Sri K.Sudhakar B.Sc,B.L.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR

Present: Sri K.Sudhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

Thursday, the 10th day of September, 2015.

APPEAL SUIT NO.3 OF 2012

Venkata Lakshmamma … Appellant -Versus-

1. Munamma

2. Subbamma

3. V.C.Venkatanna … Respondents

On appeal filed against the Order and Decree passed in E.A.No.206/2006 in E.P.No.6/2006 in O.S.No.124/2005 dated 7-2-2012 by the Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

Between:

1. Munamma

2. Subbamma … Petitioners -Versus-

1. Venkata Lakshmamma

2. V.C.Venkatanna … Respondents

This Appeal came on 4-9-2015, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Mallikarjun Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri V.N.Satyanarayana and Sri M.Subbaiah, Advocates for Respondents 1 and 2, Sri P.Nazeer Ahmed, Advocate for Respondent No.3, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

:J U D G M E N T:

This is an appeal filed Under Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil

Procedure by the Appellant/1st respondent against the Order and Decree passed in E.A.No.206/2006 in E.P.No.6/2006 in O.S.No.124/2005 dated 7-2- 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

2

2.The grounds of Appeal are stated as follows:- The Lower Court failed to consider that Ramulamma has no capacity to purchase the site and construct E.P. schedule house and that respondent No.2 purchased the site with his own funds and obtained registered sale deed in the name of

Ramulamma and he constructed the house in the said site. The Lower Court failed to consider that the petitioners/R1 and R2 failed to prove the contents of

Will dated 15-8-1986 by examining the scribe who was present before the

Court. The Lower Court failed to consider that Respondent No.2 created house tax receipts in the name of M.C.Venkatanna. Hence, the Appellant prays to allow the appeal with costs and dismiss the claim petition i.e., E.A.No.206/206 by setting aside the order dated 7-2-2012 passed by the Junior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

3.Appellant is the 1st respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 are the petitioners and respondent No.3 is the 2nd respondent in E.A.No.206/2006 in

E.P.No.6/2006 in O.S.No.124/2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

For the convenience sake, it is better to refer the parties as they are arrayed in the claim petition to avoid confusion.

4.The case of the petitioners in the claim petition is that originally the petition schedule property belonged to M.Ramulamma, W/o Venkataiah of

Nandikotkur. She purchased the site under Ex.P1 registered sale deed dated 16-10-1979 and constructed building in the said site after obtaining Ex.P2 approval plan and order dated 31-12-1979 from Panchayat Board, Nandikotkur with her own funds. As her son M.C.Venkatanna looking after her welfare, she bequeathed the petition schedule property to him under Ex.P3 Will dated 15-8- 1986 in a sound disposing state of mind. After her death, M.C.Venkatanna became the absolute owner of the said property by paying Ex.P5 to P8 property tax receipts to the Panchayat. After the death of M.C.Venkatanna, the petitioners/claimants became the absolute owners of the petition schedule property as his legal heirs. So the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The petitioners recently learnt that 3

Respondent No.1 in collusion with Respondent No.2 brought the petition schedule property for sale to realize the decreetal amount in O.S.No.124/2005.

Hence, the petitioners filed the claim petition to raise attachment in

E.P.No.6/2006 in O.S.No.124/2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

5.The case of 1st respondent is that the 2nd respondent was doing business since long time and purchased the petition schedule property with his own money and kept it in the name of his mother Ramulamma nominally under Ex.P1 registered sale deed. He constructed house in the said site with his own funds and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Infact,

Ramulamma had no capacity to purchase the site and construct the house in the said site by spending huge amount. So Ramulamma has no right to bequeath the said house by way of Ex.P3 Will dated 15-8-1986 in favour of

M.C.Venkatanna. The 2nd respondent created the said Will for the purpose of this case. Therefore, the petitioners are not the owners of the petition schedule property and have no right to file this petition. The 2nd respondent manipulated the house tax receipts and obtained false certificate with an intention to raise attachment and to evade the decree debt of the 1st respondent. The boundaries mentioned in the schedule of the petition are not correct. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

6.The case of 2nd respondent is that his mother Ramulamma was the absolute owner of the property. In her lifetime, she bequeathed the same to M.C.Venkatanna. After her death, M.C.Venkatanna was in possession and enjoyment of the same. After his death, the petitioners became the absolute owners and enjoyers of the property.

7.The petitioners examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P11. The respondents examined R.W.1 to R.W.3 and did not mark any document. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Lower

Court allowed the claim petition and raised attachment of property order dated 8-11-2005. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Lower Court in 4

E.A.No.206/2006 in E.P.No.6/2006 in O.S.No.124/2005 dated 7-2-2012, the 1st respondent filed this appeal against the petitioners and 2nd respondent.

8.After considering the submissions of both parties, it is necessary to decide the following points:-

1. Whether V.C.Venkatanna purchased the petition schedule property with his own funds and obtained Ex.P1 registered sale deed in the name of Ramulamma and that V.C.Venkatanna is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property ?

2. Whether Ramulamma executed Ex.P3 Will dated 15-8-1986 in favour of M.C.Venkatanna in respect of petition schedule property. After their death, petitioners became owners of property ?

3.Whether the petitioners are entitled to raise attachment

dated 8-11-2005 in E.P.No.6/2006 in O.S.No.124/2005 dated 7-2-2012 on the

file of Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur ?

4. To what relief?

Point No.1:-

9.The 1st respondent was examined as R.W.3. She stated that the 2nd respondent was doing steel utensils business since longtime and purchased the petition schedule site with his own funds and kept in the name of his mother Ramulamma. He constructed the house in the said site with his own funds and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property.

Ramulamma had no capacity to purchase the site and construct the house by spending huge amount. A perusal of Ex.P1 shows that Ramulamma paid the consideration amount and obtained Ex.P1 sale deed in her name with regard to the site. Thereafter, she obtained approval and orders from Gram Panchayat under Ex.P2 document and constructed the house. Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 shows that

Ramulamma and her son M.C.Venkatanna paid house tax to the petition schedule house. There is no documentary evidence to consider that the 2nd respondent purchased the petition schedule property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

5

10.The 2nd respondent was examined as R.W.1. He stated that his mother Ramulamma was the absolute owner of the property. During her lifetime, she bequeathed the property to his borther M.C.Venkatanna by way of

Ex.P3 will. After the death of M.C.Venkatanna, the petitioners are the absolute owners and enjoyers of the petition schedule property.

11.In view of Ex.P1 registered sale deed, Ex.P2 approval plan and

Order, Ex.P7 tax receipt, Ramulamma was the absolute owner of the petition schedule property. Hence, this point is answered against the appellant.

Point No.2:-

12.It is not disputed that the 2nd respondent and M.C.Venkatanna were sons of deceased Ramulamma. The 1st petitioner is the wife and 2nd petitioner is the daughter of deceased M.C.Venkatanna. The 1st petitioner was examined as P.W.1. The contents of claim petition and chief affidavit of P.W.1 show that the deceased Ramulamma purchased the petition schedule property under Ex.P1 registered sale deed and executed Ex.P3 Will in favour of her son

M.C.Venkatanna with regard to the petition schedule property. After the death of M.C.Venkatanna, the petitioners became the absolute owners and enjoyers of the petition schedule property as his legal heirs. When P.W.1 came to cross- examination, she stated that, herself and her husband purchased the claim petition schedule property with the amount from coolie work. She does not remember the sale consideration amount. She does not know from whom they purchased the claim petition schedule property. She does not know the extent of site. The sale deed was executed in favour of her husband. She does not remember actually when they constructed the house. She does not remember the extent of area in which construction was made. They constructed four rooms in the said site. The constructed house is situated infront of their house. She does not know the value of the construction. They leased out the house to Brahmaiah, who is one of the sons of 2nd respondent. The said

Brahmaiah has been residing in the house for the past two years. They have been paying house tax and obtained tax receipts in the name of her husband.

6

There is no document to show that the petition schedule property belongs to them. For the above said reasons, it can be said that she does not know about the execution of will and also about the facts of the case.

13.To prove the execution of Will, the attestor of Will was examined as P.W.2. He stated that, in the year 1986, he was doing steel utensils business and got acquaintance with the 2nd respondent since twenty years.

At that time, the 2nd respondent was also doing business of steel articles. On 15-8-1986, he went to the house of Ramulamma. J.Sudarshanam scribed

Ex.A3 Will on the dictation of Ramulamma in his presence and Veera Swamy.

He himself and Veera Swamy attested on Ex.A3 Will. Ramulamma made thumb impression on Ex.A3 Will. When he came to the cross-examination, he stated that scribe Sudarshanam scribed Ex.A3 Will at the house of 2nd respondent. By the time he went to the house of 2nd respondent, the scribe

Sudarshanam was already present there. Sudarshanam is a document writer.

He possessed stamp papers. He did not inform to Ramulamma to draft the

Will on stamp papers. Veera Swamy, another attestor was also doing silver article business. R.W.1/2nd respondent stated that by the time her mother purchased the schedule property, he was residing separately. His mother obtained permission from the Panchayat Board and constructed the house with her own funds. The schedule property was transferred in the name of his brother M.C.Venkatanna by way of registered Will. He gave evidence as D.W.1 in O.S.124/2005. He also filed counter in the application for attachment of property. He has not mentioned in his deposition and counter that his mother transferred the schedule property in favour of his brother through Will. He filed counter that the schedule property belonged to his mother.

14.After analyzing the above said evidence, it can be said that Ex.P3

Will came into existence within the following suspicious circumstances.

1.P.W.2 attestor was not present at the time of execution of Will and he did not see the deceased Ramulamma affixed her thumb impression on 7

Ex.P3 Will. Therefore, the contents of Will are not proved by the evidence of P.W.2 attestor.

2.It is evident that the scribe Sudarshanam possessed stamp papers at the time of executing Ex.P3 Will. But Ex.P3 Will was executed on a white paper. So the plea of R.W.3 that Ex.P3 Will was created for the purpose of this case can be taken into consideration.

3.If really the deceased Ramulamma executed Ex.P3 Will in favour of her son M.C.Venkatanna, who is the husband and father of petitioners respectively, R.W.1/2nd respondent ought to have stated in his deposition in O.S.No.124/2005 and counter in application for attachment of property before Judgment and counter in Claim

Application that the deceased Ramulamma executed a Will in favour of

M.C.Venkatanna during her lifetime. But he did not state the said facts.

He newly introduced the said fact in his evidence only at belated stage.

The plea of 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent fabricated Will with the help of petitioners after filing of the E.P. by the 1st respondent/D.Hr.

for sale of E.P. schedule property can be taken into consideration.

4.R.W.1/2nd respondent stated in his chief affidavit that during the lifetime of Ramulamma, she bequeathed the petition schedule property to her son M.C.Venkatanna by way of Will. When he came to the cross- examination, he stated that the petition schedule property was transferred in favour of his brother by way of registered Will. But the petitioners filed unregistered Will which was drafted on a white paper.

5.According to P.W.1 she and her husband purchased the property under sale deed executed in favour of her husband. She did not present at the time of execution of Ex.P3 Will by Ramulamma.

Therefore, this issue is answered against the petitioners and 2nd respondent.

8

Point No.3:-

15.It is already discussed in the above paras that the petitioners are not the owners and enjoyers of the petition schedule property by way of Ex.P3

Will. There is no documentary evidence to prove that the petitioners are owners and enjoyers of the petition schedule property, except Ex.P3 Will.

Therefore, they are not entitled to raise attachment of the petition schedule property. Accordingly, this point is answered.

Point No.4:-

16.In the result, Appeal is allowed with costs by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 7-2-2012 in E.A.No.206/2006 in E.P.No.6/2006 in

O.S.No.124/2005 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, this the 10th day of September, 2015.

SD/- K.SUDHAKAR

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

Appendix of evidence -Nil.- I/d K.S SCJ, NDK.

Copy to the Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Sri K.Sudhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Nandkotkur.

Wednesday, the 16th day of September, 2015.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.2/2015

K.V.Rami Reddy, S/o Kesavareddygari Sankara Reddy, Hindu, Age 47 years, Business, R/o Saibaba Peta, Nandikotkur Town, Kurnool District. … Plaintiff. -Versus-

S.Rasheed, S/o Shaik Gafoor Miah, Muslim, age 55 years, Business, R/o H.No.22-48-2-1, Sangaiah Peta, Nandikotkur Town and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Defendant

This suit has been coming on 15-9-2015, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Venkata Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri C.C.V.Ranga Reddy, Advocate for the Defendant, upon hearing the arguments of both counsels, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.6,22,746/- being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 26-10-2012 and 26-10-2013 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,20,000/- each, for future interest and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are stated as follows:- The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- on 26-10-2012 and Rs.2,20,000/- on 26- 10-2013 for his family necessities and executed pronotes in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dated 3-11-2014, the defendant did not pay the debt amount. Hence, the suit is filed for recovery of the suit amount.

2

3.The allegations in the written statement are stated as follows:-

The plaintiff has been running private chits. The defendant was one of the subscribers in the chits run by the plaintiff. Due to ill feelings arose between the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant stopped to pay the chit amount. Then the plaintiff brought the pronotes into existence by forging the signatures of defendant. So the suit is not maintainable. After receipt of legal notice, the defendant approached the plaintiff and questioned about the issuance of notice. The plaintiff informed him that he has casually issued the legal notice and he would not proceed against him for recovery of any amount. So the defendant did not issue any reply to the legal notice. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings and documents, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the pronote dated 26-10-2012 for Rs.2,20,000/- and pronote dated 26-10-2013 for Rs.2,20,000/- are created and forged one ?

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

3. To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

6.Heard both sides.

Issue No.1:-

7.P.W.1 is the plaintiff. P.W.2 is the scribe of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes.

According to P.W.1 and P.W.2, on 26-10-2012, at 8-00 A.M., P.W.2 voluntarily went to the house of P.W.1 on personal work. At that time, D.W.1 was present with P.W.1. P.W.2 stated that he scribed Ex.A1 pronote with black colour ink ball point pen on green colour printed form. He put his signature at scribe column in Telugu. One revenue stamp was affixed on Ex.A1. The defendant 3 signed on the said stamp and underneath the stamp in Telugu on Ex.A1 pronote. P.W.1 stated that he paid consideration amount to the defendant.

Again P.W.1 and P.W.2 stated that on 26-10-2013, at 8-00 A.M., P.W.2 scribed

Ex.A2 pronote on green colour printed form. P.W.2 put his signature at scribe column in Telugu on Ex.A2 pronote. One revenue stamp was affixed on Ex.A2.

The defendant signed on the revenue stamp and underneath the revenue stamp. He scribed Ex.A2 pronote. P.W.1 stated that he paid consideration amount to the defendant under Ex.A2 pronote. Therefore, the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 corroborated with the contents of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes with regard to the execution and passing of consideration. The defendant deposed that the signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes are not that of him.

He did not borrow Rs.2,20,000/- on 26-10-2012 and Rs.2,20,000/- on 26-10- 2013 in the presence of P.W.2 at the house of P.W.1. Further he stated that

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes are created one.

8.When the plaintiff proved the contents of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 by examining P.W.2 who is the scribe of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes, the burden shifts on the defendant to prove that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes are forged one. Except the oral evidence of defendant, there is no documentary evidence to prove that the signatures of defendant were forged on Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 pronotes. Therefore, the defendant failed to prove that Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 pronotes are forged one.

9.The plea of defendant that he was subscriber in private chits run by the plaintiff. Due to ill feelings between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff created Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes. To prove the said plea, the defendant did not file any chit document. In the absence of documentary evidence, the plea of defendant cannot be taken into consideration.

10.The defendant stated that he received legal notice issued by the plaintiff and approached the plaintiff and questioned about the allegations mentioned in the notice. The plaintiff informed him that he would not take 4 any action against the notice. So the defendant did not give reply. Whereas the defendant stated in his evidence that he does not know whether the plaintiff got issued legal notice to him. This circumstance shows that the defendant had taken a false plea to evade the debt amount.

11.The counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff is an income tax assessee and he has not shown the pronotes amount in the income-tax returns for the year 2012-2013. Therefore, the debt is not proved. In this connection, he relied upon a case law reported in 2009 (5) Bombay 464,

Sanjay Mishra vs. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and another, wherein it was held that, “13. In the present case, there is a categorical admission that the amount allegedly advanced by the applicant was entirely a cash amount and that the amount was ‘unaccounted’. He admitted not only that the same was not disclosed in the Income Tax Return at the relevant time but till recording of evidence in the year 2006 it was not disclosed in the Income Tax Return. By no stretch of imagination it can be stated that liability to repay unaccounted cash amount is a legally enforceable liability within the meaning of explanation to Section 138 of the said Act. The alleged debt cannot be said to be a legally recoverable debt”.

12.In the above said case, the complainant filed complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. The learned Judge held that the complainant has failed to establish that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of legal liability of the loan amount and that the amount advanced was unaccounted amount which was not disclosed to the income tax authority. So the alleged debt cannot be said to be legally recoverable debt. But in the present case, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of amount on the foot of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes. The plaintiff proved the contents of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes by examining P.W.2 scribe. The plaintiff also issued legal notice to the defendant 5 demanding him to repay the debt amount. The defendant received the notice and failed to give reply. The plaintiff also proved that the defendant received consideration amount and executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes in his favour.

Therefore, the above said decision is not applicable to this case. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.2:-

13.The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 (Scribe of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes) and the contents of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes clearly established that the defendant borrowed Rs.2,20,000/- each from the plaintiff on 26-10-2012 and 26-10-2013 and executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes in favour of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is proved. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue No.3:

14.In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.6,22,746/- with costs and future interest at 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.4,40,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court, this the 16th day of September, 2015.

Sd/- K.Sudhakar

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant P.W.1 – K.V.Rami Reddy D.W.1 – S.Rasheed P.W.2 – P.Hemasundar Reddy

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Ex.A1 – Pronote, dated 26-10-2012. Nil Ex.A2 – Pronote, dated 26-10-2013. Ex.A3 – Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A4 – Postal receipt. Ex.A5 – Postal acknowledgement. I/d K.S SCJ, NDK.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:-Sri K. Sudhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

Tuesday, the 8th day of September, 2015.

INSOLVENCY PETITION N O .13/2015

Pothuraju Maddilety, S/o Devadanam, age 38 years, Hindu, Coolie, R/o Mandlem Village, Jupadubunglow Mandal, Kurnool District.

… Petitioner .

Vs.

1. Midde Seshanna, S/o M.Devadanam, age 55 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Mandlem Village, Jupadubunglow Mandal, Kurnool District.

2. Tadakanapalli Rafi, S/o Azees Miah, age 26 years, Muslim, Business, R/o Tadakanapalli Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District.

3. Mallepogu Ravanamma, S/o M.Devadasu, age 40 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Mandlem Village, Jupadubunglow Mandal.

4. M.Kittu, S/o M.Ganapuram Swamulu, age 25 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Mandlem Village, Jupadubunglow Mandal, Kurnool District.

5. M.Samba, S/o M.Ganapuram Swamulu, age 23 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Mandlem Village, Jupadubunglow Mandal, Kurnool District.

6. Telugu Srinivasulu, S/o T.Linganna, age 28 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Mandlem Village, Jupadubunglow Mandal, Kurnool District.

7. Kallam Dasu, S/o Kallam Janaiah, age 48 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Mandlem Village, Jupadubunglow Mandal, Kurnool District.

8. Jangala Krishna, S/o J.Sankaraiah, age 32 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Mandlem Village, Jupadubunglow Mandal, Kurnool District.

… Respondents

This petition has been coming on 7-9-2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Petitioner, and the respondents 1 to 8 having been remained exparte, upon hearing the counsel

for the petitioner and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Court

made the following :-

O R D E R

This is an Insolvency Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner/debtor under Sections 6 and 13 of Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 praying to adjudge him as an insolvent, to appoint Official Receiver for administration of his properties and for other relief.

2.The petitioner filed chief affidavit and he was examined as P.W.1 and no documents were marked. The contents of the chief affidavit of P.W.1 and petition go to show that previously, the petitioner was eking out his livelihood by cultivating the lands on lease to an extent of Ac.10-00 in Mandlem Village.

2

He incurred heavy amount for agriculture purposes i.e., fertilizers, pesticides and labour. But he sustained heavy loss due to monsoon effect. He borrowed amounts from the respondents on heavy interest for his agriculture. He has no other property except petition A schedule property. He is suffering from diabetics and depending upon his wife’s daily wages. At present, he is living on coolie work. He is unable to pay the debts of respondents. The respondents are pressurizing him to repay their debts by threatening him.

Hence, he filed this petition to declare him as an insolvent.

3.The respondents 1 to 8 remained exparte.

4.In view of the contents of chief evidence of P.W.1, the petitioner took amounts from the respondents to run his agricultural work but he incurred heavy loss. Hence, he could not discharge the debts of respondents. Hence, it is a fit case to declare the petitioner as an insolvent.

5.In the result, this petition is allowed by adjudicating the petitioner as an insolvent. The petitioner shall apply for his discharge of debts within six months from the date of adjudication. Notice shall be published in the Official

Gazette.

Steno typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 8th day of September, 2015.

SD/- K.SUDHAKAR

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner. For Respondents

P.W.1 – Pothuraju Maddilety -None-

Exhibits marked

For Petitioner. For Respondents

- Nil on either side - I/d K.S

SCJ, NDK.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NANDIKOTKUR.

Present :- Sri K. Sudhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

Wednesday, the 16th day of September, 2015

ORIGINAL SUIT No.57 of 2015

S.Kesavamma, W/o S.Sunkanna Goud, Hindu, age 49 years, Housewife, R/o Nandikotkur, presently residing at Plot No.304, M.S.9, Srinivasa Towers, Seshadri Nagar, Near Santhoshi Functional Hall, Nandikotkur Road, Kurnool.

… Plaintiff

Versus

G.Prabhakar, S/o Gundepogu Pullaiah, Hindu, 45 years, living with Landed properties, Coles Anandapuram Village, Juturu Post, Pamulapdu Mandal, Kurnool District.

… Defendant

This suit came on 15-9-2015, for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Naga Ramesh, Sri M.Jayasree and Sri N.Sanjeevarudu, Advocates for the Plaintiff and the defendant having been remained exparte, upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

:J U D G M E N T:

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.3,02,000/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote dated 30-5-2013 for Rs.2,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dated 18-6-2015, the defendant did not pay any amount. Hence, the suit is filed for recovery of the suit amount.

The defendant was remained exparte.

The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 suit pronote clearly proved that on 30-5-2013, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- and executed suit pronote in favour of the Plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Ex.A2 shows that inspite of repeated demands and legal notice, the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit claim is proved.

In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.3,02,000/- with costs and future interest at 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of suit till realization.

Steno typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16th day of September, 2015.

SD/- K.SUDHAKAR

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: P.W.1 – S.Kesavamma- None –

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Ex.A1: Pronote dated 30-5-2013 for Rs.2 lakhs. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dated 18-6-2015. -Nil- Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgement card.

I/D K.S

S.C.J,

N.D.K.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NANDIKOTKUR

Present : Sri K.Sudhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur

Dated this the 15th day of September, 2015

O.S.No.36/2015

S.Ahammed Hussain .. Plaintiff

-Versus-

Ismail & 11 others .. Defendants

This suit is filed to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men and agents or anybody on behalf of defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit.

This suit is coming before me on this day in the presence of Sri P.Nazeer Ahamed, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Sri T.Mallikarjuna Reddy, advocate for defendants, and this Court passed the following:

:O R D E R:

Counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the plaintiff has withdrawn the suit. Permission is granted. Suit is dismissed without costs, as plaintiff has withdrawn the suit.

Pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of September, 2015.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

S.C.J, NDK.