K.Ratna Prasad

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

NARSAPUR.

PRESENT: SRI K. RATNA PRASAD, Principal Junior Civil Judge

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017

O.S. No. 40 OF 2014

Between

Sri Raja Gopala Swamyvari Devasthanam, Narsapur, Rep. by its Manager, Narsapur … Plaintiff

AND

1. Pericherla Rama Raju, S/o. Satyanarayana Raju, Aged 42 yrs., Male, Hindu, Cultivation, D.No. 14-13-7, Royapeta, Narsapur

2. Kalidindi Venkata Suryanarayana Raju, S/o. Tirupathi Raju, Aged 55 yrs., Male, Hindu, Cultivation, Narsapur, NPJCJC … Defendant

This suit is coming on 30.03.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Srinivas, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri J. Saraschandra Babu, Advocate for Defendants and upon perusing the plaint, written statement and other material papers available on record and upon hearing arguments this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Suit for recovery of Maktha.

2. Plaintiff submitted that Schedule-A property is the absolute property of plaintiff-temple, that public auction was conducted on 17.04.2009 for a period of 3 years from 2009-10 to 2011-12 for the leasehold rights of the the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, in which the 1st

Defendant participated and became the highest bidder, that the land was handedover to 1st Defendant for a maktha of 54 bags of paddy for the 1st crop payable by the end of January every year and a maktha of 54 bags of paddy for the 2nd crop payable by the end of April every year, that the 1st Defendant took possesseon of the ‘A’ Schedule property and 2 cultivating the same, that the 2nd Defendant has agreed to stand as a surety for payment of maktha to the plaintiff and agreed to give the property described in the Schedule-B and therefore, the 2nd Defendant is a proper and necessary party. It is averred that 1st Defendant got issued legal notice dt. 04.10.2010 to plaintiff claiming that the Sarva crop was totally damaged due to floods to river Godavari and requested the plaintiff to recommend granting of remission of makta for the crop. As such, plaintiff got issued reply notice dt.12.10.2010 informing that 1st

Defendant is not entitled to any remission of maktha. It is submitted that 1st Defendant also got issued rejoinder dt. 25.10.2010 asking the plaintiff to furnish copy of the terms and conditions of auction by registered post on 29.11.2010, that plaintiff furnished copy of the terms and conditions, that inspite of several demands made by plaintiff-temple officials, 1st Defendant failed to pay maktha for the 1st crop of 2010-2011 payable by the end of January 2011. Hence, the suit.

3. On receipt of notice, 1st Defendant appeared and filed his written statement. In the written statement 1st Defendant denied the averments of plaint and contended that he raised sarva crop for the year 2010 in the schedule property and the crop was totally submerged and damaged due to heavy rains lashed in September 2010, that the

Government also gave relief to the 1st Defendant and soon aftger the damage caused to standing crop, the 1st Defendant requested the plaintiff authorities to assess the damage caused to standing crop in schedule property and since the plaintiff authorities refused to visit the schedule property, he got issued legal notices dt.04.10.2010, 25.11.2010. But having received the legal notices, the plaintiff 3 authorities did not visit the schedule property and got issued reply notice with untenable allegations. It is submitted that since no paddy was received by 1st Defendant out of schedule property, he could not pay maktha to the plaintiff and that there is no willful negligence for not paying the maktha to plaintiff, that V.R.O. No.1 of Narsapur visited schedule property and assessed the damage caused due to heavy rains to the schedule property and issued certificate, that the suit is barred by time and that the lease is not valid and binding on 1st Defendant.

Submitting thus, sought for dismissal of the suit.

(ii) On receipt of summons, 2nd Defendant appeared before this

Court and filed written statement denying all the averments of plaint and contended that he never stand as surety to the 1st Defendant for the makthas to be payable by the 1st Defendant to plaintiff, that there is no guarantor and guarantee relationship between the 2nd Defendant and the plaintiff and since the 2nd defendant was a cultivating tenant previously to the plaintiff-temple properties and the title deeds are already with the plaintiff-temple and taking advantage of the old age of 2nd Defendant, plaintiff created and forged the documents as if the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor to the 1st Defendant with an intention to create guarantor and guarantee relationship. It is further submitted that the lease is neither approved by Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of

Endowments nor was informed to the tenant. Hence, the lease is not valid and binding on 2nd Defendant. Submitting thus, sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial of the suit.

4

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

2.Whether 2nd Defendant stood as surety to the 1st Defendant for payment of Maktha ?

3.Whether the suit is barred by law of Limitation ?

4.To what relief ?

5. In order to prove respective contentions of the parties, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants, 2nd Defendant is examined as D.W.2 and Ex.B1 is marked. The chief examination affidavit of D.W.1 is eschewed.

6. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record. Now the issues are answered as follows:

ISSUE No.3 :

7. The pleadings of Para No.6 of plaint states that 2nd Defendant is agreed to stand as surety for payment of maktha. Admittedly, the auction held on 17.04.2009, the 1st Defendant became highest bidder for plaint ‘A’ Schedule property for a maktha of 54 bags of paddy for the 1st crop payable by the end of January every year and a maktha of 54 bags of paddy for the 2nd crop payable by the end of April every year. The averments of para No.3 of written statement filed by the 1st Defendant states that he raised Sarva crop for the year 2010 in the schedule property and the crop was totally submerged and damaged due to heavy rains lashed in the month of September 2010. As such, it reveals that “A” Schedule property was handedover to 1st Defendant for cultivation immediately after the auction. Further, Para No.3 of the pleadings of written statement of 1st Defendant states that he paid maktha to the plaintiff for the rest of crops regularly during the tenancy period and he 5 did not fell in arrears for makthas. It is the contention of plaintiff that the 1st Defendant did not pay the maktha for the 1st crop of 2010-2011 payable by the month of January 2011 and the present suit was filed on 24.12.2013. Therefor, it cannot be said that the time is barred by limitation. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.2 :

8. Para No.6 of the plaint averments states that 2nd Defendant agreed to stand as surety for the payment of maktha to the plaintiff and agreed to give the property described in Schedule-B and hence, the 2nd

Defendant is also liable for the suit amount. 2nd Defendant pleaded in

Para No.2 of written statement that he never executed any documents in favour of plaintiff as surety and the letters said to have been executed by him in favour of plaintiff is a rank forgery and the alleged signatures thereon does not belong to him. The 2nd Defendant/K.V.Suryanarayana

Raju is examined as D.W.2. The chief examination affidavit of D.W.2 is the reiteration of averments of written statement filed by him. In the cross-examination, D.W.2 deposed that he know auction terms and conditions of Ex.A2 while he was cultivating temple property, that 1st

Defendant committed default for payment of maktha for 1st crop of 2010- 2011 payable by the end of 2011. Although the pleadings and defence of

D.W.2 states that he did not stand as surety and he never executed any documents in favour of plaintiff, during cross-examination, he categorically admitted that the signature shown to him in the written statement and in Ex.A11 belongs to him. Ex.A11 is true copy of Surety letter executed by 2nd Defendant. It is elicited through D.W.2 that 7 or 6 8 years ago he stopped cultivating temple properties as a tenant and his property documents are with the plaintiff temple. There is no explanation from D.W.2 as to why he kept quiet without issuing any legal notice demanding the plaintiff to return property documents. No man of ordinary prudent would kept quiet without asking the plaintiff temple for return of property documents even after 7 or 8 years of completion of tenancy. Although P.W.2 took plea of the forgery of his signature in

Ex.A11, he did not take any steps to send Ex.A11 to the handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signature in Ex.A11 with those of his admitted signatures. Thus, 2nd Defendant has failed to prove his pleadings. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

ISSUE No.1 :

9. P.W.1-D.Kesava Rao, who is Executive Officer of plaintiff- temple filed his chief affidavit. The contents of chief affidavit examination are reiteration of plaint averments. Through this witness,

Ex.A1 to A11 are marked. Ex.A1 is Phamplet for auctioning of property,

Ex.A2 is Tom-Tom Certificate, Ex.A3 is Terms and conditions of auction for lease of lands. The plaintiff temple relied on Ex.A4 Caution Deposit list and Ex.A5 Auction proceedings to show that it conducted auction of its land and to establish the terms and conditions of auction. Ex.A6

Proceedings of Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department,

Kakinada. Para No.5 of written statement pleadings of both 1st

Defendant and 2nd Defendant states that the alleged lease is not valid as the same is not approved by the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy

Commissioner of Endowments. But on perusal of Ex.A6, it is observed that Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada had approved the 7 leasehold rights of 1st Defendant including lease holld rights of

Defendant No.1 in O.S.No. 38/2014 and O.S.No. 41/2014. Ex.A7 is

Legal Notice dt. 04.10.2010 issued by 1st Defendant. The plaintiff has relied on Ex.A8 Office copy of Reply Notice, dt.12.10.2010 to show that it got issued notice to the 1st defendant demanding him to pay the value of one year maktha, execute and register lease deed at his expenses and that 1st Defendant is not entitled to any remission of maktha. Ex.A9 is rejoinder noitce dt.25.10.2010, Ex.A10 is Reply Notice dt.29.11.2010,

Ex.A11 is letter sent by 2nd Defendant.

10. P.W.1/Executive Officer of Temple denied suggestion that due to heavy rains in the month of September 2010, the said crop was damaged. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that by the time of visit of their temple officials, the crop was already cut by 1st Defendant. P.W.1 denied suggestion that 1st Defendant did not cut the crop, that temple officials has got knowledge about floods and heavy rains in the year 2010 and that due to that said calamity only 1st Defendant is not in a position to pay makthas to plaintiff temple. P.W.1 denied suggestion that since 1st defendant was not intimated about lease approval orders of Deputy

Commissioner, Endowments, Kakinada, the said lease is not a valid one.

The Counsel for 1st Defendant submited that either the temple records or the chief affidavit of P.W.1 does not disclose that the plaintiff demanded 1st Defendant to execute registered lease deed. But on perusal of Ex.A8 legal notice, it is observed that Para No.7 of the plaint states that the plaintiff temple demanded the 1st Defendant calling him to execute and register lease deed. Thus the contention of the 1st Defendant is not supported by any evidence.

8

11. P.W.2-B.D.Prasada Rama Rao, who worked as Executive

Officer of the plaintiff-temple previously, deposed in his chief affidavt examination that the auction was knocked down in favour of 1st

Defendant and 1st Defendant took possession of the the Plaint-A schedule property and began cultivating as tenant of the plaintiff properties and further the 2nd Defendant agreed to stand as surety for payment of maktha to plaintiff and agreed to give Plaint-B schedule property as security. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 voluntarily stated that 2nd Defendant signed as guarantor on lease deed and that the contents of Ex.B1 are false. P.W.2 denied suggestion that 2nd Defendant never stood as guarantor and did not sign in Ex.A5 auction list and that the signatures of 2nd Defendant was fabricated in auction list. P.W.2 denied suggestion that due to heavy rains and act of God, crop was damaged and as such 1st Defendant could not pay maktha in time.

P.W.1 and 2 clearly stated in their evidence about default committed by 1st Defendant in payment of rents as claimed by plaintiff temple.

12. The Counsel for 1st Defendant filed memo stating that 1st

Defendant is residing in Hyderabad and that he is not doing well and that he could not come down to Narsapur to face cross-examination. As such, he is echewing the evidence of D.W.1 to save delay.

13. The averments in Para No.3 of written statement filed by 1st

Defendant states that he raised Sarva Crop for the year 2010 in the schedule property and the crop was totally submerged and damaged due to heavy rains lashed in September 2010. Thus, the above pleadings itself speaks that 1st Defendant was in possession of the land which was handedover to him. From the stand taken by the 1st Defendant in the 9 written statement, it can be seen that it is not the case of 1st Defendant that payments made towards maktha for the rest of the crops were not deducted, that 1st Defendant did not commit default in payment of rent, yet the plaintiff filed this suit. Although it is the contention of 1st

Defendant that the crop was submerged and damaged due to heavy rains in the month of September 2010, but no evidence is adduced on his behalf with regard to said contention, except marking Ex.B1 during cross-examination of P.W.1. Ex.B1 is Certificate issued by V.R.O-1,

Narsapur Mandal which goes to show that government sanctioned compensation to the damaged crop in schedule property. The Counsel for plaintiff submitted that mere marking of Ex.B1 without proving the contents of Ex.B1 is not sufficient and that the same is not valid. He further submitted that according to Rule 25 of Ex.A5, 1st Defendant is not entitled to any remission due to the act of God or to any natural calamity.

14. In view of the stand taken by 1st Defendant in written statement, the burden is on the 1st Defendant to prove the failure of the crops due to heavy rains in September 2010 as pleaded by him. The 1st

Defendant was expected not to cut the alleged crop to establish the traces of the damage to crop. In such a case, it will give opportunity to the temple authorities to know about the correctness of the representation. In this context, the evidence of P.W.1 assumes significance, since he categorically stated in cross-examination that by the time of visit of their temple officials, the crop was cut by 1st

Defendant. P.W.1 denied suggestion that 1st Defendant did not cut the crop. The alleged damage to the crop in September 2010 can be 10 established by getting production of the revenue record. 1st Defendant has not placed any revenue record to show the damage of crop due to rain in schedule property at the relevant period. The 1st Defendant has not explained as to why he had not chosen to get summoning the revenue record to establish the alleged damage to crop. This Court finds that the neighbouring ryots of the schedule property are the best witnesses to speak about the actual state of affairs prevailing in the schedule property. None of the neighbouring ryoths were examined by 1st Defendant, as such, this Court has no hesitation to held that the 1st

Defendant miserably failed to establish the damage caused to the crop due to heavy rains. When once, the Defendant No.1 failed to establish his contention and it is established from the record that he committed default in payment of maktha, the 1st Defendant is bound to pay the makthas payable to the plaintiff-temple. None of the contentions raised by the 1st Defendant needs to be consideration since he did not adduced any evidence, as such, Issue No.1 is held in favour of plaintiff.

ISSUE No.4 :

15. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for ` 57,494/- against the defendants. Plaintiff is entitled to interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till date of realization on the principal maktha of ` 37,800/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 26 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- K. RATNA PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAPUR.

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: D. Kesava Rao, D.W.1: P. Rama Raju (Eschewed) P.W.2: B.D. Prasada Rama Rao D.W.2: K.V.Suryanarayana Raju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/04.04.2009 : Pamphlet for auctioning of property Ex.A2/11.04.2009 : Tom-Tom Certificate Ex.A3/17.04.2009 : Terms and conditions of auction for the lease of lands Ex.A4/17.04.2009 : Caution Deposit list Ex.A5/17.04.2009 : Certified copy of Auction list Ex.A6/04.05.2009 : Proceedings of Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada Ex.A7/04.10.2010 : Office copy Legal Notice issued by 1st Defendant Ex.A8/12.10.2010 : Office copy of Reply Notice Ex.A9/25.10.2010 : Rejoinder Notice Ex.A10/29.11.2010 : Reply Notice Ex.A11/-- : Letter sent by 2nd Defendant

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1/-- : Certificate issued by V.R.O-1, Narsapur.

Sd/- K. RATNA PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAPUR

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

NARSAPUR.

PRESENT: SRI K. RATNA PRASAD, Principal Junior Civil Judge

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017

O.S. No. 38 OF 2014

Between

Sri Raja Gopala Swamyvari Devasthanam, Narsapur, Rep. by its Manager, Narsapur … Plaintiff

AND

1. Sayyaparaju Siva Naga Raju, S/o. Vijaya Rama Raju, Male, Hindu, Cultivation, Rajula Palem, Narsapur, NPJCJC

2. Kalidindi Venkata Suryanarayana Raju, S/o. Tirupathi Raju, Male, Hindu, Cultivation, Narsapur, NPJCJC … Defendant

This suit is coming on 30.03.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Srinivas, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri J. Saraschandra Babu, Advocate for Defendants and upon perusing the plaint, written statement and other material papers available on record and upon hearing arguments this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Suit for recovery of Maktha.

2. Plaintiff submitted that Schedule-A property is the absolute property of plaintiff-temple, that public auction was conducted on 17.04.2009 for a period of 3 years from 2009-10 to 2011-12 for the leasehold rights of the the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, in which the 1st

Defendant participated and became the highest bidder, that the land was handedover to 1st Defendant for a maktha of 54 bags of paddy for the 1st crop payable by the end of January every year and a maktha of 54 bags of paddy for the 2nd crop payable by the end of April every year, that the 2 1st Defendant took possesseon of the ‘A’ Schedule property and cultivating the same, that the 2nd Defendant has agreed to stand as a surety for payment of maktha to the plaintiff and agreed to give the property described in the Schedule-B and therefore, the 2nd Defendant is a proper and necessary party. It is averred that 1st Defendant got issued legal notice dt. 04.10.2010 to plaintiff claiming that the Sarva crop was totally damaged due to floods to river Godavari and requested the plaintiff to recommend granting of remission of makta for the crop. As such, plaintiff got issued reply notice dt.12.10.2010 informing that 1st

Defendant is not entitled to any remission of maktha. It is submitted that 1st Defendant also got issued rejoinder dt. 25.10.2010 asking the plaintiff to furnish copy of the terms and conditions of auction by registered post on 29.11.2010, that plaintiff furnished copy of the terms and conditions, that inspite of several demands made by plaintiff-temple officials, 1st Defendant failed to pay maktha for the 1st crop of 2010-2011 payable by the end of January 2011. Hence, the suit.

3. On receipt of notice, 1st Defendant appeared and filed his written statement. In the written statement 1st Defendant denied the averments of plaint and contended that he raised sarva crop for the year 2010 in the schedule property and the crop was totally submerged and damaged due to heavy rains lashed in September 2010, that the

Government also gave relief to the 1st Defendant and soon aftger the damage caused to standing crop, the 1st Defendant requested the plaintiff authorities to assess the damage caused to standing crop in schedule property and since the plaintiff authorities refused to visit the schedule property, he got issued legal notices dt.04.10.2010, 3 25.11.2010. But having received the legal notices, the plaintiff authorities did not visit the schedule property and got issued reply notice with untenable allegations. It is submitted that since no paddy was received by 1st Defendant out of schedule property, he could not pay maktha to the plaintiff and that there is no willful negligence for not paying the maktha to plaintiff, that V.R.O. No.1 of Narsapur visited schedule property and assessed the damage caused due to heavy rains to the schedule property and issued certificate, that the suit is barred by time and that the lease is not valid and binding on 1st Defendant.

Submitting thus, sought for dismissal of the suit.

(ii) On receipt of summons, 2nd Defendant appeared before this

Court and filed written statement denying all the averments of plaint and contended that he never stand as surety to the 1st Defendant for the makthas to be payable by the 1st Defendant to plaintiff, that there is no guarantor and guarantee relationship between the 2nd Defendant and the plaintiff and since the 2nd defendant was a cultivating tenant previously to the plaintiff-temple properties and the title deeds are already with the plaintiff-temple and taking advantage of the old age of 2nd Defendant, plaintiff created and forged the documents as if the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor to the 1st Defendant with an intention to create guarantor and guarantee relationship. It is further submitted that the lease is neither approved by Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of

Endowments nor was informed to the tenant. Hence, the lease is not valid and binding on 2nd Defendant. Submitting thus, sought for dismissal of the suit.

4

4. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial of the suit.

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Maktha for 1st Crop of 2010-2011 ?

2.Whether the defendant is entitled for remission of Maktha for crop for the year 2010 ?

3.Whether there is any Guarantor and Guarantee relationship between 2nd Defendant and plaintiff?

4.Whether the suit is barred by law of Limitation ?

5.To what relief ?

5. In order to prove respective contentions of the parties, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants, 2nd Defendant is examined as D.W.2 and Ex.B1 is marked. The chief examination affidavit of D.W.1 is eschewed.

6. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record. Now the issues are answered as follows:

ISSUE No.4 :

7. Para No.6 of plaint averments states that 2nd Defendant is agreed to stand as surety for payment of maktha. Admittedly, the auction held on 17.04.2009, the 1st Defendant became highest bidder for plaint ‘A’ Schedule property for a maktha of 54 bags of paddy for the 1st crop payable by the end of January every year and a maktha of 54 bags of paddy for the 2nd crop payable by the end of April every year. The averments of para No.3 of written statement filed by the 1st Defendant states that he raised Sarva crop for the year 2010 in the schedule property and the crop was totally submerged and damaged due to heavy 5 rains lashed in the month of September 2010. As such, it reveals that “A” Schedule property was handedover to 1st Defendant for cultivation immediately after the auction. Further, Para No.3 of the pleadings of written statement of 1st Defendant states that he paid maktha to the plaintiff for the rest of crops regularly during the tenancy period and he did not fell in arrears for makthas. It is the contention of plaintiff that the 1st Defendant did not pay the maktha for the 1st crop of 2010-2011 payable by the month of January 2011 and the present suit was filed on 24.12.2013. Therefor, it cannot be said that the time is barred by limitation. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3 :

8. Para No.6 of the plaint averments states that 2nd Defendant agreed to stand as surety for the payment of maktha to the plaintiff and agreed to give the property described in Schedule-B and hence, the 2nd

Defendant is also liable for the suit amount. 2nd Defendant pleaded in

Para No.2 of written statement that he never executed any documents in favour of plaintiff as surety and the letters said to have been executed by him in favour of plaintiff is a rank forgery and the alleged signatures thereon does not belong to him. The 2nd Defendant/K.V.Suryanarayana

Raju is examined as D.W.2. The chief examination affidavit of D.W.2 is the reiteration of averments of written statement filed by him. In the cross-examination, D.W.2 deposed that he know auction terms and conditions of Ex.A2 while he was cultivating temple property, that 1st

Defendant committed default for payment of maktha for 1st crop of 2010- 2011 payable by the end of 2011. Although the pleadings and defence of

D.W.2 states that he did not stand as surety and he never executed any 6 documents in favour of plaintiff, during cross-examination, he categorically admitted that the signature shown to him in the written statement and in Ex.A7 belongs to him. Ex.A7 is true copy of Surety letter executed by 2nd Defendant. It is elicited through D.W.2 that 7 or 8 years ago he stopped cultivating temple properties as a tenant and his property documents are with the plaintiff temple. There is no explanation from D.W.2 as to why he kept quiet without issuing any legal notice demanding the plaintiff to return property documents. No man of ordinary prudent would kept quiet without asking the plaintiff temple for return of property documents even after 7 or 8 years of completion of tenancy. Although P.W.2 took plea of the forgery of his signature in

Ex.A7, he did not take any steps to send Ex.A7 to the handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signature in Ex.A7 with those of his admitted signatures. Thus, 2nd Defendant has failed to prove his pleadings. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

ISSUE Nos. 1 & 2 :

9. The Counsel for 1st Defendant filed memo stating that 1st

Defendant is residing in Hyderabad and that he is not doing well and that he could not come down to Narsaput to face cross-examination. As such, he is echewing the evidence of D.W.1 to save delay.

10. P.W.1-D.Kesava Rao, who is Executive Officer of plaintiff- temple filed his chief affidavit. The contents of chief affidavit examination are reiteration of plaint averments. Through this witness,

Ex.A1 to A7 are marked. Ex.A1 is Phamplet for auctioning of property,

Ex.A2 is certified copy of auction proceedings which goes to show that plaintiff conducted auction of its land and the terms and conditions, 7

Ex.A3 is Legal Notice dt. 04.10.2010 issued by 1st Defendant. The plaintiff has relied on Ex.A4 Office copy of Reply Notice, dt.11.10.2010 to show that it got issued notice to the 1st defendant demanding him to pay the value of one year maktha, execute and register lease deed at his expenses and that 1st Defendant is not entitled to any remission of maktha. Ex.A5 is rejoinder noitce dt. 25.10.2010, Ex.A6 is Reply notice

dt. 29.11.2010, Ex.A7 is letter sent by 2nd Defendant.

11. When P.W.1/Executive Officer of Temple is in witness box, it is suggested that due to heavy rains in the month of September 2010, the said crop was damaged, which he denied. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that by the time of visit of their temple officials, the crop was already cut by 1st Defendant. P.W.1 denied suggestion that 1st Defendant did not cut the crop, that temple officials has got knowledge about floods and heavy rains in the year 2010 and that due to that said calamity only 1st

Defendant is not in a position to pay makthas to plaintiff temple. P.W.1 denied suggestion that since 1st defendant was not intimated about lease approval orders of Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Kakinada, the said lease is not a valid one. The Counsel for 1st Defendant submited that either the temple records or the chief affidavit of P.W.1 does not disclose that the plaintiff demanded 1st Defendant to execute registered lease deed. But on perusal of Ex.A4 legal notice, it is observed that Para

No.7 of the plaint states that the plaintiff temple demanded the 1st

Defendant calling him to execute and register lease deed. Thus the contention of the 1st Defendant is not supported by any evidence.

12. P.W.2-B.D.Prasada Rama Rao, who worked as Executive

Officer of the plaintiff-temple previously, deposed in his chief affidavt 8 examination that the auction was knocked down in favour of 1st

Defendant and 1st Defendant took possession of the the Plaint-A schedule property and began cultivating as tenant of the plaintiff properties and further the 2nd Defendant agreed to stand as surety for payment of maktha to plaintiff and agreed to give Plaint-B schedule property as security. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 voluntarily stated that 2nd Defendant signed as guarantor on lease deed and that the contents of Ex.B1 are false. P.W.2 denied suggestion that 2nd Defendant never stood as guarantor and did not sign in Ex.A2 auction list and that the signatures of 2nd Defendant was fabricated in auction list. P.W.2 denied suggestion that due to heavy rains and act of God, crop was damaged and as such 1st Defendant could not pay maktha in time.

P.W.1 and 2 clearly stated in their evidence about default committed by 1st Defendant in payment of rents as claimed by plaintiff temple.

13. Para No.3 of averments of written statement filed by 1st

Defendant states that he raised Sarva Crop for the year 2010 in the schedule property and the crop was totally submerged and damaged due to heavy rains lashed in September 2010. Thus, the above pleadings itself speaks that 1st Defendant was in possession of the land which was handedover to him. From the stand taken by the 1st Defendant in the written statement, it can be seen that it is not the case of 1st Defendant that payments made towards maktha for the rest of the crops were not deducted, that 1st Defendant did not commit default in payment of rent, yet the plaintiff filed this suit. Although it is the contention of 1st

Defendant that the crop was submerged and damaged due to heavy rains in the month of September 2010, but no evidence is adduced on his 9 behalf with regard to said contention, except marking Ex.B1 during cross-examination of P.W.1. Ex.B1 is Certificate issued by V.R.O-1,

Narsapur Mandal which goes to show that government sanctioned compensation to the damaged crop in schedule property. The Counsel for plaintiff submitted that mere marking of Ex.B1 without proving the contents of Ex.B1 is not sufficient and that the same is not valid. He further submitted that according to Rule 25 of Ex.A2, 1st Defendant is not entitled to any remission due to the act of God or to any natural calamity.

14. In view of the stand taken by 1st Defendant in written statement, the burden is on the 1st Defendant to prove the failure of the crops due to heavy rains in September 2010 as pleaded by him. The 1st

Defendant was expected not to cut the alleged crop to establish the traces of the damage to crop. In such a case, it will give opportunity to the temple authorities to know about the correctness of the representation. In this context, the evidence of P.W.1 assumes significance, since he categorically stated in cross-examination that by the time of visit of their temple officials, the crop was cut by 1st

Defendant. P.W.1 denied suggestion that 1st Defendant did not cut the crop. The alleged damage to the crop in September 2010 can be established by getting production of the revenue record. 1st Defendant has not placed any revenue record to show the damage of crop due to rain in schedule property at the relevant period. The 1st Defendant has not explained as to why he had not chosen to get summoning the revenue record to establish the alleged damage to crop. This Court finds that the neighbouring ryots of the schedule property are the best 10 witnesses to speak about the actual state of affairs prevailing in the schedule property. None of the neighbouring ryoths were examined by 1st Defendant, as such, this Court has no hesitation to held that the 1st

Defendant miserably failed to establish the damage caused to the crop due to heavy rains. When once, the Defendant No.1 failed to establish his contention and it is established from the record that he committed default in payment of maktha, the 1st Defendant is bound to pay the makthas payable to the plaintiff-temple. None of the contentions raised by the 1st Defendant needs to be consideration since he did not adduced any evidence, as such, both the issues are held in favour of plaintiff.

ISSUE No.5 :

15. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for ` 57,494/- against the defendants. Plaintiff is entitled to interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till date of realization on the principal sum of ` 37,800/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 26 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- K. RATNA PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: D. Kesava Rao, D.W.1: S.V. Naga Raju (Eschewed) P.W.2: B.D. Prasada Rama Rao D.W.2: K.V.Suryanarayana Raju 11

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/17.04.2009 : Pamphlet for auctioning of property. Ex.A2/--- : Certified copy of Auction Proceedings Ex.A3/04.10.2010 : Legal Notice issued by 1st Defendant Ex.A4/11.10.2010 : Office copy of Reply Notice Ex.A5/25.10.2010 : Rejoinder Notice Ex.A6/29.11.2010 : Reply Notice Ex.A7/-- : Certified copy of Letter sent by 2nd Defendant

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1/-- : Certificate issued by V.R.O.-1, Narsapur

Sd/- Sri K. Ratna Prasad

Sd/- K. RATNA PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAPUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

NARSAPUR, W.G.DISTRICT, A.P.

Present: Sri K. RATNA PRASAD, Principal Junior Civil Judge

THURSDAY, THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017

C.C.No. 438 OF 2014

Between:

State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Narsapur Town P.S. ... Complainant

A N D

A1- Gadi Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Gopalakrishna, Aged 42 yrs., C/A.K.Kshatriya, 14th Ward, Mokavari Palem, Narsapur

A2- Gadi Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Lakshminarayana, Aged 37 yrs., C/A.K.Kshatriya, 14th Ward, Mokavari Palem, Narsapur … Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for Prosecution, and of Sri N. Joseph, Advocate for accused, and upon hearing arguments, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsapur Town P.S. has laid charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 341, 324, 209, 506 r/w 34 of IPC in Crime No. 182/2014.

2. The gravamen of charge against accused are as follows:

(i) That on 27.09.2014, L.W.1-Gadi Hema came to Police

Station and lodged report. The report states that on 17.08.2014 at about 9:00 a.m., when A1 was marking the lines for construction of house, the husband of defacto-complainant objected for the same since the property was not partitioned between A1 and the husband of the complainant.

On that a wordy quarrel took place and that A1 beat the husband of complainant and made him to fell down. When defacto-complainant tried to pacify the matter, A1 also beat defacto-complainant with coconut 2 stem on her head and waist and thereby caused bleeding injury. The report further states that A2 also abused both the persons i.e., defacto- complainant and her husband and pelted stones on them. Submitting thus, defacto-complainant lodged report with police.

(ii) On receipt of report, police registered the same as a case in

Crime No. 182/2014under Section 341, 324, 290, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and examined the witnessess, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence area, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. During course of investigation, on 08.10.2014 L.W.6-J. Satish, Sub-Inspector of Police served Section 41 of Cr.P.C. notice to accused and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet alleging that A1 and A2 are liable for the offence punishable u/Sec. 341, 324, 290, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. On perusal of the material available on record, this Court took cognizance for the offence u/Sec. 341, 324, 290, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2.

4. On appearance of accused, relevant copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., examined under

Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and on hearing both sides, charge u/Sec. 341, 324, 290, 506 r/w 34 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

5. In order to prove its case, Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4, the details of which are mentioned under appendix of evidence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination u/Sec.

313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against accused.

3

7. Heard learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and Sri N. Joseph, learned Counsel for accused.

8. Now the point for determination is –

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the offence u/Sec. 341, 324, 290, 506 r/w 34 of IPC ?

P O I N T :

9. In this case, 3 witnessess have been examined, out of whom

P.W.1 is defacto-complainant, P.W.2 is another victim and husband of

P.W.1. P.W.3 is projected as eyewitnesess to the incident. P.W.1 stated that she received injuries on her head and legs when she fell down from stairs and that accused never beat her at any point of time. She further stated that police obtained her signature on a paper and that she does not know the contents of the same. Through this witness Ex.P1 her signature was marked.

10. In the same fashion, P.W.2- G.Satyanarayana who is husband of P.W.1 deposed that P.W.1 received injuries when she fell down from stairs and that accused never beat P.W.1. P.W.3-

K.Savitramma who is projected as eye wintess deposed that she does not know anything about this case and turned hostile. P.Ws.1 to 3 were declared as hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. In thecross- examination, P.Ws.1 to 3 denied the suggestion that accused beat P.Ws.1 and 2 and caused injuries and that they were deposing falsely having compromised the matter. Since PWs.1 to 3 turned hostile, the learned

A.P.P. given up L.Ws.5- Medical Officer and L.W.6-Investigating Officer and reported closure of prosecution evidence. Prosecution filed V.R.O.

report stating that the whereabouts of L.W.3-M.Mangayamma are not 4 known to them. As there is no material evidence available on record, this

Court dispensed with the examination of accused u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C.

11. Prosecution upon whom the burden lays to make the guilt of

A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt failed in the present case to prove anything much less the guilt of accused with which they charged.

Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

12. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec. 341, 324, 290, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted u/Sec.

248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months u/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 27 th day of April, 2017 .

Sd/- K. Ratna Prasad

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: G. Hema -- NONE -- P.W.2: G. Satyanarayana P.W.3: K. Savitramma

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1/27.09.2014 : Signature of P.W.1 on Complaint -- NIL -- Ex.P2/27.09.2014 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3/27.09.2014 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4/27.09.2014 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of L.W.3

M.O’s MARKED:

-- Nil –

Sd/- K. Ratna Prasad

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAPUR

Narsapur 5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of Cases tried by PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARSAPUR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Release on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17-08-2014 27-09-2014 08-10-2014 08-10-2014 (Sec. 41 Cr.P.C.) (Station Bail) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27-04-2017 27-04-2017 27-04-2017 Due to non-production of witnesses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No. 438/2014 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police Cr.No.182/2014 of Narsapur Town P.S. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion: Calling Village ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A1: Gadi Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Gopalakrishna, Aged 42 yrs., C/A.K.Kshatriya, 14th Ward, Mokavari Palem, Narsapur A2: Gadi Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Lakshminarayana, Aged 37 yrs., C/A.K.Kshatriya, 14th Ward, Mokavari Palem, Narsapur ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence : u/Sec. 341, 324, 209, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Finding : A1 and A2 are found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec. 341, 324, 290, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted u/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months u/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- K. RATNA PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAPUR

Copy submitted to the I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru Copy to the Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE NARSAPUR

Present : Sri K. Ratna Prasad, Principal Junior Civil Judge.

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

O.S.No. 03/2017

Between:

State Bank of India, Narsapur,

Rep by its Chief Manager. ... Plaintiff

A N D

1.M/s. Sri Rama Rythu Mithra Group Convener: Tangella Kesava Rao

2.M/s. Sri Rama Rythu Mithra Group Co-Convenor: Vedala Santha Raju

3.Tangella Narasimha Rao

4.Chellam Kumar Raju

5.Tangella Peddiraju

6.Tangella Uma Maheswara Rao

7.Vempatapu Hanoku

8.Tangella Venkateswarlu

9.Veeravalli Naga Sekhar 10.Kadali Sree Rama Murthy … Defendants

Suit for grant of a decree in favour of plaintiff-Bank against the defendants 1 to 10 personally. A for the suit amount of Rs. 1,31,823-00 with costs, together with subsequent interest from the date of suit till realization.

This suit coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.V. Subrahmanyam, Advocate for plaintiff and counsel for plaintiff filed full satisfaction memo, this court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

Counsel for plaintiff filed full satisfaction memo. Full satisfaction is recorded. Hence suit is dismissed as full satisfaction is recorded. No order as to costs.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- K. RATNA PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAPUR.

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

I/d KRP P.J.C.J.