K. Sreedevi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE , GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Sreedevi, M.L., Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur Wednesday, this the 6th day of May, 2015

Original Suit No. 125 of 2014

Between: Guntupalli Gurappa Naidu

...Plaintiff

And

1.The Hindu College Committee, Rep. By its Secretary & Correspondent

2.The Hindu College High Schools Council, Rep. By its Secretary Both having its office at Hindu College, G.T. Road, Guntur

...Defendants

This suit coming on before me 5-5-2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Krishna Murthy, counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri M. Sita Rama Das, counsel for defendants and after perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed seeking permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as tenant until evict him due process of law and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:-

The defendants are the absolute owners of the properties including the plaint schedule property, which is part and parcel of Hindu College, Guntur. The said Hindu college is one of the Educational Institution which is under the control and management of the 1st defendant. The said institution is governed by the bye laws of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant committee also got internal bye-laws for the internal administration of the college. As per the rules and regulations under the bye laws all the properties of Hindu college is in the hands of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff took the schedule property which is vacant land on lease from the defendants in the year, 2000 for the purpose of doing business on monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and the said lease is oral. He got erected asbestos sheds in the said premises to the side of south within the premises of college and running a juice stall under the name and style of Gurappa Naidu Juice Stall. As per the terms of lease the plaintiff has to made constructions within the site provided to him for doing business by maintaining neatness without any disturbances to the maintenance of the college and the tenant has to continue in the said shop for 20 years with an enhancement of rent at 10% for every three consecutive years. At present the plaintiff is paying rent of Rs.1,820/- per month. If the defendants allowed to continue the plaintiff has to fix up amount towards rent under the fresh agreement after completion of the agreed lease period i.e., 20 years, otherwise the plaintiff has to hand over the vacant possession of site to the defendants without any notice from the defendants. Since the date of lease the plaintiff started a juice stall and doing business by paying monthly rents without any default and enjoying the same peacefully without any obstruction and also paying taxes to the concerned authorities. The defendants are not in the habit of issuing receipts for the rents received by them from their tenants. Even now the plaintiff is running his business without any hurdles by paying necessary taxes to the concerned authorities. He also took separate electricity connection under

SC.No.70059 to the schedule shop in his name and regularly paying the

consumption charges. While things stood thus, the defendants all of a sudden in the month of January, 2014 demanded the petitioner to enhance the rent in twice to the 2 present monthly rent. The defendants received the rent till January, 2014, and when he approached the 1st defendant in the first week of March to pay monthly rent for the month of February, 2014, the defendants refused to receive the same without paying of enhanced rent as per their demand. Recently some of the court staff visited the schedule shop with a demand to vacate the same by showing some court papers. When he questioned them, the defendants replied that if he pay the rent as per their demand, they will permit the petitioner to continue, other wise he will be evicted by force under the colour and guise of court orders. On enquiry he came to know that the defendants obtained orders from the Rent Controller, Guntur for eviction of Shaik Subhani, who was a neighbouring tenant of the plaintiff. The said Subhani, who is no other than the son of college watchman and he voluntarily handed over his shop to the defendants, which is situated in the western side of the plaint schedule property and the same was demolished by the defendants. There is no specific schedule and boundaries mentioned in RCC.52/997 filed against Shaik Subhani and they are trying to demolish the shop belongs to the plaintiff under the guise of the orders therein, for that the said Shaik Subhani, the then tenant is also cooperating with the defendants. But, the schedule property in this plaint is different from the schedule property in RCC 52/1997. The said shop in RCC.52/97 was already removed and defendants took possession of the same. Two days back in the evening in the name of the defendants, who are the followers of the defendants came to the schedule property and tried to remove the same with force by removing the movables by using filthy language and the neighbours of the locality interfered, then they went away with warnings that they will evict within two days. Hence the petitioner filed the main suit for permanent injunction.

3. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the averments in the affidavit filed along with the petition and further contended that the defendants never leased out the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and there is no landlord and tenant relationship. The defendants never received even a paisa from the plaintiff and the defendant do not know who is the plaintiff. The Secretary gave written license to run a canteen in the car shed to one person and three temporary sheds. When their license was terminated the occupants claimed tenancy right. As they did not pay the rent license fee, the defendants filed eviction petitions against the all the four occupants. The petitions against three of them were allowed and the defendants took possession of the same. One of the sheds were let out to Shaik Mulali, who was an ex-employee of the college, who was the respondent in RCC 52/1997 took a stand originally accepting the tenancy, later changed his version claiming that the defendant had gifted the property to him. The Rent Controller and appellate authority dismissed the petitions, but the Hon'ble High Court allowed C.R.P.3125/2008 and ordered for eviction of the respondent. He filed S.L.P., and sought for stay. But the

Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the S.L.P., gave time for vacating the premises

till 31-3-2014 and he filed another application which was also dismissed while granting 3 weeks time. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed E.P., for evicting the J.Dr., and the same is pending. The defendants wanted to whole premises for the college without there being any outsiders. The whole site is required for the college and its programmes with that view also the defendant evicted the occupants. This battle for eviction against Shaik Subhani is going on since 1977 and ultimately the defendants succeeded and are trying to take delivery the then tenant in collusion with the petitioner came up with this present suit. . On enquiry it is learnt that the said Shaik Subhani, who is the respondent the plaintiff colluded together and filed the present suit. The plaint schedule property and the property in RCC are one and the same. Some manipulations were made by both plaintiff and Subhani and the plaintiff is now proposed to stop the execution of the decree in RCC.52/97 and the plaintiff has no right what so ever over the schedule property. The plaintiff and the J.Dr., in CRR 52/97 are colluded with each other and there are no merits in the plaintiff's case and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Thus, submitting sought for dismissal of the petition.

4.The 2nd defendant adopted the written statement filed by the 1st defendant.

3

5.Basing on the above contentions, the following issues are framed.

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining the defendants and their men from any way interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as prayed for?

2.To what relief?

6.On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and marked Ex.A1 and A2 and on behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 are marked.

7.I S S U E No.1 :

It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is a tenant of the schedule property leased out by the defendants for the purpose of doing business in the year, 2000 on monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and the present monthly rent is Rs.1820/- as he enhanced the rent as per the terms of the lease. But the defendants taking advantage of the orders in RCC.52/1997 against one Shaik Subhani tried to implement the said orders against the plaintiff with regard to the plaint schedule property even though the plaint schedule property and the schedule property in RCC.52/1997 are different, as such he is entitled for permanent injunction. For which the defendant contended that the plaint schedule property and the property in RCC.52/1997 are one and the same and the present suit was filed by the plaintiff in collusion with one Shaik Subhani, who is J.Dr., in RCC.52/97 and the defendants does not know who is the plaintiff herein and there is no landlord and tenant relationship in between the plaintiff and the defendants.

8.When it is the contention of the plaintiff that he is a tenant of the schedule property under the defendants and when the defendants denied the said contention stating that the plaint schedule property and the schedule property in RCC.52/1997 are one and the same and the present suit was filed by the plaintiff at the instance of one Shaik Subhani, who is the respondent in RCC.52/1997, it is for the plaintiff to prove that he is a tenant of the schedule property and the defendants are the landlord and there is no landlord and tenant relationship in between the plaintiff and defendants. To prove the same the plaintiff adduced oral testimony of one Juturu Subba Rao, who is third party to the proceedings as PW2 apart from his oral testimony as PW1 and they stated in their chief affidavits by reiterating the averments in the plaint and also marked a bunch of electricity demand notices and receipts for the years from 2000 to 2014 relating to SC.No. 70059 as in Ex.A1, photographs 8 in number along with C.D., as in Ex.A2. On the other hand the defendants adduced oral testimony of one Majeti Venkata Ramakoti, who is the Secretary and Correspondent of the Hindu College Committee as DW1 and who stated in his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments in the written statement and also marked the Certified copy of the schedule and plan filed in RCC 52/97 as in Ex.B2, attested copy of the order of Hon'ble High Court in CRP 3125/08 dated 6-3-2013.

9.During the course of cross examination of DW1 nothing was elicited from the mouth of DW1 to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property being a tenant and running a juice shop, but it was suggested to DW1 that the accounts of the defendants reveals the payment made by the plaintiff towards rent. When it is the contention of the plaintiff that they are depositing the rents in the account of defendants, it is for the plaintiff to prove the same. But, except adducing the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 no other kind of evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to show that they paid the monthly rent to the defendants college in order to prove their tenancy rights.

4

10.Further Exs.A1 and A2, which are bunch of electricity demand notices and receipts for the years from 2000 to 2014 relating to SC.No.70059 and photographs 8 in numbers with CD are no way helpful to the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property being a tenant under the defendants as Ex.A1 electricity demand notices does not contain the address particulars of the plaint schedule property except mentioning the name of the plaintiff and SC.No.70059. If there is any evidence showing that the said SC.No.70059 mentioned in Ex.A1is situated in the schedule property, then Ex.A1, which are the electricity demand notices and receipts can be considered to consider the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property being a tenant. But, no kind of evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to show that SC.No.70059 is situated in the schedule property. Hence I declined to consider Ex.A1 which are the electricity demand notices and receipts for the year, 2000 to 2014 and also the photographs marked under Ex.A2 in order to consider the possession of the plaintiff being a tenant. As there is no documentary proof filed by the plaintiff to prove his possession over the schedule property being a tenant, I declined to consider the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 also. As I declined to consider the contention of the plaintiff that he is a tenant under the defendants and so also the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled for equitable relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered.

11.In the result, suit is dismissed. No costs.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the day of 6th day of May, 2015.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW1:Guntupalli Gurappa NaiduDW1:Majeti Venkata Ramakoti PW2:Juturu Subba RaoMutyalu

Documents marked. For plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Bunch of electricity demand notices and receipts for the years from 2000 to 2014 relating to SC.No.70059 Ex.A2:Photographs ( 8 Nos.)along with C.D.

For defendants:-

Ex.B1:C.C., of the schedule and plan attached in RCC 52/97 Ex.B2:attested copy of order of Hon'ble High Court in CRP 3125/08, dated 6-3-2013.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE , GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Sreedevi, M.L., Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur Wednesday, this the 6th day of May, 2015

Original Suit No. 125 of 2014

Between: Guntupalli Gurappa Naidu

...Plaintiff

And

1.The Hindu College Committee, Rep. By its Secretary & Correspondent

2.The Hindu College High Schools Council, Rep. By its Secretary Both having its office at Hindu College, G.T. Road, Guntur

...Defendants

This suit coming on before me 5-5-2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Krishna Murthy, counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri M. Sita Rama Das, counsel for defendants and after perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed seeking permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as tenant until evict him due process of law and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:-

The defendants are the absolute owners of the properties including the plaint schedule property, which is part and parcel of Hindu College, Guntur. The said Hindu college is one of the Educational Institution which is under the control and management of the 1st defendant. The said institution is governed by the bye laws of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant committee also got internal bye-laws for the internal administration of the college. As per the rules and regulations under the bye laws all the properties of Hindu college is in the hands of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff took the schedule property which is vacant land on lease from the defendants in the year, 2000 for the purpose of doing business on monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and the said lease is oral. He got erected asbestos sheds in the said premises to the side of south within the premises of college and running a juice stall under the name and style of Gurappa Naidu Juice Stall. As per the terms of lease the plaintiff has to made constructions within the site provided to him for doing business by maintaining neatness without any disturbances to the maintenance of the college and the tenant has to continue in the said shop for 20 years with an enhancement of rent at 10% for every three consecutive years. At present the plaintiff is paying rent of Rs.1,820/- per month. If the defendants allowed to continue the plaintiff has to fix up amount towards rent under the fresh agreement after completion of the agreed lease period i.e., 20 years, otherwise the plaintiff has to hand over the vacant possession of site to the defendants without any notice from the defendants. Since the date of lease the plaintiff started a juice stall and doing business by paying monthly rents without any default and enjoying the same peacefully without any obstruction and also paying taxes to the concerned authorities. The defendants are not in the habit of issuing receipts for the rents received by them from their tenants. Even now the plaintiff is running his business without any hurdles by paying necessary taxes to the concerned authorities. He also took separate electricity connection under

SC.No.70059 to the schedule shop in his name and regularly paying the

consumption charges. While things stood thus, the defendants all of a sudden in the month of January, 2014 demanded the petitioner to enhance the rent in twice to the 2 present monthly rent. The defendants received the rent till January, 2014, and when he approached the 1st defendant in the first week of March to pay monthly rent for the month of February, 2014, the defendants refused to receive the same without paying of enhanced rent as per their demand. Recently some of the court staff visited the schedule shop with a demand to vacate the same by showing some court papers. When he questioned them, the defendants replied that if he pay the rent as per their demand, they will permit the petitioner to continue, other wise he will be evicted by force under the colour and guise of court orders. On enquiry he came to know that the defendants obtained orders from the Rent Controller, Guntur for eviction of Shaik Subhani, who was a neighbouring tenant of the plaintiff. The said Subhani, who is no other than the son of college watchman and he voluntarily handed over his shop to the defendants, which is situated in the western side of the plaint schedule property and the same was demolished by the defendants. There is no specific schedule and boundaries mentioned in RCC.52/997 filed against Shaik Subhani and they are trying to demolish the shop belongs to the plaintiff under the guise of the orders therein, for that the said Shaik Subhani, the then tenant is also cooperating with the defendants. But, the schedule property in this plaint is different from the schedule property in RCC 52/1997. The said shop in RCC.52/97 was already removed and defendants took possession of the same. Two days back in the evening in the name of the defendants, who are the followers of the defendants came to the schedule property and tried to remove the same with force by removing the movables by using filthy language and the neighbours of the locality interfered, then they went away with warnings that they will evict within two days. Hence the petitioner filed the main suit for permanent injunction.

3. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the averments in the affidavit filed along with the petition and further contended that the defendants never leased out the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and there is no landlord and tenant relationship. The defendants never received even a paisa from the plaintiff and the defendant do not know who is the plaintiff. The Secretary gave written license to run a canteen in the car shed to one person and three temporary sheds. When their license was terminated the occupants claimed tenancy right. As they did not pay the rent license fee, the defendants filed eviction petitions against the all the four occupants. The petitions against three of them were allowed and the defendants took possession of the same. One of the sheds were let out to Shaik Mulali, who was an ex-employee of the college, who was the respondent in RCC 52/1997 took a stand originally accepting the tenancy, later changed his version claiming that the defendant had gifted the property to him. The Rent Controller and appellate authority dismissed the petitions, but the Hon'ble High Court allowed C.R.P.3125/2008 and ordered for eviction of the respondent. He filed S.L.P., and sought for stay. But the

Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the S.L.P., gave time for vacating the premises

till 31-3-2014 and he filed another application which was also dismissed while granting 3 weeks time. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed E.P., for evicting the J.Dr., and the same is pending. The defendants wanted to whole premises for the college without there being any outsiders. The whole site is required for the college and its programmes with that view also the defendant evicted the occupants. This battle for eviction against Shaik Subhani is going on since 1977 and ultimately the defendants succeeded and are trying to take delivery the then tenant in collusion with the petitioner came up with this present suit. . On enquiry it is learnt that the said Shaik Subhani, who is the respondent the plaintiff colluded together and filed the present suit. The plaint schedule property and the property in RCC are one and the same. Some manipulations were made by both plaintiff and Subhani and the plaintiff is now proposed to stop the execution of the decree in RCC.52/97 and the plaintiff has no right what so ever over the schedule property. The plaintiff and the J.Dr., in CRR 52/97 are colluded with each other and there are no merits in the plaintiff's case and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Thus, submitting sought for dismissal of the petition.

4.The 2nd defendant adopted the written statement filed by the 1st defendant.

3

5.Basing on the above contentions, the following issues are framed.

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining the defendants and their men from any way interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as prayed for?

2.To what relief?

6.On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and marked Ex.A1 and A2 and on behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 are marked.

7.I S S U E No.1 :

It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is a tenant of the schedule property leased out by the defendants for the purpose of doing business in the year, 2000 on monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and the present monthly rent is Rs.1820/- as he enhanced the rent as per the terms of the lease. But the defendants taking advantage of the orders in RCC.52/1997 against one Shaik Subhani tried to implement the said orders against the plaintiff with regard to the plaint schedule property even though the plaint schedule property and the schedule property in RCC.52/1997 are different, as such he is entitled for permanent injunction. For which the defendant contended that the plaint schedule property and the property in RCC.52/1997 are one and the same and the present suit was filed by the plaintiff in collusion with one Shaik Subhani, who is J.Dr., in RCC.52/97 and the defendants does not know who is the plaintiff herein and there is no landlord and tenant relationship in between the plaintiff and the defendants.

8.When it is the contention of the plaintiff that he is a tenant of the schedule property under the defendants and when the defendants denied the said contention stating that the plaint schedule property and the schedule property in RCC.52/1997 are one and the same and the present suit was filed by the plaintiff at the instance of one Shaik Subhani, who is the respondent in RCC.52/1997, it is for the plaintiff to prove that he is a tenant of the schedule property and the defendants are the landlord and there is no landlord and tenant relationship in between the plaintiff and defendants. To prove the same the plaintiff adduced oral testimony of one Juturu Subba Rao, who is third party to the proceedings as PW2 apart from his oral testimony as PW1 and they stated in their chief affidavits by reiterating the averments in the plaint and also marked a bunch of electricity demand notices and receipts for the years from 2000 to 2014 relating to SC.No. 70059 as in Ex.A1, photographs 8 in number along with C.D., as in Ex.A2. On the other hand the defendants adduced oral testimony of one Majeti Venkata Ramakoti, who is the Secretary and Correspondent of the Hindu College Committee as DW1 and who stated in his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments in the written statement and also marked the Certified copy of the schedule and plan filed in RCC 52/97 as in Ex.B2, attested copy of the order of Hon'ble High Court in CRP 3125/08 dated 6-3-2013.

9.During the course of cross examination of DW1 nothing was elicited from the mouth of DW1 to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property being a tenant and running a juice shop, but it was suggested to DW1 that the accounts of the defendants reveals the payment made by the plaintiff towards rent. When it is the contention of the plaintiff that they are depositing the rents in the account of defendants, it is for the plaintiff to prove the same. But, except adducing the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 no other kind of evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to show that they paid the monthly rent to the defendants college in order to prove their tenancy rights.

4

10.Further Exs.A1 and A2, which are bunch of electricity demand notices and receipts for the years from 2000 to 2014 relating to SC.No.70059 and photographs 8 in numbers with CD are no way helpful to the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property being a tenant under the defendants as Ex.A1 electricity demand notices does not contain the address particulars of the plaint schedule property except mentioning the name of the plaintiff and SC.No.70059. If there is any evidence showing that the said SC.No.70059 mentioned in Ex.A1is situated in the schedule property, then Ex.A1, which are the electricity demand notices and receipts can be considered to consider the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property being a tenant. But, no kind of evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to show that SC.No.70059 is situated in the schedule property. Hence I declined to consider Ex.A1 which are the electricity demand notices and receipts for the year, 2000 to 2014 and also the photographs marked under Ex.A2 in order to consider the possession of the plaintiff being a tenant. As there is no documentary proof filed by the plaintiff to prove his possession over the schedule property being a tenant, I declined to consider the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 also. As I declined to consider the contention of the plaintiff that he is a tenant under the defendants and so also the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled for equitable relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered.

11.In the result, suit is dismissed. No costs.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the day of 6th day of May, 2015.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW1:Guntupalli Gurappa NaiduDW1:Majeti Venkata Ramakoti PW2:Juturu Subba RaoMutyalu

Documents marked. For plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Bunch of electricity demand notices and receipts for the years from 2000 to 2014 relating to SC.No.70059 Ex.A2:Photographs ( 8 Nos.)along with C.D.

For defendants:-

Ex.B1:C.C., of the schedule and plan attached in RCC 52/97 Ex.B2:attested copy of order of Hon'ble High Court in CRP 3125/08, dated 6-3-2013.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE , GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Sreedevi, M.L., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

Monday, the 7th day of April, 2014

Original Suit No. 69 of 2012

Between: Nissankararao Seshagirirao, S/o late Subbarao, Hindu, 70 years, Resident of Etukutu village, Guntur Rural Mandal,

Guntur District ...Plaintiff

And

1. Nissankjararao Markandeyulu, S/o late Subbarao, Hindu, 60 years, R/o beside Masthan Swamy Dargah, R/o Etukuru village, Guntur Rural mandal.

2. Nissankararao Ankammarao, S/o late Subbarao, Hindu, 53 years, R/o beside Masthan Swamy Dargah, R/o Etukuru village, Guntur Rural mandal.

3. Nissankararao Ravi Devaraju, S/o late Subbarao, Hindu, 42 years, R/o beside Masthan Swamy Dargah, R/o Etukuru village, Guntur Rural mandal.

4. Nissankararao Tayaramma, W/o S/o late Subbarao, Hindu, 85 years, R/o beside Masthan Swamy Dargah, R/o Etukuru village, Guntur Rural mandal.

5. Nissankararao Gowri @ Gowri Devi, W/o late Chintalu Hindu, 39 years, House wife, R/o beside Masthan

Swamy Dargah, R/o Etukuru village, Guntur Rural Mandal. …...Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 02-04-2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Uma Maheswararao, Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri D. Srinivasarao, Counsel for defendants 4 & 5, Suit against defendants 1 and 3 was dismissed for default and the 2nd defendant having remained exparte and after perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

01.Suit for partition of the Plaint schedule property into six equal shares by metes and bounds and according to good and bad qualities and to allot one such share to the Plaintiff and put him in separate possession of the same free from any obstructions and for costs of the Suit.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are that:- Originally the Plaint schedule property belongs to Nissankararao Seshaiah, S/o Chintaiah and the same was purchased from Gopaladas Narasimham vide document No. 937/1925. The said Seshaiah died intestate leaving behind his sons Danaiah, Subbarao, Venkateswarlu @ Chinnabbai as his legal heirs. Subsequently, the property was orally partitioned into three shares and the first share of Danaiah was purchased by Subbarao, who is the second son. Thus 2

Subbarao has acquired two shares in the suit schedule property and one share to the last son. Subbarao was blessed with Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. 4th defendant is the wife of late Subbarao and the 5th defendant is the wife of late Chintalu, who is the fourth son of late Subbarao. After the death of Subbarao, the suit schedule property was not partitioned and was in possession and enjoyment of the legal heirs of late Subbarao i.e., the Plaintiff and defendants herein. Ignoring the share of the Plaintiff, the 5th defendant's husband late Chintalu executed a rental agreement in favour of one Nissankararao Srinivasarao, S/o Ramarao on 16-10-06 for monthly rent of Rs. 750/- Accordingly he used to collect the rents from the tenant. The defendants 1 to 4 executed relinquishment deed in favour of 5th defendant's husband which was duly registered as document No. 520/2008, dt. 29-01-2008 bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the 5th defendant's husband to an extent of 4/5th share in the property. The father of the Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 died on 08-06-1999 leaving behind the Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and husband of 5th defendant as legal heirs who succeeded the estate of late Subbarao. After relinquishment deed in favour of the husband of the 5th defendant, the same was executed under acceptance letter on 29-01-2008. The 5th defendant's husband late Chintalu was looking after the property and also receiving rents never rendered the accounts. The Plaintiff who has not relinquished his share demanded for his share in the amounts received by the 5th defendant's husband, but he never rendered any accounts to the Plaintiff. The husband of the 5th defendant died on 13-03-2011. After the death of late Chintalu, the Plaintiff demanded for amicable partition and delivery of his 1/6th share which was being enjoyed by the 5th defendant. But the 5th defendant did not choose for partition. Hence, the present suit for partition and for delivery of 1/6th share to the Plaintiff.

03. Defendants 3 and 4 contested the suit and 5th defendant filed written statement admitting that the property belongs to the Nissankararao Seshaiah and after his demise, his sons partitioned his properties orally and in the said Partition, the Plaint schedule property fell to the share of Nissankararao Subbarao. Subsequently after the death of Subbarao, the Plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 and husband of 5th defendant succeeded the said property, but it is the contention of the 5th defendant that all the Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are well settled and leading their lives happily. As the husband of the 5th defendant Nissankararao Chintalu was not settled financially, all the family members i.e., the Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 decided to relinquish their rights in the Plaint schedule property in favour of Nissankararao Chintalu and decided to execute a valid document . At that time, the Plaintiff who is not available with the defendants 1 to 4, he informed the defendants through telephone that he is unable to come to execute document along with defendants 1 to 4 and also requested them to execute relinquishment deed in favour 5th defendant's husband, Nissankararao Chintalu and stated that he has no objection to the same. Accordingly, defendants 1 to 4 executed relinquishment deed in favour of Nissankararao Chintalu with regard to the Plaint schedule property and got it registered as document No. 520/2008 at Sub-Registrar office, Guntur and delivered the possession of the Plaint schedule property to Nissankararao Chintalu. The said Chintalu accepted the same and paid Rs. 1,60,000/- and it was also mentioned in the said document. Subsequently, the said Chintalu died on 13-03-2011 leaving the 5th defendant as his legal heir, as such, the 5th defendant is only having right over the Plaint schedule property. Thus submitting, she sought for dismissal of the Suit.

4th defendant adopted the contents of written statement filed by the 5th defendant.

04. Basing on the above contentions, the following issues are framed.

1. Whether the Relinquishment deed bearing document No. 520/2008 alleged to be executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 at the request of Plaintiff is true, valid and binding on the Plaintiff?

3

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Partition of the Plaint schedule property into six equal shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of one such share to the Plaintiff and for separate possession of the same?

3. To what relief?

05. On behalf of the Plaintiff, P.W. 1 was examined and marked Exs. A1 to A3 and on behalf of the defendants, D.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs. B1 to B6.

06.At the time of arguments, both sides argued by reiterating their contentions in their respective pleadings and the evidence on record.

ISSUE NOs. 1 & 2:-

07. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that the Plaint schedule property is the property of his father and defendants 1 to 3 are his brothers, 4th defendant is his mother and 5th defendant is the wife of his brother, as such, the Plaint schedule property is liable for partition into six equal shares and he is entitled for one such share. For which the defendants 4 and 5 contended that the legal heirs of Subbarao, who are defendants 1 to 4 executed relinquishment deed, dt. 29-01- 2008 in favour of Nissankararao Chintalu, husband of the 5th defendant with consent of Plaintiff and received consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- under the relinquishment deed, as such, the Plaintiff is not entitled for partition, since the Plaitn schedule property is exclusive property of 5th defendant, being the legal heir of Nissankararao Chintalu who is the brother of Plaintiff.

08.To substantiate his above contention, the Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also marked certified copy of relinquishment deed, dt. 29-01-2008 as in Ex.A1, office copy of the registered legal notice with postal receipt,

dt. 27-06-2011 as in Ex.A2 and postal acknowledgment as in Ex.A3. On the other

hand the 5th and 4th defendants examined themselves as D.Ws. 1 and 2 and they stated in their chief affidavits by reiterating the above contention and also the contentions in their written statement. In addition to their oral testimony, they also examined one Adimulam Chittamma, the 3rd sister of the Plaintiff and daughter of 4th defendant as D.W.3 who also stated in her chief affidavit by reiterating the averments in the written statement and corroborating the evidence spoken by D.Ws. 1 and 2. In addition to the oral testimony of D.Ws. 1 to 3, the defendants also marked House tax receipts, dt. 13-03-2001, dt. 31-03-2007, dt. 31-03-2008 in favour of Nissankararao Chintalu as in Ex.B1, House tax demand notice, dt. 31-03-2010 issued by Nissankararao Chintalu as in Ex.B2, House tax demand notice, dt. 15-11- 2011 in favour of D.W.1 as in Ex.B3, house tax receipts, dt. 21-02-2013 and 18-06-13 as in Ex. B4, water tax receipts and demand notices, dt. 31-03-2009 and 19-02-2012 in favour of Nissankararao Chintalu as in Ex.B5 and the electricity bills 2 in number as in Ex.B6.

09. No doubt, the above evidence spoken by D.Ws. 1 to 3 and Ex.A1 which is relinquishment deed , dt. 29-01-2008 clearly reveals that defendants 1 to 4 executed Ex.A1 relinquishing their right over the Plaint schedule property in favour of the husband of 5th defendant by name Nissankararao Chintalu by receiving consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/-, but on perusal of Ex.A1 which clearly reveals that the said document was not executed by the Plaintiff and nowhere it was mentioned that the defendants 1 to 4 are executing the said document on behalf of the Plaintiff also. Further Ex.A1 also clearly reveals that all the defendants 1 to 4 relinquished their 4/5th share over the Plaint schedule property and the husband of the 5th defendant acquired right over the 4/5th share along with his 1/5th share over the property under Ex.A1, as such, Ex.A1 was executed in between defendants 1 to 4 and husband of the 5th defendant by dividing the property under Ex.A1 into five shares only excluding the Plaintiff. When the share of the Plaintiff was denied over 4 the property under Ex.A1, it cannot be considered that the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- received under Ex.A1 by the other legal heirs of Subbarao was also shared to the Plaintiff herein and the Plaintiff received his share over Rs. 1,60,000/- As Ex.A1 apparently shows that the right of the Plaintiff over the property under Ex.A1 i.e., the Plaint schedule property was denied and as the Plaintiff did not sign in the Ex.A1 and since no consideration was received under Ex.A1 by the Plaintiff, Ex.A1 is not binding on the Plaintiff except against defendants 1 to 4. In the light of my above discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the relinquishment deed, dt. 29-01-2008 which was marked as Ex.A1 is not binding on the Plaintiff except defendants 1 to 4.

10. As Ex.A1 is not binding on the Plaintiff and as the Plaintiff is one of the legal heirs of deceased Subbarao to whom the schedule property was originally belongs, the Plaintiff is having right over the said property and entitled for 1/6th share over the schedule property.

11. In view of my above discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the Plaint schedule property is liable for partition into six equal shares and the Plaintiff is entitled for one such share and the 5th defendant is entitled for 5/6th share over the Plaint schedule property.

In the result, suit is decreed for Partition of Plaint schedule property into Six equal shares and by allotting one such share to the Plaintiff (1/6th share) and five such shares to the 5th defendant (5/6th share). In the circumstances of the case, no costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the day of 7th day of April, 2014.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff: P.W.1: Nissankararao Seshagirirao

For Defendants: D.W.1: Nissankararao Gowri @ Gowri Devi D.W.2: Nissankararao Thayaramma D.W.3: Adimulam Chittamma

Documents marked. For plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Relinquishment deed, dt. 29-01-2008 Ex.A2: Office copy of the registered legal notice with postal receipt, dt. 27-06-2011 Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment.

For defendants:- Ex.B1: House tax receipts, dt. 13-03-01, 31-03-07, 31-03-08 Ex.B2: House tax demand notice, dt. 31-03-2010 Ex.B3: House tax demand notice, dt. 15-11-2011 Ex.B4: House tax receipts, dt. 21-02-2013 & 18-06-13 Ex.B5: Water tax receipts and demand notice, dt. 31-03-09 and 19-02-12 Ex.B6: Electricity bills 2 in number.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE , GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Sreedevi, M.L.,Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur Wednesday, this the 6th day of May, 2015

Original Suit No. 612 of 2014

Between: Dama Siva Prasad

...Plaintiff

And

Bondela Jagan Singh

...Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 5-5-2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Kantha Rao, counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri M. Srikanth, counsel for the defendant and after perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,920/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note, dated 10-09-2012 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.33,500/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for subsequent interest and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.33,500/- on 10-9-2012 from the plaintiff for his family expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands personally and through mediators the defendant did not choose to repay the said promissory note debt. Consequently, on 4-9-2014 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant, but the defendant did not choose to discharge the promissory note debt. The defendant is not entitled for the benefits of the debt relief laws. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the debt due under the promissory note.

3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and further contended that the suit promissory note is rank forged and the defendant never executed the promissory note and there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant did not lent amount from the plaintiff. In fact the plaintiff is the proprietor of Sri Lakshmi Sai Tyres, Opp. RTC Bus stand, Markapuram, Prakasam District and used to sell various tyres to the prospective customers. The defendant purchased a pair of MRF Lorry tyres on 4-3-2012 by paying Rs.25,000/-. Later the defendant paid the remaining amount of Rs.9,000/-. Subsequently, one of the lorry tyres which was purchased by the defendant was burst and damaged, on that the defendant sustained huge loss. On that the defendant questioned about the quality and standard of that tyre, on that the plaintiff grew wild and quarreled with the defendant and the defendant demanded the plaintiff to hand over new tyres or for return of the purchase amount. On that the plaintiff threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. Thereafter, at the intervention of the elders, the matter was pacified and suggested the defendant to approach the Consumer Forum. As per the elders suggestion the defendant asked the plaintiff to handover new tyres, but the plaintiff gave evasive replies and threatened the defendant. Subsequently, to counter blast the defendant's claim, the plaintiff initiated this proceedings by fabricating the promissory note for wrongful gain. The signatures on the promissory note are forged for the purpose of filing of the suit. Thus 2 submitting sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Basing on the above contentions, the following issues are framed.

1.Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW1 to DW3 were examined and no documents were got marked.

6.I S S U E Nos.1 & 2 :

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.33,500/- on 10-9-2012 from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Subsequently, he failed to discharge the same inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. For which the defendant contended that he never executed any promissory note and the defendant did not lent any amount from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the proprietor of Sri Lakshmi Sai Tyres, Markapuram and the defendant purcahsed a pair of MRF Lorry tyres on 4-3-2012 by paying Rs.25,000/- from the defendant and he paid remaining amount of Rs.9,000/- to the defendant. Subsequently one of the tyres was damaged and when he questioned the same, the defendant grew wild and as per advise of the elders, when the defendant demanded the plaintiff for issue of new tyres, to counter blast his case, the plaintiff fabricated a promissory note by forging the signatures of the defendant and filed the suit to have wrongful gain.

7.In order to substantiate his contention the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and also examined one I.A.V. Prasad and G.Srinivasa Rao, who are the attestors of Ex.A1 as PW2 and PW3 respectively and they stated in their chief affidavits by reiterating the averments in the plaint and also marked the promissory note, dated 10-9-2012 as in Ex.A1, office copy of legal notice, dated 4-9-2014 as in Ex.A2, postal receipt, dated 4-9-2014 as in Ex.A3, unserved returned cover as in Ex.A4. On the other hand the defendant examined himself as DW1, apart from his oral testimony one Gurrala Chandra and shaik Ismail, who are the third parties to the proceedings are examined as DW2 and Dw3 and they stated in their chief affidavits by reiterating the averments in the written statement. Further during the course of cross examination DW1 also denied the disputed signature under Ex.A1 stating that the signature under Ex.A1 is not his signature and nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW1 to PW3.

8.During the course of cross examination DW2 stated that there are no disputes in between PW1, PW2 and Dw1 and he does not know whether the defendant executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff or not. DW3 also stated that there are no disputes between himself and the plaintiff, so also in between himself and PW2 and he does not know whether the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.33,500/- under Ex.A1 from the plaintiff. Even though DW2 and DW3 stated about the dispute in between PW1, PW2 and DW1 with regard to tyres, their evidence cannot be considered in view of their evidence spoken during the course of cross examination that they are no disputes in between PW1, PW2 and defendant.

9.Further on perusal of Ex.A1 and Vakalat, written statement and chief affidavit filed by the defendant which clearly shows that the signature of the defendant in the written statement and the disputed signature in Ex.A1 appears to be similar even to the necked eye, when both the signatures are compared by this Court by exercising 3 the powers conferred u/sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act. The signature of the defendant in chief affidavit and the signature of the defendant in his Vakalat when compared both are different. Even though they are admitted signatures. The signatures of the defendant in chief affidavit and vakalat are also appears tobe different from the signature of the defendant in his written statement. In the written statement the defendant signed as B.Jagan Singh, whereas in Vakalat and chief affidavit it was signed by the defendant as B.J.M.Singh. Hence, by carrying the admitted signatures of the defendant in vakalat and written statement and chief affidavit, I found that the defendant used to put his signatures in a different manner, however the admitted signatures of the defendant in the written statement is similar to the disputed signature in Ex.A1. Hence I found that the signature in Ex.A1 belongs to the defendant . Further it is the evidence of DW2 that there are no disputes in between PW1, PW2 and DW1 and further no single paper was filed by the defendant to show that he purchased tyres from the plaintiff shop. Hence I declined to consider the contention of the defendant that Ex.A1 was fabricated in view of the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant with the damage of tyres purchased by the defendant.

10.In view of my above discussion and having considering the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and Exs.A1 to A4, I have no hesitation to hold that Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. Accordingly issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.50,920/- (Rupees fifty thousand nine hundred and twenty only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.33,500/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a., on the

principal amount of Rs.33,500/- from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, this the day of 6th day of May, 2015.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW1:Dama Siva PrasadDW1: Bondela Jagan Mohan Singh PW2:I.A.V. PrasadDW2:Gurrala Chandra PW3:G.Srinivasa RaoDW3:Shaik Ismail Documents marked. For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Promissory note, dt.10-9-2012 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dated 4-9-2014. Ex.A3: Postal receipt, dated 4-9-2014 Ex.A4: unserved returned postal cover.

For Defendant:- Nil.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE , GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Sreedevi, M.L., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

Friday, the 4th day of April, 2014

Original Suit No. 378 of 2013

Between: G.P. Mass Finance Limited, Guntur represented by its Manager, Myneni Ravi Kumar, S/o Venkataratnam, Hindu, 60 years, employee, resident of 4-5-29/51/4,

Netaji road, 3/8, Vidya Nagar, Guntur-7 ……....Plaintiff.

And

1. Shaik John Bi, W/o Mastan, Muslim, 43 years, business, resident of D.No. 308, 7th lane, Swarna Bharathi Nagar, Guntur

2. Shaik Sambrajyam, W/o John, Muslim, 38 years, business, resident of D.No. 78, 7th lane, Swarna Bharathi Nagar, Guntur

3. Akiti Rani, W/o Govind, Hindu, 36 years, business, resident of D.No. 473, 6th lane, Swarna Bharathi Nagar, Guntur

4. Shaik Reshma, W/o Shamshuddin, Muslim, 31 years, business, resident of 8th lane, Swarna Bharathi Nagar, Guntur

5. Shaik Baram Bi, W/o Mahaboob, Muslim, 37 years, business, resident of D.No. 3-29-13/28, 7th lane, Swarna Bharathi Nagar, Guntur

6. Raasika Nalini, W/o Prasad, Hindu, 28 years, business, resident of D.No. 462, 6th lane, Swarna Bharathi Nagar, Guntur

7. Poojala Siva Leela, W/o Durga rao, Hindu, 25 years, business, R/o D.No. 461, 7th lane, Swarna Bharathi Nagar, Guntur

8. Nallabothula Subbulu, W/o Sambaiah, Hindu, 51 years, business, R/o 5th lane, Swarna Bharati Nagar, Guntur

9. Gunturu Vijaya Gowri, W/o Sai Babu, Hindu, 56 years, business, resident of D.No. 503, 5th lane, Swarna Bharathi Nagar, Guntur

10. Kalavala Malleswari, W/o Venu Gopal, Hindu, 34 years, business, R/o D.No. 576,

1st lane, Swarna Bharathi Nagar, Guntur ...Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 04-04-2014 for consideration in the presence of Sri Ch. Nageswararao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants having remained exparte and after perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 86,408/- being the balance of

principal and interest due from the defendants due on promissory notes with subsequent

interest at 15 % per annum and for costs of the suit against D1 to D10.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are that:-

The defendants formed a group under the name and style of Baji Baba group and obtained loan from the Plaintiff by executing loan applications, demand promissory notes and surety bonds on 15-05-2010. The defendants 1 to 8 obtained a loan of Rs. 12,000/- each, the defendants 9 and 10 obtained a loan of Rs. 10,000/- each. At the time of obtaining loan, each defendant stood as guarantor to the other defendants by agreeing that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the same, if any one of defendant committed default in paying the loan amount. The defendants have to pay the loan amount with interest at the rate of 15% per annum, flat in 50 equal installments every week. The defendants paid some installments regularly and failed to pay the same and committed default in payment of the same. The last installment has to be paid on 30-04-2011. The

Plaintiff demanded the defendants to pay the balance installments, but they failed to pay the same. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of amount due under the loan account.

03.The defendants 1, 3 to 10 were set exparte and the suit against D7 was dismissed for default.

04.In order to prove its above contention, the Plaintiff company examined its Manager as P.W.1 and who stated in his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments in the Plaint and also marked Extract of the resolution of Board of Directors, dt.

14-12-2011 as in Ex.A1, Copy of the certificate of Incorporation issued by the Plaintiff company, dt. 17-12-2008 as in Ex.A2, Loan applications, promissory notes, surety forms of

D1 to D10 as in Exs. A3 to A12 and the Statement of Account as in Ex.A13. Hence, in view of the unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs. A1 to A13, I have no hesitation to hold that the defendants 1, 3 to 10 failed to discharge the debt and the plaintiff company is entitled for suit amount.

In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of Plaintiff against the defendants 1, 3 to 10 for a sum of Rs. 86,408/- (Rupees Eighty Six thousand four hundred and eight only) with subsequent interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of Suit till the date of realization. Suit against D2 is dismissed as not pressed.

Typed to the Dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the day of 04th day of April, 2014.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: Myneni Ravi Kumar -Nil-

Documents marked. For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Extract of the Resolution of Board of Directors, dt.14-12-2011 Ex.A2 : Copy of Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Plaintiff company,

dt. 17-12-2008

Ex.A3 : Loan Application, Promissory note surety form of D1 Ex.A4 : Loan Application, Promissory note surety form of D2 Ex.A5 : Loan Application, Promissory note surety form of D3 Ex.A6 : Loan Application, Promissory note surety form of D4 Ex.A7 : Loan Application, Promissory note surety form of D5 Ex.A8 : Loan Application, Promissory note surety form of D6 Ex.A9 : Loan Application, Promissory note surety form of D7 Ex.A10: Loan Application, Promissory note surety form of D8 Ex.A11: Loan Application, Promissory note surety form of D9 Ex.A12: Loan Application, Promissory note surety form of D10 Ex.A13: Statement of Account

For defendant: Nil.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.