Smt K.Vani

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

PRESENT : Smt. K. Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, the Twenty-Fourth (24th) day of March, 2020.

O.S.No.535 of 2011

Between: Lingasetty Ramakoteswara Rao, S/o Sreeramulu, aged 55 years, Hindu,

Cooly, R/o Devuducheruvu, Ongole... Plaintiff

And

1. Mekala Veeramma, W/o Venkata Seshaiah, aged 65 years, House Wife, R/o Gantapalem, Ongole.

2. Busi Meenakumari, W/o Prasad, aged 40 years, House Wife, R/o Gantapalem, Ongole. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 23.03.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocatefor the Plaintiff and of Sri K.Raghava Rao, Advocate for the Respondents and upon hearing on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.In nutshell the case of the plaintiffs are that:

The plaintiff is a land less poor person and encroached the suit schedule property and resided by raising small hut. The Government issued

DKT patta in favour of the plaintiff by recognizing his possession in the year 1996, Government also issued possession certificate and feasibility certificate in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1997. Since then plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property absolutely. Recently due to rains the hut was collapsed, the tutties and other material were washed away, as such he is residing in a rented house at Devudu cheruvul. Now the plaintiff wanted to raise a pakka house in the suit schedule property, in the 2 month of June plaintiff made bhumi pooja for the construction, material for construction have been brought and laid on the plaint schedule property. At this stage, defendants who are not having any right and possession over the suit schedule property causing obstructions. The defendants also showing fake pattas and blackmailing the plaintiff in illegal manner, defendants having own house at Gantapalem and also doing business at Gantapalem and they are not eligible for obtaining DK patta as defendants are causing obstructions for the construction, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

3.The defendants filed written statement by denying the entire contents of the plaint and submitted that plaintiff is not a poor person and he is not entitled for DKT patta, plaintiff is never in possession of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff and one Iragani Simhadri got filed this case and in

O.S.536/2011, basing on the fake and bogus pattas by creating feasibility and

possession certificates. This defendants made enquiries before Revenue

Officials and stating that DK patta relating to the plaintiff is a bogus one.

Defendants also obtained endorsement dated 09.11.2011, but there are no records available pertains to the plaintiff DK patta. More over, the Tahsildar,

Ongole, gave endorsement confirming the issuance of DK patta in favour of the defendants, after granting DK patta in favour of the defendant they raised hut and lived there and they continued in possession of the suit schedule property till Laiola Toofan, after the Laiola Toofan 1st defendant raised thatched house.

1st defendant also paid house tax to the Ongole Municipality in the year 1998 and 1999. Plaintiff and Iragani Simhadri has got evil eye over the suit schedule property and filed the present suit and plaintiff never in possession of the suit schedule property and prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the rival contentions the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent injunction as prayed for?

2.To what relief?

3

5.To prove the case of the plaintiffs, himself got examined as P.W.1 and also got examined Pasumarthy Yacob, S/o Khasim, Shaik Khadar Basha, S/o

Hussain as P.Ws.2 and 3 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A9.

On other side, the 1st defendant got herself examined as D.W.1 and also examined M.Suresh Babu, S/o Daveedu and K.Chennaiah, S/o Penchalaiah as

D.Ws.2 and 3 and exhibited Exs.B1 to B12.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

7.ISSUE No.1:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent injunction as prayed for?

The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that plaintiff is a land less poor person and occupied the suit schedule property, recognizing his possession revenue officials got issued DK patta and feasibility certificate and possession certificate in favour of plaintiff over the petition schedule property.

Since then he is in possession of the suit schedule property without any interruption. Recently due to heavy rains the hut of the plaintiff was damaged and he is residing in the rented house, plaintiff wants to raise packka house and making arrangement for construction, then defendants causing obstruction.

The counsel for plaintiff further submitted to prove his possession of the plaintiff filed Exs.A1 to A9 and also got examined P.Ws.2 and 3. As per the oral evidence and as per the documentary evidence plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The case of plaintiff submitted that, defendants are residing in their own house at Gantapalem. As per Ex.A9 D.W.1 is also having electricity connection to her house at Gantapalem, it shows that the defendant is having own house at Gantapalem and the defendants are not entitled for DKT pattas and only to cause troubles to the plaintiff they are causing obstruction and prays to grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

4

8.The counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property, the temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff is also dismissed. The defendants enquired the revenue officials and they issued endorsement that the records of Exs.A1 to A3 are not available with them, the revenue officials also issued Ex.B12 that they issued DK patta in favour of the defendants, as such the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property, only to knock away the suit schedule property plaintiff filed the present suit by creating all bogus and fake revenue records and prays to dismiss the suit.

9.As it is the suit for permanent injunction, this court has to see whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

To prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as

P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3. the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is replica to the plaint and they deposed that the Tahsildar, Ongole, granted DK patta in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A1 in the year 1996, feasibility certificate and possession certificate are also issued in favour of the plaintiff by the Tahsildar, Ongole, under Ex.A2 and A3. Plaintiff also raised hut and residing there. Recently due to heavy rains the hut was damaged and plaintiff made arrangements for construction of house, then defendants are causing obstructions to them for construction of new house.

10.Apart from the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 plaintiff filed Exs.A1 to

A9. Ex.A1 is the DK patta of the suit schedule property issued in favour of the plaintiff on 24.1.1996. Ex.A2 is the possession certificate issued by the

Tahsildar, Ongole, for the suit schedule property to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Ex.A3 is the feasibility certificate issued in favour of the plaintiff to show that the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Ex.A4 are the photographs, it discloses that the plaintiff is tried to construct the house by dumping 5 construction material. Ex.A5 is the endorsement given by Tahsildar, Ongole, that records pertsins to DK patta No.134/4/1403 in respect of Sy.No.63/1 is not available in their office and they can not issue information asked by the plaintiff. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of commissioner report in O.S.478/1985.

Ex.A7 is the Certified copy of judgment passed in O.S.478/1985 and Ex.A9 is the decree passed in O.S.478/1985 and the said orders are not related to present suit schedule property.

As seen from Exs.A1 to A3, DKT patta issued in favour of the plaintiff for the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is an assigned land and the assigned to the petitioner and there after the revenue officials also granted possession certificate and feasibility certificate in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A2 and A3. As per Ex.A4 photographs the plaintiff is constructing house in the suit schedule property and dumped construction material in the suit schedule property.

11.In this case, defendants version is that DK patta filed by the plaintiff is a fake patta and 1st defendant was granted DK patta with regard to the suit schedule property. In support of their case the 1st defendant got examined herself as DW.1 and also examined 3rd parties as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and exhibited Exs.B1 to B12. Ex.B1 is the house site patta issued by the Mandal

Revenue Officer in favour of 1st defendant. Ex.B2 is the house tax receipt issued in the year 1998. Ex.B3 is the house tax receipt issued in the year 1999.

Ex.B4 is the house tax receipt issued in the year 1999. Ex.B5 is the house tax receipt issued in the year 1998. Ex.B6 is the house tax receipt in the year 1997 for the assessment No.131983. Ex.B7 is the endorsement dated 30.12.2011,

Ex.B8 is the voter I.D. Card. Ex.B12 endorsement Dt. 09.11.2011

12.The counsel for the defendant did cross examination of P.W.1 to 3, but nothing could be elicited to discard their evidence and they stick on to their original version. During the cross examination of D.W.1, the counsel for the plaintiff elicited “I do not know the relief claimed by the plaintiff and on 6

what basis he filed the present suit. We are residing at Gantapalem

near Parvathamma temple, Ongole. I do not know about my defence. I

can not say about the survey number, there are no documents to

prove that I am residing in disputed property. Thota Venkata

Seshaiah is my husband, Mekala is the surname of my parents”. So, from the above admissions it is clear that being the defendant she do not know what for the plaintiff filed the present suit and what is the defence taken by her in this case and she has no documentary proof to show that she is in possession of the suit schedule property.

The counsel for the plaintiff further elicited during the cross examination of D.W.1 that “myself, 2 nd defendant and my grand daughter

having right to vote in Gantapalem of Ongole Town in Door No.20-1-

116. It is not true to suggest that I am having site on northern side

and opposite to Parvathamma temple and I let out shop on rent to

Likitha Chicken and Mutton centre and electricity service connection is

stands on my name for Door No.20-1-116, the house bearing Door

No.20-1-116 is standing on the name of my mother-in-law and same is

transferred to 2 nd defendant in Municipal records, we let out the Door

No.20-1-116 to Chowleswari Agencies”. It is the case of the plaintiff that house bearing Door No.20-1-116 belongs to the defendants and they are residing in the said house and they also let out the same for the chicken and mutton centre and also to Chowleswari Agencies and defendant is having electricity connection on her name. Though D.W.1 denied the same, to prove the same plaintiff filed Ex.A9 letter issued by the Assistant Engineer, Operation

D1 Section, APSPDCL, Ongole, with Survey No.75592, that the same is standing on the name of Thota Veeramma, W/o Venkata Seshaiah and the same was obtained in the year 2008. Though, D.W.1 denied obtaining of electricity service connection on her name, but under Ex.A9 it can be said that the service connection is standing on the name of D.W.1. So, D.W.1 is not placing real facts before this Court and she has deposed false before this Court. Even, as 7 per the admission of D.W.1 Thota Venkata Seshaiah is her husband and Mekala is surname of her parents and Ex.A9 was got issued to show that electricity connection is standing on the name of D.W.1 for the house at Gantapalem.

Though D.W.1 deposed that she is residing in the house No. 20-1-116 but under

Ex.B9 address it is mentioned that D.W.1 is residing in the House No.20-1-116.

So, defendant is not placing the true and real facts before this Court.

13.In this case defendant examined D.W.3 who is Tahsildar, Ongole and he gave evidence that information relating to the DK patta issued in favour of plaintiff and defendants were not available in their office. This admission also clearly shows that D.K. register of Ex.B1 and A1 are not available in their office. So, it can not be said that Ex.A1 to A3 are false and fabricated and

Ex.B1 is genuine one. As per Ex.B12 patta and evidence of D.W.3 no record has been available with Ex.A1 and Ex.B1. So, in view of the evidence of D.W.3, it is not believable that, under Ex.B12 that the pattas were given to defendants.

Moreover, Ex.B2 is available with D.W.1 since 2011, then what prevent her to file the same in this case along with written statement, but she filed the same in the year 2019 that too it is a certified copy but not original. There is no explanation why D.W.1 did not file the same in this case earlier.

As per the evidence of D.W.3 DK patta register of Ex.A1 is not available in their office and DK registered of Ex.B1 is also not available in their office and they issued endorsement under Ex.A5. So, in the above circumstances the evidence of D.W.3 placed less reliance and records pertains to Ex.A1 and B1 are not available in the Tahsildar Office, Ongole and D.W.3 produced Exs.B9 to B11. As per Ex.B9 records of Exs.A1 to A3 are not available in their office and also issued endorsement under Ex.A5.

D.W.1 also examined D.W.2. During his cross examination, the counsel for the plaintiff elicited “I am giving evidence on request of 1 st defendant,

2 nd defendant came to Court along with me, now the disputed site in

possession of Ramakoteswara Rao i.e., the plaintiff”. So, from the above 8 admissions it is clear that the suit schedule property is in possession of P.W.1.

D.W.2 who is the witness of defendants he gave evidence that the disputed site is in possession of P.W.1. Though, it is the case of the defendants that the

Tahsildar granted patta in their favour by canceling the patta granted in favour of the plaintiff, the burden is on the defendants to prove the same.

As per the contents of written statement after the Laila toofan 1st defendant raised thatched house, but there is no proof filed before this Court that there is house in suit schedule property. Even as per the oral evidence of all parties, there is no house in the suit schedule property, even as per the evidence of D.W.1 now they are residing in Gantapalem. Though both parties filed D.K. patta for petition schedule property and further more the plaintiff filed possession certificate and feasibility certificate for the suit schedule property.

So, on accumulation of oral and documentary evidence of the parties, this

Court come to conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the defendants caused obstruction to the possession of the plaintiff for suit schedule property. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

Issue No.2:

14.To what relief:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. Permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- K.Vani,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW-1: Lingisetty Ramakoteswara RaoDW-1:Mekala Veeramma

PW-2: Pasumarthy YacobDW-2:M.Suresh Babu 9

PW-3: Shaik Khadar BashaDW-3: K.Chennaiah

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1/--Original DKT patta issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Ongole, in favour of plaint schedule property. Ex.A2/--Feasibility certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Ongole. Dt. 08.02.1997. Ex.A3/--Possession certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dt. 08.12.1997. Ex.A4/--Photographs (7 in number) with C.D. Ex.A5/--Endorsement of Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal. Ex.A6/--Certified copy of Commissioner report in

O.S.478/1985.

Ex.A7/--Certified copy of Judgment Dt.28.10.1996 in

O.S.478/1985 on the file of I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Ongole. Ex.A8/--Information given by Public Information Officer, Ongole Municipality. Ex.A9/--Information given by Asst. APSPDCL, Ongole, Dt. 08.11.2017 of Thota Veeramma.

For Defendants:

Ex.B1/--House site patta issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Ex.B2/--House Tax receipt assessment No.13193A of 1998 Ex.B3/--House Tax receipt assessment No.13193A of 1999 Ex.B4/--House Tax receipt assessment No.13193A of 1998 Ex.B5/--House Tax receipt assessment No.13193A of 1998 Ex.B6/--Special notice issued by the Commissioner, Ongole Municipality Corporation. Ex.B7/--Endorsement of Tahsildar, Ongole, Dt. 13.12.2017. Ex.B8/--Voter ID Card issued by the election Commissioner of India. Ex.B9/--Letter dated 13.12.2011 Ex.B10/--Letter addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dt.22.4.2019. Ex.B11/--Letter dated 12.2.2013. Ex.B12/--Endorsement Dt. 09.11.2011 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ongole.

Sd/- K.Vani,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

PRESENT : Smt. K. Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, the Twenty-Fourth (24th) day of March, 2020.

O.S.No.535 of 2011

Between: Lingasetty Ramakoteswara Rao, S/o Sreeramulu, aged 55 years, Hindu,

Cooly, R/o Devuducheruvu, Ongole... Plaintiff

And

1. Mekala Veeramma, W/o Venkata Seshaiah, aged 65 years, House Wife, R/o Gantapalem, Ongole.

2. Busi Meenakumari, W/o Prasad, aged 40 years, House Wife, R/o Gantapalem, Ongole. … Defendants

The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Valuation and Court Fee: The relief of Permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/- on which a Court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under Section 26(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintiff being poor encroached the plaint schedule property long time back and residing in it by constructing a small hut, when the Government issued DK patta for the plaint schedule property, when the Government issued possession certificate and feasibility certificate for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, when the hut was totally damaged in the recent rains, when the plaintiff again though of constructing a pucca house in the schedule property, when the plaintiff brought all material in the plaint schedule property, when the defendants who have no right in the property tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, when the defendants since four days are proclaiming in the vicinity and trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff is unable to resist the unlawful acts of the defendants, subsequently at Ongole within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Plaint presented on 28-10-2011 and filed on 28-10-2011.

This suit is coming on 23.03.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocatefor the Plaintiff and of Sri K.Raghava Rao, Advocate for the Respondents and upon hearing on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. that permanent injunction is granted against the the defendants, restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property; and

2. that the defendants do pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.4,288/- towards costs of the suit; and do bear their own costs; - Plaint schedule is hereto enclosed -

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 24th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- K.Vani,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE

//TABLE OF COSTS//

For Plaintiff For Defendants (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00C.M. & F.C. not filed Stamp on Plaint786-00 Process 300-00 Advocate Fee3,000-00 Typing charges200-00 TOTAL 4,288-00

Sd/- K.Vani,

P.J.C.J. ONGOLE

NOTE: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents, which are marked, have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ONGOLE

PRESENT : Smt. K. Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Friday, the Thirteenth (13th) day of December, 2019

Original Suit No.616/2018

Between:

M/s. Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Company Limited, Head Office at Sadhana House, Behind Mahindra Towers, 570, PB Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Branch Office at Kurnool Road, Ongole Rep. by it’s GPA Holder, Munnangi Chiranjivi Kumar, Son of Venkateswara Rao, Assistant Manager- Litigation, R/o Door No. 32-12/3-4, Opp. To Lavanya Apartment, Boyapati Madhava Rao Street, Mogalraja Puram, Vijayawada.… Plaintiff

And

1. Batchu Malakondaiah, S/o China Kondaiah, aged 50 years.

2. Batchu Savitramma, W/o Malakondaiah, aged 45 years. Both are residents of Door No.5-9/P, Anneboyina Palli Village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District… Defendants

This suit is coming on 02-12-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.S.Chakravarthy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 and 2 having remained exparte; upon hearing the plaintiff side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: -

// J U D G M E N T //

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff's company against the defendants for recovery of the mortgage debt with interest amounting to Rs.57,850/-.

2.In nut-shall, the case of the plaintiff is that:- The plaintiff is a reputed non-banking financial company, extending housing financial services and it was registered under the Indian

Companies Act, 1956, having head office at Mumbai and having branch offices all over India including one such branch office at Ongole Town and the defendants approached the plaintiff's company at Ongole branch for sanction of housing loan and accordingly, the plaintiff's company sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.75,000/- and the defendants executed a loan agreement

No.XRESONG00031027, dated 22.03.2011 and the defendants agreed to pay 2 the loan amount in 5 years from the date of agreement, with interest at 13.15% per annum at half yearly rests with overdue interest of 24% per annum. The 2nd defendant executed a memorandum of deposit of title deeds deed in favour of the plaintiff’s company and also kept the Document

No.6851/2010 dated 18.12.2010 mortgaging the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff company towards the security for the loan amount. Despite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff's company through its officials, the defendants failed to repay the loan. At last the plaintiff’s company got issued legal notice dated 07.07.2018 to the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking preliminary decree in respect of the plaint schedule property.

3.Though summons were served on the defendants personally, but they failed to appear before this Court, as such they were set exparte.

4.During the course of plaintiff's side evidence, the Assistant

Manager-Litigation of the plaintiff's company, got examined himself as PW-1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A7.

5.Heard the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Plaintiff's company is entitled to recover the

suit amount from the defendants as prayed for?

The evidence of PW-1 is replica to the plaint. In support of his oral evidence, he also got filed Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is Certified copy of certification of incorporation dated 09-04-2007, Ex.A2 is certified copy of general power of attorney dated 01-12-2017, Ex.A3 is original home loan agreement executed by defendants, dated 22.03.2011, in favour of the plaintiff’s company with memorandum of deposit of title deeds; Ex.A4 is the Original Document

No.6851/2010 dated 18.12.2010 stand in the name of 2nd defendant; Ex.A5 is the Original office copy of legal notice Dated 07.07.2018; Ex.A6 is the Original postal receipts-2 in number and Ex.A7 is the Computerized copy of statement of loan account of defendants.

3

As per evidence of PW-1, the defendants availed loan from the plaintiff's company and executed Ex.A3 and they failed to discharge the loan amount, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff's company and also not contested the case, after receiving summons.

So, on examining PW-1 and marking Exs.A1 to A7, the plaintiff's company proved its case that the defendants availed loan from the plaintiff's company on 22-03-2011 and wantonly failed to discharge the same.

To disprove the evidence of PW-1, the defendants not contested the case, as such, the evidence of PW-1 is unchallenged. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff's company and against the defendants.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed preliminary with costs for an amount of Rs.57,850/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization thereon.

If the mortgage amount is not sufficient to meet the decretal amount, the defendants 1 and 2 are liable to pay the amount personally. Time for redemption is four months.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13 th day of December,

2019.

Sd/- K.Vani,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

PW1: Gudela Chaitanya Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 :Certified copy of certification of incorporation, dated 09-04-2007. Ex.A2: Certified copy of General Power of attorney, dated 01-12-2017. Ex.A3: Original home loan agreement executed by defendants, dated 22.03.2011, in favour of the plaintiff’s company with memorandum of deposit of title deeds.

4

Ex.A4:Original Document No.6851/2010 dated 18.12.2010 stand in the name of 2nd defendant.

Ex.A5:Original office copy of legal notice Dated 07.07.2018

Ex.A6:Original postal receipts-2 in number

Ex.A7:Computerized copy of statement of loan account of defendants.

For Defendants :Nil.

Sd/- K.Vani,

P.J.C.J, ONGOLE.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ONGOLE

PRESENT : Smt. K. Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Friday, the Thirteenth (13th) day of December, 2019

Original Suit No.616/2018

Between:

M/s. Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Company Limited, Head Office at Sadhana House, Behind Mahindra Towers, 570, PB Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Branch Office at Kurnool Road, Ongole Rep. by it’s GPA Holder, Munnangi Chiranjivi Kumar, Son of Venkateswara Rao, Assistant Manager- Litigation, R/o Door No. 32-12/3-4, Opp. To Lavanya Apartment, Boyapati Madhava Rao Street, Mogalraja Puram, Vijayawada.… Plaintiff

And

1. Batchu Malakondaiah, S/o China Kondaiah, aged 50 years.

2. Batchu Savitramma, W/o Malakondaiah, aged 45 years. Both are residents of Door No.5-9/P, Anneboyina Palli Village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District… Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintiff's company against the defendants for recovery of the mortgage debt with interest amounting to Rs.57,850/-.

Valuation and Court Fee : The suit is valued at Rs.57,850/- which is claimed, a court fee of Rs.2,546-00 is paid under Sec.31(1), read with Sec.20 and Art.1(c) of A.P. Court Fee and suits valuation Act.

Cause of action : Cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintiff’s, company sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.75,000/- to the defendants, as per vide housing loan agreement No. XRESONGO00031027 on 22-03-2011 and the defendants agreed to pay the loan amount in 5 years from the date of agreement, with interest @ 13.15% per annum at half yearly rests with overdue interest of 24% per annum when the 2nd defendant executed a deed of mortgage without possession on 22-03-2011 by keeping the Doc. No.6851/2010 dated 18-12-2010 in favour of the plaintiff’s company, when the defendants failed to repay the loan amount properly in spite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff’s company, when the plaintiff’s company got issued legal notice dated 07-07-2018 to the defendants, where the execution of the transaction took place at Ongole, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Plaint presented on : 03-11-2018 and filed on : 19-11-2018.

This suit is coming on 02-12-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.S.Chakravarthy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 and 2 having remained exparte; upon hearing the plaintiff side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and preliminary decree; (1)It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to this the 13th day of April, 2020 is the sum of Rs.71,187/- for the suit claim amount; the sum of Rs.8,869/- for interest (i.e. @ 12% per annum from the date of presentation of suit i.e., 03-11-2018 till the date of decree i.e., Rs.7,712/- and thereafter @ 6% per annum till redemption i.e. 13-04-2020 i.e., Rs.1,157/- on the suit amount of Rs.57,850/-); and the sum of Rs.4,468/- for costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, making in all the sum of Rs.71,187/-

2.And it is hereby ordered as follows :

i. That the defendants do pay into the court on or before 13th day of April, 2020 or any later date up to which time for payment may be extended by the court the said sum of Rs.71,187/- as mentioned in clause 1, supra; i (a) that if the mortgage amount is not sufficient to meet the decretal amount, the defendants 1 and 2 be and are hereby liable to pay the amount personally.

ii. That on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such date as the court may adjudged due in respect of such costs of suit and such costs charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10, together with such expenses as may be payable under rule 11 of order XXXIV of the first schedule to the code of civil procedure, 1908 the plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant or to such persons as he appoints, and the plaintiff shall if so required re-convey or re-transfer the said property from the said mortgage and clear of the from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall if so required deliver up to the defendant quite and peaceable possession of the said property.

3.And it is hereby further ordered and decree that in default of payment as aforesaid the plaintiff may apply to the court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and on such application being made the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgage property.

4.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit, and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under rule 10 of order XXXIV of the first schedule to the code of civil procedure, 1908 and that the balance, if any shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same.

5.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff, as aforesaid, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to apply for personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance and that the parties are at liberty to the court from time to time as may have occasion and on such application or otherwise the court may given such directions as it thinks fit.

6. That the defendants be and are hereby granted four Months time for redemption.

7.Subsequent interest is hereby granted at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree i.e. from 13-12-2019 till realization on the suit amount of Rs.57,850/-.

(Defendants do bear their own costs). (Plaint schedule is hereto enclosed)

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 13th day of December, 2019.

Sd/- K.Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ongole

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendants (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00Exparte Stamp on Plaint2,546-00 Stamp on petitions2-00 Stamp on process100-00 Advocate Fee1,718-00 Type charges100-00 Total 4,468-00

Sd/- K.Vani,

P.J.C.J. ONGOLE

NOTE: Both parties concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non-exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “the same should produce as and when required by the Court”.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ONGOLE

PRESENT : Smt. K. Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Tuesday, the Twenty-third(23rd) day of June, 2020.

Original Suit No.860 of 2019

Between: Mallavarapu Srinivasulu, S/o Raghavulu @ Raghava Reddy, aged about 42 years, Hindu, Coolie by profession, R/o Paboluvaripalli village, Botlaguduru Post, Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District.… Plaintiff

And

Muntha Peda Venkateswarlu, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, aged about 62 years, Hindu, 2nd lane, Gopal Nagar, Ongole. Prakasam District.… Defendant

The suit is coming on 22-06-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Bala Chennaiah, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of the defendant having remained exparte, upon hearing on plaintiff's side and upon perusal of material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, assignees, representatives and their men etc., in any way interfering into the peaceful and continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, his agents, representatives, assignees and his men by means of permanent injunction and for costs of the suit.

2.In nutshell the case of the plaintiff is that:

Plaintiff’s father Viz. Mallavarapu Raghavulu @ Raghava Reddy is residing at Jayavaram village of Tangutur Mandal. Mallavarapu Raghavulu received the suit schedule property towards his share in joint family partition by way of succession. The said Raghavulu possessed and enjoyed the same without any objection and he raised crops in the suit schedule property.

2

Revenue authorities of Tangutur also recognized his possession and enjoyment and mutated his name in all revenue records and issued 1B Namoona in favour of Mallavarapu Raghavulu. Due to financial problems plaintiff’s family shifted to

Botlaguduru village for their livelihood. The said Raghavulu also came to

Botlaguduru village. The said Raghavulu died by leaving the plaintiff as a sole legal heir. After the death of Raghavulu the suit schedule property devolved upon the plaintiff. After the death of plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff regularly visiting Jayavaram village and looking after the suit schedule property and also raised crops in the suit schedule property. Due to drought plaintiff shifted his family to Paboluvaripalli village for his livelihood and even he used to visit the suit schedule property oftenly.

On 08.09.2018 the Village Revenue Officer of Jayavaram village approached the plaintiff and served Form-11 Rule 22/3 notice to him. The plaintiff observed the notice date as 28.8.2018 and it was served to the plaintiff with anti date. The plaintiff went to Mandal Revenue Officer and explained the same to Tahsildar, Tangutur Mandal, but no use. After receiving the notice he came to know that defendant created false document with regard to notice to

Revenue Authorities requesting them to not mutate the defendant name in the revenue records. After receiving the said notice authorities put hold on the application filed by the defendant. On the month of October, 2018, plaintiff visited the suit schedule property for the purpose of cultivating the crops, the defendant along with his followers obstructed the plaintiff. Then, plaintiff informed the same to panchayat elders and village elders. The panchayat and village elders advised the defendant to stop his illegal activities, but the defendant paid deaf ear to their advise. The defendant is proclaiming in the village that the defendant will dispossess the plaintiff and the suit schedule property, as such the plaintiff approached this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the suit.

3

3.Summons were served on the defendant and he appeared through his counsel but due to non-filing of written statement as such the defendant set exparte.

4.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW-1 and also exhibited Exs.A1 to A4.

5.Heard the plaintiff counsel. Perused the entire record on hand.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

7.The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The same was inherited to the father of the plaintiff, after death of the father of plaintiff, the same was inherited upon the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant who is no way related and no way concerned to the suit schedule property is trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property without having any manner of right and title. As such plaintiff filed the present suit and prays to grant perpetual injunction.

8.As the suit is filed for perpetual injunction, this Court has to see whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

The oral evidence of the plaintiff is replica to the plaint. To prove the case of the plaintiff he also filed documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1 to A4.

Ex.A1 is the 1B Namoona issued by the Tahsildar for the suit schedule property.

On perusal of Ex.A1 issued on the name of Mallavarapu Raghavulu, S/o

Lakshmaiah, for the land an extent of 0.82 cents in Sy.No.182/2 and the same was issued on 30.07.2018. Ex.A2 is the Phahani copy for the Fasalis No.1427 and 1428 issued on the name of P.W.1 for the land an extent of 0.82 cents in 4

Sy.No.182/2 i.e., the suit schedule property. Ex.A3 is the notice under Form-11

Rule 22/3 served on P.W.1 by the Tahsildar, Tangutur, Prakasam District and

Ex.A4 is the legal notice got issued by P.W.1 to the District Collector, Prakasam

District, Revenue Divisional Officer, Prakasam District, Tahsildar, Prakasam

District and to the defendant.

9.As per Exs.A1 to A4, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Though in this case summons served on the defendant, he failed to appear before this Court and the evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged.

In the above circumstances, this Court comes to conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, this point is answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. Perpetual Injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant, his agents, assignees, representatives and his men etc., in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, his agents, representatives, assignees and his men by means of permanent.

Dictated to the Stenographer. transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23rd day of June, 2020.

Sd/- K.Vani,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE .

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW-1: Mallavarapu SreenivasuluExparte

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/--: 1-B Namoona (ROR) issued by the Tahsildar, Tangutur Mandal.

5

Ex.A2/--: Adangal/Pahani copy issued by the Tahsildar, Tangutur Mandal. Ex.A3/21.8.2018: CopyofnoticewithreferenceNo. RSBI011800092166 issued by the Tahsildar, Tangutur Mandal. Ex.A4/20.09.2019 : Office copy of legal notice.

For Defendants: Nil.

Sd/- K.Vani,

P.J.C.J.

ONGOLE .

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ONGOLE

PRESENT : Smt. K. Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Tuesday, the Twenty-third(23rd) day of June, 2020.

Original Suit No.860 of 2019

Between: Mallavarapu Srinivasulu, S/o Raghavulu @ Raghava Reddy, aged about 42 years, Hindu, Coolie by profession, R/o Paboluvaripalli village, Botlaguduru Post, Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District.… Plaintiff

And

Muntha Peda Venkateswarlu, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, aged about 62 years, Hindu, 2nd lane, Gopal Nagar, Ongole. Prakasam District.… Defendant

The suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, assignees, representatives and their men etc., in any way interfering into the peaceful and continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, his agents, representatives, assignees and his men by means of permanent injunction and for costs of the suit.

Valuation and Court Fee: The relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs.30,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.1,786/- is paid under Sec.26 (c) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose long back, when the plaintiff’s father received the suit suit schedule property from the joint family by way of succession, possessed and enjoyed the same without objection or interference from others during his life time, when the plaintiff’s father was raising crops at his right therein with the help of relatives and neighbors, when the revenue authorities recognized the possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s father over the suit schedule property and mutated the plaintiff’s father over the suit schedule property and mutated the plaintiff’s father’s name in the revenue records and issued concerned revenue documents in his favour, when in the year of 2014 the plaintiff’s father passed away and the said property devolved on the plaintiff by succession, and the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the same without any objection or interference from others, when on 8.9.2018, the VRO of

Jayavaram village approached the plaintiff hnear the MRO’s office,

Tangutur and served For XI (See Rule 22/3) notice to the plaintiff regarding the application filed by the defendant with all false facts and mutate his name in the concerned revenue records relating to the suit schedule property, and when on 20.09.2019 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to concerned revenue authorities and the defendant as well and the revenue authorities put a hold on the defendant’s application, when in the month of October, 2018 the plaintiff arranged to cultivate the the schedule land by raising the seasonal crops and the defendant obstructed the plaintiff’s work with the help of his followers and henchmen and when the plaintiff held panchayat within the presence of the caste and village elders and when on 20.01.2019 the defendant started propagating in the village that the schedule property belongs to him and he will dispossess the plaintiff at any point of time through his high handed illegal activities and political nexus etc., happened at

Jayapuram village of Tangutur Mandal of Prakasam District, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

Plaint presented on 13-02-2019 and filed on 27-09-2019.

The suit is coming on 22-06-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Bala Chennaiah, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of the defendant having remained exparte, upon hearing on plaintiff's side and upon perusal of material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

1. that the defendant, his agents, assignees, representatives and his men etc in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, his agents, representatives, assignees and his men by means of permanent injunction; and

2. that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.3,888/- towards institution costs of the suit; and do bear their own costs; (No C.M. & F.C. filed by plaintiff) - Plaint schedule is hereto enclosed -

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 23rd day of June, 2020.

Sd/- K.Vani,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE

//TABLE OF COSTS//

For Plaintiff For Defendants (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00Exparte Stamp on Plaint1,786-00 Advocate Fee 2,000-00 Typing charges100-00 TOTAL3,888-00

Sd/- K.Vani,

P.J.C.J. ONGOLE

NOTE: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents, which are marked, have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ONGOLE

PRESENT : Smt. K. Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, the Twenty-Fourth (24th) day of June, 2020.

Original Suit No. 196 of 2018

Between:

1. Kommu Prakash, S/o Venkatesh, aged 50 years.

2. Kommu Anthony, S/o Venkatesh, aged 46 years.

3. Kommu Samuel, S/o Venkatesh, aged 35 years. All are coolies, R/o Mattepadu, H/o Vemulapadu village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. Now residing at 3rd Street, Dwaraka Nagar, Triplicane City, Chennai, Tamilnadu State.… Plaintiffs

And

Addugabottu Mahalakhmamma, W/o Venkaiah, aged 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Vemulapadu village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.… Defendant

The suit is coming on 23-06-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Gangadhara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of the defendant having remained exparte, upon hearing on plaintiffs side and upon perusal of material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her associates from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.In nutshell the case of the plaintiff is that:

Originally the suit schedule property is belongs to Addagabottu

Kotaiah and it is his ancestral property. The plaintiffs mother Kommu

Dhanamma is the only daughter to the said Kotaiah. Addagabottu Kotaiah died 2 on 01.08.1996 and so also his wife Mahalakshmamma in the year 1999, after the death of Kotaiah, the plaintiffs mother became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs mother and plaintiffs partitioned the family properties on 17.3.2015 under a registered partitioned deed. In the partition the suit schedule property is fell to the share of plaintiffs. Since the date of partition the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Due to the drought the plaintiffs are doing cooly works in

Chennai. In the absence of plaintiffs the defendant created sham and nominal documents without having any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property and trying to enter into the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs came to know about the same through villagers, as such the plaintiffs approached the Court for perpetual injunction. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons not served on the defendant, this Court ordered for steps.

They filed publication in Prajasakthi News Paper, but the defendant failed to appear before this Court. As such, the defendant remained exparte.

4.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff himself got examined as PW-1 and also examined one Padmidi Venkata Ramana Rao as

P.W.2 who is resident of M.Vemulapadu village and exhibited Exs.A1 to A5.

5.Heard the plaintiff counsel. Perused the entire record on hand.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

7.The counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that originally the suit schedule property belongs to one Addagabottu Kotaiah. The mother of the plaintiffs who is daughter of Kotaiah is the only legal heir of Kotaiah. After the death of Kotaiah and his wife, the plaintiffs mother became the absolute owner 3 of the suit schedule property and there was partition between plaintiffs and plaintiff’s mother, the suit schedule property fell to the share of plaintiffs in the said partition and since then the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant is not having any right, title and possession of the suit schedule property. She is trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property As such the plaintiffs filed the present suit and for costs of the suit.

8.As the suit is filed for perpetual injunction, this Court has to see whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

To prove the same the 1st plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and also examined one Padmidi Venkata Ramana Rao as P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.1 is replica to the plaint. The evidence of P.W.2 is also on the same lines that of

P.W.1. The plaintiffs also filed Ex.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the registered partition deed dated 17.3.2015. On perusal of Ex.A1 i.e., B C D schedules fallen towards the share of the plaintiffs i.e., the suit schedule property. In the partition deed it is clearly mentioned that the property originally belongs to A.Kotaiah and mother of plaintiffs is the only legal heir to the said Kotaiah. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of Adangal dated 01.03.2016. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of

Adangal dated 14.3.2015. On perusal of Ex.A2 the suit schedule property is standing on the name of Addagabottu Kotaiah and so also Ex.A3. Ex.A4 and A5 are the death certificates of Addagabottu Kotaiah and Mahalakshmamma, who are the grand parents of the plaintiffs. So, it can be seen from Ex.A1 to A3 and oral evidence of P.W.1 and 2, it is clear that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property and defendant is not having any right and title or possession over the suit schedule property and trying to interfer with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

4

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. Perpetual Injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendant, her associates from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Stenographer. transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- K.Vani,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE .

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW-1: Kommu Prakash Exparte

PW-2: Padmidi Venkata Ramana Rao

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/17.3.2015: Registered partition deed. Ex.A2/01.3.2016: Certified copy of Adangal. Ex.A3/14.3.2016: Certified copy of Adangal. Ex.A4/22.7.2012: Death certificate of Addagabottu Mahalakshmamma who died on 26.4.1999 Ex.A5/22.7.2012: Death certificate of Addagabottu Kotaiah who died on 01.08.1996.

For Defendants: Nil.

Sd/- K.Vani,

P.J.C.J.

ONGOLE .

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ONGOLE

PRESENT : Smt. K. Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, the Twenty-Fourth (24th) day of June, 2020.

Original Suit No. 196 of 2018

Between:

1. Kommu Prakash, S/o Venkatesh, aged 50 years.

2. Kommu Anthony, S/o Venkatesh, aged 46 years.

3. Kommu Samuel, S/o Venkatesh, aged 35 years. All are coolies, R/o Mattepadu, H/o Vemulapadu village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. Now residing at 3rd Street, Dwaraka Nagar, Triplicane City, Chennai, Tamilnadu State.… Plaintiffs

And

Addugabottu Mahalakhmamma, W/o Venkaiah, aged 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Vemulapadu village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendant

The suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her associates from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Valuation and Court Fee: The relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs.50,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.2,466/- is paid under Sec.26 (c) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose when the suit schedule property originally belongs to Addagabottu Kotaiah, when the plaintiffs’ mother Kommu Danamma is the only daughter of Addagabottu Kotaiah, when A.Kotaiah died on 1.8.1996 and his wife Mahalakshmamma died in 1999; when the plaintiffs’ mother Danamma became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property after the death of Kotaiah and Mahalakshmamma; when the plaintiffs’ mother and plaintiffs partitioned the family properties and the suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiffs in the partition deed Dt. 17.3.2015, when the plaintiffs are doing coolie works at Chennai, when the defendant without any right and title over the suit schedule property trying to enter into the suit schedule property for the last four days and also to divide the property into house plots in the absence of the plaintiffs in the village, when the plaintiffs came to know about the high handed acts of the defendant through the villagers, when the plaintiffs unable to resist the acts of the defendant, when the suit schedule properties are situated at Mattepadu village, H/o Vemulapadu of Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Plaint presented on 24-04-2018 and filed on 26-04-2018.

The suit is coming on 23-06-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Gangadhara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of the defendant having remained exparte, upon hearing on plaintiffs side and upon perusal of material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. that the defendant and her associates be and is hereby restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, over the suit schedule property; and

2. that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.1,788/- towards institution costs of the suit; and do bear their own costs; (No C.M. & F.C. filed by plaintiff) - Plaint schedule is hereto enclosed -

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 24th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- K.Vani,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE

//TABLE OF COSTS//

For Plaintiff For Defendants (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00Exparte Stamp on Plaint1,786-00 Total1,788-00

Sd/- K.Vani,

P.J.C.J. ONGOLE

NOTE: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents, which are marked, have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

PRESENT : Smt. K. Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Dated, the Eighteenth(18th) day of March, 2020.

Original Suit No.821/2019

Between: M/s. Corporation Bank, Rep. By its Branch Manager Abothu Surendra Babu, S/o Kotaiah, aged 34 years, Chimakurthy Branch, Chimakurthy Town.… Plaintiff

And

1. Chreddy Venkata Reddy, S/o Chandraiah, Hindu, aged about 39 years, Business, Cultivation, R/o Door No.2, Rajampalli village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Manikanta Milk Line, Rep. By its Managing Partner Pothireddy Subba Reddy, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Door No.15/31, Ongole Road, Podili Town. Prakasam District.… Defendants

This suit is coming on 27-02-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. B.Sarada, Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte; upon hearing the plaintiff side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T // //

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiff's bank for recovery of loan amount of Rs.5,36,333/- being the principal and interest due as per the account copy maintained by the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

02.The Pleadings of the plaint are that:

The 1st defendant approached the plaintiff bank for a term loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchase of she buffaloes and submitted application on 15.2.2017 by producing the second defendant as a guarantor. On satisfaction of the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of

Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 10.95% per annum with monthly rests and varies from time to time as per the RBI guidelines, under Term loan account No.AGTL/1/170002 to the 1st defendant. For the said loan the 2 1st defendant agreed to discharge the said loan amount with interest within 84 equated monthly installments at the rate of Rs.8,549/- per month. The defendant purchased she buffaloes after receiving the loan amount and paid some installments and committed default in payment of further installments. As per the account copy maintained by the plaintiff bank, there is an outstanding balance of Rs.5,36,333/- as on 27.8.2019. The 1st defendant hypothicated the live stock including the availability in the unit. The 1st defendant being the

principal borrowed and the 2nd defendant being the guarantor are liable

to discharge the amount due to plaintiff bank as per the account copy maintained by the plaintiff bank. Inspite of repeated demands made by the bank officials, the defendant did not choose to discharge the loan amount. Hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount. Hence, the suit.

03.Though the summons of the defendant No. 2 served on them, filed vakalath through their counsel, but did not choose to file written statement. The summons of Defendant No.1 served on is mother, but he did not choose to appear before this Court. Hence, the defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte.

04.During the course of plaintiff's side evidence, the Branch

Manager of the plaintiff's bank got examined as Pw1 and exhibited

Eleven documents, which were marked as Exs.A1 to A11.

05.Heard the plaintiff. Perused the record.

06.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Plaintiff's bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants 1 and 2 as prayed for?

During the course of plaintiff's side evidence, the Branch

Manager of the plaintiff's bank got examined as PW1 and produced 3 documents which were marked as Exs.A1 to A11. Ex.A1 is the

Authorization letter issued by Zonal Office, Nellore, Dt.29.08.2019.

Ex.A2 is the Loan application dated 15.2.2017. Ex.A3 is the original demand promissory note dated 15.2.2017. Ex.A4 is the agreement for term loan dated 15.2.2017. Ex.A5 is the letter of undertaking/declaration from the borrower dated 15.2.2017. Ex.A6 is the Take delivery letter to Demand promissory note dated 15.2.2017.

Ex.A7 is the Common deed Hypothication of Crops/stocks dated 15.2.2017. Ex.A8 is the Guarantee Agreement dated 15.2.2017 executed by 2nd defendant. Ex.A9 is the Credit sanction intimation

dated 15.2.2017. Ex.A10 is the Report by official after Inspection of

site/property to be mortgaged to Bank dated 16.2.2017 and Ex.A11 is the Account copy dated 27.8.2019.

As seen from the evidence placed by the plaintiff's bank, it appears that the 1st defendant availed loan from the plaintiff's bank under Ex.A2, on executing Ex.A3 original demand promissory note

dated 15.2.2017 under Ex.A4 agreement for terms of loan. The

plaintiff bank sanctioned loan, after availment of loan amount the 1st defendant purchased she buffaloes, paid some installments and failed to repay the loan amount inspite of demands made by the plaintiff's bank. Therefore the plaintiff's bank is entitled for decree as prayed for.

07.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.5,36,333/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of filling of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization thereon, with joint and several liability of defendants 1 and 2.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- K.Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ongole 4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

PW-1: Abothu Surendra BabuExparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Authorization letter issued by Zonal Office, Nellore, Dt.29.8.2019. Ex.A2:Loan application dated 15.2.2017. Ex.A3:Original Demand Promissory note dated 15.2.2017 Ex.A4:Agreement for term loan dated 15.2.2017. Ex.A5: Letter of undertaking/declaration from the borrowed Dt.15.2.2017. Ex.A6: Take delivery letter to demand promissory note Dt. 15.2.2017. Ex.A7:Common deed hypothecation of Crops/stocks Dt.15.2.2017 Ex.A8:Guarantee agreement Dt.15.2.2017 executed by 2nd defendant. Ex.A9: Credit sanction intimation dated 15.2.2017. Ex.A10:Report by official after inspection of site/property to be mortgaged to bank dated 15.2.2017. Ex.A11:Account copy dated 27.8.2019.

For Defendant:NIL

Sd/- K.Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ongole

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

PRESENT : Smt. K. Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Dated, the Eighteenth(18th) day of March, 2020.

Original Suit No.821/2019

Between: M/s. Corporation Bank, Rep. By its Branch Manager Abothu Surendra Babu, S/o Kotaiah, aged 34 years, Chimakurthy Branch, Chimakurthy Town.… Plaintiff

And

1. Chreddy Venkata Reddy, S/o Chandraiah, Hindu, aged about 39 years, Business, Cultivation, R/o Door No.2, Rajampalli village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Manikanta Milk Line, Rep. By its Managing Partner Pothireddy Subba Reddy, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Door No.15/31, Ongole Road, Podili Town. Prakasam District.… Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintiff's bank for recovery of loan amount of Rs.5,36,333/- being the balance of principal and interest due as per the account copy maintained by plaintiff bank with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

Valuation: Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.5,36,333/- on which a court fee of Rs.7,826/- is paid U/s.20 of

APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action: The cause of action for the suit arose on 15-02-2017 when the defendant obtained loan from the plaintiff bank on executing necessary loan documents in favour of the plaintiff bank, when the defendant failed to pay loan amount inspite of demands and legal notice and at Ongole, where the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this court.

Plaint presented on 16-09-2019 and filed on 18-09-2019.

This suit is coming on 27-02-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. B.Sarada, Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte; upon hearing the plaintiff side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. that the defendants 1 and 2 do pay to the plaintiff's bank a sum of Rs.5,36,333 with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e.

18.9.2019 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization thereon;

2. that the defendant 1 and 2 do also pay to the plaintiff's bank a sum of Rs.16,922-00 towards institution costs of the suit; and do bear his own costs;

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 18 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- K.Vani,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ongole.

//TABLE OF COSTS//

For Plaintiff For 1 st For 2 nd (Rs.) Defendant Defendant (Rs.) (Rs.) Stamp on 2-00ExparteExparte Vakalat Stamp on Plaint7,826-00 Stamp on 100-00 Process Type charges100-00 Advocate Fee8,894-00 16,922-00 TOTAL

Sd/- K.Vani,

P.J.C.J.,

ONGOLE

NOTE: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents, which are marked, have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.