Sri K.Shyam Babu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Present :- Sri K.Syam Babu,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Chittoor.

Wednesday, this the Thirteenth (13 tb ) day of April, 2022.

O.S.No.100 of 2017

Between:-

V.Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o V.Srinivasulu Reddy, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No.19-277, Red cross street, Extension, Mittoor, Chittoor Town, Chittoor District A.P.

… Plaintiff.

And:-

01.J. Bhakthavatchalu Boyadu, S/o late J.Munaswamy Boyadu, aged 65 years,

02.J.Raghu, S/o J.Bhakthavatchalu Boyadu, aged about 40 years,

03. J.Narayanaswamy, S/o J.Bhakthavatchalu Boyadu, aged about 38 years.

04.J.Munirathnam Boyadu, S/o J.Munaswamy Boyadu, aged about 55 years.

05.J.Subramanyam Boyadu, S/o J.Munaswamy Boyadu, aged about 48 years, Nos1 to 5 are Hindus, cultivation, residing at Varadarajulapalle (Munaswamy Colony, Mapakshi Post, Chittoor Mandal and District. Nos1 to 5 are Hindus, cultivation, residing at Varadarajulapalle (Munaswamy Colony, Mapakshi Post, Chittoor Mandal and District.

06.J.Murugaiah Boyadu, S/o late J.Krishnaiah Boyadu, aged about 65 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Anupalle Village, Reddigunta Post, Chittoor Mandal.

07.J.Chandraiah Boyadu, S/o late J.Krishnaiah Boyadu, aged about 55 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Gangasagaram Village, Reddigunta Post, Chittoor Mandal and District.

08.J.Guravaiah Boyadu, S/o late J.Balaji, Aged about 75 years,

09. J. Anandh, S/o J.Guravaiah Boyadu, aged about 57 years,

10.J.Bhaskara Boyadu, S/o J.Guravaiah Boyadu, aged about 50 years,

11.J.Ekambaram, S/o J.Bhaskara Boyadu, aged about 35 years,

12.J.Vasu, S/o J.Srinivasulu Boyadu, aged about 38 years,

13.J. Janardhan, S/o J.Srinivasulu Boyadu, aged about 35 years, No.s 8 to 13 are Hindus, cultivation, residing at Anupalle village, Reddigunta Post, Chittoor Mandal and District.

2

14.Smt. J.Kamalamma (died) aged about 62 years, W/o late J.Muragaiah boyadu, Hindu, House wife, (recorded as per memo

dt. 20.9.2021)

15. Smt. M.Yasoda, W/o M.Mohan Boyadu, Hindu, aged about 40 years, House wife, residing at Mapakshi Village and Post, Chittoor -2.

16.J.Lakshmipathy, S/o late J.Muragaiah Boyadu, aged about 35 years, Nos. 14 to 16 are residing at 192, Anupalle village, Reddigunta post, Chittoor Mandal and District.

(D14 to 16 are LRs of 6th defendant and added as per orders in I.A.No.877/2017 dt. 23.12.2019).

… Defendants.

This suit coming on before me for final hearing on 28-03-2022 in the presence of Sri V.Ramanarayana Reddy, learned counsel for plaintiff and Sri P.Ramesh, learned counsel for defendants and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents etc., in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2. The brief averments in the plaint are:-

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he got title over the plaint schedule property under a

Registered sale Deed dt. 13.06.2011. His vendor Yellamma got the plaint schedule property under a Registered sale deed dt. 31.12.1997 from Smt. V.Vanaja and the said Vanaja got title under a Registered sale

Deed dt. 3.6.1987 executed by J.Munaswamy Boyadu i.e., the father of the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 J.Krishnaiah Boyadu i.e., the father of 3 defendants Nos. 6 and 7, the defendant No.8 and J.Srinivasulu Boyadu i.e., the father of 12th and 13th defendants and also C.Devanatha Reddy.

The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property since the date of purchase and also got converted the agricultural land to non-agricultural land. The plaintiff also raised gingilli crop in the plaint schedule property. The defendants are insisting the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule property, but the plaintiff did not agree for the same and as such the defendants creating troubles to enjoy the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. The defendants are not having any manner of title over the plaint schedule property. Taking advantage of the political background and large following the defendants on 30.09.2015 at about 11.30 AM when the plaintiff storing the mud through tractors the defendants and their men high handedly and illegally trespassed into the plaint schedule property and caused obstructions for the work and at that time the plaintiff with the neighbouring land owners resisted the high handed acts of the defendants and on that the defendants went away proclaiming that they will not allow the plaintiff from enjoying the property. Hence the suit.

3.The 13th defendant filed written statement by denying the contentions of plaintiff. The brief averments of the written statement 13th defendant is as follows: The plaintiff is a powerful person having huge followers and political influence. At the instance of plaintiff, one

Balaji Reddy who is the VRO of Anupalli is trying to mutate and tamper the Revenue Records and on that the defendants got issued a legal notice on 01.08.2015 to the District Collector and RDO, Tahsildar of

Chittoor and VRO of Anupalli. Again on 26.10.2015 another notice was issued by stating that Revenue Record was tampered. The mutation in

Revenue Records not effected the names of plaintiff or his successors as 4 per the sub-divisions in the post abolition records. The Revenue Record in respect of the plaint schedule property and other properties stands in the name of ancestors of defendants till October, 2015. There is no link between the vendors, the documents in respect of the suit schedule property by conveying the same. Since there is no confidence upon the

Tahsildar, Chittoor defendants got issued a notice dt. 28.11.2015 to the

Prl. Secretary, State Government of A.P, Secretariat Hyderabad and on that the Revenue Department and police department bore grudge against the defendant and supporting the plaintiff to dispossess the defendants and to foist false criminal cases against the defendants.

Proceedings U/sec. 145 Cr.P.C against the defendants and the others were initiated vide MC No. 1/2016 and aggrieved by the same the defendants filed Revision vide CRP No.8/2016 before the Hon’ble I Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor and the same is pending. After filing of this suit the plaintiff also filed another suit against the defendants and others in OS No.119/2015 on the file of Hon’ble I Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

The defendants Nos. 1 to 12 adopted the written statement of defendant No.13.

04.During the pendency of the suit defendant No.6 died and his

Legal heirs are impleaded as defendants Nos. 14 to 16. Defendant

No.14 filed a written statement and defendants Nos. 15 and 16 adopted the same.

05.The brief averments of written statement of defendant No.14 is as follows:-

As per the revenue record the suit schedule survey number and survey number 162/1 and 162/6 are classified as Innam. Originally one

Vodda Balaji Boyadu was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule 5 property as Innam pattadar as per Innam Register and fair adangal. No title passed from Vodda Balaji Boyadu to any body. The defendants Nos.

14 to 16 denied the contentions of the plaintiff about title and possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The documents filed by the plaintiff are bogus and created for the purpose of knocking away the property from the defendants. The legal heirs of V.Balaji

Boyadu initiated legal proceedings against revenue department. The revenue authorities joined the hands with the plaintiff by following procedure contemplating under BSO and RoR Act and tampered the revenue records to help the plaintiff. The plaintiff invoked Section 145

Cr.P.C proceedings and also foisted criminal cases against some of the defendants with the influence of revenue department and those proceedings are ended in favour of the defendants. The document dt.

6.5.2011 in favour of the plaintiff came into light only after impleaded these defendants. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

06.The 13th defendant filed additional written statement by contending that the plaintiff filed false criminal cases against the defendants. It is also stated by the 13th defendant that the revenue authorities failed to comply the application made by the defendants under Right to Information Act and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

07.The defendants Nos. 1 to 5, 7 to 12 adopted the additional written statement of defendant No.13.

08.Subsequently the defendant No.14 died on 29.06.2021 and defendant Nos.15 and 16 are legal heirs of defendant No.14 who are already on record. After filing of the amended neat copy of the plaint

additional statement filed by the defendant No.16 and by adopting the

same memo filed by the defendant No.15 and the other defendants not filed any objections or additional written statement subsequently.

6

09. Basing on the pleadings, the documents, the following issues are settled for trial.

1.Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner of plaint schedule property?

2.Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of schedule property as on date of filing of suit?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

4.To what relief?

10. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 and got examined two more witnesses was PW.2 and PW.3. After closure of plaintiffs evidence, on behalf of defendants the 13th defendant is examined as DW.1 and one more witness examined as DW.2 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.10 documents are marked.

11.Heard arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff filed the documents of title and also proved the possession over the plaint schedule property and as such the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants failed to file any documents of title and the revenue record will not convey any title to the defendants and as such the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that in a suit for declaration of title the entire burden is on the plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendants case.

7

13. Issues No.1 to 3:

The issues Nos. 1 to 3 are inter-related and in order to avoid redundancy and to evaluate the evidence without ambiguity, it is appropriate to decide the issues Nos. 1 to 3 together. The result of one issue will have impact on the other issue and as such issues Nos.1 to 3 are decided together.

14. The case of the plaintiff is that he is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he got title over the plaint schedule property. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff he purchased plaint schedule property from one A.Yellamma under a Registered Sale Deed

dt. 13.06.2011. The version of plaintiff in his pleadings is that the flow of

title is from the Registered Sale Deed dt. 3.6.1987 to 31.12.1997 to sale deed dt. 13.6.2011. The plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and the entire chief-examination is the reiteration of his pleadings. During the evidence of PW-1 Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14 are marked. Ex.A.1 discloses that one V.Vanaja got title over the plaint schedule property under the

Registered Sale Deed dt. 3.6.1987 and subsequently she sold the property to A.Yellamma under the original of Ex.A.2 sale deed dt.

31.12.1997. PW-1 clearly stated that he got title by virtue of sale deed

dt. 13.6.2011 executed by A.Yellamma.

15.The defendants are denying the title of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property by contending that the documents filed by the plaintiff are not genuine documents and further contended that the documents if any executed for Innam Lands are not valid under Law.

16.The plaintiff claiming title over the plaint schedule property and produced documents to prove his title over the schedule property.

The Registration copy of sale deeds which are marked under Ex.A.1 to 8

Ex.A.3 clearly shows that the plaintiff acquired title over the plaint schedule property. When the defendants are denying the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and disputing the correctness of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 documents the defendants have to adduce a sufficient evidence to disprove the contents of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. The documents filed by the defendants have to be considered to know whether the defendants are raising any valid plea . The defendant No.13 is examined as DW-1 and his chief-examination reiterated the averments of the written statements. Besides the averments of pleadings the DW.1 further stated that the plaintiff failed to implead the National High Way

Authority of India because some of the land was acquired for widening the NH4 and the compensation was withheld by the concerned authorities and the same is pending for adjudication. The DW.1 further stated that the vendor of plaintiff or her vendors were not having any valid title, right and possession of the plaint schedule property and the documents filed by the plaintiff are fabricated and cooked up documents in order to grab the valuable suit schedule property.

17.The version of DW-1 is that, the Revenue Authorities recognized the possession and enjoyment of ancestors of defendants and issued Thoka Pass Book and the same was in force till implemention of RoR Act and subsequently the names of defendants are mutated in the Revenue Records.

18. The PW.2 and PW.3 are examined on behalf of the plaintiff.

The evidence of PW.2 is that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property since date of purchase and the evidence of PW.3 is also on the same lines. The evidence of PW.3 discloses that he has drafted the sale deed dt. 13.6.2011, the Registration Copy of same is marked as

Ex.A.3. During the cross-examination of PW.3 it was elicited that PW.3 is 9 working under the plaintiff and doing Accounts works since 2011.

Hence, the evidence of Pw.1 to PW.3 in coupled with the documents

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 shows that the plaintiff got title over the plaint schedule property. The onus of proof of title is proved by producing the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff. Since, the plaintiff discharged the onus of proof of title over the plaint schedule property the burden shifted to the defendants to establish they are having a valid title rather than the plaintiff. In order to substantiate the same, the defendants produced documents Ex.B.1 to

Ex.B.10. The defendants relying on Revenue Record to prove their title over the plaint schedule property. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the non-examination of defendant No.8 who is a party to the Ex.A.1 clearly shows that in order to escape from the cross- examination the defendants failed to produce the evidence of defendant

NO.8. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the defendant No.8 is bed ridden and as such the evidence of defendant

No.8 is not produced and it cannot strengthen the case of plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendants failed to adduce any evidence to disprove the contents of Ex.A.1 and hence there is no contrary evidence to prove the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property which flows from Ex.A.1.

19. While arguing the matter the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the sale deed is not a compulsorily attestable document and as such the non-examination of attestors of originals of Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.3 will not disprove the title of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that when the defendants are denying the title of the plaintiff, the entire burden is on the plaintiff to establish a clear and valid title over the plaint 10 schedule property and the plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness if any of the defendants. In the present case, the plaintiff filed Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14 and the documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 clearly shows the title of plaintiff and the title of his predecessors in title over the plaint schedule property. The evidence of DW-1 shows that Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 were issued to Vodda Balaji who is the ancestor of the defendant. The learned Counsel for the defendant submitted that Ex.B.3 clearly shows the ownership record which was issued by Deputy Tahsildar, RoR,

Chittoor in favour of Vodda Balaji and his sons and the documents

Ex.B.4, Ex.B.5 and Ex.B.10 clearly shows that the names of defendants mutated in Revenue Record since they are having a valid title over the plaint schedule property. As seen from these documents Ex.B.4 and

Ex.B.10 are relating to the year 2015. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the Revenue Record will not convey any title and the documents filed by the plaintiff including the revenue record and the Ex.A.14 is the office copy of Grounds of Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the defendants before the RDO, Chittoor for cancellation of pattadhar pass books. When the plaintiff filed Ex.A.14 it clearly shows that the plaintiff is challenging the issuance of Ex.B.10 in favour of defendants and it is pending for adjudication. Though the result of such proceedings will not play any role to adjudicate the title of plaintiff, but the Revenue Record is only an ancillary Record to support the title of parties.

20.While arguing the matter the learned Counsel for the plaintiff relied on a Judgment Reported in 1997 AIR (SC) 2181 between

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Keshav Ram and others. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the entry in Revenue

Record cannot form basis for declaration of title in the absence of other 11 documents the entry in settlement papers cannot create or extinguish title in favour of any person and as such the defendants will not have any valid title basing on the documents filed by them. In the present case the defendants are claiming title over the plaint schedule property basing on the revenue record and the documents filed by plaintiff under the Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 clearly shows the title of plaintiff. Though the case of the defendants is that Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 are created for the purpose of grabbing the valuable property, but the defendants failed to substantiate their version by any valid evidence. Mere making suggestions to the

PW-1 that Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 are cooked up documents will not prove the pleadings of defendants to disprove the contents of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3.

21.The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that part of plaint schedule property is acquired by the National High Way

Authority of India and the non impleadment of National High Way

Authority of India by the plaintiff will defeat the case of plaintiff. At this stage, it is appropriate to note that according to Order-I Rule 3 of CPC the person against whom a relief is sought is only to be added as defendants. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that when the NHAI issued notice to the plaintiff by perusing the title of plaintiff it clearly supporting the title of plaintiff and as such the non-impleadment of NHAI will not defeat the case of plaintiff.

22.The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the entire burden is on the plaintiff only and the plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness if any of the defendants. While arguing the matter the learned counsel for the defendants relied on a Judgment reported in AIR 2014

Supreme Court 937 between Union of India and others Vs.

Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and others. The ratio in this Judgment is that in the suit for Declaration of title and possession 12 could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of question whether the defendants are proved their case or not. In the present case, the plaintiff filed Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14. In support of title deeds Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 the plaintiff also filed the other supporting documents including the revenue record and it clearly establishes that the plaintiff is having a valid title over the plaint schedule property. The documents filed by the defendants are revenue record. Both the parties filed revenue records in support of their contentions and in view of these circumstances the flow of title shows from Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 and it clearly establishes the title of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. When the suit is for declaration of title the plaintiff has to establish that he has better title than the defendants. The contention of the defendant that the documents under the originals of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 are not genuine documents, is not proved by any evidence, because the defendants failed to adduce any evidence to show their title over the plaint schedule property which is more stronger than the documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3.

The learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that the documents under the originals of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 are created for the purpose of grabbing the valuable property. But the defendants failed to adduce evidence in what way the plaintiff got created the documents of the year 1987 and 1997 which are the originals of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. Hence, mere contending that the documents are created is not a valid defence to claim title over the plaint schedule property when the plaintiff is able to produce documents to show the flow of title.

23. Both parties filed revenue record in their favour respectively.

The plaintiff also filed a document under Ex.A.11 to show that some of the property was acquired by the National High Way Authority of India.

13

The learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff also filed possession certificate and it is marked as Ex.A.13 and whereas the learned counsel for defendants submitted that the pattadar pass books issued in the name of the defendants are marked as Ex.B.10. When both the parties filed Revenue Record respectively, the title deeds of plaintiff is strengthening his case and it can be considered that the possession follows the title. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendants are not having any other properties except the properties covered under Ex.A.7 as on 28.10.1985. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it is clearly mentioned in Ex.A.7 that the defendants were not having any other properties except the properties covered under Ex.A.7 and if the defendants are having title over the plaint schedule property they might have mentioned the plaint schedule property in Ex.A.7. Whereas, counsel for the defendants submitted that the plaintiff cannot claim his title on weaknesses of defendants and the plaintiff has to establish his own case. In the present case, the title deeds relating to the plaint schedule property under the originals of

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 and the other documents filed by the plaintiff supporting the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the Judgment reported in 2008

(2) ALT 304 in between Somisetti Venkataramankrishna Rao Vs.

Kandiboyina Kondaiah and another and submitted that in a suit for injunction the title is in favour of the plaintiff and the title deed recitals shows the delivery of possession of the suit property the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of “Injunction”.

24.When the plaintiff filed title deeds relating to the schedule property and the defendants failed to file any title deed relating to the plaint schedule property except the revenue record which is also under 14 challenge by the plaintiff under Ex.A.14, the defendants contention that they are having title is not valid under Law. If the defendants are able to produce any documents of title relating to the plaint schedule property then the contention of defendants can be considered as valid defence. It is also to be noted that the Ex.A.1 clearly shows that the defendants are not having title over the plaint schedule property since the defendants’ family executed the original of Ex.A.1. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that one of the executant

C.Devanatha Reddy is not relating to the family of defendants and in what way the said C.Devanatha Reddy is connected to the plaint schedule property and the defendants is not explained by the plaintiff and as such the Ex.A.1 is a created document. When the defendants failed to explain the reasons as to why the original of Ex.A-1 was executed, the defendants cannot deny the title of plaintiff which is flown from the original of Ex.A-1. If the defendants are able to explain that the original of Ex.A-1 was obtained in a manner not mentioned in Ex.A-1, then the contention of the defendants can be considered. There is no evidence from the defendants to disbelieve the averments of Ex.A-1.

Hence, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff successfully led evidence to prove his title over the plaint schedule property. Besides that the possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar and by following the presumption that the possession follows title, it is clear that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

25.The learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that the plaintiff failed to examine any of the parties to the originals of Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.3 and as such the flow of title is not proved by the cogent evidence. On perusal of the record, there is no dispute in between the plaintiff and his vendors and it is also to be considered that the 15 defendants failed to explain the reasons as to why the original of Ex.A-1 cannot be believed and relied and as such this court is of the opinion that the non-examination of the vendors of plaintiff and the parties to the documents Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 will not defeat the case of plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that sale deeds are not compulsorily attestable documents and as such the non-examination of attestors of originals of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 will not disprove the case of plaintiff. While submitting the same he relied on a Judgment reported in

2018 (3) ALT 112 in between Tagore Township, a Welfare

Association Hyderabad, rep., by its Secretary and others Vs.

Md. Khasim and others and it is applicable to the present case.

26. While arguing the matter the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff must succeed in establishing his title irrespective of the question whether the defendant had proved his case or not and relied on the Judgment reported in 1999 (3) ALT 210 in

between K.Venkatasubba Reddi Vs. Bairagi Ramaiah (died) and

his L.Rs. The facts in this case reveals that the defendants produced a title deed and the trial court opined that the said title deed does not support the case of defendants. But in the present case, the defendants failed to file any title deed relating to the plaint schedule property, hence the facts are not similar. If the plaintiff failed to produce any document of title relating to the plaint schedule property then the plaintiff might have lost his case, but he filed Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 and they are clearly establishing title over the plaint schedule property. It is also to be considered that the plaintiff filed the Ex.A.7, Registration copy of partition deed dt. 28.10.1985 among J.Munaswamy, J.Krishanaih, 8th defendant and J.Srinivasulu Boyadu with regard to the joint family properties. When the family members of the defendants got partitioned 16 their properties under the original of Ex.A.7 and wherein it is clearly mentioned that there are no other properties and the execution of original of Ex.A.1 by the family members of the defendants clearly shows the title of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Merely denying the title of plaintiff without producing any documentary proof by the defendants will not be considered as a valid defence in the suit for

Declaration of Title.

27.As per the version of plaintiff he is having title over the plaint schedule property and is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. In support of the plaintiffs case he filed Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiff also paid Land Conversion Fee and got converted the plaint schedule property into non-agricultural land under Ex.A.5. The plaintiff produced Ex.A.5 to show that the land was converted into non- agricultural land. The revenue record filed by both parties cannot be a sole basis to decide the fact whether the plaint schedule property is agricultural or non-agricultural land. Moreover, the learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the proceedings of the R.D.O, Chittoor under

Ex.A.9 clearly shows that the Appeal filed by the defendants by challenging the orders under Ex.A.7 are confirmed. Ex.A.9 shows the date as 20.11.2017 which is subsequent to the all revenue record filed by both parties. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the averments of Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.9 clearly shows that the land conversation orders passed by the Revenue Authorities are in favour of the plaintiff. Mere passing of Land Conversion Orders will not be a sole basis for deciding the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, but the documents marked on behalf of plaintiff clearly substantiating the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

17

28.The defendants assert title over the plaint schedule property and as per the contention of plaintiff there is threat of dispossession from the defendants and on that the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. When the plaintiff has clear title supported by the documents, the defendants claim of title without any apparent title mere denies the plaintiff tittle, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of plaintiff and in these circumstances, the documents filed by the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.14 are proving the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, his possession over the plaint schedule property. The entire version of defendants and the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 clearly shows that the defendants are claiming title over the plaint schedule property, but they have not filed any document of title and as such this court is of the opinion that there is a threat to the possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of

Permanent Injunction since he clearly established his title over the plaint schedule property, his possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit and threat from the defendants.

29.Under the aforesaid reasons and findings, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit and he is entitled for the declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and the consequential relief of permanent injunction. Hence, the issues Nos. 1 to 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

30. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, declaring the right and title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property with 18 consequential relief of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants, their men, agents , servants and other followers from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my Dictation by my personal Assistant, corrected and Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for :-

Plaintiff:- Defendants:-

PW.1 : V.Chandrasekhar Reddy DW1: J.Janardhan PW.2 : M.Jayarama Reddy DW2: T.Govindaswamy. PW.3 : G.Ramamohan Reddy.

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1: Registration copy of registered sale deed dt.3-6-1987 executed by C.Devanadha Reddy and others in favour of V.Vanaja with computerized copy Ex.A2: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.31-12-1997 executed by V.Vanaja and others in favour of A.Yellamma Ex.A3: Registration copy of sale deed dt.13-6-2011 executed by A.Yellamma in favour of plaintiff Ex.A4: 1-B namuna (ROR) standing in my name issued by mee seva kendram, Chittoor Ex.A5: Order of RDO in D.Dis.No.F/466/2013 with regard to land conversion proceedings Ex.A6: FMB sketch relating to suit property Ex.A7: Registration copy of partition deed dt.28-10-1985 among J.Munawamy, J.Krishnaiah, 8th defendant and J.Srinivasulu Boyadu with regard to their joint family properties with computerized copy Ex.A8: Certified copy of deposit of title deed in Union Bank of India, Chittoor branch dt.27-3-2014 Ex.A9: Served copy of order in D.Dis.G/9869/2015 by RDO, Chittoor Ex.A10: Attested copy of the ROR-I Register extract issued by the Tahsildar, Chittoor mandal standing in my name Ex.A11: Attested copy of land acquisition (Chennai-Bangalore-NH4) issued by the competent authority (LA) NH4 by the joint collector and Addl.

19

District Magistrate, Chittoor standing in my name with regard to suit schedule property Ex.A12: Encumbrance certificate with regard to suit schedule property for 01-01-1983 to 17-2-2020 standing in my name issued by the Registrar, Chittoor. Ex.A13:True copy of the possession certificate in C.No.1483/2015 in my favour issued by the Tahsildar, Chittoor mandalam dt.20-10-2015 Ex.A14: Office copy of grounds of Appeal in Roc.G/97/2016 filed by me against the defendants before the RDO, Chittoor

Defendants:-

Ex.B1 is original Form No.VIII Ryothuvari Patta issued under Andhra (Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ruyothuvari Act, 1956 issued to Vodda Balaji). Ex.B2 is original Form No.V notice issued under Andhra (Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ruyothuvari) Act, 1956 issued to Vodda Balaji. Ex.B3 is Ownership record issued by the Dy.Tahsildar ROR, Chittoor issued in favour of the Vodda Balaji and his son Munaswamy, Krishnaiah, Guravaiah and Seenaiah. Ex.B4 is the original 1-B extract obtained through Mee seva dt.25.07.2015. Ex.B5 is the original Pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the plaint schedule property. Ex.B6 is the office copy of the legal notice, dt.01.08.2015. Ex.B7 is the copy of the legal notice, dt.28.11.2015. Ex.B8 is certified copy of Cr.P.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the

Hon'ble 1st Addl. District Judge, Chittoor.

Ex.B9 is certified copy of order in Cr.P.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble IX Addl. District Judge, Chittoor, dt.20.08.2018. Ex.B10 is Mee pass book numbering three.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Present :- Sri K.Syam Babu,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Friday, the Eight (08th) day of April, 2022

O.S.No. 84 of 2017

Between

G.V. Prabhakar, S/o G.Venugopal Hindu, aged about 58 years, Retired Employee, r/at D.No.19-92, Thannappa Chetty Street, Mittoor, Chittoor Town and District. A.P. … Plaintiff.

And

Smt. Matampalli Rajyalakshmi, W/o Madhu @ Madhu Babu, Hindu, aged about 36 years, r/at 15-1886, Ashokapuram, Chittoor working as Conductor in APSRTC, Palamaner Depot, Staff No.553625, Chittoor District, A.P. …Defendant.

This suit is coming on 21-03-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Sivaiah, advocate for the plaintiff and Sri G.R.Giridharan, Advocate for the defendant; and upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 5,70,666/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt. 17-6-2015 for Rs.4,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff .

2. The brief facts of the plaintiff is as follows:-

That on 17.6.2015 the defendant for her family necessities borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at the rate 2 of 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In spite of repeated demands the defendant did not pay the amount to plaintiff on 18.11.2015. Hence the defendant issued a post dated cheque dt.

26.11.2015 bearing 219261 drawn on State Bank of India, Palamaner for Rs. 4,00,000/-. The said cheque was dishonoured and plaintiff filed

NI Act case and the same is pending before Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First

Class for Excise Court, Chittoor vide C.C. No.50/2017. On 17.10.2016 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant to her residential address and working place. On 25.10.2016 the defendant issued evasive reply to the counsel for plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

03.The brief facts of the Written Statement filed by the defendant is as follows:-

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The defendant does not admit any of the allegations contained in the plaint save those that are specifically admitted herein and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The allegations in para Nos.

3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 are denied by the defendant. Further the defendant alleged that dated 17.06.2015 the suit promissory note is rank forged one and not supported by any consideration. The revenue stamp is not affixed on the promissory note is not that of the year 2015 and the signatures of the defendants also defers for naked eye and further this defendant reserves his right to send the suit promissory note to the handwriting expert to prove the signature in the promissory note is forged and fabricated one and the stamp is not circulated by the Government in the year 2015. Further the plaintiff 3 is retired employee and no respect Law and order and further the plaintiff is a litigant and used to file by creating signatures of various persons and used to file cases against them. The defendant reserves her right to file a petition U/sec. 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the signatures of the defendant for expert opinion. That she reserves his right to file a defamation case against the plaintiff and the defendant submit that there is no bonafide on the part of the plaintiff to file the suit. Hence she prays to dismiss the suit.

04. On the basis above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial dt. 6.01.2018.

1. Whether the suit promissory note is one of the rank forgery?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim?

3. To what relief?

05.During the course of evidence on behalf of plaintiff, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 marked. On behalf of defendant DW-1 to DW-3 examined and no documents were marked.

06.Heard both sides.

07. ISSUE NO:1

On perusal of the issue No.1, the burden is casted on the defendant. Since, the defendant completely denying the execution of suit promissory note, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant borrowed amount under Ex.A-1-promissory note.

Hence, it is appropriate to decide the issues Nos. 1 and 2 together.

08. The evidence adduced by the parties, is evaluated for deciding the issues Nos. 1 and 2 together.

4

09. This suit is based on the promissory note. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on execution of Ex.A-1-promissory note on 17.06.2015 in the presence of attestors and scribe of Ex.A-1- promissory note. It is also contended by the plaintiff that in order to discharge the suit promissory note debt the defendant got issued a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- and the same was dishonoured and as such he filed a Criminal Case U/sec. 138 of N.I Act against the defendant herein and it is pending as CC No. 15/2017 on the file of Spl. JFCM for

Excise Court,Chittoor.

10.The defendant filed written statement by denying the contentions of the plaintiff with regard to borrowing of amount under

Ex.A-1-promissory note and further contended that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document and the plaintiff is Retired

Employee and a litigant used to file cases by creating signatures of various persons and the present suit is filed with false allegations and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

11.The plaintiff is examined as PW-1 and he categorically stated that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- under Ex.A- 1 in the presence of PW-2, another attestor and scribe of Ex.A-1- promissory note. The plaintiff has to discharge his initial burden regarding the execution of promissory note and then, the presumptions under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act flow in his favour.

5

12.At this stage, it is appropriate to note that according Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish the fact of execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note by defendant after receipt of consideration. In order to substantiate the same, the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3.

One of the attestor of Ex.A-1-promissory note is examined as Pw-2. The plaintiff clearly stated in his evidence that the defendant borrowed amount under Ex.A-1 and after receipt of consideration she affixed her signature on Ex.A-1. During the evidence of PW-2 he clearly stated that the Ex.A-1 transaction took place in his presence and after receipt of consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- on 17.06.2015, the defendant executed Ex.A-1-promissory note in his presence. During the cross- examination of PW-2 several questions were posed with regard to the denomination of consideration under Ex.A1, time of execution of

Ex.A.1 and the place of execution, but nothing was elicited to disprove the contention of plaintiff and to disbelieve the version of PW-2. By examining the PW-2 and marking Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 the plaintiff discharged the onus of proof of execution of Ex.A-1-promissory note by the defendant. Since, the plaintiff discharged his Onus of proof of execution of Ex.A-1-promissory note a presumption u/sec. 118 of NI Act is available to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut these presumptions by the preponderance of probabilities and the proof need not be beyond reasonable doubt.

Under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, once the execution is proved, there shall be presumptions that the suit 6 promissory note was drawn on the date appearing on it for the consideration shown therein.

13. Several questions were posed to the PW.1 and PW.2 about the passing of consideration and the execution of Ex.A-1, but nothing was elicited to disprove the version of plaintiff and to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2.

14.The defendant is examined as DW-1. Her evidence in chief- examination is the reiteration of her pleadings. It is admitted by the

DW-1 that a case in CC No. 15/2017 is pending against her which was filed by the plaintiff herein. During the cross-examination of DW-1 the certified copy of memo dt. 13.06.2017 filed in CC No. 15/2017 on the file of Spl. JFCM for Excise Court, Chittoor is marked as Ex.A.5. DW-2 is examined on behalf of the defendant and it was elicited during the cross-examination that the defendant is the daughter-in-law of DW.2 and the DW-2 was told by the defendant that the plaintiff is in habit of creating signatures of various persons and used to file false cases for wrongful gain. Hence, the entire chief-examination of DW-2 that the plaintiff is having the habit of creating signatures and filing false cases is only on the information given by the defendant. Hence, the evidence of DW-2 is an hearsay evidence and as such it is not valid under Law.

15.The evidence of DW-3 during the chief-examination is that the plaintiff is having the habit of filing false cases by creating pronotes. During the cross-examination of DW-3 he stated that he has got documentary proof with regard to the facts mentioned in his chief- 7 examination and he also stated that he has not seen the suit promissory note executed by the defendant in this suit. When the DW- 3 stated that the defendant has not executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, the fact elicited during the cross-examination of

DW-3 that he has not seen the suit promissory note shows that the

DW-3 deposing evidence only to help the defendant. When the DW-3 clearly stated that he has not seen the suit promissory note the evidence of DW-3 that the defendant has not affixed his signature on suit promissory note is not a probable evidence.

16. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant borrowed amount under Ex.A-1 and to discharge the same a cheque was issued by the defendant and the same was “Dishonoured”.

Consequently the plaintiff herein filed a criminal case in CC No.15/2017 and the defendant herein filed a memo in the said criminal case seeking six months of time for payment of cheque amount and as such the filing of memo under Ex.A.5 in the criminal case clearly shows that the plaintiff lend amount to the defendant under Ex.A-1. It is an admitted fact that, a case in CC No.15/2017 is pending for the offence

U/sec. 138 of NI Act and as such the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 in coupled with Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 supporting the version of plaintiff.

Though the filing of memo in the criminal case seeking six months of time for payment of cheque amount is not a sole ground to decree the suit, but the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 clearly proved the execution of Ex.A-1 by the defendant and passing of consideration thereunder.

8

17.The defendant failed to give any explanation about the filing of Ex.A.5 and moreover nothing was adduced by the defendant to disprove the case of plaintiff.

18.While arguing the matter the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend amount under Ex.A-1. Even during the evidence of defendant it was elicited that the plaintiff is a retired employee and as such the submission made by the learned counsel for defendant is not supported by any evidence.

19.The learned counsel for the defendant also submitted that a cheque bounce case is pending before the Criminal Court and the plaintiff herein has not examined any of the bank officials as a witness in this proceedings and a such the version of plaintiff is not proved. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the examination of bank officials is not essential to prove the case of plaintiff. The non- examination of Bank Officials will not disprove the case of plaintiff because the burden of proof in civil cases will be discharged only on the preponderance of probabilities.

20.The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff has no right to file the suit without prior approval from his higher officials. As seen from the facts elicited to the evidence of Dws.

1 to 3, it was elicited that the plaintiff is a retired employee. Even if it is considered that, the plaintiff lend amount during his employment, the non-informing of lending amount to the defendant is not a ground to disbelieve the version of plaintiff and if there is any irregularity in the 9 service rules of plaintiff that action should be initiated only by the higher authorities of the plaintiff. The point to be considered in the present proceedings is whether the plaintiff lend amount under Ex.A-1 or not and the same is proved by examining Pws. 1 and 2 and by marking Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5. If the plaintiff did any illegal activity it is not the question to be decided in this proceedings.

21.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant failed to give any explanation with regard to filing of memo under the original of Ex.A.5 before the Criminal Court and it clearly supporting the version of plaintiff.

22.Under the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff successfully proved his case of lending amount under

Ex.A.1-promissory note and the defendant failed to disprove the same.

Hence, the issues Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

23.Issue No.3: To what relief?”

In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.5,70,666/- with subsequent interest at 12% from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the realization on the

principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/- only.

Directly typed to my dictation to the Additional Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 08 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

10

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW-1: G.V. Prabhakar DW1: Matampalli Rajyalakshmi.

PW2: Firoz AhamadDW2: M. Ravi Kumar,

DW3 J. Muralidhar,

Exhibits marked

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1/17.6.2015: Promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2/17.10.2016 : Office copy of legal notice got issued by plaintiff to the defendant with postal receipt.

Ex.A3/25.10.2016 : Reply Notice.

Ex.A4 : Signature in IA No.618/2018.

Ex.A5/13.6.2017 : Certified copy of Memo in C.C. No. 15/2017.

For Defendants:

NIL.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

A S C J ,

Chittoor.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present :- Sri K.Syam Babu,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor,

Wednesday, this the 13 th ( Thirteenth) day of April, 2022

H.M.O.P. No.205 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

S.G.Sunil Kumar, S/o late S. Gangaraju, aged about 45 years, Hindu,un-employee, r/at No.18-4-120, Railway Colony, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

..Petitioner

AND:

Smt S. Hemalatha, W/o S.G.Sunil Kumar, aged about 38 years, Hindu, House wife r/at D.No. 14-490, New Kayinikattu street, CHIttoor Corporation, Chittoor District.

..Respondent

This petition coming on 28.03.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri T.Purushotham, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondent is Remained exparte, on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 13-(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent held on 17.11.2002 by granting a decree of divorce.

2.The case of the petitioner in brief is that:-

The petitioner submit that the petitioner is the husband of respondent their marriage was took place on 17.11.2002 as per Hindu rites and custom at Padmavathi Kalyana Mandapam, Block No.3 Tirupathi,

Chittoor District. The said marriage was an arranged marriage, and due to 2 the said wedlock one male child was born by name Yugesh Royal who is now aged about 16 years. Further the petitioner submit that at the date of marriage the petitioner was running water plaint, subsequently due to severe loss the water plant was closed. It is submit that after the marriage the petitioner and the respondent lived together happily for a period of one month later on there arose some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the respondent as the respondent is totally under the control of her parents and her parents used to visit Tirupathi offenly and insisted the respondent to put up separate family upon that with a hope that the respondent may change her attitudes the petitioner lead the un pleasant married life with the respondent. The petitioner submit that while she was carrying by pickup quarrel she came down to Chittoor and she gave birth on 4.12.2004 to his son Yugesh Royal at Chittoor Government Hospital. It is further submit that during April 2005 with the advice of both relatives the respondent joined with the petitioner and put up separate family at Tirupati till 2019. The petitioner submit that only at the will and pressure of the respondent he has put up separate family leaving his old aged parents even then the respondent not satisfied and used to pick up quarrel with flimsy reasons by creating ugly scene in and around of the locality for all the cruel acts and harassments made by the respondent the petitioner has tolerated only with a hope that the respondent may change her attitudes. Further, she was staying at Tirupati in between 2005 and 2009 she used to stay at

Tirupati for some time and she used to joined with her parents and to stay at

Chittoor more time stating that she is not welling to stay at Tirupati. It is further submit that as the petitioner is working at private firm at Guntur he requested the respondent to come and joined at Guntur and with great pressure and request the respondent joined at Guntur in the month July, 2018 and stayed at a period of one month during that tenure the petitioner found the respondents behavior is not good and she used to talk always with some un-known persons through Telephone as well as Video calls, upon that 3 when the petitioner questioned the attitudes of the respondent she bluntly gave irresponsible answers, upon that upon the call of the petitioner the respondent called the brother and mother of the respondent and sent her along with them as such since July, 2018 the respondent is away from the company of the petitioner by staying at Chittoor. The petitioner further submits that the son of the petitioner was staying at Nalanda High School at

Tirupati staying at Hostel and he was brought by the respondent while she is coming to Chittoor From Guntur with out consent and knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner submit that while she was staying at Tirupati she did not care the welfare of the old aged parents of the petitioner and she used to abuse them with filthy language with out no reasons for all those thing the petitioner has tolerated with a hope in future the respondent may change her attitudes. During 2004 September when he came to the house of the respondent the respondent father and her younger brother made an attempt to kill him by putting him in to a OMNI Van on the pretext to go to

Kanipakam while they are going to Kanipakam in the Omini Van the respondents father and brother made an attempt to kill him with a towel by closing his neck and mouth by raising crises the father and the brother of the respondent escaped by leaving the petitioner in the road itself, upon that the petitioner also informed to the elders and held a panchayat then all of them accepted their guilty in the presence of village elders Rs.5000/- penalty was imposed to the father and brother of the respondent. The petitioner submits that as the parents of the petitioner executed a gift deed in favour of the sister of the petitioner by name S.Aruna in respect of their property anticipating that the remaining property was also may gifted to his daughter and on the pretext if the petitioner will kill by the respondents relatives at least the remaining property can get by the respondent and her son with the above all attitudes of the respondent the petitioner was put in to mental agony torture and cruelty and there is no safety to the life of the petitioner in the hands of the respondent. The petitioner submits that the 4 respondent also filed DVC No.9 of 2020 with all false allegations against the petitioner and his parents which is pending on the file of III A.D.M. Chittoor under pending trial and they were also put into Judicial remand for a period of 5 days, subsequently they were released on bail, it is further submit that due to un lawful acts of the respondent and with mental agony the father of the petitioner A. Ganaraju was died on May, 2021 as such due to the unlawful acts while she was staying with the petitioner as well as even away from the company of the petitioner is put in to mental torture, agony and cruelty further with out any reasonable cause the respondent is away from the company of the petitioner since July, 2018, as such the petitioner obolized to file the present petitioner for dissolution of marriage which took place between the petitioner and the respondent on 17.11.2002. Hence, the petition.

3.When the matter is coming up for filing of counter. Respondent reported that she has no counter and she filed chief-affidavit and stated that to dissolve the marriage which took place between her and petitioner on 17.11.2002.

4.During the enquiry, the petitioner got examined as PW1 and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked. Petitioner stated that no further evidence on behalf of him. On behalf of the respondent RW-1 examined. Heard.

5. Heard and perused the records.

6. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the petitioner is entitled for the petition relief”?

6 (a). Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act reads as

followed:-

Sec.13 Divorce:- (1) Any marriage solemnized whether before

or after the commencement of Act, on a petition presented by

5

either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce

on the ground that the other party.

(i) ..................

(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous

period of not less than two years immediately preceding the

presentation of the petition.

7.The case of the petitioner is that on 17.11.2002 as per Hindu rites and custom at Padmavathi Kalyana Mandapam, Block No.3 Tirupathi,

Chittoor District. Due to the wedlock one male child was born by name

Yugesh Royal who is aged about 16 years. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent lived together happily for a period of one month.

Thereafter, there arose some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the respondent. During April, 2005 on the advice of both relatives, the respondent joined with the petitioner and put up separate family at

Tirupathi till 2019 and since July, 2018 the respondent is away from the company of the petitioner by staying at Chittoor. The respondent also filed

DVC No.9/2020 with all false allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner is examined as PW1 and on behalf of respondent RW-1 examined.

Hence the evidence of PW1 and RW-1 is substantiated their contention.

Hence the evidence of PW1 proved the case of the petitioner by marking

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and he is entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty.

8.Hence, for the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion.

6

9. In the result, this petition is allowed without costs and the marriage of the petitioner and respondent held on 17.11.2002 as per Hindu rites and custom at Padmavathi Kalyana Mandapam, Block No.3 Tirupathi,

Chittoor District is hereby dissolved by granting a decree of divorce from the date of this order.

Directly typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT:

PW1: S.G.Sunil Kumar.RW-1: S.Hema Latha.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PETITIONER: Ex.A.1 : Marriage Wedding Card of the petitioner and respondent. Ex.A.2 : Marriage photographs ( number in two). Ex.A.3 : Served copy in DVC No.9/2020 on the file of III Addl. JMFC, Chittoor.

RESPONDENT: -Nil-

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

FAIR ORDER

HMOP 205 OF 2021

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Present :- Sri K.Syam Babu,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Monday , the 11 th (Eleventh) day of April, 2022

O.S.No. 142 OF 2017

Between:-

D.Purushotham Naidu, S/o D.Chinnaswamy Naidu, Hindu, Cultivation cum Business, aged about 45 years, resident of Oddepalle Village, Puthalapattu Post and Mandal,Chittoor District. …Plaintiff. And:-

L.Kiran Kumar, S/o L.Krishnama Naidu, Hindu,Cultivation cum business, aged about 44 years, resident of Kammaguttapalle Village and Post, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 15-03-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Lokanadha Naidu, the learned counsel for the plaintif and Sri C.Harikrishna, the learned counsel for the defendant, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by the plaintif for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 9,52,000/- along with subsequent interest and costs being the amount due under the suit promissory note dt.15-03-2014 issued for

Rs. 7,00,000/-.

2

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:-

The defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on 15.03.2014 from the plaintif for his legal necessities and for his business purpose and in consideration of the same, the defendant has executed a suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif on the same day agreeing to repay the same on the demand along with 24% per annum. Inspite of several repeated and oral demands, the defendant has issued a cheque bearing No. 170137 on 25.09.2015 for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- drawn from

Punjab Natiional Bank, Tirupathi towards the legally enforceable debt due under the said promissory note to the plaintif on the same day. Finally the plaintif got issued a statutory legal notice to the defendant and filed complaint U/sec. 138 of NI Act on the file of IV Addl. JFCM, Chittoor and it was numbered as STC No.12/2016. Inspite of repeated demands of plaintif the defendant did not paid any amount. Further the defendant is a businessman apart from agriculture and though he is not entitled to the benefits of Act 4 of 1938 plaintif is claiming the interest only 12% per annum instead of 24% per annum from the defendant. Hence, the suit.

3. The brief facts of the written statement filed by the defendant is as follows:-

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The defendant does not admit any one of the allegations contained in the plaint.

Further the defendant alleged that the plaintif has no such capacity to lend such huge amount to this defendant and this defendant no necessity to borrow such amount from the plaintif, the plaintif has no income and to claim and grab amount from this defendant, the plaintif filed the suit with false allegations. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

3

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled on 20-01-2020 for trial:-

1. Whether the promissory note dt. 15.03.2014 is true, valid and supported by 

consideration?

2. Whether the plaintiff entitled to recover the suit debt?

3. To what relief ?

5.On behalf of the plaintif, the plaintif herself is examined as

PW1. Exhibit A1 is the promissory note and Exhibit A2 is the office copy of complaint. On behalf of plaintif, PW.2 is examined. On behalf of defendant no one was examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the defendant.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7.ISSUE No. 1 :-

Whether the promissory note dt. 15.03.2014 is true, valid and supported 

by consideration?

This suit is based on the promissory note. The case of the plaintif is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintif on execution of Ex.A-1-promissory note on 15.03.2014 in the presence of attestors and scribe of Ex.A-1-promissory note. It is also contended by the plaintif that in order to discharge the suit promissory note debt the defendant got issued a cheque for Rs.9,00,000/- and the same was dishonoured and as such he filed a Criminal Case U/sec. 138 of N.I Act against the defendant herein and it is pending as STC No. 12/2016 on the file of IV Addl. JFCM, Chittoor.

08.The defendant filed written statement by denying the contentions of the plaintif with regard to lending of amount under Ex.A-1- promissory note and further contended that the defendant and plaintif 4 joined in Sandidhi Foods and at that time the Manager of Sanidhi Foods receive cheques from the defendant towards security and basing on the same a criminal case is filed with false allegations.

09.The plaintif is examined as PW-1 and he categorically stated that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- under Ex.A-1 in the presence of PW-2, another attestor and scribe of Ex.A-1-promissory note. The plaintif has to discharge his initial burden regarding the execution of promissory note and then, the presumptions under section 118 of Negotiable

Instrument Act flow in his favour.

10.At this stage, it is appropriate to note that according Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, the initial burden is on the plaintif to establish the fact of execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note by defendant after receipt of consideration. In order to substantiate the same, the plaintif himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. One of the attestor of

Ex.A-1-promissory note is examined as Pw-2. The defendant failed to cross- examine the PW-1 and as such the cross-examination of PW-1 is treated as

Nil. Subsequently when the matter is posted for cross-examination of PW-2, the PW-2 was cross-examined by the defendant counsel. During the evidence of PW-2 he clearly stated that the Ex.A-1 transaction took place in his presence and after receipt of consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- on 15.03.2014, the defendant executed Ex.A-1-promissory note in this presence. During the cross-examination of PW-2 several questions were posed with regard to the denomination of consideration under Ex.A1 and the writings of parties on Ex.A-1, but nothing was elicited to disprove the contention of plaintif and to disbelieve the version of PW-2. By examining the PW-2 and marking Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 the plaintif discharged his burden of execution of Ex.A-1-promissory note by the defendant. Since, the plaintif discharged his Onus of proof of execution of Ex.A-1-promissory note a 5 presumption u/sec. 118 of NI Act is available to the plaintif. Thereafter, the burden shifts on to the defendant to rebut these presumptions by the preponderance of probabilities and the proof need not be beyond reasonable doubt. Under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, once the execution is proved, there shall be presumptions that the suit promissory note was drawn on the date appearing on it for the consideration shown therein.

11. The defendant failed to cross-examine the plaintif/PW.1 and as such the version of PW-1 is unchallenged and undisputed by the defendant and hence the unchallenged testimony of PW-1 coupled with the evidence of

PW-2 and Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 proved the execution of Ex.A-1-promissory note by the defendant after receipt of consideration. When the matter is posted for defendant side evidence, the defendant failed to adduce any evidence and as such the evidence of defendant is closed. Since the plaintif proved the execution of Ex.A-1- promissory note and passing of consideration thereunder the issue No.1 decided in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

12.Issue No.2:

Whether the plaintiff entitled to recover the suit debt?

As per the reasons and findings given for issue No.1, the plaintif is entitled for the suit and claim and as such issue No.2 is decided in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

13.Issue No.3:

To what relief?”

In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.9,52,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6 thereafter at 6% per annum till the realization on the principal sum of

Rs.7,00,000/- only.

Directly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-K.Syam Babu,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW 1: D.Purushotham Naidu - None-

PW 2: V.Chandra Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF:

Exhibit A1: Promissory note dated 15-03-2014 executed by the defendant in his favour.

Exhibit A2: Office copy of the complaint in STC No. 12/2016 filed by him against the defendant.

DEFENDANT:

-Nil- Sd/-K.Syam Babu,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Chittoor.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present :- Sri K.Syam Babu,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor,

Wednesday, this the 13 th (Thirteenth) day of April, 2022

H.M.O.P. No.83 OF 2015

BETWEEN:,

J.Rajesh, S/o S.Jagannadham, aged 33 years, Hindu, Profession by Barber, residing at Gammukuppam Village, Gudiyattam Post, Vellore District, Tamilnadu.

..Petitioner

AND:

Smt. L.Raja Selvi, W/o J.Rajesh, D/o V.Lokanadham, aged 28 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.13-458, Old Prasanth Nagar, Thenabanda Road, Chittoor Town and District.

..Respondent

This petition coming on 07.04.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.C.Kishore Kumar and Sri P.Balasubramanyam, the learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri E.Sugunasekhar Reddy, the learned counsel for the Respondent and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 13-(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent held on 09.07.2007 by granting a decree of divorce.

2

2.The case of the petitioner in brief is that:-

The petitioner submit that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The marriage was solemnized on 09.07.2007 at Smt.

Muthyalamma Chengalraya Kalyana Mandapam, Gudiyattam, Vellore

District, Tamilnadu as per Hindu, Rites and Customs prevailing in their community. The total marriage expenses was born by the parents of the petitioner. Due to the wedlock the respondent gave male child who was aged about six years. Immediately, after the marriage, the petitioner and respondent lived at happily for a period of two months. In the Month of

September, 2007 the respondent left the matrimonial home without knowledge of the petitioner and his parents and she joined with her parents house. Further several mediations were held in the presence of elders and well-wishers of both sides, but the respondent demanded the petitioner to join with her parents house as illatam son-in-law.

Subsequently in the Month of October, 2007 the petitioner joined with the respondent at her parents house. Further due to the harassment of the respondent for unncessary issues the petitioner left the company fo the respondent . The petitioner was bear all the tortures made by the respondent only for the dignity fo the family. Further on 12.02.2010 he gave a notice through his counsel for restitution of conjugal rights with the respondent and requested the respondent to join with the petitioner and to lead happy marital life. Further the respondent gave a report before Chittoor

Women, P.S for the offences U/sec.498-A IPC in Crime No.12/2013 and the same was numbered as CC No.364/2013 on the file of III ADM, Chittoor.

Further the petitioner bear all the harassment made by the respondent, but the respondent did not change her attitude. Further the matrimonial life between the petitioner and respondent had broken irretrievably and as there is no chances for reunion. Hence, the petition.

3

3.When the matter is coming up for enquiry, both parties are present they are examined as PW.1 and RW1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. Both parties represented that cross-examination treated as NIL.

4.During the enquiry, the petitioner got examined as PW1 Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 are marked. On behalf of respondent RW-1 was examined and no documents marked.

5. Heard and perused the records.

6 (a). Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act reads as

followed:-

Sec.13 Divorce:- (1) Any marriage solemnized whether before

or after the commencement of Act, on a petition presented by

either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce

on the ground that the other party.

(i) ..................

(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the

petitioner with cruelty: or

(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous

period of not less than two years immediately preceding the

presentation of the petition.

7.The case of the petitioner is that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was held on 09.07.2007 at Smt. Muthyalamma Chengalraya

Kalyana Mandapam, Gudiyattam, Vellore District, Tamilnadu. The total marriage expenses was borne by the parents of the petitioner. Due to the wedlock the respondent gave birth to a male child who was aged about six years. Immediately, after the marriage, the petitioner and respondent lived at happily for a period of two months. In the Month of September, 2007 4 the respondent left the matrimonial home without knowledge of the petitioner and his parents and she joined with her parents house. Further several mediations were held in the presence of elders and well-wishers of both sides, but the respondent demanded the petitioner to join with her parents house as illatam son-in-law. Subsequently in the Month of October, 2007 the petitioner joined with the respondent at her parents house.

Further due to the harassment of the respondent for unncessary issues the petitioner left the company fo the respondent . The petitioner bear all the tortures made by the respondent only for the dignity fo the family. Further on 12.02.2010 he gave a notice through his counsel for restitution of conjugal rights with the respondent and requested the respondent to join with the petitioner and to lead happy marital life. Further the respondent gave a report before Chittoor Women, P.S for the offences U/sec.498-A IPC in

Crime No.12/2013 and the same was numbered as CC No.364/2013 on the file of III ADM, Chittoor. Further the petitioner bear all the harassment made by the respondent, but the respondent did not change her attitude. The petitioner is examined as PW1 and also one more witness examined as PW.2.

Hence the evidence of PW1 and PW.2 are substantiated his contention.

Hence the evidence of PW1 and PW.2 proved the case of the petitioner and he is entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

8. The petitioner is examined as PW1 and PW.2. Hence the evidence of PW1 proved the case of the petitioner by marking Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and he is entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty.

9.Hence, for the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

9. In the result, this petition is allowed without costs and the marriage of the petitioner and respondent held on 09.07.2007 at Smt.

5

Muthyalamma Chengalraya Kalyana Mandapam, Gudiyattam, Vellore

District, Tamilnadu, is hereby dissolved by granting a decree of divorce from the date of this order.

Directly typed to my Dictation by my personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 13 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT:

PW1:J.Rajesh.RW:1 L.Raja Selvi

PW2:L.Raja Selvi.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PETITIONER:

Ex.A.1: Marriage photograph of the petitioner and respondent. Ex.A.2: Wedding card of the petitioner and respondent. Ex.A.3: Translated copy of the wedding Card of the petitioner with the respondent.

RESPONDENT: -Nil-

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.