Ms.k.nikhitha

Page 1 of 14

APPR0D0006052021Presented on : 23-07-2021 Registered on : 23-07-2021 Decided on : 15-05-2026 Duration : 4 years, 9 months, 23 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), DARSI

Present: Ms. K.Nikhitha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darsi

Friday, the 15 th day of May, 2026

O.S.No. 168 of 2021

Between

Kristipati Srinivasachari, Son of Veerangabushanachari, aged about 45 years,

Land Holder, R/o Gangadevapalli village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District.

….. Plaintiff

And

01. Shaik Chinna Yarra Khasim, Son of Yarra Khasim, aged about 58 years.

02. Shaik Lal Saheb @ Khasim, Son of Chinna Yarra Khasim, aged about 37 years.

Both are cultivation by profession, R/o Gangadevpalli village, Donakonda Mandal,

Prakasam District.

….. Defendants

This suit came up before me on 29.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri

M.Ravindra Babu, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri G.Sreenivasula

Reddy, Learned Counsel for the and the Defendants, and upon hearing arguments

Page 2 of 14 of learned counsel for Plaintiff , upon considering the material available on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the Defendants for permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants, their men, representatives and assignees from in any way interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs with the following averments:-

2. THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF IN BRIEF:

2.1.The Plaintiff submits that the land measuring Ac.2.00 cents in S.No.

760/3B of Gudipadu Revenue Village, Donakonda Mandal, originally belonged to the 1st Defendant who purchased the same on 02.05.1994 under Doc.No.624/1994 and was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. While so, the 1st Defendant, having absolute ownership, subsequently sold the said land to Shaik Mallika, who is the wife of the 2nd Defendant, for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- through a registered sale deed dated 14.12.2016, bearing Doc.No.

7577/2016. Upon execution of the said sale deed, possession of the land was duly delivered to Shaik Mallika, who had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. The Plaintiff further submits that subsequently, Shaik Mallika sold the plaint schedule property, measuring Ac.2.00 cents in S.No. 760/3B, to the Plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- through a registered sale deed dated 28.08.2017, bearing Doc.No.5141/2017 and the possession of the property was delivered to the Plaintiff on the same day. Ever since the date of the purchase, the Plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in his own right. In recognition of his right, title, ownership and possession, the Government has duly

Page 3 of 14 mutated his name in the revenue records, including 1B-Register and

Adangal No.3. additionally, the Government has issued a Pattadar

Passbook in the Plaintiff's name for the plaint schedule property.

2.2.The Plaintiff submits that due to certain misunderstandings between him and the Defendants, the Defendants have been openly proclaiming in the village that they will dispossess the Plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. Further, the Defendants have been attempting to interfere and obstruct the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

The Plaintiff submits that the acts of the Defendants are unlawful, illegal and high-handed. The Plaintiff further submits that the Defendants, having the support of rowdy elements in the village, have no regard for law and order. The Plaintiff, being a lonely person with no support in the village, is unable to resist their illegal activities. Hence, the suit.

3. THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS IS AS FOLLOWS:

3.1.The 1st Defendant filed written statement adopted by the 2nd

Defendant denied all the allegations mentioned in the plaint and submitted that the allegations in the Plaintiff’s affidavit regarding the ownership and possession of the plaint schedule property are baseless. The claim that an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in S.No.760/3B of Gudipadu Revenue Village,

Donakonda Mandal, was originally owned by the 1st Defendant, who purchased the same on 02.05.1994 and later sold it to Shaik Mallika, wife of the 2nd Defendant, on 14.12.2016, is admitted. It is further admitted that the possession was delivered to Shaik Mallika on the same day and she has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property ever since. However, the Plaintiff's claim that he purchased the property from

Shaik Mallika on 28.08.2017 and has been in possession thereof, with his name mutated in the revenue records, is false, concocted and untenable and the plaint schedule property, as described the Plaintiff is non existent in reality and is a fictitious claim. The Defendants further submit that the

Plaintiff is engaged in unauthorized money lending business in Darsi and

Page 4 of 14

Donakonda Mandal, charging high interest rates. He frequently obtains mortgage deeds, sale deeds, unfilled promissory notes, and signatures/thumb impressions on stamped papers from borrowers as security for his unlawful transactions. While so, due to financial difficulties,

Shaik Mallika through the 2nd Defendant, approached the Plaintiff for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Plaintiff agreed to lend the amount but, with malafide intent, insisted that a document be registered as a sale deed in his favour instead of a mortgage deed. He further coerced Shaik Mallika into signing unfilled stamped papers and promissory notes as security for the loan. Under financial distress, Shaik Mallika had no choice but to comply with the Plaintiff's demands. She executed what she believed to be a mortgage deed, along with the other documents, under the assurance that upon repayment of the loan, the sale deed would be cancelled and the security documents would be returned. However, taking advantage of Shaik Malika's lack of education and her financial constraints, the Plaintiff deceitfully registered a sale deed instead of a mortgage deed on 28.08.2017. The document was prepared and executed at the Plaintiff's behest, without the contents being read over to her. The Defendants further submits that, the Plaintiff, at the time of lending the Rs.5,00,000/-, had agreed to cancel the sale deed upon repayment, charging a high interest rate of 24% per annum for 3 years.

However, despite the repayment of the principal amount in April 2021, the

Plaintiff refused to cancel the sale deed. Instead, he made unlawful demands for an additional Rs.10,00,000/- and threatened to misuse the unfilled stamped papers containing Shaik Mallika's signatures. The

Plaintiff has acted with fraudulent intent, seeking to unlawfully claim ownership of the property by exploiting his position as a moneylender.

When Shaik Mallika attempted to resolve the issue through mediation with the 1st Defendant and village elders, the Plaintiff responded with abusive language and further threats to forcibly occupy and alienate the property.

Page 5 of 14

It is submitted by the Defendants that there was never any actual delivery of the possession of the plaint schedule property to the Plaintiff. The claim in the sale date dated 28.08.2017 regarding the transfer of possession is false, as Shaik Mallika has always remained in possession and enjoyment of the property. Finally, the Defendants prayed the Court to prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. ISSUES:

Basing on the above pleadings, this court has settle the following issues:

I. Whether the plaintiff is in posession and enjoyment of the plaint

schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

II. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

III. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permenant injunction as prayed for? IV. To what relief ?

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked

Exs.A1 to A7. The plaintiff also examined 3rd party One M. Rama

Brahmachari as PW.2 and also examined 3rd party One B. Pedda Avulaiah as

PW.3. To prove the Defendants defence, despite granting sufficient adjournments, the defendants did not produce any evidence, none were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of Defendants and their evidence is closed on 04.12.2025.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for Plaintiff. The Defendant did not choose to submit his arguments and hence the Defendant’s arguments are treated as heard. Perused the material available on record.

7. Issues No I to III:

Whether the plaintiff is in posession and enjoyment of the plaint

schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit , Whether the suit

is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and Whether the plaintiff is

entitled for permenant injunction as prayed for?

(Since the issues arise out of the same factual background and require appreciation of common evidence, they are conveniently discussed together.)

Page 6 of 14 7.1.The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff contended that the Plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and by examining 3rd Party witnessess as

PW.2 & PW.3 and marking Exs.A1 to A7, established that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property and the

Defendants who has nothing to do with the Suit Schedule Property is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaintiff over the same. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff further contended that the Defendant did not choose to cross examine PWs.1 to 3 and adduce his evidence to prove the defence taken by him and hence an adverse inference shall be drawn against the Defendant and thereby the Plaintiff is entitled for decree of the Suit.

7.2.It is true that the Defendant did not adduce any evidence and failed to cross examine PWs.1 to 3. Non adducing of evidence by itself is not a sole ground to grant decree in favour of the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff sought for the relief of Permanent Injunction which is an equitable relief, it is for the Plaintiff to establish his own case and he cannot take the advantage that the Defendant failed to adduce the evidence and failed to cross-examine PWs.1 to 3.

7.3.With respect to the present issues, the Plaintiff needs to prove that he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of the suit and the defendants tried to interfere or disturb such peaceful possession. In this context, this court deems it appropriate to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Ors 1, wherein it was held as follows:

“13. In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the

defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession, the

plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit

he was in lawful possession of the suit property and

defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful

possession. Where the property is a building or building

1AIR 2008 SC 2033

Page 7 of 14

with appurtenant land, there may not be much difficulty in

establishing possession. The plaintiff may prove physical

or lawful possession, either of himself or by him through

his family members or agents or lessees/licensees. Even in

respect of a land without structures, as for example an

agricultural land, possession may be established with

reference to the actual use and cultivation. The question of

title is not in issue in such a suit, though it may arise

incidentally or collaterally.” 7.4.In order to establish the lawful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaintiff over the suit schedule property, the Plaintiff examined himself as

PW.1 and also examined PW.2 and PW.3 in support of his case, besides marking Exs.A1 to A7. The Plaintiff, while deposing as PW.1, filed his chief-examination affidavit reiterating the averments made in the plaint.

PW.2 and PW.3 also filed their respective chief-examination affidavits corroborating and supporting the version of PW.1. Though sufficient opportunity was afforded, the Defendant failed to cross-examine PW.1 to

PW.3. Hence, the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

7.5.PW.1 deposed that the land measuring Ac.2.00 cents in Old S.No.

760/3-New S.No. 760/3B of Gudipadu Revenue Village, Donakonda

Mandal, originally belonged to the 1st Defendant who purchased the same on 02-05-1994 under Doc.No.624/1994 (Ex.A1) and was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. While so, the 1st Defendant, having absolute ownership, subsequently sold the said land to Shaik Mallika, who is the wife of the 2nd Defendant, for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- through an Original Registered Sale Deed dated 14.12.2016, bearing Doc.No. 7577/2016 (Ex.A2). Upon execution of the said sale deed, possession of the land was duly delivered to Shaik

Mallika, who had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. PW.1 further deposed that subsequently, Shaik Mallika sold the plaint schedule property, measuring Ac.2.00 cents in S.No. 760/3B, to

Page 8 of 14

PW.1 for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- through an Original

Registered Sale Deed dated 28.08.2017, bearing Doc.No. 5141/2017 (Ex.A3) and the possession of the property was delivered to PW.1 on the same day. Ever since the date of the purchase, PW.1 has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in his own right. In recognition of his right, title, ownership and possession, the

Government has duly mutated his name in the revenue records, including 1B Extract stands in the name of PW.1 (Ex.A5) and Adangal No.3 for fasali 1430, 1431 stands in the name of PW.1 (Ex.A6 & Ex.A7).

Additionally, the Government has issued a Original Pattadar Passbook in

the PW.1's name for the plaint schedule property (Ex.A4).

7.6.On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Defendants admitted in their written statement that, an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in

S.No.760/3B of Gudipadu Revenue Village, Donakonda Mandal, was originally owned by the 1st Defendant, who purchased the same on 02.05.1994 and later sold it to Shaik Mallika, wife of the 2nd Defendant, on 14.12.2016 and the possession was delivered to Shaik Mallika on the same day and she has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property ever since. However, according to them, the Plaintiff's claim that he purchased the property from Shaik Mallika on 28-08-2017 and has been in possession thereof, with his name mutated in the revenue records, is false, concocted and untenable and the plaint schedule property, as described the Plaintiff is non existent in reality and is a fictitious claim. The Defendants further submit that the Plaintiff is engaged in unauthorized money lending business in Darsi and Donakonda

Mandals, charging high interest rates and the Plaintiff coerced Shaik

Mallika into signing a sale deed instead of a mortgage deed for a Rs.

5,00,000/- loan, with the promise that the sale deed would be canceled upon repayment. Due to her financial difficulties, Mallika complied, but the

Plaintiff fraudulently registered the sale deed on 28.08.2017. Although

Page 9 of 14

Mallika repaid the loan in April 2021, the Plaintiff refused to cancel the sale deed and demanded an additional Rs. 10,00,000/-, threatening to misuse the signed documents. The Plaintiff also made threats to forcibly take possession of the property, but Mallika has always remained in possession.

7.7.Though the Defendants made several allegations against the

Plaintiff in the written statement, they failed to cross-examine PW.1 to

PW.3 with regard to the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the

Plaintiff. Further, the Defendants did not enter into the witness box nor adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of their contentions.

Therefore, the allegations made by the Defendants remained as mere pleadings without any proof. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff remained unchallenged, unrebutted and uncontroverted and there are no grounds to disbelieve the case of the Plaintiff. With regard to the plea relating to non-joinder of necessary parties, the Defendants have taken only a vague and bald contention in the written statement that the Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. However, except taking such a plea in the written statement, the Defendants neither disclosed the particulars of such alleged necessary parties nor explained as to how the

Suit is bad in their absence. The present Suit is one for bare permanent injunction based on possession and the relief sought is only against the

Defendants who are allegedly interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the persons against whom the relief is claimed alone are necessary parties to the proceedings. Further, the Defendants did not adduce any evidence whatsoever to substantiate their plea of non-joinder. In the absence of any material showing that effective adjudication cannot be made in the absence of any other person, the contention of the Defendants that the

Page 10 of 14

Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is unsustainable and liable to be rejected.

8. From the pleadings of both parties and evidence, on the perusal of the record i.e., Ex.A3/Original Registered Sale Deed prima-facie discloses that Shaik

Mallika has sold the plaint schedule property to the Plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. A perusal of Ex.A1 to A7 on whole prima-facie established that the Plaintiff has purchased the plaint schedule property and the Plaintiff could establish prima-facie case but the Defendant has not provided any documents or evidence to prove his claim, did not step into witness box, did not rebut, did not cross examine, did not despite sufficient opportunities.

9. Since the present Suit is for injunction simplicitor, the question is whether the

Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule

Properties as on the date of filing of the Suit. The Defendants though have pleaded alternative defence that the sale deed dated 28.08.2017 (Ex.A3) was executed as a security for a loan and not an actual sale, and that Shaik

Mallika has always remained in possession and enjoyment of the property.

However, this contention of the Defendants lacks any substantive documentary support whatsoever. The Defendants have not produced any mortgage deed, any loan agreement, any promissory notes, any stamped papers, or any other document to substantiate their claim that the transaction was intended to be a loan transaction secured by a mortgage deed instead of a genuine sale. The Defendants have not examined any witness, including

Shaik Mallika herself, to depose and support their assertion. The admission made by the Defendants in their written statement regarding the sale deed

dated 14.12.2016 by which the 1st Defendant sold the property to Shaik

Mallika stands contrary to their plea that Shaik Mallika has always remained in possession and enjoyed the property. Furthermore, it is a settled principle of law that registered sale deeds are presumed to be genuine and have evidentiary value which can only be rebutted by credible and substantive

Page 11 of 14 counter-evidence. In the present case, no such counter-evidence has been placed before this Court by the Defendants. The testimony of PW.1, corroborated by the registered sale deed (Ex.A3) dated 28.08.2017 and the subsequent government mutations in the revenue records in the name of the

Plaintiff (Exs.A4, A5, A6 and A7), unequivocally establishes that the Plaintiff had taken actual physical possession of the suit schedule property and has been in exclusive, continuous and peaceful possession thereof since 28.08.2017. Therefore, the defence raised by the Defendants regarding the nature and authenticity of the transaction, as well as regarding the question of actual possession, is clearly without merit and stands completely rejected.

10.A detailed examination of the exhibits on record further substantiates

PW.1's case, Ex.A1 is the Original Registered Sale Deed dated 02.05.1994 (Doc.No.624/1994). This document is the foundation of the chain of title, establishing that the 1st Defendant purchased the plaint schedule property measuring Ac.2.00 cents in S.No.760/3B of Gudipadu Revenue

Village, Donakonda Mandal, with absolute ownership and possession rights.

Ex.A2 is the Original Registered Sale Deed dated 14.12.2016

(Doc.No.7577/2016). This document evidences the first transfer of the suit schedule property from the 1st Defendant to Shaik Mallika, wife of the 2nd

Defendant, for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. The deed clearly records the delivery of possession to Shaik Mallika on the date of execution. Ex.A3 is the

Original Registered Sale Deed dated 28.08.2017 (Doc.No.5141/2017).

This is the pivotal document in the chain of title. It evidences the sale of the suit schedule property by Shaik Mallika to the PW.1 for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. The deed explicitly states that possession of the property was delivered to PW.1 on the same date of execution. This document has not been challenged, and the Defendants have not presented any contrary documentary evidence such as a mortgage deed, a loan agreement, or any other document to support their claim that the transaction was intended to be a loan against security. Ex.A4 is the Original Pattadar

Page 12 of 14

Passbook. This is a government-issued document in the name of PW.1, which is a conclusive proof of the Government's recognition of the PW.1's ownership, right and title over the suit schedule property. The issuance of the

Pattadar Passbook in the PW.1's name is an official acknowledgment by the revenue authorities of PW.1's legal status as the owner and possessor of the property. Ex.A5 is the 1B Extract. This is an official revenue record issued by the Government standing in the name of PW.1. The 1B Register is the primary documentary evidence of land ownership and possession in the revenue records. The mutation of the PW.1's name in the 1B Register constitutes conclusive proof of the Government's recognition of PW.1's ownership and possession over the suit schedule property. Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 are the Adangal No.3 (Revenue Records) for Fasali years 1430 and 1431.

These documents are official revenue records showing the details of cultivation, occupation and possession of the suit schedule property. The fact that PW.1's name stands in the Adangal for consecutive Fasali years 1430 and 1431 proves that PW.1 has been in continuous, uninterrupted and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase (28.08.2017) till the filing of the suit.

11.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Plaintiff could establish his possession and enjoyment over the Suit

Schedule Property as on the date of filing of the Suit and the Defendants failed to disprove the case of the Plaintiff and to establish their case and hence, the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for. This Issue is answered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the

Defendants.

12. Issue No.IV:

“To what relief ?”

In view of the discussion and findings of this Court on Issue No.I to III, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the Suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be decreed with costs.

Page 13 of 14

13.IN THE RESULT, the Suit is decreed with costs against the

Defendants granting Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants and their Men from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the

Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Properties.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW.1K.Srinivasa Chari

PW.2M.Rama Brahmachari-- NONE--

PW.3B.Pedda Avulaiah

Documents marked

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A1Certified copy of registered sale deed

dated 02.05.1994, executed by the

Karnati Raghava Reddy in favour of the 1st respondent.

Ex.A2Original registered sale deed dated 14.12.2016, executed by the 1st respondent in favour of Shaik Mallika who is the wife of the 2nd respondent. -NIL- Ex.A3Original registered sale deed dated 28- 08-2017, executed by Shaik Mallika in favour of petitioner.

Ex.A4Original Pattadar Passbook issued in favour of the petitioner.

Ex.A51B extract stands in the name of the petitioner.

Page 14 of 14

Ex.A6No.3 Adangal for fasali 1430 stands in the name of the petitioner for the plaint schedule property.

Ex.A7No.3 Adangal for fasali 1431 stands in the name of the petitioner for the plaint schedule property.

CJ (JD), DRS

Page 1 of 8

APPR0D0004602022Presented on : 21-03-2022 Registered on : 21-03-2022 Decided on : 15-05-2026 Duration : 4 years, 1 months, 25 days

N THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), DARSI

Present: Ms. K.Nikhitha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darsi

Friday, the 15 th day of May, 2026

O.S.No. 88 of 2022

Between

01. Somavarapau Naresh Babu, Son of Satyanarayana, aged 32 years,

Cultivation, NTR Colony, 2nd line, Addanki village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam

District.

02. Somavarapu Hareesh Babu, Son of Satyanarayana, aged 28 years,

Cultivation, NTR Colony, 2nd line, Addanki village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam

District.

….. Plaintiffs

And

01. Samavarapu Satyanarayana, Son of Peda Venkateswarlu, aged 54 years,

Cultivation, NTR Colony, 2nd line, Addanki village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam

District.

Page 2 of 8

02. Somavarapu Subba Rao, Son of Venkata Swamy, aged 70 years, Cultivation,

East Khambampadu village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District.

03. Somavarapu Brahmaiah, Son of Venkata Swamy, aged 68 years, Cultivation,

East Khambampadu village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District.

….. Defendants

This suit came up before me on 23.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Srinivasa Sastry and Sri S.M.V.L.Narasimha Rao, Learned Counsels for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants had remained exparte, and upon hearing arguments of learned counsel for Plaintiff, upon considering the material available on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This is a Suit filed by the Plaintiffs against D1 to D3 for the following reliefs:

a) For partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of the Plaintiffs 2/3rd share by metes and bounds within the time fixed by this Court and, in default, through due process of

Court;

b) For passing preliminary and final decrees;

c) For costs of the suit; and

d) For such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. THE AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2.1)The plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.0-05 cents out of

Ac.0-11 cents in S.No.160/3 of East Khambhampadu Village, Mundlamur

Mandal, Prakasam District. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of the 1st defendant and that the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant constitute a Hindu Undivided Joint Family. An extent of Ac.0-11 cents in S.No.160/3 of East Khambhampadu Village is the ancestral and joint family property of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. Being the elder

Page 3 of 8 member of the joint family, the name of the 1st defendant was mutated in the revenue records and Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed were issued in his favour by the revenue authorities. It is further stated that the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant jointly sold an extent of Ac.0-06 cents out of the said Ac.0-11 cents to third parties and retained the remaining extent of

Ac.0-05 cents, i.e., the plaint schedule property, jointly. The plaintiffs and the 1st defendant have been in joint and constructive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and each of them is entitled to an undivided 1/3rd share therein. According to the plaintiffs, certain misunderstandings arose between them and the 1st defendant and therefore the plaintiffs felt that it was not safe and convenient for them to continue the joint status with the 1st defendant. Hence, the plaintiffs demanded the 1st defendant to effect amicable partition and separate possession of their share in the plaint schedule property. However, despite repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant failed to co-operate for amicable partition and postponed the matter on one pretext or another. It is further stated that the 1st defendant has been making attempts to create nominal and collusive documents in favour of defendants 2 and 3 in respect of the plaint schedule property with an intention to defeat the legitimate share of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 25.01.2022 to defendants 1 to 3 demanding partition and separate possession of their undivided 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule property. Though the 1st defendant received the said notice, he failed to give any reply thereto, whereas defendants 2 and 3 refused to receive the notice.

2.2)The further case of the plaintiffs is that defendants 2 and 3 are utter strangers to the plaint schedule property and they have no manner of right, title or interest over the same. It is also alleged that the 1st defendant has been openly threatening to alienate the plaint schedule property or

Page 4 of 8 execute nominal and collusive documents in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and induct them into possession with a view to defeat the legitimate share of the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for partition.

3.After registering the suit, summons were issued to the defendants 1 to 3 and defendant No.1 received summons personally on 23.08.2022.

Having received the summons, the defendant No.1 did not choose to attend the Court, he was called absent and there is no representation on his behalf and hence he was set ex-parte on 13.09.2022. Summons were issued to the defendants 2 and 3 personally on 10.04.2022. Upon received the summons, a vakalatnama was filed on his behalf on 13.04.2022. However, despite the statutory period having elapsed, the defendants 2 and 3 failed to file the written statement, they were called absent and there is no representation on their behalf and hence they were set ex-parte on 14.07.2022.

4. During the course of trial, the 1st plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1. The plaintiffs, through PW.1, got marked Ex.A1: True copy of 1B Extract standing in the name of the 1st defendant, Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 25.01.2022 issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants, Ex.A3: Postal track consignment along with receipt and Ex.A4: Returned postal covers relating to defendants 2 and 3.

5. Perused the material on record and heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point for my determination is,

I. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for Partition of the Suit

Schedule Properties as prayed for?

II. To what relief?

Page 5 of 8

POINT NO.I:

7. The burden is entirely upon the plaintiffs to establish that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral and Hindu Undivided Joint Family property of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and that they are entitled for partition and separate possession of their alleged undivided 2/3rd share therein.

8. To substantiate their case, the 1st plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. PW.1 filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating the averments made in the plaint. Though the evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged on account of the defendants being set ex-parte, it is a settled principle of law that merely because the defendants remained ex- parte, the plaintiffs are not automatically entitled for a decree. The plaintiffs must independently stand on their own legs and establish their entitlement by adducing cogent and convincing evidence.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shasidhar and others

Vs Smt.Ashwini Uma Mathod and another 1 while dealing with the concept of ancestral and joint family property as well as the rights of the members, at

Para No.24 held that:

“We may consider it apposite to state being a well settled

principle of law that in a suit filed by a co-sharer, coparcener,

co-owner or joint owner, as the case may be, for partition and

separate possession of his/her share qua others, it is

necessary for the Court to examine, in the first instance, the

nature and character of the properties in suit such as who was

the original owner of the suit properties, how and by which

source he/she acquired such properties,whether it was his/her

self-acquired property or ancestral property, or joint property

or coparcenery property in his/her hand and, if so, who

are/were the coparceners or joint owners with him/her as the

case may be. Secondly, how the devolution of his/her interest

in the property took place consequent upon his/her death on

surviving members of the family and in what proportion,

whether he/she died intestate or left behind any testamentary

succession in favour of any family member or outsider to

inherit his/her share in properties and if so, its effect. Thirdly

12015(3) ALT 7(SC)

Page 6 of 8

whether the properties in suit are capable of being partitioned

effectively and if so, in what manner? Lastly, whether all

properties are included in the suit and all co-sharers,

coparceners, co- owners or joint-owners, as the case may be,

are made parties to the suit? These issues, being material for

proper disposal of the partition suit, have to be answered by

the Court on the basis of family tree, inter se relations of

family members, evidence adduced and the principles of law

applicable to the case”.

10.When the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the above settled principles of law, it becomes clear that PW.1 failed to place sufficient material before this Court to establish that the plaint schedule property is a coparcenary or Hindu Undivided Joint Family property.

11.Ex.A1, the true copy of 1B Extract, discloses that the plaint schedule property stands in the name of the 1st defendant alone. Further, a careful perusal of

Column No.8 of Ex.A1 shows the entry "అనువం�శికము", which prima facie indicates that the 1st defendant succeeded to the property through his ancestors. However, merely because the 1st defendant inherited the property from his father, it cannot automatically be presumed that the property is a joint family property in the hands of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs utterly failed to explain as to how the plaint schedule property acquired the character of Hindu Undivided Joint Family property.

12.As per the documents of the plaintiffs, late Peda Venkateswarlu is the father of the 1st defendant and after his demise, the 1st defendant succeeded to the property and got his name mutated in the revenue records. Except making a bald assertion that the property is ancestral and joint family property, the plaintiffs did not place any documentary evidence to show existence of joint family nucleus, joint properties or continuous treatment of the property as coparcenary property. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are only the sons of the 1st defendant and they are neither the direct legal heirs nor the legal representatives of late Peda Venkateswarlu. As per the pleading of the

Page 7 of 8 plaintiffs, after the demise of late Peda Venkateswarlu, the property devolved upon the 1st defendant. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptable evidence to show that the property retained the character of ancestral coparcenary property, the plaint schedule property is deemed to be the self acquired property of the 1st defendant.

13.The plaintiffs further pleaded that they and the 1st defendant were in joint and constructive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. However, absolutely no material has been placed before this Court to explain as to how the plaintiffs acquired any present enforceable right over the plaint schedule property during the lifetime of the 1st defendant.

14.The plaintiffs also pleaded that they along with the 1st defendant jointly sold an extent of Ac.0-06 cents out of the total extent of Ac.0-11 cents. But no sale deed or any other document relating to the said alleged transaction has been filed before this Court. Had such document been produced, the recitals therein could have thrown some light upon the nature of the property and the status claimed by the plaintiffs. In the absence of such document, the said plea remains unsupported and unsubstantiated.

15.Therefore, from the pleadings, oral evidence and documentary evidence placed before this Court, it is evident that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the plaint schedule property is a Hindu Undivided Joint Family property or that they have any subsisting right to seek partition during the lifetime of the 1st defendant. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession as prayed for.

16.Accordingly, this point is answered against the plaintiffs.

Page 8 of 8

POINT NO.II:

17.In view of the findings recorded by this Court on Point No.I, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs failed to establish their entitlement for the relief of partition and separate possession as prayed for.

Consequently, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

18. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs considering the close relationship between the parties.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Darsi

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW.1S.Naresh Babu --NIL--

Documents marked

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A1True copy of 1B Extract stands in the name of the 1st defendant.

Ex.A2Office copy of the legal notice,

dt:25.01.2022 issued by the plaintiffs to

the defendants.-NIL-

Ex.A3Postal track consignment along with receipt.

Ex.A4Return covers of the defendants 2 and 3.

CJ (JD), DRS

Page 1 of 9

APPR0D0005862025Presented on : 27-06-2025 Registered on : 27-06-2025 Decided on : 15-05-2026 Duration : 0 years, 10 months, 18 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), DARSI

Present: Ms. K.Nikhitha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darsi

Friday, the 15 th day of May, 2026

O.S.No. 180 of 2025

Between

Makkena Mangamma, Wife of Venkateswarlu, D/o Ganaparthi Chinna seshaiah, aged about 49 years, Coolie, R/o D.No.6-100, Padamara Veerayapalem village, Kurichedu Mandal, Prakasam District.

….. Plaintiff

And

01. Makkena Brahmaiah, Son of Akkaiah, aged about 55 years, Cultivation.

02. Makkena Venkateswarlu, Son of Rosaiah, aged about 52 years, Cultivation.

Both are R/o Padamara Veerayapalem village, Kurichedu Mandal, Prakasam

District.

….. Defendants

This suit came up before me on 04.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Ravindra Babu, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendants had remained exparte, and upon hearing arguments of learned counsels for plaintiff, upon considering the material available on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

Page 2 of 9

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, his men, representatives and assignees from in any way interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs with the following averments:-

2. THE AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2.1.The suit schedule property is an RCC building constructed in an extent of Ac.0.01 cents covered by S.No.315 of Padamara Veerayapalem

Village, Kurichedu Mandal, Prakasam District. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule site admeasuring Ac.0.01 cents in S.No.315 of

Padamara Veerayapalem Village, Kurichedu Mandal is a Grama Kantam site. The plaintiff occupied the said site about 20 years ago and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same ever since. It is stated that, in recognition of her possession and enjoyment over the said site, the Government issued a house site patta in favour of the plaintiff on 18.08.2017 for an extent of Ac.0.01 cents in the said survey number under a housing scheme. It is also stated that the Government sanctioned a house in favour of the plaintiff under the said housing scheme during the year 2017 for construction of a pakka house in the said site.

2.2.It is further stated that the plaintiff constructed an RCC building in the plaint schedule property in the year 2017 with the financial assistance provided by the Government along with her own funds, and since then she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights. It is also the case of the plaintiff that she has been regularly paying house tax in respect of the plaint schedule property

Page 3 of 9 and that her name has been mutated in the Gram Panchayat records of

Padamara Veerayapalem Village. Thus, according to the plaintiff, except herself, no other person has any manner of right, title, interest, possession or enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant is her first husband and that the plaintiff obtained divorce from the 2nd defendant in the year 2015. Thereafter, the plaintiff lived with the 1st defendant as his second wife for about eight years and later separated from him about one year ago. It is further submitted that the defendants are bearing enmity towards the plaintiff.

According to the plaintiff, the defendants have no semblance of right, title, interest, possession or enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and have no right whatsoever to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the same. It is stated that, due to the said enmity, the defendants have been proclaiming in the village for the past seven days that they would dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property and are also attempting to interfere with and cause obstruction to her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

2.3.It is further stated that the defendants never had any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property at any point of time and that their acts are illegal, arbitrary and high-handed. The plaintiff further contends that the defendants have the support of rowdy elements in the village and have no regard for law and order. According to the plaintiff, if the defendants are permitted to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, she will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. It is also stated that the plaintiff is a lonely woman having no support in the village and is unable to resist the high-

Page 4 of 9 handed acts of the defendants without the intervention of this Hon’ble

Court. Therefore, in order to safeguard her possession, interest and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff was advised to file the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and representatives from interfering with or causing obstruction to her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3. After registering the suit, summons were issued to the defendants personally on 17.07.2025. Having received the summons, the defendants did not choose to attend the Court, they were called absent and there is no representation on their behalf and hence they were set ex-parte on 29.07.2025.

4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1. The plaintiff, as PW.1, got marked Ex.A1: House Site Patta dated 18.08.2017 issued by the Tahsilar, Kurichedu mandal in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint shedule property, Ex.A2: House Tax Reciept dated 14.03.2022 issued by the

Panchayat secretary, Padamara Veerayapalem in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint shedule property, Ex.A3: House Tax Reciept dated 20.06.2023 issued by the Panchayat secretary, Padamara Veerayapalem in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint shedule property, Ex.A4: House Tax Reciept dated 18.04.2024 issued by the Panchayat secretary, Padamara Veerayapalem in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint shedule property, Ex.A5: House Tax

Reciept dated 20.02.2025 issued by the Panchayat secretary, Padamara

Veerayapalem in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint shedule property.

5. Perused the material on record and heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

Page 5 of 9

6. Now the points for my determination are:

i. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

ii. To what relief?

POINT NO.1:

7. In support of her case, the Plaintiff has tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has been examined as PW.1, wherein she has duly reiterated the contents of the plaint. During the course of her evidence, the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A5 were exhibited. In view of the fact that the Defendants were set ex-parte, the evidence adduced by PW.1 remains un-rebutted.

8. PW.1 testified that the plaint schedule property is an RCC building constructed in an extent of Ac.0.01 cents situated in Sy.No.315 of Padamara

Veerayapalem Village, Kurichedu Mandal, Prakasam District. She deposed that the said site is a Grama Kantam site and that she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same for about 20 years. PW.1 further stated that, recognizing her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, the Government issued Ex.A1/House Site Patta dated 18.08.2017 in her favour for the plaint schedule property under a housing scheme. She further deposed that, pursuant thereto, she constructed an

RCC residential house in the suit schedule property in the year 2017 with the assistance of Government funds along with her own contribution and has been residing therein peacefully ever since. PW.1 also testified that her name was mutated in the Panchayat records and that she has been regularly paying house tax in respect of the plaint schedule property. In support of the same, she relied upon Exs.A2 to A5, being the House Tax Receipts dated 14.03.2022, 20.06.2023, 18.04.2024 and 20.02.2025 respectively, issued by

Page 6 of 9 the Panchayat Secretary, Padamara Veerayapalem. PW.1 further deposed that the defendants, having no manner of right or interest over the suit schedule property, attempted to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment, thereby necessitating the filing of the present suit seeking permanent injunction.

9. To substantiate the possession, PW.1 relied upon Ex.A1/House Site Patta issued by the Tahsildar, Kurichedu Mandal in her favour, which evidences the recognition of her possession by the Government. Further, Exs.A2 to A5, being the house tax receipts standing in the name of the plaintiff for the years 2022 to 2025, clearly corroborate and confirm the continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The oral testimony of PW.1 is consistent, cogent and duly supported by the documentary evidence placed on record.

10.As such Exs.A1 to A5 corroborates with the version of Plaintiff. In this particular case, the Defendants bitterly failed to advocate their case and no rebuttal evidence has been brought before this court to disprove the version of Plaintiff. As such, the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A5 lend credible and consistent support to the Plaintiff’s case.

11.Ex.A1/House Site Patta dated 18.08.2017 establishes the lawful possession and entitlement of PW.1 over the suit schedule property. Exs.A2 to A5, being the house tax receipts issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat authorities, further substantiate the continuous possession, occupation and actual enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The documentary evidence placed before this Court forms a clear and uninterrupted chain supporting the case of the plaintiff. There is absolutely no material available on record to discredit or disbelieve the genuineness and authenticity of

Exs.A1 to A5. Further, in the absence of any written statement or rebuttal

Page 7 of 9 evidence from the defendants, the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff remains wholly unchallenged.

12.In the absence of any rebuttal, and having regard to the unassailed nature of the evidence on record, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the case of the Plaintiff and the said documents, in conjunction with the oral evidence of PW.1, form a consistent and coherent chain of evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s claim.

13.Moreover, the Defendants did not contest the matter and remained ex- parte, due to which PW.1 was not cross examined. It is a settled principle of law that where a party abstains from entering the witness box or fails to contest the claim despite sufficient opportunity, an adverse inference may be drawn against such party. The Defendants silence and inaction, in the face of specific and supported averments, clearly attract such an inference.

Therefore, the testimony of PW.1 remain un-rebutted. Hence from the unchallenged testimony of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, this court holds that PW.1 has proved the suit claim and thus, she is entitled for the decree as prayed for.

14.Point is answered accordingly.

15. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with the costs against the defendants granting Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, representatives and assignees from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Darsi

Page 8 of 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW.1 M. Mangamma -NONE-

Documents marked

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A1 House Site Patta dated 18.08.2017 issued by the

Tahsilar, Kurichedu mandal in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint shedule property

Ex.A2 House Tax Reciept dated 14.03.2022 issued by thePanchayatsecretary,Padamara

Veerayapalem in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint shedule property

Ex.A3 House Tax Reciept dated 20.06.2023 issued by thePanchayatsecretary,Padamara-NIL-

Veerayapalem in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint shedule property

Ex.A4 House Tax Reciept dated 18.04.2024 issued by thePanchayatsecretary,Padamara

Veerayapalem in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint shedule property

Page 9 of 9

Ex.A5 House Tax Reciept dated 20.02.2025 issued by thePanchayatsecretary,Padamara

Veerayapalem in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint shedule property

CJ (JD), DRS

Page 1 of 6

APPR0D0002442021Presented on : 30-04-2021 Registered on : 14-06-2021 Decided on : 15-05-2026 Duration : 5 years, 0 months, 15 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), DARSI

Present: Ms. K.Nikhitha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darsi

Friday, the 15 th day of May, 2026

O.S.No. 101 of 2021

Between

Korrapati Anjamma, Wife of Rama Kotaiah, aged 62 years, Hindu,

Cultivation, Korrapativaripalem village, Thallur Mandal, Prakasam District.

….. Plaintiff

And

Korrapati Venkata Prasad, Son of Venkata Ramaiah, aged 49 years, Hindu,

Business, Guntur now residing at Korrapativaripalem village, Thallur

Mandal, Prakasam District.

….. Defendant

This suit came up before me on 12.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Srinivasa Sastry and Sri S.M.V.L.Narasimha Rao,

Learned Counsels for the Plaintiff and the Defendant had remained exparte, and upon hearing arguments of learned counsel for Plaintiff, upon

Page 2 of 6 considering the material available on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

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

Rs.12,85,790/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs eighty five thousand seven hundred and ninety only) with subsequent interest and costs, basing on two Promissory Notes dated 28.04.2019 and 11.06.2019 respectively with the following averments:-

2. THE AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

On 28.04.2019, the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,72,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs and seventy two thousand only ) from the plaintiff, for his business and duly got executed a suit 'A' marked promissory note on the same day at Korrapativaripalem village, in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable either to the plaintiff or his order on demand and duly affixed signature and got it attested. Again the defendant, on 11.06.2019 borrowed an amount of Rs.3,83,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and eight three thousand only) from the plaintiff, for his business and duly got executed a suit 'B' marked promissory note on the same day at

Korrapativaripalem village, in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable either to the plaintiff or his order on demand and duly affixed signature and got it attested. Subsequently, the plaintiff being in need of money demanded the defendant on several occasions to discharge the debt amount with interest due under the suit promissory notes, but the defendant went on postponing the same with a view of evasion. Hence, the Plaintiff is constrained to institute the present suit.

Page 3 of 6

3.After registering the suit, summons were issued to the Defendant by way of substituted service i.e., paper publication. Service of summons was held sufficient, the Defendant did not choose to attend the Court, he was called absent and there is no representation on his behalf and hence he was set ex-parte on 19.12.2025.

4.During the course of trial, the Plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1.

The Plaintiff, as PW.1, got marked Ex.A1: Original Suit 'A. marked promissory note Dt:28.04.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.5,72,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs and seventy two thousand only), Ex.A2: Original Suit 'B' marked promissory note Dt:28.04.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.3,83,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and eighty three thousand only).

5.Perused the material on record and heard the learned counsel for the

Plaintiff.

6.Now the points for my determination are,

i. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount

from the Defendant as prayed for?

ii. To what relief?

POINT NO.1:

7.In support of his case, the Plaintiff has tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has been examined as

PW.1, wherein he has duly reiterated the contents of the plaint. During the course of his evidence, the documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A2 were exhibited. In view of the fact that the Defendant was set ex parte, the evidence adduced by PW.1 remains un-rebutted.

8.A perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A.2 reveals that it bears the signature of the Defendant. The terms of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 make it evident that the

Defendant had borrowed the aforesaid amounts from the Plaintiff for the

Page 4 of 6 purpose of meeting business and undertook to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The documents are shown to have been scribed by one defendant himself and attested by witness i.e., One Kota Ayyaveeraiah, thereby lending it further evidentiary weight.

9.As such Ex.A1 and ExA2 corroborates with the version of Plaintiff. In this particular case, the Defendant bitterly failed to advocate his case and no rebuttal evidence has been brought before this court to disprove the promissory notes which is marked on behalf of Plaintiff as Ex.A1 and

ExA2. Therefore, this court has to presume that Ex.A1 and ExA2 are true and conveniently an adverse inference has been drawn against the

Defendant. As such, the documents marked as Ex.A1 and ExA2 lend credible and consistent support to the Plaintiff’s case. There is neither a written statement on record nor any material to challenge the execution or authenticity of Ex.A1 and ExA2, promissory notes.

10.In the absence of any rebuttal, and having regard to the unassailed nature of the evidence on record, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the case of the Plaintiff and the said documents, in conjunction with the oral evidence of PW.1, form a consistent and coherent chain of evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s claim.

11.Moreover, the Defendant, despite service of summons, chose neither to appear before the Court nor to contest the matter, and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. It is a settled principle of law that where a party abstains from entering the witness box or fails to contest the claim despite sufficient opportunity, an adverse inference may be drawn against such party. The Defendant’s silence and inaction, in the face of specific and supported averments, clearly attract such an inference. Accordingly, this court on drawn such inference, believes that the Defendant executed the said promissory notes Ex.A1 and ExA2 in favour of Plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,21,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively with interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable to the

Page 5 of 6

Plaintiff. It is accordingly held that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are genuine and establish the transaction as alleged. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

POINT NO:2

12.In view of the finding of this court in point no.1, the suit is to be decreed, as prayed for. However, this court is not inclined to grant future interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as claimed by the Plaintiff. This court is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice, if interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of the decree, and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization on the principle amount is granted.

13. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs against the Defendant for a sum of Rs.12,85,790/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs eighty five thousand seven hundred and ninety only) interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization on the principle amount of Rs.9,55,000/- (Rs.5,72,000/- + Rs.3,83,000/-).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Darsi

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW.1 K.Anjamma -NONE-

Page 6 of 6

Documents marked

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A1Original suit 'A' marked promissory note

dt:28.04.2019 executed by the defendant in

favour of the plaintiff for an amount of-NIL-

Rs.5,72,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs and seventy two thousand only).

Ex.A2Original suit 'B' marled promissory note dt:

11.06.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of

Rs.3,83,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and eight three thousand only).

CJ (JD), DRS

Page 1 of 5

APPR0D0005232023Presented on : 17-06-2023 Registered on : 17-06-2023 Decided on : 15-05-2026 Duration : 2 years, 10 months, 28 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), DARSI

Present: Ms. K.Nikhitha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darsi

Friday, the 15 th day of May, 2026

O.S.No. 150 of 2023

Between

Magam Anjaneyulu, Son of Pedda Thirupathaiah, aged about 37 years,

Hindu by religion, Sofrware Engineer, R/o Jamukula Dinne village, Darsi

Mandal, Prakasam District.

….. Plaintiff

And

Ala Koteswara Rao, Son of Bala Kotaiah,a ged about 24 years, Hindu by religion, Business by profession, R/o Jamukula Dinne village, Darsi Mandal

Prakasam District.

….. Defendant

This suit came up before me on 11.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ramanjaneyulu and Sri N.Srinu, Learned Counsels for the Plaintiff and the Defendant had remained exparte, and upon hearing arguments of learned counsel for Plaintiff, upon considering the material

Page 2 of 5 available on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

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

Rs.2,07,088/- (Rupees Two lakhs seven thousand and eighty eight only) with subsequent interest and costs, basing on Promissory Note dated 22.05.2020 with the following averments:-

2. THE AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

On 22.05.2020, the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,20,400/- (Rupees One lakh twenty thousand and four hundred only) from the

Plaintiff for his family expenses and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order whenever demanded and executed a promissory note in in favour of the plaintiff on the same day at Jamukula Dinne village, Darsi Mandal in the presence of witnesses and duly signed therein and got it attested after receiving entire consideration. Subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the debt inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff is constrained to institute the present suit.

3.After registration of the suit, summons were issued to the defendant.

Though the summons were duly served, the defendant refused to receive the same, which amounts to valid service. Despite service of summons, the defendant failed to appear before the Court and no representation was made on his behalf. Hence, he was called absent and set ex parte on 12.10.2023.

4.During the course of trial, the Plaintiff got examined himself as PW1.

The Plaintiff, as PW.1, got marked Ex.A1: Original Suit promissory note

Page 3 of 5

Dt:22.05.2020 for an amount of Rs.1,20,400/- (Rupees One lakh twenty

thousand and four hundred only).

5.Perused the material on record and heard the learned counsel for the

Plaintiff.

6.Now the points for my determination are,

i. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount

from the Defendant as prayed for?

ii. To what relief?

POINT NO.1:

7.In support of his case, the Plaintiff has tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has been examined as

PW.1, wherein he has duly reiterated the contents of the plaint. During the course of his evidence, the document marked as Ex.A1 was exhibited. In view of the fact that the Defendant was set ex parte, the evidence adduced by PW.1 remains un-rebutted.

8.A perusal of Ex.A1 reveals that it bears the signature of the

Defendant. The terms of Ex.A1 make it evident that the Defendant had borrowed the aforesaid amount from the Plaintiff for the purpose of meeting family necessities and undertook to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The documents are shown to have been scribed by defendant himself and attested by witnesses i.e., One Sriram

Nageswara Rao and another One B.Subba Rao, thereby lending it further evidentiary weight.

9.As such Ex.A1 corroborates with the version of Plaintiff. In this particular case, the Defendant bitterly failed to advocate his case and no rebuttal evidence has been brought before this court to disprove the promissory note which is marked on behalf of Plaintiff as Ex.A1.

Therefore, this court has to presume that Ex.A1 is true and conveniently an adverse inference has been drawn against the Defendant. As such, the document marked as Ex.A1 lend credible and consistent support to

Page 4 of 5 the Plaintiff’s case. There is neither a written statement on record nor any material to challenge the execution or authenticity of Ex.A1, promissory note.

10.In the absence of any rebuttal, and having regard to the unassailed nature of the evidence on record, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the case of the Plaintiff and the said documents, in conjunction with the oral evidence of PW.1, form a consistent and coherent chain of evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s claim.

11.Moreover, the Defendant, despite service of summons, chose neither to appear before the Court nor to contest the matter, and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. It is a settled principle of law that where a party abstains from entering the witness box or fails to contest the claim despite sufficient opportunity, an adverse inference may be drawn against such party. The Defendant’s silence and inaction, in the face of specific and supported averments, clearly attract such an inference. Accordingly, this court on drawn such inference, believes that the Defendant executed the said promissory note Ex.A1 in favour of

Plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,20,400/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum payable to the Plaintiff. It is accordingly held that Ex.A1 is genuine and establish the transaction as alleged. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

POINT NO:2

12.In view of the finding of this court in point no.1, the suit is to be decreed, as prayed for. However, this court is not inclined to grant future interest at the rate of 24% per annum, as claimed by the Plaintiff. This court is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice, if interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of the decree, and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the

Page 5 of 5 date of the decree till the date of realization on the principle amount is granted.

13.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs against the Defendant for a sum of Rs.2,07,088/- (Rupees Two lakhs seven thousand and eighty eight only) interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization on the `principle amount of Rs.1,20,400/- (Rupees One lakh twenty thousand and four hundred only).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Darsi

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW.1 M.Anjaneyulu-NONE-

Documents marked

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A1Original suit promissory note dt:22.05.2020 for an amount of Rs.1,20,400/- (Rupees One lakh twenty thousand and four hundred only).-NIL-

CJ (JD), DRS