lies upon the plaintiffs to prove their independent right and title in Item No.2 of Suit Schedule Property.

Once the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have no right to question the documents stands in the name of Defendant Nos.6 under Ex.B.5 and also no right to question the title of Defendant Nos.6. Hence, Plaintiffs failed to establish their right and title over Item No.2 of Suit Schedule Property, as such, it cannot be said that Ex.B.5 is collusive document and same cannot be declared as null and void document. Hence, the Issue is answered negative to the Plaintiffs.

Issue No.4 :-

29. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 16th day of March,2026.

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1 : Chattu Veeraiah(Eschewed).

P.W.2 : Chattu Brahmam.

P.W.3 : Chattu Yedukondalu. (Eschewed)

P.W.4 : Mallavarapu Mariya Da @ Babu.

P.W.5 : Nadikota Satyanarayana.

27

For Defendants: D.W.1 : Chattu Ankamma.

D.W.2 : Koritala Singarao.

D.W.3 : Kamineni Srikanth.

D.W.4 : Nallapati Ramaiah.

D.W.5 : Koritala Nageswara Rao.

D.W.6 : Chattu Sriramulu.

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1 Registered Sale Deed executed by Chekuri Kesavulu.

Ex A2 Regd. sale deed Dt. 9-3-1957 in the name of Chattu Veeraiah.

Ex.A3 Original E.C Dt.11-01-2016 in respect of the Item No.1 of plaint schedule property.

Ex.A4 office copy of the registered Notice Dt. 05-03-2018 got issued by plaintiffs to the defendants.

Ex.A5 office copy of the regd. Notice Dt. 15-02-2018 got issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

Ex.A6 Postal receipts (9 in No.) dt. 19-02-2018

Ex.A7 Postal receipts Dt. 5-3-2018 6 in Nos.

Ex.A8 Acknowledgments 8 in No. Dt. 7-3-2018

Ex.A9 RSR copy Dt. 27-03-2018 in respect of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. (Subject to objection as it is a true copy not certified copy)

Ex.A10 Original endorsement Dt. 27-03-2018 under RTI Act.

Ex.A11 FMB in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property

Dt.27-03-2018. (Subject to objection as it is a true copy not certified copy)

Ex.A12FMB in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property

Dt.27-03-2018. (Subject to objection as it is a true copy not certified copy)

Ex.A.13 Returned cover Dt. 6-3-2018 one in number.

Ex.A14 Returned cover Dt. 24-02-2018.

Ex.A15 Original house tax receipts 3 in Nos. for 1991, 2001,2006.

Ex.A16 Postal acknowledgments 6 in Nos. Dt.21-02-2018.

Εχ.Α17 Death certificate of Chattu Koteswara Rao Dt. 15-09-2015.

Ex.A18 Death certificate of Chattu Musalalah Dt.18-10-2014.

Ex.A19 Death certificate of Chattu Kotaiah Dt. 18-10-2014.

Ex.A20 Certified copy of order in Writ Petition No.17614/2021 towards the

Item No.1 of the Plaint schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff 28

Ex.A21 Original Mee-seva copy of ROR Dt.25-08-2020 in favour of sister of plaintiffs towards the part of the Item No.1 of the Plaint schedule property.

Ex.A22 Original Mee-seva copy of ROR Dt.26-10-2020 in favour of 2nd plaintiff towards the part of the Item No.1 of the Plaint schedule property.

Ex.A23 Original 1-B Dt. 08-08-2022 in favour of 2nd plaintiff towards Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property

Ex.A24 Original 1-B Dt. 08-08-2022 in favour of 1st plaintiff towards item No.1 of the Plaint schedule property.

Ex.A25 Original endorsement Dt. 11-07-2022 from Panchayat Secretary of

Jonnalagadda village towards item No.2 of the Plaint schedule property.

Ex.A26 Office copy of the regd. Notice Dt.15-04-2021 got issued by the plaintiff to the Defendants.

Ex.A27 Original postal receipt 10 in Nos.

Ex.A28 Unserved returned registered legal notice covers of D.1 to D.4.

Ex.A29 Registered reply notice Dt.02-03-2018 got issued by the defendants 1 to 4 to the Plaintiff

Ex.A30 Acknowledgments 5 in No. Dt.17-04-2021.

Ex.A31 Original mee-seva copy of ROR Dt.25-02-2021 in favour of 2nd plaintiff.

Ex.A32 Original mee-seva copy of Adangal in favour of 2nd Plaintiff.

Ex.A33 Original Mee-seva copy of ROR in favour of 1st Plaintiff.

Ex.A34 Original Mee-seva copy of Adangal in favour of 1st Plaintiff.

Ex.A35 Original Mee-seva copy of Registered Sale Deed in favour of D.7.

Ex.A36 Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed Dt. 30-06-1998.

For Defendants:-

Ex.B.1 Sale Deed Doc. No. 4211/1989 Dt. 29-06-1989.

Ex.B.2 Sale Deed Doc. No.9030/2008 Dt. 10-07-2008.

Ex.B.3 Certified Copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.1784/2004 Dt.15-04-2004.

Ex.B.4 Certified Copy of Registered Partition Deed dt. 19-03-2018.

Ex.B.5 Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed Dt.29-07-2016 executed by Ch.Koteswara Rao and others in favour of D.w.5.

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

P.C.J.(S.D.),NRT.

29

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET

Present: Sri K. Madhu Swamy,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet.

Monday, this the 16th day of March, 2026

O.S No. 137 / 2018

Between:

1.Chattu Veeraiah s/o. Musalaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years, agriculturist, Door No 1-94, 5th ward, Pakalapadu village, Sattenapalli Mandal & JCJC.

2.Chattu Brahmam, s/o. Musalaiah, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Agriculturist,

R/o. 1st ward , Door No 1-97, Jonnalagadda village,

Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

3.Chattu Siva

W/o. Brahmam, Hindu, aged about 40 yrs, R/o. Door No. 6-317,

Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

4.Chattu Venkata Siva Naga Raju s/o. Brahmam, Hindu, aged about 13 yrs., R/o. Door No. 6-317,

Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

5.Chattu Rama Koteswari

D/o. Brahmam, Hindu, aged about 12yrs., R/o. Door No. 6-317,

Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

[Plaintiffs 4 & 5 are being minors rep. by their natural guardian next friend their mother i.e, 3rd plaintiff) [As per the orders in I.A.No. 870/25 dated 14-11-25 was amended.) … Plaintiffs.

And

1. Chattu Ramaiah

S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu, aged about 40 years, cultivation, R/o. Rajaka veedhi,

D.No. 4-24, Bukkapuram village Nadendla Mandal, Chilakaluripet JCJC.

2. Chattu Sreenu

S/o Kotaiah, aged about 30 years, cultivation, R/o Rajakaveedi, D.No 4-24,

Bukkapuram village, Nadendla Mandal, Chilakaluripet JCJC.

30 3.Chattu Ankamma

S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu, aged about 35 years, cultivation, R/o. Rajaka veedi,

D.No 4-24, Bukkapuram village Nadendla Mandal, Chilakaluripet D.M.C.

4.Chattu Arjaneyulu

S/o. Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged about 23 years, cultivation, R/o. Rajaka veedhi,

D No 4.24. Bukkapuram village Nadendla Mandal & Chilakaluripet DMC

5. Kamineni Brahmaiah [Died]

6. Koritala Nageswara Rao

S/o. Anjaneyulu, Hindu, aged about 55 years, cultivation R/o. Bodrai center,

Door No 6-32 Jonnalagadda village. Narasaraopet Mandal & D.M.C

7. Chattu Koteswara rao [Died]

8. Chattu Arjun [Died]

9. Chattu Sri Ramulu

S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu , aged about 44 yrs, cultivation, R/o.Jonnalagadda Village,

Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

10.Chattu Ramulamma w/o. Ankamma, Hindu, aged about 50 yrs, cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda Village & JCJC.

(As per the orders in I.A. No. 562/18 dated 4-11-2020 the defendants 7 to 10 are added as defendants] 11.Kamineni Anjali Devi

W/o. Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 56 yrs. House wife,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

12. Kamineni Srikanth s/o. Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 40 yrs, cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

13. Kamineni Narendra Kumar s/o. Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 38 yrs., cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

14. Kamineni Rajani Latha

D/o. Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 36 yrs. House wife,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal and JCJC.

[As per the orders in I.A. No. 342/2024 dated 27-2-25 the defendants 11 to 14 are added as defendants] 31

15. Chattu Adilakshmi w/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 63 yrs., House wife,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

16. Chattu Malleswari

D/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 47 yrs., cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

17.Chattu Venkata Ratnam s/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 44 yrs. Cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

18.Chattu Prasad s/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 41 yrs. Cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

19. Chattu Anjaneyulu s/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 yrs. Cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

[As per the orders in I.A. No. 345/24 dated 27-2-25 the defendants 15 to 19 are added as defendants]

20. Chattu Padma w/o. Arjun, Hindu, aged about 58 yrs. House wife,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

21. Chattu Sudhakar s/o. Arjun, Hindu, aged about 43 yrs. cultivation,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village. Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

22. Chattu Krishna Veni w/o. Manohar, Hindu, aged about 38 yrs. House wife,

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

23. Chattu Nandu s/o. Manohar, Hindu, aged about 22 yrs., student

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

24. Chattu Siri

D/o. Manohar, Hindu, aged about 19 yrs., Student

R/o. Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal & JCJC.

[As per the orders in I.A. No. 348/24 dated 27-2-25 the defendants 20 to 24 are added as defendants] … Defendants.

32

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs to declare them as absolute owner of Item Nos. 1 & 2 of Plaint Schedule Properties and for consequential Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents and followers from any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Plaint Schedule Properties and also declare that Registered Sale Deed Dt. 28-7-2016 vide Doc.No.

10854/2016 executed by the Defendants 7 to 10 in favour of 6th

Defendant in respect of the Item No.2 of Plaint Schedule Property as null and void and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 26-04-2018.Plaint filed on: 02-05-2018.

Cause of Action:

Cause of action for the suit arose when the Plaintiffs got schedule property in their oral family partition which was took place in 2004 among the brothers of the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and when the Defendants basing on forgery and fabricated documents made an illegal attempt on 13-02-2018 to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs over schedule property and when they failed in their attempts and they proclaimed in the village that they will disposes the plaintiffs and where the suit schedule properties situated at

Kesanupalli and Jonnalagadda Village which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

Particulars of suit valuation :-

This being a suit filed for Declaration and consequential Permanent Injunction

Value of Item NO.1 of schedule property is Rs.10,31,000-00

Half of the same is Rs. 5,15,500-00

On which a Court Fee of Rs.7,626/- is paid U/s.24 (b) of APCF & SV Act.

Value of Item NO.2 of schedule property is Rs. 85,000-00

Half of the same is Rs. 42,500-00

On which a Court Fee of Rs.2,206/- is paid U/s.24 (b) of APCF & SV Act.

Total Court fee paid is Rs.7,626 + Rs.2,206 = Rs.9,832/-.

Value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.5,58,000/- 33

This suit is coming before me on 02-02-2026 for hearing in presence of

Sri V. Papa Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri B. Anil Kumar, Advocate for

Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and of Sri C.Chinnapa Reddy, Advocate for Defendant

No.6 and Defendant Nos.9, 10 to 24 remained exparte and Defendant Nos. 5, 7 and 8 died during pendency of suit and upon considering the material on record, hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court Doth order and decree as follows:-

1) That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

2) That each party do bear their own costs.

(CM&FC not filed on either side) ( copy of plaint schedule is herewith enclosed)

Given under my hand and seal of the court on this the 16th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

CM&FC filed on either side

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet.

34

1 A.S.40/2024

In the Court of the Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division): Narasaraopet

Present:- Sri K.Madhu Swamy Addl.Civil Judge(Senior Division), Narasaraopet,

Tuesday, this the 11th day of February, 2025

A.S.No.40/2024

(A.S.31/2019 was received from the Hon’ble XIII Addl.District Court, Narasaraopet and the same is renumbered as A.S.40/2024)

Between:

Syed Shakeerabi...Appellant/Plaintif

And

1. Origala Sambireddy

2. Shaik Jani Gousala Lazam ...Respondents/Defendants

Appeal preferred against the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.113/2012 dt.26-12-2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Chilakaluripet

Between: Syed Shakeerabi ...Plaintif

And

1. Origala Sambireddy

2. Shaik Jani Gousala Lazam ...Defendants

This appeal is coming on 13-12-2024 for hearing, before me in the presence of Sri G.V.Subrahmanyam, Advocate for Appellant/plaintif and Sri T.Purna Chandra Rao, Advocate for 1stt respondent and 2nd respondent remained exparte and upon considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by the decree and judgment in O.S.No.113/2012 dt.26-12-2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court,

Chilakaluripet appellant/plaintif has filed appeal to set aside the decree and order on the following grounds:

The decree and judgment of the lower court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

The lower court failed to see that the execution of alleged mortgage deed said to have been returned by the 2nd defendant to the plaintif as the transaction failed but it in fact it was deposed by the 2 A.S.40/2024 plaintif that the 2 defendant returned her title deed to the plaintif and the arriving conclusion by the lower court that as she failed to produce the same before court of law is not correct.

The lower court failed to see that the PW1 and PW2 clearly deposed that they were not allowed to go through the contents of the alleged sale deed to under stand the nature of the document that is going to be executed by P1/plaintif save even if the said document contains the heading as vikraya Dasthaveju or in the last page of the said document it was recited that poorthi sammathina vrayinchi ichhina sthrrasti vikraya dasthaveju it does not mean that they are noticed the same to say that they are having enough knowledge about the nature of the document and mere admitting the signature by the plaintif on the alleged sale deed does not mean that she intentionally executed the said sale deed when she has given the reasons why she signed on the said document. But she was under the impression that a mortgage deed is going to be executed only.

The lower court, failed to appreciate the evidence of the plaintif as PW1 that mere she admitted the signature on the back side of the first page of the alleged sale deed including the thumb impression it does not mean that she is aware of the nature of the said document but for every registered instrument the official of registering authority do follow the same. The lower court totally ignored that several registered instruments were cancelled by the court of law vide its judgments. Mere admitting the instrument by the registering officer does not mean that it is correct and genuine.

The lower court totally failed to appreciate the material papers and the evidence on record with regard to the passing of consideration under the alleged sale deed that the defendant as DW1 admitted that he has given the number of the cheque to the document 3 A.S.40/2024 writer to note the same in the said sale deed as passing of consideration and there is no proof to show that he has made the consideration under it except by way of noted cheque only and this numbered cheque was actually given to his daughter by name Neelima who utilized the said cheque for Rs.20,000/- even long prior to the date of the alleged sale deed. But the lower court came to a conclusion that the noting of said cheque number is by mistake which is not deposed by the defendant/DW1 in his evidence or in his pleadings.

The lower court on its presumptions decided the case against to the appellant that mere withdrawal of Rs.4 lakhs by the defendant on the date of alleged sale deed that cannot be presumed to pay the same as consideration under the alleged sale deed which cannot be find place in the evidence of DW1 itself.

The lower court failed to consider that long prior to the date of alleged sale deed, already utilized cheque is noted in the alleged sale deed as mode of passing of consideration thereunder and even if he said that he has taken back the said cheque with No.018434 from the plaintif, the defendant went to the bank on that day he encashed the same he paid the cash as consideration to the fraud upon the plaintif only but the lower court could not sense the same.

The lower court erred in concluding the litigation with regard nature of the suit land that though in the said alleged sale deed Ex.B3 contains that the said property is situated in Block No.33 of Chilakauripet municipal limits, and the documents upon which the defendant, relied which are earlier to the said Ex.B3 shows the said properties are measured in square yards as house sites whereas the ExB3 is containing as an agricultural land which speaks the falsity and fraud of the defendant in obtaining and preparing the document itself. The lower 4 A.S.40/2024 court also failed to take the Ex.A7 and A8 to decide the nature of the land in dispute also.

The lower court erred in deciding the litigation that not lodging a report by the plaintif against the defendants is a fatal to the case.

The lower erred that prior to the Ex.B3, the plaintif sold some extent of land out of the total for her family necessities is ground to believe the version of the defendant that the plaintif had sold the property under Ex.B3.

The lower court failed to see that there is enough material on record to show that the defendants misrepresented, fraud and coercion as well as without passing of consideration the Ex.B3 is obtained instead of the mortgage deed, the Ex.B3 is pressed into service.

The lower court misread the cause of action with regard to the mitation to sue against the defendants by the plaintif that 4-6-2012 when she went to the suit property some strangers questioned the plaintif and revealed that the suit property said to have been purchased by the defendant no.1 so that she made the enquiry and came to the knowledge of existence of Ex.B3 in the name of the defendant no.1 which the starting point for the limitation to sue. The lower court went in another way to decide the litigation which is not the subject under this litigation. The PW1 while cross examination she deposed that she came to know of the Ex.B3 on 4-6-2012 through the strangers at the suit schedule property so that she filed the suit in the year 2012 itself.

The lower court ignored that the issue framed in respect of the limitation point to discuss in its judgment which is a fatal to it. for which the interference of this appellant court is required.

5 A.S.40/2024

The lower court failed to consider that PW2 who is the daughter of the plaintif who acted as one of the attesting witnesses and identifying witnesses is not an interest witness for the plaintif to believe her evidence to conclude the litigation itself.

The lower court ought not to have believe the possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property basing upon the Ex.B3 though he did not place any iota of documentary proof to show his possession over the said property to refuse the relief of permanent injunction against him and in favour of the plaintif in respect of the suit schedule property.

The lower court ought not have dismissed the suit by taking the version of the defendant no.1 into consideration but the suit is to be decreed by recognizing the misrepresentation, fraud and coercion of the defendants towards the plaintif to obtain the Ex.B3 instead of a mortgage deed.

The lower court failed to consider that the stamp duty for registration of Ex.B3 paid by the plaintif and the endorsements show on the back of Ex 3 page is not at all practically do for the sale deeds but it could be expected only for the mortgage deeds only.

The brief facts of the petition:

02. The plaint schedule immovable property is a part in an extent of Ac.1.12 cents situated in D.No.79-4/A and 793/F at Pasumarru village with specific boundaries. As contained in the plaint, the plaintif became absolute owner to that property by virtue of sale deed dt:

8.9.1982 and the same is in her possession and enjoyment as on the date of filing this suit, On 4.612 when the plaintif visited the property shown in the plaint schedule with an intention to remove small thorny bushes with the help of workers, suddenly some persons representing 6 A.S.40/2024 the defendants, came and objected the plaintif stating that the defendant no.1 purchased the schedule mentioned property from the plaintif under a sale deed on 25.05.2007, thereby, it is the property of first defendant and the plaintif has no title or any interest upon that property, since, it was sold away to the first defendant. In fact, the plaintif never sold the plaint schedule property to any one else including the first defendant, since, she does not know even about the first defendant.

One Shaik Jany Gousala Lazam being maternal grand son to the plaintif's sister, as he lost mother in his childhood and his father married another woman, the plaintif took care of him and brought up him by attending his necessaries till his becoming as a major. The said

Shaik Jilani Gousala Lazam by taking undue advantage of love and afection of the plaintif, made the plaintif to believe that the plaintif properties 1.0.. plaint schedule property is need tebe placed as a security to third parties for the loan amount received by him for his continuation of studies at Gulbarga in Karnataka. In collusion with one

Tirupathi reddy of Jadcherla to gain wrongfully, he might have created the document dt: 25.5.07 in favour of first defendant which is a sham and nominal, brought into existence by playing fraud and misrepresentation and undue influence upon PW1. In fact, the plaintif neither executed sale deed nor received money nor delivered possession of plaint schedule property to the defendant No.1. After coming to know these facts Le., mis representation and undue influence of Shaik Jeny

Gousala Lazam/defendant No.2, the plaintif tried to contact the defendant No.2, but, he avoided the plaintif totally.

The plaintif being member of Muslim family and an elder so the contents in Telugu without the help of others. After enquiries, the plaintif came to know that the 1st defendant being influenced person 7 A.S.40/2024 politically at Chilakaluripet got created this document dt.25.5.07 with an intent to knock away the property of plaintif, therefore that document dt.25-5-2007 said to be registerd sale deed is invalid, null and void and thereby unenforceable in law, since it was brought into existence fraudulently, misrepresentation, collusion and undue influence of the plaintif’s maternal grandson/D2. The D1 never enjoyed the land by obtaining possession and he never objected the Possession of plaintif until she came to know about the document on 4.6.2012 and as the existence of said document dt.25.5.07 was came to her knowledge only on 4.6.2012, if it is in existence, it will create a serious dispute upon the title and right of plaintif over suit schedule property. Therefore, the suit for cancellation of sale deed dt.25.5.2007 was instituted with another prayer for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants.

Hence the suit.

Brief facts of written statement of defendant No.1:

Defendant No.1 in obedience to the summons received by him appeared and filed his written statement by denying the averments in the plaint of plaintif as to her coming to know first time about the existence of sale deed di: 25.5.07 on 4.6.2012 and this plea was taken only to avoid limitation for instituting this suit. The defendant admitted that the plaintif is the absolute owner to the suit schedule property, since, the purchased the same under sale deed dt: 6.9.1982 and he further stated that only to gain wrongfully from and out of the plaintif's action, she introduced defendant. No.2 with a false story, in fact, the defendant No.2 is no way connected to the property in dispute. The defendant further pleaded that the document dt: 25.7.07 is a sale deed executed by the plaintif with her own will and wish with an intention to sell away her property for family benefit and as this defendant agreed to 8 A.S.40/2024 purchase for adequate and valid consideration, the plaintif by attending herself before the scribe and attestors in the document dt: 25.7.2007 signed in the document, attended before the Sub-Registrar with her daughter who is a graduate in commerce duly registered the document by admitting the consideration and receiving the same and no where the plaintif expressed her intention that it was a document for security as pleaded in her plaint.

First defendant further pleaded that the plaintif knowing the contents of sale deed as well as consequences of execution, received consideration, executed registered sale deed dt: 25.7.07 for her family necessities, registered the same in favour of first defendant by associating with the daughter of the plaintif and now by creating a story in order to black mail the first defendant to gain wrongfully got instituted this suit for cancellation of sale deed stating that she came to know only on 4.6.2012 about the sale deed dt: 25.5.07 and the plaintif having delivered the possession of property to the first defendant on the date of sale deed dt: 25.5.07 itself, neither possessed the land nor get title nor any manner of right or interest over the suit property, therefore, hy considering the facts placed before the court sought to dismiss the suit.

04.Defendant No.2 remained exparte.

05.Basing on the pleadings above, the trial court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of cancellation of sale deed dt.25-5-2007 as prayed for ?

2. Whether the plaintif is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as averred in the plaint ?

3. Whether the plaintif is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

4. To what relief ?

9 A.S.40/2024

06.During trial, on behalf of plaintif, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.

07.After hearing arguments on both sides, trial court dismissed the suit without costs.

08.Now, the point for determination is appellant/plaintif is entitled to setting aside the decree in O.S.113/2012 dt.26-12-2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Chilakaluripet as prayed for ?

Point:

09.It is the case of the appellant/plaintif that she is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of sale deed dt.8-9-1982, ever since from the date of sale deed, she was been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights, perfect title uninterrupted possession without any interference from anybody. She also paid all the taxes to the authorities concerned.

While the matter stand thus, on 4-6-2012, when she visited the plaint schedule property to remove the small trees and bushes with the help of workers in the suit schedule property at that stage, suddenly some persons objected her stating that D1 purchased the plaint schedule property from her under registered sale deed dt.25-5-2007, as such D1 is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and on other hand she has no title, right over the suit schedule property as she sold the same property to D1. Thus, she shocked and surprised to hear those words that she sold the suit schedule property to D1 which she never did.

Further, appellant/plaintif contended that she never knew

D1 at any time and she never heard of such a name. She never intended to sell the plaint schedule property nor did she ha no necessity 10 A.S.40/2024 to sell away the plaint schedule property during that period. Thus, there was no either contractual relationship or jural relationship at any point of time between her and D1 as he is utter stranger to the plaintif.

Further, appellant/plaintif contended that she never received any consideration from D1 and never delivered possession of the schedule property as recited in the sale deed dt.25-5-2007. Thus, the said sale deed dt.25-5-2007 is invalid and unenforceable being sham and nominal one brought into existence by playing fraud, mis- representation and undue influence by D2 with the association of D1.

Hence, sale deed dt.25-5-2007 is invalid and unenforceable document.

10.To support the contention of plaintif, she was examined as

PW1 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. Ex.A1 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.25-5-2007 stands in the name of D1. Ex.A2 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.26-12-1977 executed by plaintif in the name of G.Srinivasarao to an extent of 968 sq.yds. Ex.A3 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.9-4-1998 executed by plaintif in the name of

U.Mohanrao to an extent of 242 sq.yds.

As per Ex.A1, D1 contended that plaintif herself has executed the suit schedule property in her favour in the year 2007, ever since the date of execution of sale deed, D1 is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and further contended that due to her family necessities, plaintif sold the suit schedule property to him for valid consideration for an amount of Rs.84,000/-.

During cross examination of PW1, she deposed that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of sale deed dt.8-9-1982. Whereas D1 in his cross examination admitted that as per the document of the year 1982, plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property covered under the said document. In the 11 A.S.40/2024 evidence of PW1, it discloses that there is no dispute regarding ownership of plaintif under the sale deed dt.8-9-1982. So, originally plaintif is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

11.It is the contention of D1 that plaintif was in need of money and for her family necessities, sold the suit schedule property under

Ex.B1 for valid consideration and same was presented and registered

before SRO, Chilakaluripet. Plaintif and her daughter/PW2 have

received sale consideration. Since plaintif has requested to pay sale consideration amount in cash and present themselves as the time of preparing the document Ex.B3 by the document writer and affixed the thumb impression and signatures on Ex.B3 knowing the contents of

Ex.B3/sale deed for valid consideration. Plaintif further contended that she herself has executed Ex.B3 in favour of D1. As seen from the evidence of PW1 and her daughter/PW2, they deposed that PW2 namely

Shaik Yasmin and other witnesses deposed on behalf of both sides including P.Ws.2 to 5 and D.Ws.2 and 3, stated and established the preparation of Ex.B3 and affixed the thumb impression and signature of plaintif as an executant as well as signing in that document by PW2 and

DW3 as witness and identifying witnesses. On perusal of Ex.B3, it is clearly evidenting that plaintif has put her thumb impression and signature as executant. So, plaintif herself has executed Ex.B3 in favour of D1. Therefore, D2 taking undue advantage of love and afection, made believe the plaintif that she is ofering the suit schedule property as security to third parties for the loan amount raised by D2 for the continuation of his studies at Gulbarga of Karnataka state, thereby obtained the signatures of PW1 in Ex.B3 is false. In cross examination of

PW1 she admitted that she identified her signature in Ex.A1/Ex.B3 confronted to her by the learned counsel for D1. Further, PW1 admitted 12 A.S.40/2024 that PW2/her daughter associated with her to the registrar’s office and her daughter signed as a witness in the document. So, P.Ws.1 and 2 are well aware of the nature of the document and execution of Ex.A1/Ex.B3 to D1.

12.On perusal of cross examination of PW2 who is daughter of

PW1, she deposed that she signed in the registered sale deed dt.25-5- 2007/Ex.A1/Ex.B3 as second attestor. Further, she stated that D2 by taking undue advantage of love and afection of plaintif towards him, he managed P.Ws.1 and 2 to believe that they are ofering their property shown in the schedule as security to third parties for receiving loan for the continuation of his studies at Gulbarga. To support their contention, they have not examined any independent witnesses before the court to show that D2 has misrepresented P.Ws.1 and 2 and got obtained their thumb impressions on Ex.A1/Ex.B3. Except oral contention of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no proof.

Moreover, on perusal of cross examination of PW2, she clearly admitted that she signed on the registered sale deed but not on the mortgage deed. So, the evidence of PW2 is quite contrary to the evidence of PW1. Hence, the contention of PW1 cannot be considered in that aspect.

13.To support the contention of PW1, PW3 who is Subregistrar

N.Harikrishna was examined and he deposed that original of Ex.A1/Ex.B3 was duly registered at SRO, Chilakaluripet. PW4 who is document writer was examined and he deposed in his cross examination and admitted that execution of original of Ex.A1/Ex.B3 and plaintif put her signature in original of Ex.A1 in his presence and both attestors. So, the evidence of

P.Ws.3 and 4 has not supported the case of plaintif.

13 A.S.40/2024

14.Other hand, DW3/Anjireddy was examined and deposed that he acted as an attestor and attested the document as witness with the daughter of plaintif. All these admissions of the witnesses are strengthening the contents in Ex.A1/Ex.B3 that PW1 herself signed on

Ex.A1/Ex.B3 and well aware about the contents of Ex.A1/Ex.B3.

Moreover, on perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and D3, they also supported the case of D1 that in their presence entire transaction was took place and P.Ws.1 and 2 have put their signatures on Ex.A1/Ex.B3.

So, their evidence has supported the case of D1, but not PW1. Mere taking a plea that D2 has obtained the thumb impressions and signature of P.Ws.1 and 2 in mortgage deed, itself does not say that Ex.A1 is the mortgage deed. It is the duty of PW1 to establish the said fact before the court by filing relevant documents, but PW1 failed to prove the same.

15.On perusal of the contents of Ex.A1, it is clearly evidenting that PW1 herself has sold the property to D1 for valid consideration of

Rs.84,000/- and the contents of Ex.A1 is not of mortgage deed. So, the contention of plaintif that Ex.A1/Ex.B3 is mortgage deed, is false and she is under the impression that D2 has taken her thumb impressions and signatures on mortgage deed. In fact, if it is a mortgage deed, the said mortgage deed is in custody of PW1 and plaintif might have cancel the mortgage deed by paying the mortgage amount. But, Ex.A1/Ex.B3 is a sale deed took place in between PW1 and D1. No notice was given by the plaintif to D1 for cancellation of mortgage deed. Hence, the contention of plaintif cannot be believed.

16.One of the contention of the plaintif that she never intended to sell away the suit schedule property, but D2 who is grandson by 14 A.S.40/2024 relation to PW1 in need of money for his education, influenced PW1 unduly, coerced her and misrepresented that the suit property is required for security to receive a loan and took them to the premises of

Sub-registrar office, Chilakaluripet on 25-5-2007. D2 by colluding with

D1 and another by name Tirupathireddy, prepared Ex.B3 as if it was a sale deed instead of mortgage deed, paid nothing under Ex.B3/sale deed without permitting the plaintif and her daughter/PW2 to know the contents of the document, obtained their signatures, thereby, got registered Ex.B3 by playing fraud and as the document was obtained by fraud, coercion and undue influence as well as lack of consideration, it is invalid.

Other hand D1 denied the contentions of Plaintif and stated that D2 is nothing to do with suit schedule property and D1 by explaining everything and on payment of consideration in cash obtained sale deed from the plaintif who was in need of money for her family necessities and the said document is valid document. Since the plaintif alleged and averred in her evidence and in his pleadings that the document is hit by lack of valid consideration, thereby voidable u/s.19 of the Indian Contract Act. It is the duty of the plaintif to prove the said fact before the court. Since the plaintif pleaded that the transaction dt.25-5-2007 under Ex.B3 between D1 and plaintif was hit by fraud, coercion, undue influence and lack of consideration and it is the duty of the plaintif to establish the said fact before the court. But, no independent witnesses were examined before the court and P.Ws.3, 4 and DW2 have deposed contrary to plaintif.

17.On careful consideration of the evidence of the executant of

Ex.B3 i.e., plaintif who deposed that though she pleaded that D2 by playing fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, obtained sale 15 A.S.40/2024 deed/Ex.B3 instead of mortgage deed, evidence of PW1 in her cross examination dt.9-8-2016 disclosed that the learned counsel for D1 made a suggestion to the witness that within half an hour of the execution of that document, D2 brought that document to the plaintif stating that document as to the transaction are filed and handed over that document to the plaintif. The plaintif further stated that the said document also submitted to the court. If it is so the document said to be executed by the plaintif in favour of third parties as mortgage deed, is of Ex.A1/ sale deed and was not another document and the plaintif is in the possession of same and no document was filed by the plaintif to show that she was been in possession of the said property since 2007 to 2012.

Except oral contention of the plaintif, there is no proof to show that she was been in possession and enjoyment of Ex.A1 property since 2007 to 2012. It is the duty of the plaintif to produce Ex.A7 to show that she was been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Hence, plaintif has failed to prove the same. On perusal of Ex.A1/Ex.B3, it is clearly recited that suit schedule property was delivered to D1, as such

D1 is in possession and enjoyment of the same. So, plaintif was unable to produce Ex.A7 document to show that she was been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Plaintif was aware of the fact that schedule property was delivered to D1, as such, she was unable to produce any document before the court. Hence, the contention of the plaintif cannot be considered.

18.On careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW1 that within half an hour of the execution of the document, D2 has brought the document to the plaintif and handed over to her. So, as per her contention, D2 has handed over the mortgage deed, but plaintif has not filed mortgage deed before the court. In fact, if PW1 has filed mortgage deed before 16 A.S.40/2024 this court, court may believe the contention of PW1 that D2 has played fraud on PW1 and obtained mortgage deed, but PW1 has not filed the said mortgage deed though she has the document in her custody. So, non-filing of the said document is fatal to the case of plaintif and adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintif. So, the contention of the plaintif cannot be considered.

19.One of the contention of the plaintif is that she being a muslim woman, unable to read and understand Telugu, she does not know the contents of Ex.A1/Ex.B3 and D2 as well as D1 did not permit them including PW2 to go through the contents in Ex.B3, thereby, they do not know the nature of the document in which they signed, thereby it was obtained by undue influence. Evidence available on record is appears to be contra to the plea of plaintif. The witness available on record to consider the plea of plaintif are P.Ws.1 to 5 and D.Ws.1 to 3, as well as the contents in Ex.B3 original sale deed. On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 they deposed that D2 took them to the document writer, in where the signatures of plaintif and PW2 were obtained.

As per the evidence of PW4, he deposed that he got experience as a document writer for the past 12 years, he does not know the plaintif personally, but on the date of the document/Ex.B3, he know her. Both the parties were present before him for preparation of the original of Ex.A1/Ex.B3. As per the evidence of PW2, she deposed in cross examination that she studied B.Com and she can read and write

Telugu. The witness has identified her signature as identifying witness in that document.

Further stated that the entire document is to be prepared by the document writer, but not in the presence of sub registrar, but the 17 A.S.40/2024 endorsement on the back side of first page to the document is to be done in presence of SRO only including obtaining thumb impressions of the executants in the presence of identifying witnesses. So, as per the admissions of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that they were present before

PW4/document writer and in his presence, they have put their signatures. Further, P.Ws.1 and 2 are having knowledge that they should put their signatures in presence of SRO including thumb impression as executant and identifying witness. So, P.Ws.1 and 2 are aware of the fact that they are executing sale deed in favour of D1. Moreover, SRO will ask about the consideration and execution of Ex.A1 in presence of attestors, then only SRO will get register the document. So, P.Ws.1 and 2 were aware of the said fact and put their signature in presence of SRO and attestors. So, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is quite contrary to their own evidence and pleaded ignorance that they will not know the contens of Ex.A1/Ex.B3, is false and same cannot be considered.

20.One of the contention of the plaintif is that Ex.A1/Ex.B3 does not supported by consideration and it was misrepresented as mortgage deed instead of sale deed, no consideration was passed under it, thereby transaction under sdex.B3 is sham and nominal and not binding upon the plaintif. To support the same, PW4/document writer,

PW5/bank manager and PW2/daughter of PW1 were examined. On perusal of Ex.A1/Ex.B3/sale deed, it is disclosed that towards sale consideration of Rs.84,000/- cheque bearing No.018434 was drawn at the state bank of India, Chilakaluripet from the account of D1. Plaintif pleaded that D1 did not pay that amount under the cheque bearing

No.018434 on 25-5-2007, therefore, no consideration was passed. To support the same, plaintif summoned and examined PW5/Ramesh Babu the then chief manager of bank who produced Ex.A6 account statement 18 A.S.40/2024 copy of D1. PW5 further deposed that D1 got bank account with their branch with account No.1053510868 and cheque bearing No.018434 was drawn from that account and the same was presented on 12-7-2006 for Rs.20,000/- by one Neelima and encashed Rs.20,000/- and to prove the same Ex.A6/copy of account statement was produced. So, plaintif contended that the cheque bearing No.018434 is not of cheque and no consideration was passed under Ex.A1/Ex.B3.

On perusal of the evidence of PW5, it is clear that daughter of D1 encashed the cheque prior to transaction for Rs.20,000/-. So, cheque number mentioned in Ex.A1 clearly shows that PW1 has not received the amount. Whereas D1 contended that though cheque number was mentioned in Ex.A1/Ex.B3 and no consideration was passed through cheque, but PW1 has insisted him to pay the amount by way of cash, but not cheque. So, immediately he went to bank and withdraw the amount of Rs.4 lakhs on the same day through account and paid the money to the plaintif, then only PW1 has registered Ex.A1/Ex.B3in his name.

21.On perusal of Ex.A6/statement discloses that D1 has withdrawn Rs.4 lakhs on the same day itself clearly goes to show that D1 has paid the sale consideration amount to plaintif, then only plaintif has executed Ex.A1/Ex.B3 in favour of the plaintif. So, mere mentioning the cheque number in Ex.A1/Ex.B3 it does not probablizes the case of the plaintif that no consideration was passed. On perusal of the evidence of

PW4/document writer and witnesses, it is clear that transaction was done in their presence and plaintif has received the amount and executed Ex.A1/Ex.B3 in favour of D1. So, the contention of PW1 that she has not received sale consideration amount is false. So, the contention of appellant/plaintif cannot be considered. At this stage, 19 A.S.40/2024 counsel for the plaintif has contended that no sale consideration was took place in between the plaintif and D1, as such, Ex.A1/Ex.B3 is invalid document.

In view of the point, counsel for the plaintif has relied upon a decision in Kewal Krishnan vs. Rajesh Kumar, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme court held that –

Payment of price is an essential part of as sale and that sale deed executed without payment of consideration would not have any legal effect.

So, the counsel for the plaintif contended that without payment of sale consideration for Ex.A1/Ex.B3 is an invalid document.

22.Whereas D1 has denied the contentions of the plaintif and stated that he has paid sale consideration amount by cash but not through cheque and same was proved by the evidence of document writer/PW4 and attestor.

This court agrees with the contention of the defendant and on perusal of the evidence of document writer and attestor, they clearly deposed that in their presence, Ex.A1/Ex.B3 was executed by the plaintif. So, they have supported the case of D1, but not plaintif.

Hence, the contention of plaintif that no consideration was passed by way of cheque is false. PW1 has received cash from D1, same was evidenting from the evidence of document writer and other witnesses and Ex.A6/account statement. So, the contention of PW1 cannot be considered. Hence, Ex.A1/Ex.B3 is supported by cash consideration.

23.One of the contention of the plaintif that while she was cleaning the property on 4-6-2012 with workers she came to know through some one of that locality passing thereby that the suit property was sold away by her to D1 under a registered sale deed dt.25-5-2007/

Ex.B3, therefore, upon enquiry she came to know that sham and nominal 20 A.S.40/2024 document is in existence under Ex.B3, therefore, she approached the court for the relief of cancellation of Ex.B3 registered sale deed.

24.On careful and combine reading of the evidence available on record, this court is of the view that case of the plaintif inrespect of cause of action is not appeared to be reliable and trustworthy. It is not the case of the plaintif that since 2007 onwards she was been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. No document was filed by the plaintif to show that since 2007 she was been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and it is only the contention of the plaintif that on 4-6-2012 while she was cleaning the schedule property, some one has informed her about sale deed dt.25-5- 2007, then she came to know about the document Ex.B3 itself does not support the case of the plaintif. Only for the purpose of cause of action, plaintif has created the cause of action dt.4-6-2012. No independent witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintif to show that since 2007 plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

25.On perusal of Ex.A1/Ex.B3, it clearly discloses that plaintif has delivered the schedule property to D1. Moreover, she has no personal knowledge about the person who questioned PW1 on 4-6-2012 as contended in the plaint, since PW2 came to know about the existence of sale deed through PW1 only. Having knowledge that the cause of action for the suit is important of the plea of the plaintif. Further, plaintif has deposed in cross examination that at about 4 years back, she and her husband went to plaint schedule property for the purpose of cleaning the plaint schedule property, one stranger passing by the side of the road asked them as to why they are removing the bushes, since it was sold to DW1. In her evidence, she deposed that she and her 21 A.S.40/2024 husband went to plaint schedule property, but she has not examined her husband before the court to prove her contention. Moreover, she has not deposed the stranger name before the court. Hence, it cannot be said that on 4-6-2012, one stranger came and questioned PW1 and plaintif has failed to prove the said fact before the court.

26.Having considering the entire evidence placed before the court, lower court has rightly appreciated the facts and law and no need of interference in the judgment of the lower court in O.S.113/2012 dt.26-12-2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court,

Chilakaluripet. Accordingly, appeal is failed.

27.In the result, appeal is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11th day of February, 2025.

Sd/-K.MADHU SWAMY

Addl.Civil Judge(Senior Division), Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined -Nil-

Sd/-K.MADHU SWAMY

Addl.Civil Judge(Senior Division), Narasaraopet.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET

Present: Sri K. Madhu Swamy,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet.

Wednesday, this the 1st day of April,2026

O.S No. 65 / 2023

Between:

Eluri Mahesh @ Mahesh Kumar s/o. Rama Subba Rao, Hindu, Aged about 30 yrs., Businessman,

R/o. D.No.2-10-10, Burnpet, Narasaraopet Town & JCJC.

… Plaintiff.

And

Kondragunta Niharika w/o. Kondragunta Chandra Sekhar, Hindu, Kamma, Aged about 40 yrs.,

House Wife & Businessman, R/o.D.No.2-71, Muslimpalem, Veluru,

Chilakaluripet JCJC.

… Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 17-03-2026 for hearing in presence of

Sri M. Sree Krishna, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri R. Venkateswara Rao,

Advocate for Defendant and upon considering the material on record, hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of

Rs.25,55,000/- with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- the defendant is permanent resident of Veluru Village but she belongs to

Satuluru Village, the defendant and her husband both are family friends from long back with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a Medical business man and he is an income tax payee also, the plaintiff is financially well of and he is having capacity 2 to learned the money. The defendant and her husband both are borrowed money from the plaintiff from last 10 years. The defendant is Business Woman and her husband is also a real estate and transport business man. The defendant and her husband both are business man and family friends to the plaintiff with that family friend ship the defendant for her family expenses she borrowed a sum of

Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs Rupees only) from the plaintiff on 21-01-2021 agreeing to re-pay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and evidencing the said borrowing as a collateral security the defendant executed a promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintiff at Narašaraopet acknowledging the said liability the promissory note was scribed by the scribe and attested by two attesters. Subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant agrees to discharge the debit under Promissory note. So many times the plaintiff demanded the defendant orally but intentionally the defendant post phoning the re-payment of amount with interest. The suit is laid on the original debit along with interest under the Promissory note Previously also the defendant borrowed huge amounts from the plaintiff with the help of family friend ship and she executed some other promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. The suit promissory note was scribed by the scribe and attested by attestors. At last the plaintiff on 04-12-2013 got issued a legal notice to the defendant for re-payment of the promissory note amount with interest. The defendant received the legal notice on 07-12-2023. But she is not repay any amount to the plaintiff or not given any reply to the notice. The defendant and her husband both are trying to create shame and nominal documents in respect of their properties. The defendant openly proclaiming that they are creating shame and nominal documents against suit schedule property and they are left the village. The defendant is not an

Agriculturalist and she is not a small farmer has such the debit relief loss have no 3 application to the suit debit the rate of interest in claimed as per contract rate ie, 24% per annum as stated above.

3. Other hand, Defendant filed Written Statement and denied the contents of the Plaint and further stated that she never borrowed any amounts from the

Plaintiff at any point of time more particularly on the alleged date of 21-01-2021 and she never executed the suit promissory note to the plaintiff. The Plaintiff fabricated the suit pronote by the forged signature of this defendant for wrongful gain with the active assistance of his henchmen who acted as scribe and attestors due to disputes between this defendant and the Plaintiff's sister-in-law (who is sister of his wife). There is no creditor and debtor relationship between the Plaintiff and this defendant. No consideration was passed under the suit pronote. The Plaintiff have no capacity to lend the huge money, that to an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- under the suit promissory note and another two pronote suits as O.S Nos. 491/2023 & 492/2023 filed against my husband

Kondragunta Chandra Sekhar basing on forged promissory notes each of

Rs.8,00,000/- dt. 17-07-2021 & 14-09-2021 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge

Court, Narasaraopet. She has no necessity to barrow the amounts either the plaintiff or any body and she is getting sufficient income from Dwacra Group operations and her agricultural operations as she is an agriculturist. There is no demand either personally or through mediators to her to discharge of the alleged pronote debt. The Plaintiff's sister-in-law (sister of his wife) Plaintiff by name

Kamatham Sai Lakshmi Bhavani and she are 'Dwakra group leaders. In view of the Dwakra operations, both of them have closed which turns to closed intimacy between this defendant's husband and the said Sai Lakshmi Bhavani. Due to disputes between this defendant and the sister-in-law of the Plaintiff with regard to closed intimacy between the husband of this defendant and the said Sai

Lakshmi Bhavani, this defendant made attempt to commit suicide as her 4 husband spent all his earnings from his agricultural operations to the said Sai

Lakshmi Bavani. In fact, this defendant's husband purchased 'Enfiled' motor bike (Bullet) No. AP 07 DZ. 7071 by exchanging her Honda Activa Scooty (No. AP 07

CW 7460) on the name of this defendant's mother. After receipt of legal notices from the Plaintiff, this defendant and her husband approached the sister-in-law of the Plaintiff and questioned about the insurance of notices through the Plaintiff At the intervention of the elders to resolve the disputes between this defendants husband send the said Sai Lakshmi Bavani, this defendant's husband has paid an amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- us the said Sai Lakshmi Bhavani and that the said

Sai Lakshmi Bhavani transferred the Enfield Motor cycle Bullety on the name of the husband of this defendant. Like wise the Honda Activa Scooty was transferred on the name of Sai Lakshmi Bavani. By that time the Plaintiff and his wife were also present and admitted that they issued legal notices at the instigation of Sai Lakshmi Bhavani and promised not to make any further steps against this defendant or her husband. But the Plaintiff, giving a go bye of his promise, he filed the present suit basing on the fabricated promissory note for 15 lakhs and another two suits as OS No 491/2023 & 492/2023 on the file of Prl,

Junior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet basing on the forged pronotes each of 8 lakhs against the husband of this defendant with forged signatures at the instigation of his sister-in-law Sai Lakshmi Bhavani to dictate the terms and conditions as they wish. In fact, the Plaintiff have no capacity to lend such huge amounts totaling of 31 lakhs to this defendant and her husband under three promissory notes. Hence, the Defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, this Court framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the Promissory Note Dt. 21-01-2021 is true, valid and binding on the Defendant?

5

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. Perused the record, due to oversight my predecessor has not framed the issue related to forgery plea taken by the Defendant in Written statement. Hence, this court inclined to frame additional issue in relating to the said pleading.

Additional Issue :-

“Whether plaintiff and his henchmen has forged the signature of

Defendant on promissory note Dt. 21-1-2021?”

6. On behalf of the Plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.w.4 were examined and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.4 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.3 were examined.

ISSUE Nos. 1 & 2 :-

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that Defendant and her husband are family friends to the plaintiff and plaintiff is doing medical business. Defendant and her husband are doing real estate business and transport business. On 21-1-2021

Defendant has borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff for her family expenses and agreed to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., to the plaintiff or his demand. In presence of attestors and scribe, he executed the pronote in favour of plaintiff at Narasaraopet. Plaintiff later several times demanded the defendant to repay the pronote debt along with interest, but defendant postpone the same on one or other pretext. Then plaintiff has issued legal notice to the

Defendant on 4-12-23 and same was received by the Defendant, but not given reply.

8. To support the contention of plaintiff, he was examined as P.w.1 and Ex.A.1 to A.4 were marked. Ex.A.1 original promissory note Dt. 21-01-2021 for

Rs.15,00,000/- executed by the Defendant in his favour. Ex.A.2 Office Copy of 6

Legal Notice Dt. 04-12-2023. Ex.A.3 Postal Receipt and Acknowledgment.

Ex.A.4 Certified Copy of Settlement Deed Dt. 13-09-2020.

9. As per Ex.A.1 Plaintiff categorically contended before this court that on 21-1-2021 the Defendant has approached him and borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- for her family necessities and agreed to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., either to him or his order on demand in presence of attestors and scribe executed Ex.A.1.

10. To support the contention of plaintiff, P.w.2 and P.W.3 who are 1st and 2nd attestors of Ex.A.1 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff. They have supported the case of plaintiff in their chief examination. During in the cross examination of P.w.1, he deposed that Defendant is relative to her father in law. He did not know father’s name of defendant and education qualification of the defendant. He did not know in which locality house of defendant is situated in Satuluru. His father in law and Kishore has given him third party affidavits in I.A. 324/23 in this suit. He did not remember which property of the defendant was attached. So, as per the said facts, counsel for the defendant contended that in fact if defendant has borrowed the amounts from the plaintiff and defendant family friends to the plaintiff, plaintiff might have aware the father name of the Defendant and also education qualification of the defendant and in which locality defendant house is situated, but plaintiff unable to depose said facts before this court. Even plaintiff was not aware of the fact that which property of the Defendant was attached. So, it is clear that plaintiff was not aware of the pronote and it was created by him.

11. During cross examination of P.w.2, he deposed that at about 3 years back Plaintiff has called him to act as attestor and then he went to the house of plaintiff at 11 a.m., from his house. By that time Plaintiff, Defendant,

Chandrasekhar were present. Thereafter, Narasimharao/Scribe came to house of 7

Plaintiff and in their presence transaction was took place. The Defendant has executed Ex.A.1. The Defendant himself brought the pronote with him. The

Plaintiff has given Rs.15,00,000/- to the Defendant and all are Rs.500/- notes without seal. So, as per the said facts, at the time of transaction Plaintiff,

Defendant and one Chandrasekhar were present, later Narasimharao came to the house of Plaintiff and scribed Ex.A.1 and transaction was took place.

Whereas in cross examination of P.w.3 he deposed that at the time of transaction Defendant, Chandrasekhar, Srinivasarao, Plaintiff and himself were present. The Defendant has scribed the contents of Ex.A.1. So, as per the evidence of P.w.3 Defendant has scribed the contents of Ex.A.1 whereas P.w.2 has stated that Narasimharao has scribed the contents of Ex.A.1. So, the evidence of P.w.3 is inconsistent with the evidence of P.w.2 and not supported the case of Plaintiff.

12. To support the contention of the plaintiff, Narasimharao who is scribe of

Ex.A.1 was examined as P.w.4. He has supported the case of plaintiff in his chief examination. Whereas in his cross examination, he deposed that by the time of his arrival to the house of Plaintiff, Mahesh, Defendant, Chandrasekhar,

Srinivasarao, Sai Satyanarayana and himself were present and transaction was took place in their presence. After preparation of contents of Ex.A.1, Defendant has executed Ex.A.1 Promissory Note in favour of Plaintiff. Thereafter, one

Srinivasarao acted as 1st Attestor and Satyanarayana acted as 2nd Attestor. So, as per the said facts, he deposed that at the time of transaction, Plaintiff,

Mahesh, Defendant, Chandrasekhar, Srinivasarao, Sai Satyanarayana and himself were present. Whereas in evidence of P.w.3, he deposed that Defendant,

Chandrasekhar, Defendant, Sai Srinivasarao, Plaintiff and P.w.2 were present.

So, the evidence of P.w.4 is inconsistent to the evidence of P.w.3 and he improved that one Mahesh and Sai Satyanarayana were present. On careful 8 perusal of evidence of P.w.1 and P.w.2 they have not deposed before this court that Mahesh and Sai Satyanarayana were present. In fact the said persons were present at the time of suit transaction what prevented P.w.1 and P.w.2 to depose the same before this court. So, on perusal of evidence of P.w.1 and P.W.2 their evidence is contradictory with the evidence of P.w.3 and P.w.4 about the presence of said Mahesh and Sai Satyanarayana, as such, the evidence of P.w.3 and P.w.4 surrounded the suspicious and not supported the case of Plaintiff.

Hence, the evidence of P.w.3 and P.w.4 is no way useful to the case of Plaintiff.

13. Other hand Defendant has denied the contention of the Plaintiff and further stated that no point of time, she borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaint and she never executed Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiff. The Plaintiff forged her signature on Ex.A.1 with the help of attestors and scribe and brought into existence of Ex.A.1.

14. To support her contention, she was examined as D.w.2 and no document were marked on her behalf. To support her contention, she has relied upon

Ex.B1 Original Memorandum of Agreement Dt. 6-1-2024 in between Defendant, husband of Defendant and sister in law of Plaintiff and his father in law. As per the said document , Defendant/D.w.2 contended that her husband is having illegal intimacy with one Sai Lakshmi Bhavani. Due to the said intimacy, her husband has purchased Enfiled Motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 DZ 7071 in her name and exchanged Honda Activa Scooty bearing No. AP07CW 7460 in the name of Defendant’s mother. Thereafter, disputes arose in between Defendant family and said Sai Lakshmi Bhavani family and both families entered into amicable settlement in presence of elders under Ex.B.1 and motorcycles were exchanged in between the parties. Thereafter, Defendant husband has paid

Rs.1,55,000/- to the said Sai Lakshmi Bhavani. It was also mentioned in Ex.B.1 9 that plaintiff or their henchmen should not file any suits against Defendant family.

But, Plaintiff with the support of said Sai Lakshmi Bhavani filed the suit against the Defendant and also filed another two suits in O.S. 491/23 and 492/23 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet against the husband of the

Defendant.

15. During cross examination of D.w.1 she deposed that the said suits were pending against her husband on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Her husband is having illegal intimacy with the said Lakshmi Bhavani and she is witnessed the illegal relationship in between her husband and Lakshmi Bhavani.

Further she deposed that she never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff and

Plaintiff is not having capacity to lend the said amount. She is having personal facial acquaintance with Plaintiff, but she does not know personal details of the

Plaintiff. As per her knowledge, the said Lakshmi Bhavani never put her signature in any document in Dwacra group. So, as per the said facts, it is clear that husband of Defendant is having illegal relationship with said Lakshmi

Bhavani and due to which the present pronote and the two pronotes were forged by the Plaintiff and his henchmen.

16. Further in cross examination of D.w.2 she deposed that signature shown to her on Vakalat and notice were belongs to her . The signature shown to her in

Thumb Impression Register is belongs to her. Signature shown to her on Ex.A.1 promissory note was denied by her. So, D.w.2 has denied her signature on

Ex.A.1 and admitted her signature on vakalat and notice. To support her contention, she has sent Ex.A.1 pronote to Expert for comparison of her signature on pronote and Expert has given his opinion under Ex.X.2. Expert was examined as D.w.1 and he has stated in his evidence that the person who wrote the signature in the enclosed portions stamp which was marked as Ex.A.1 and 10

S1 to S.30 did not write in signatures in the enclosed portion stamped and marked Q.1 and given his opinion under Ex.X.2. On his behalf Ex.X.1 fowarding letter from their office to the court. Ex.X.2 Opinion Dt. 23-10-2025.

17. As per Ex.x2 and X.3 D.w.1 as categorically sated that the signature on Ex.A.1 is not belongs to admitted signatures of Defendant. So, D.w.1 has supported the case of the Defendant in his evidence and also in his opinion under Ex.X.2 and Ex.x.3. The Counsel for the plaintiff have not turned up and examined the Expert. Hence, it was mentioned that cross examination was treated as nil. However on perusal of the Expert Opinion under Ex.X.2 and X.3 it was clearly mentioned by D.w.1 that the admitted signatures of Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.3 did not write in signature in the enclosed portion stamped and marked as Q.1.

So, as per the said opinion, it is clear that Defendant has not put his signature on

Ex.A.1. Hence, Defendant has disproved the case of plaintiff and proved that she did not borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff and Ex.A.1 is a forged document.

18. Having considering the entire evidence before this court and documents filed before this court Ex.A.1 to A.4, Ex.B.1, it is clear that plaintiff has proved that defendant has executed Ex.A.1 in his favour in presence of attestors and scribe and Defendant has rebutted the case of Plaintiff and disproves his case. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed for Accordingly, Issue Nos. 1 & 2 are answered against the plaintiff.

Additional Issue :-

19. It is the case of the plaintiff that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never execute Ex.A.1 ponote in favour of the plaintiff. The said pronote was fabricated and forged by the plaintiff for wrongful gain with his hench men. There is no creditor and debtor relationship. No consideration was passed 11 under suit pronote. Plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount under

Ex.A.1.

20. To support her contention, she was examined as D.w.2. Ex.B.1 original

Memorandum of Agreement Dt.6-1-24 was filed and as per the said

Memorandum, Defendant categorically contended that her husband is having illegal relationship with on Sai Lakshmi Bhavani. Later, disputes arose between plaintiff and defendant family and in presence of elders Ex.B.1 was executed , husband of Defendant paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the said Sai Lakshmi Bhavani and said Sai Lakshmi Bhavani transferred the Enfield motor bike to the husband and

Honda Activa Scooty was transferred in the name of Sai Lakshm Bhavani. It is

also mentioned in Ex.B.1 that plaintiff nor said Sai Lakshmi Bhavani and her hench men should not file any suits against the Defendant. But, Plaintiff has filed the present suit and other suits against her husband which is contrary to the contents of Ex.B.1.

21. During cross examination of D.w.2 she deposed that she never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and she also admitted that her husband is having illegal relationship with Sai Lakshmi Bhavani. She did not know whether plaintiff is financially capable or not. Except that noting was elicited in cross examination of D.w.2. Further in cross examination of D.w.2, she denied her signature in

Ex.A.1 and admitted her signature on vakalat , notice and thumb impression register.

22. However to prove the plea of the forgery, Defendant have sent Ex.A.1 to

Expert for comparison and Expert has given his Opinion that Signature on Ex.A.1 is not belongs to Defendant. So, Defendant has proved the forgery plea and disproves the case of the plaintiff. Whereas plaintiff has not denied the contention of the Defendant and failed to prove that Defendant has executed Ex.A.1 in his 12 favour and consideration was passed thereunder. Already, this court has elaborately discussed supra that plaintiff has failed to prove that Ex.A.1 was executed by the Defendant. Hence, in views of the above facts and circumstances, the Defendant has proved that the plaintiff and his henchmen has forged the signature of the Defendant on Ex.A.1. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of Defendant and against the plaintiff.

Issue No.3 : -

23. In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1st day of April,2026.

Sd/- K. Madhuswamy

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1 : Eluri Mahesh @ Mahesh Kumar.

P.W.2 : Thommandru Srinivasa Rao.

P.W.3 : Garlapati Sai Satyanarayana.

P.W.4 : Aravapalli Vedadri Narasimha Rao.

For Defendant: - D.W.1 : Abhimanyu Kumar. D.W.2 : Kondragunta Niharika.

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1 : Original Promissory Note Dt. 21-01-2021 for Rs.15,00,000/-. Ex.A.2 : O/c. Of Legal Notice Dt. 04-12-2023. Ex.A.3 : Postal Receipt and Acknowledgment. Ex.A.4 : Certified Copy of Settlement Deed Dt. 13-09-2020. For Defendant:-

Ex.B.1 : Original Memorandum of Agreement Dt. 6-1-2024 in between Defendant, husband of Defendant and sister in law of Plaintiff and his father in law.

Document marked through D.w.1:-

Ex.X.1 : Forwarding Letter of this court Dt. 27-10-2025. Ex.X.2 : Expert Opinion Dt. 23-10-2025. Ex.X.3 : Reasons for Opinion. Sd/- K. Madhuswamy

P.C.J.(S.D.),NRT.

13

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET

Present: Sri K. Madhu Swamy,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet.

Wednesday, this the 1st day of April,2026

O.S No. 65 / 2023

Between:

Eluri Mahesh @ Mahesh Kumar s/o. Rama Subba Rao, Hindu, Aged about 30 yrs., Businessman,

R/o. D.No.2-10-10, Burnpet, Narasaraopet Town & JCJC.

… Plaintiff.

And

Kondragunta Niharika w/o. Kondragunta Chandra Sekhar, Hindu, Kamma, Aged about 40 yrs.,

House Wife & Businessman, R/o.D.No.2-71, Muslimpalem, Veluru,

Chilakaluripet JCJC.

… Defendant.

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of

Rs.25,55,000/- with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 27-12-2023.Plaint filed on: 27-12-2023.

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose when the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the Plaintiff for her family expenses on 21-01-2021 agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., at Narasaraopet and when the Defendant failed to repay the same inspite of issuing legal notice and Narasaraopet where the execution of promissory note took place is within the jurisdiction of this court.

Particulars of suit valuation :- Prl. Amount borrowed under Pronote Dt. 21-01-2021 Rs.15,00,000-00

Interest from 21-01-2021 to 26-12-2023 @24% p.a., Rs.10,55,000-00 -----------------------

Total Rs.25,55,000-00 ----------------------- 14

On which a court fee of Rs.28,026/- is paid U/s.20 of APCF & SV Act.

This suit is coming before me on 17-03-2026 for hearing in presence of

Sri M. Sree Krishna, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri R. Venkateswara Rao,

Advocate for Defendant and upon considering the material on record, hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day,this Court Doth order and decree as follows:-

1) That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

2) That each party do bear their own costs.

(CM&FC not filed on either side)

Given under my hand and seal of the court on this the 1st day of April, 2026.

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

CM&FC filed on either side

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet.

15

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET

Present: Sri K. Madhu Swamy,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet.

Wednesday, this the 1st day of April, 2026

O.S No. 49 / 2024

Between:

Chintalacheruvu Yogaiah s/o. Late Meera Saheb, Muslim, Aged about 66 yrs., Retired Govt. Employee,

R/o.D.No.8-19/A-80, 3rd lane, Arundathi Nagar, Guntur.

… Plaintiff.

And

Banaganapalli Meeravali s/o. Kasim Saheb, Muslim, 42 yrs., Employee, R/o. Brahmanapalli Village,

Vinukonda Mandal & JCJC.

… Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 12-03-2026 for hearing in presence of

Sri S.S Mohammad, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A. Ajay Babu, Advocate for

Defendant and upon considering the material on record, hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of

Rs.21,90,430/- with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

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

The Plaintiff and defendant are nearest relatives. Due to the said acquaintance, the defendant borrowed amounts from the plaintiff on different occasions for his family expenses and executed promissory notes every occasion on even date at Brahmanapalli Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Painadu

District (Old Guntur District) as stated below 2

a) On 06-10-2021 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the purpose of his family expenses in evidence, he executed promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the same together with interest @24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and again on 06-10-2021 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3.24,000/- for the purpose of his family expenses in evidence he executed promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and again on 08-10-2021 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,47,000/- for the purpose of his family expenses in evidence he executed promissory note on even date in favor of the plaintiff promising to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and again on 08-10-2021 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the purpose of his family expenses in evidence he executed promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the same together with interest @24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and again on 10-10-2021 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,03,000/- for the purpose of his family expenses in evidence he executed promissory note on even date in favor of the plaintiff promising to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The defendant has executed Five (5) separate promissory notes at defendant village ie., suit 'A', 'B', C', 'D' and 'E' marked promissory notes respectively on the respective dates.

b) Due to repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has issued a cheque bearing No. 756263, dated 05-10-2024 for an amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on State Bank Of India, Vinukonda ADB Branch in favor of the plaintiff towards part payment of the debts due under the above said promissory notes and made representation that, he has sufficient funds in his 3 account to honor the cheque Believing the representation made by the defendant, the plaintiff presented the same on 07-10-2024 for collection through his banker State Bank of India, Govt. General Hospital Branch, Guntur and the same was returned dishonored for the reason "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT" and the same was intimated to the plaintiff by his banker through a memo dated 07-10-2024 by returning the said cheque. Subsequently also, the plaintiff made several demands personally and through mediators to repay the above said promissory notes debt amount, the defendant failed to discharge the debts due under the said promissory notes. The defendant though having capacity to repay the promissory note debts, did not pay any amount to the plaintiff till this date and kept quiet. Hence, the suit.

3. Other hand, Defendant filed Written Statement and denied the contents of the Plaint and further stated that the Plaintiff is a retired employee while working as a ward boy at G.G.H, Guntur. While the Plaintiff is working as a ward boy from the year 2010 the defendant is used to borrow the amounts from the

Plaintiff and also from the co employees of the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff is used to stand as a surety to the defendant) till the year 2020. The defendant is used to borrow the amounts from them and used to repay the same whenever the amounts come to his hands. The Plaintiff is used to maintain those accounts. On 06-10-2021 as per the request made by the Plaintiff, the defendant visited his

House at Arundethi Nagar, Guntur. Then on 06-10-2021 after making entire calculations from the year 2010 to 2020, the Plaintiff obtained suit Promissory notes from the defendant, as such no consideration was passed under the suit

Pronotes. The Plaintiff has no such capacity to lend such huge amounts to the defendant on one day or another. The entire suit Pronotes is obtained on one and the same day i.e. 06-10-2021, without passing any consideration from the defendant. The Plaintiff obtained empty signed cheques bearing No.756 261 to 4 756 265 drawn on State Bank of India (ADB), Vinukonda Branch from the defendant as security on the same day l.e. 06-10-2021. The defendant did not receive the consideration amount under the suit Promissory notes from the

Plaintiff As such the suit Promissory notes are not supported by consideration.

The Plaintiff has no such capacity no land such huge amounts to the defendant.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, this Court framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the Defendant ?

2. Whether Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on 06-10-2021 and executed A- marked promissory note in favour of Plaintiff ?

3. Whether Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,24,000/- from the Plaintiff on 06-10-2021 and executed B- marked promissory note in favour of Plaintiff ?

4. Whether Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,47,000/- from the Plaintiff on 08-10-2021 and executed C- marked promissory note in favour of Plaintiff ?

5. Whether Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on 08-10-2021 and executed D- marked promissory note in favour of Plaintiff ?

6. Whether Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,03,000/- from the Plaintiff on 10-10-2021 and executed E- marked promissory note in favour of Plaintiff ?

7. Whether A to E Promissory Notes are supported by Cash consideration?

8. To what relief?

5.On behalf of the Plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.w.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.6 were marked. On behalf of the Defendant, D.w.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

ISSUE Nos. 1 to 6 :-

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 06-10-2021 Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from him for his family expenses and agreed to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., either to him or his demand and executed 5

Suit A-promissory note in his favour. Again, on 06-10-2021 Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,24,000/- from him for his family expenses and agreed to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., either to him or his demand and executed Suit B-promissory note in his favour. Again on 08-10-2021 Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,47,000/- from him for his family expenses and agreed to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., either to him or his demand and executed Suit C-promissory note in his favour. Again on 08-10-2021

Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from him for his family expenses and agreed to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., either to him or his demand and executed Suit D-promissory note in his favour. Again on 10-10-2021 Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,03,000/- from him for his family expenses and agreed to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., either to him or his demand and executed Suit E-promissory note in his favour. The

Defendant has executed above five separate pronotes at the residence of

Defendant i.e., Brahmanapalli village on respective dates.

7. Later, Plaintiff several times demanded the Defendant to pay the principal along with interest covered under A to E pronotes, then Defendant has issued a cheque bearing No. 756263 Dt.05-10-2024 for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- SBI ,

Vinukonda to the plaintiff towards part payment debt of above pronotes and made representation that he has sufficient funds in his account. Then the Plaintiff has presented the said cheque in Bank, but the said cheque was dishonoured and same was intimated to the Defendant thorugh memo Dt. 7-10-2024. Then plaintiff issued legal notice to the Defendant U/s. 138 of NI Act and got registered

C.C. 262/2025 on the file of IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur.

8. To support the contention of plaintiff, he was examined as P.w.1. Ex.A.1 to A.6 were marked. Ex.A.1 Suit-A Promissory Note for Rs.3,00,000/- 6

Dt. 6-10-2021 executed by the Defendant in favour of Plaintiff. Ex.A.2 Suit-B

Promissory Note for Rs.3,24,000/- Dt. 6-10-2021 executed by the Defendant in favour of Plaintiff. Ex.A.3 Suit-C Promissory Note for Rs.2,47,000/- Dt.8-10-2021 executed by the Defendant in favour of Plaintiff. Ex.A.4 Suit-D Promissory Note for Rs.3,00,000/- Dt. 8-10-2021 executed by the Defendant in favour of Plaintiff .

Ex.A.5 Suit-E Promissory Note for Rs.1,03,000/- Dt. 10-10-2021 executed by the

Defendant in favour of Plaintiff. Ex.A.6 Office copy Complaint in C.C 262/25 on the file of IV AJCJ, Guntur.

9. As per Ex.A.1 to A.5 plaintiff contended before this court that on 6-10-21

Defendant has borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.3,24,000/- from him and executed

Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 in his favour. Again, he has borrowed Rs.2,47,000/- and

Rs.3,00,000/- from him on 08-10-2021 and executed Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 in his favour. Again, he has borrowed Rs.1,03,000/- from him on 10-10-2021 and executed Ex.A.5 in his favour. So, as per the said documents, plaintiff contended that Defendant has borrowed the amounts covered under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 in presence of attestors and scribe.

10. To support the contention of Plaintiff, P.W.2 who is scribe of Ex.A.1 to A.5 were examined. He has supported the case of plaintiff in his chief examination and he deposed that Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 were scribed by him in presence of

Plaintiff, Defendant and single attestor. In their presence Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 transactions were took place and Defendant received the amount covered under

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5.

11. During cross examination of P.w.1 he deposed that suit promissory note is the only transaction in between himself and Defendant. He has received

Rs.18,00,000/- through his retirement benefits. Defendant has asked him to arrange Rs.15,00,000/- prior to 15 days of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. On 06-10-2021 7

Defendant has informed him that his father was suffering with ill-health for which he has given Rs.6,24,000/- under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. He has given Rs.6,24,000/- tot he Defendant at his house i.e., Brahmanapalli village. Himself and two others by name Mastanvali and Alapati Suresh went to the house of Defendant and given Rs.6,24,000/- to the Defendant at his house. Again on 08-10-2021 himself,

Mastanvali, Suresh went to the house of Defendant and given Rs.5,47,000/- under Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4. On 10-10-2021 himself, Mastanvali, Suresh went to the house of Defendant and given Rs.1,03,000/- under Ex.A.5. So, as per the said fact, it is clear that plaintiff has given the amounts covered under Ex.A.1 to A.5 at the house of Defendant in the presence of attestors and Scribe.

12. Likewise in cross examination of P.w.2, he deposed that he scribed Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 in the house of Defendant at Brahmanapalli and he went to the house of Defendant for thrice. So, P.w.2 has supported the case of plaintiff and clearly deposed that he has scribed the contents of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 in presence of plaintiff, Defendant and one attestor and in their presence entire transaction took place covered under Ex.A.1 to A.5. So, P.w.2 supported the case of Plaintiff and also transaction covered under Ex.A.1 to A.5

13. Other hand Defendant denied the contention of plaintiff and stated that plaintiff is a retired employee . While the Plaintiff is working as a ward boy from the year, 2010, he used to borrow the amounts from the Plaintiff and also from the co-employees of the Plaintiff till 2020. He used to borrow the amounts from them and used to repay the same whenever the amounts come to his hands. The

Plaintiff is used to maintain those accounts. On 6-10-2021 as per the request made by the Plaintiff, he visited the house at Arundathi Nagar, Guntur. Then on 06-10-2021 after making entire calculations from the year, 2010 to 2020, the

Plaintiff obtained suit promissory notes from him, as such, no consideration was 8 passed under the suit pronotes. The Plaintiff has no such capacity to lend such huge amounts to him on one day or another. The Plaintiff also obtained empty signed cheques bearing No. 756 261 to 756 265 drawn on SBI, Vinukonda towards security.

14. To support the contention of Defendant, he was examined as D.w.1. No document was filed by the Defendant to rebut the case of plaintiff. As per the contention of the Defendant that no consideration was passed under Ex.A.1 to

A.5 and the said Ex.A.1 to A.5 was obtained by the plaintiff related to prior transaction and no consideration was passed under Ex.A.1 to A.5. Even defendant contended that plaintiff has no capacity to lend the said huge amounts to the Defendant.

15. During cross examination of D.w.1, he admitted that plaintiff worked as a

Ward Boy in Government Hospital. Plaintiff is his distant relative. He stated that there is no documentary proof to show that Plaintiff has calculated the interest from 2010 to 2020 and obtained Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5. He also admitted that he executed Ex.A.1 to A.5 promissory notes in favour of Plaintiff. Witness adds that he borrowed amounts from the Plaintiff earlier and no consideration was passed thereunder. So, as per the said facts, it is clear that Defendant himself has executed Ex.A.1 to A.5 pronotes in favour of the plaintiff. Immediately, he improved his version and added that he has borrowed the amounts from the plaintiff earlier and executed pronotes on different dates and no consideration was passed. To support the contention of Defendant, he has not examined single attestor by name Mastanvali on his behalf. If really Defendant has not received any amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 to A.5, what prevented the Defendant to examine said Mastanvali on his behalf. Non examination of Mastanvali is fatal to the case of Defendant. Moreover, Defendant himself admitted in his cross 9 examination that there is no proof that plaintiff has calculated interest from 2010 to 2020 and obtained Ex.A.1 to A.5. So, without any documentary proof it cannot be said that Ex.A.1 o A.5 was obtained in related to earlier transactions. Hence,

Defendant has failed to rebut the case of plaintiff.

16. It is also admitted fact that Plaintiff worked as a ward boy in Government

Hostel and retired from service. So, Defendant has well aware of the fact that plaintiff has received the amount after retirement, for which, he has borrowed the amount from the Plaintiff by executing Ex.A.1 to A.5. So, Plaintiff has capacity to lend the amount to the Defendant and the said amount is his retirement benefits.

Hence, Defendant has failed to rebut the case of the Plaintiff.

17. Having considered the entire evidence, Plaintiff has proved that Defendant has borrowed the amounts covered under Ex.A.1 to A.5 and executed Ex.A.1 to

A.5 in favour of Plaintiff. Hence, Ex.A.1 to A.5 are supported by cash consideration. So, the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the Defendant.

Accordingly, Issue Nos. 1 to 6 are answered in favour of Plaintiff.

Issue No.7 : -

18. It is the case of the Defendant that he has executed signed pronotes i.e., A to E pronotes in favour of plaintiff in related to earlier transaction, as such, no consideration was passed under Ex.A.1 to A.5. To support his contention, he was examined as D.w.1. D.w.1 contended that Ex.A.1 to A.5 are related to earlier transaction pronotes. Plaintiff has calculated the interest from 2010 to 2020 and obtained his singed pronotes i.e., Ex.A.1 to A.5. To support his contention,

Defendant has not examined Mastanvali who is attestor of Ex.A.1 to A.5. If really no consideration was passed the Defendant has examined said Mastanvali on his behalf. Non-examination of Mastanvali is fatal to the case of Defendant.

10

19. In fact, if plaintiff has obtained blank pronotes from the Defendant, what prevented the Defendant to file a complaint against the Plaintiff. So, non giving complaint against the plaintiff also creates suspicion surrounding to the case of

Defendant. No steps have been taken by the Defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Mere taking a plea that no consideration was passed under Ex.A.1 to

A.5 is no way useful to the case of the Defendant. It is the duty of the Defendant to establish the said fact with cogent evidence. But, Defendant has failed to prove the same and failed to rebut the case of the plaintiff. Other hand plaintiff has denied the contention of the Defendant and categorically deposed before this court, he has retired as Ward Boy and received the retirement benefits of

Rs.18,00,000/- and on request of the Defendant he has given the amounts covered under Ex.A.1 to A.5 to the Defendant at his house in the presence of attestors and Scribe, as such, Plaintiff has proved the transactions covered under

Ex.A.1 to A.5. Hence, Plaintiff has proved Ex.A.1 to A.5 and also by examining

P.w.2. So, Ex.A.1 to A.5 are supported by cash consideration. Accordingly, this issue is answered negative to the Defendant.

Issue No. 8 :-

20. In the result, suit is decreed with costs directing the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.21,90,430/- with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on

principal amount of Rs.12,74,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1st day of April,2026.

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet.

11

Appendix of Evidence

Witness Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1 : Chintalacheruvu Yogaiah.

P.W.2 : Alapati Suresh.

For Defendant: D.w.1 : Banaganapalli Meeravali.

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1 Suit-A Promissory Note for Rs.3,00,000/- Dt. 6-10-2021. Ex.A.2 Suit-B Promissory Note for Rs.3,24,000/- Dt. 6-10-2021. Ex.A.3 Suit-C Promissory Note for Rs.2,47,000/- Dt. 8-10-2021. Ex.A.4 Suit-D Promissory Note for Rs.3,00,000/- Dt. 8-10-2021. Ex.A.5 Suit-E Promissory Note for Rs.1,03,000/- Dt. 10-10-2021. Ex.A.6 O/c. Of Complaint in C/c. 262/25 on the file of IV AJCJ, Guntur.

For Defendant:- Nil.

I/d. K. Madhu Swamy

P.C.J.(S.D.),NRT.

12

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET

Present: Sri K. Madhu Swamy,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Narasaraopet.

Wednesday, this the 1st day of April, 2026

O.S No. 49 / 2024

Between:

Chintalacheruvu Yogaiah s/o. Late Meera Saheb, Muslim, Aged about 66 yrs., Retired Govt. Employee,

R/o.D.No.8-19/A-80, 3rd lane, Arundathi Nagar, Guntur.

… Plaintiff.

And

Banaganapalli Meeravali s/o. Kasim Saheb, Muslim, 42 yrs., Employee, R/o. Brahmanapalli Village,

Vinukonda Mandal & JCJC.

… Defendant.

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of Rs.21,90,430/- with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 14-10-2024.Plaint filed on: 08-11-2024.

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose on 06-10-2021, 06-10-2021,08-10-2021, 08-10-2021 and 10-10-2021 when the Defendant borrowed the amounts of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.3,24,000/-, Rs.2,47,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,03,000/- respectfully from the Plaintiff for his family expenses and executed suit- A to E marked pronots at Brahmanapalli village, Vinukonda Mandal agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., and when the Defendant issued a cheque bearing No. 756263 for Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on SBI, Vinukonda Dt. 05-10-2024 and when the said cheque was dishonour due to insufficient funds and at Brahmanapalli village, Vinukonda Mandal where all the suit pronotes executed which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

Particulars of suit valuation :- A) Prl. Amount covered under pronote Rs.3,00,000-00

Int. @24% p.a., from 6-10-21 to 5-10-24 Rs.2,18,800-00 ------------------------ Total Rs.5,15,800-00 -------------------------

On which a court fee of Rs.7,526/- is paid U/s.20 of APCF & SV Act.

13

B) Prl. Amount covered under pronote Rs.3,24,000-00

Int. @ 24% p.a., from 6-10-21 to 5-10-24 Rs.2,33,064-00 ------------------------ Total Rs.5,57,064-00 -------------------------

On which a court fee of Rs.8,026/- is paid U/s.20 of APCF & SV Act.

C) Prl. Amount covered under pronote Rs.2,47,000-00

Int. @24% p.a., from 8-10-21 to 7-10-24 Rs.1,77,675-00 ------------------------ Total Rs.4,24,675-00 -------------------------

On which a court fee of Rs.6,726/- is paid U/s.20 of APCF & SV Act.

D) Prl. Amount covered under pronote Rs.3,00,000-00

Int. @24% p.a., from 8-10-21 to 7-10-24 Rs.2,15,800-00 ------------------------ Total Rs.5,15,800-00 -------------------------

On which a court fee of Rs.7,526/- is paid U/s.20 of APCF & SV Act.

E) Prl. Amount covered under pronote Rs.1,03,000-00

Int. @24% p.a., from 10-10-21 to 9-10-24 Rs. 74,091-00 ------------------------ Total Rs.1,77,091-00 -------------------------

On which a court fee of Rs.4,226/- is paid U/s.20 of APCF & SV Act.

Total Valuation of the Suit is Rs.21,90,430/-

Total Court Fee paid is Rs.34,030/-.

This suit is coming before me on 12-03-2026 for hearing in presence of

Sri S.S Mohammad, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A. Ajay Babu, Advocate for

Defendant and upon considering the material on record, hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court Doth order and decree as follows:- 14

i) that the suit be and the same is decreed; and ii) that Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.21,90,430/-with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on principal amount of Rs.12,74,000/-; and ii) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,01,705/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs Rs.Nil (CM&FC not filed by Defendant )

Given under my hand and seal of the court on this the 1st day of April, 2026.

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

ParticularsFor Plaintiff For Rs. - Ps.Defendant Rs. - Ps. Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 Plaint fee34,030-00 Petition stamps -- Advocate fee67,413-00 (CM & FC not filed) Process Memo 60-00 Witness Batta -- Writing charges 100-00 Typing charges 100-00 Total 1,01,705-00

Sd/- K. Madhu Swamy

P.C.J. (S.D.), NRT.

15