Smt Kalarchana Gogi

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: ­ Smt. G.Kalarchana, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, FAC VI Additional Junior Civil Judge,Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 14st day of February, 2018.

O.S. NO.1112/2016

Between :

Rangineni Venkata Ramana :: Plaintif

And:

Rangineni Tirupataiah :: Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 01.02.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Inapuri Pranava Prakasam, Advocate for plaintif and Sri Ch.Naga Raju , Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintif for permanent injunction restraining defendant his men followers, agents etc., from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintif in the plaint schedule property in any manner what so ever along with costs.

2.Brief averments of plaint:

It is the case of the plaintif that she is the absolute owner of property an extent of 314.6 sq.yards of vacant site situated in R.S.NO.84/1 at Pydurupadu village, Vijayawada rural Krishna District herein after called as suit schedule property or plaint schedule property. Plaintif further contends that she purchased the plaint schedule property on 02.07.2014 from Julapalli Srinivasa

Rao, Kotha Aruna and Vemula Suneetha children of Julapalli Subba Rao for valuable consideration registered the same in her favour under registered 2 document number 3379/2014 dated.02.07.2014 on the file of SRO

Ibrahimpatnam later she raised a zinc sheet shed and she has been in possession with absolute rights by paying tax to panchayat.

3.Plaintif further submits that defendant is a neighboring owner of plaint schedule property he purchased the vacant site from Rangineni Akilamma, since from purchase of his property trying to grab plaintif’s property and trying to encroach into the plaint schedule property creating hurdles and picking up quarrels with plaintif and adjacent owners falsely claiming property of plaintif.

By that plaintif paid the charges to MRO by challan for making survey of her property. Surveyor surveyed the property of plaintif and fixed the boundary stones in the presence of village elders.

4.Plaintif further submits that on 20.09.2016 defendant illegally picked out boundary stone of plaintif property thrown away. Plaintif and her husband questioned the same defendant grew wild threatened plaintif with dire consequences on the same day plaintif along with her husband lodged a report

before Ibrahimpatnam Police station, police received the report acknowledge

the same vide number 201609201139, but police not taken any action and informed that matter is civil in nature and approach the civil court. Defendant by taking advantage of inaction of police continued its illegal acts on 09.10.2016 once again defendant tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property local elders intervened and admonished him while leaving the place defendant proclaimed that he will dispossess plaintif from the property by hook or crook. Plaintif has prima faice case balance of convenience in her favour if injunction is not granted she will sufer irreparable loss, hence, this suit.

Brief averments of written statements:- 3

5.defendant appeared through his counsel filed written statement and denied material allegations in plaint which are not specifically admitted and claimed the plaintif to put strict proof of all allegations.

6.Defendant submits that plaintif suppressed real facts filed suit with false allegations further contends that plaintif has no right title and interest over plaint schedule property she occupied an extent of 72 sq.yards house site of defendants from his 0.8 cents extent of property. Defendant filed an application to the Mandal Surveyor to measure his property the Mandal surveyor surveyed the lands of plaintif and defendant measured the lands as per FMB and stated that the land an extent of 72 sq.yards occupied by the plaintif from the land of defendant informed the same to MRO, Vijayawada.

The said MRO issued certificate dated 17.05.2016 to the defendant as such defendant demanded the plaintif to vacate his property i.e., 72 sq.yards and hand over the same to the defendant but the plaintif not accepted the same bore grudge against him filed this false suit for permanent injunction. Plaintif has malafide intention to grab the defendant’s property she has no right, title and interest over the 72 sq.yards of defendant property and there is no cause of action to file the suit the alleged cause of action is not correct invented for the suit. Plaintif not entitled for any relief filed suit on fabricated documents hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

7.Basing on the rival contentions the following issues are framed by predecessors in office for trail:-

I) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment over

the plaint schedule property on the date of filing of the suit.?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent injunction

against the defendant as prayed for ?

iii) To what relief ?

4

8.During the course of trial, plaintif examined herself as PW.1 and exhibited documents Exs.A1 to A4. In her support examined PW.2 to PW.4.

defendant examined himself as DW.1 marked EX.B1 to B3 in his support VRO

Pydurupadu examined as DW.2 marked B4 to B8.

9.Heard both learned counsels perused entire record along with oral and documentary evidence.

10.Learned counsel for plaintif argued that plaintif is absolute owner of an extent of 314.6 sq.yards of property she surveyed her property by Mandal surveyor and affixed the boundary stones defendant tried to remove boundary stones and trespass into the suit schedule property to prove her case she examined herself and filed documents EX.A1 to A4 and also examined village elders PW.2 to PW.4. Defendant not filed any oral and documentary evidence to show that defendant have property near plaint schedule property and also fails to prove R.S.No.84/1 sub divided into 84/1A and 84/1B Defendant also not paying tax for vacant site. Sale deed schedule not showing plaintif as one of the neighbor to his property. During cross examination DW.1 admitted that he purchased his property without survey and no link documents field by the defendant. But plaintif surveyed her land and PWs.2 to 4 oral evidence supports her case. Hence, entitled for relief claimed.

11.Per contra defendant counsel vehemently argued that plaintif suppressed the real facts come to court with un clean hands and she also suppressed link documents as she was not filed the same to suppress the fact that her vendors not having property an extent of 314 sq.yards they have only 240 sq.yards and R.S.NO.84/1 subdivided and total extent of R.S.No.84/1 is 13 cents only. To prove the same defendant examined DW.2 VRO and revenue records EX.B4 to B8 proves the sub division, vendor of plaintif possessed only 5 5 cents in 84.1/A. Plaintif trying to grab defendant’s property and defendant is a neigbouring owner as per the plaint pleadings and plaintif fails to prove title and ownership over 6 ½ cents, tax receipts not proves extent of property.

Further argued that defendant is an old man not in a position to remove boundary stones. Hence, plaintif has no cause of action fails to prove her case.

Hence, not entitled for relief.

Issue No.1 and 2:

12.It is the case of plaintif that, he is the absolute owner of 314.6 Sq.yards of vacant site situated in R.S.NO. 84/1 At Pydurupaadu Village, Vijayawada

Rural, Krishna District. To substantiate her case she examined herself as P.W.1 filed her evidence affidavit reiterated plaint averments and marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4. Ex.A1 is registered sale deed executed in favour of plaintif vide document no. 3379/2014 dated 02.07.2014. On perusal of Ex.A1 it is showing that plaintif purchased an extent of 314.6 Sq.yards of vacant site in R.S.No.

84/1 from her vendor’s legal heirs Julapalli Subba Rao for valuable consideration of Rs. 3,15,000/- on 02.07.2014, registered before

Ibrahmipatnam S.R.O. It is the further case of plaintif that, after her purchase she raised Zink Sheeted shed obtained electricity service and paying house taxes in her name. To show the same Ex.A3 receipt issued by the southern power distribution company towards application fee for allotting connection filed. Ex.A2 are tax receipts for assessment number.593 filed. Ex.A4 is encumbrance certificate dated 30.02.2016. There is no dispute that, plaintif purchased suit schedule property with boundaries specified in Ex.A1 and also she obtained electricity connection and raised shed and paying property tax.

But the dispute is that as per the defendant plaintif purchased only an extent of 5 cents of property but not 6 ½ cents as contended by her. She purchased only 240 Sq.yards and also disputing R.S.Number. Defendants contending that suit schedule property situated in R.S.No. 84/1A. The R.S.No. 84/1 was sub divided into 84/1A and 84/1B. Defendants properties situated in R.S.No. 84/1B 6 in an extent of 8 cents. Per contra learned counsel for plaintif vehemently opposed sub division of R.S.No. 84/1.

13.Defendant to substantiate his case examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. Ex.B1 is original sale deed of defendant dated 11.09.2015 and Ex.B2 is office copy of M.R.O letter to collector, Krishna District

dated 17.05.2016. Ex.B3 is office copy of endorsement issued by Collector to

the defendant. In his support examined V.R.O Pydurupaadu as D.W.2 and marked through her Ex.B4 to Ex.B8. Ex.B4 is copy of Re Survey Register (R.S.R) compared with original with regard to R.S.No. 84. Ex.B5 is copy of detailed survey list of joint register holders. Ex.B6 is copy of pattdar Adanagal for

R.S.No. 84/1A. Ex.B7 is copy of pattdar Adangal for R.S.No. 84/1B. EX.B8 is

F.M.B. It is the main contention of defendant that, R.S.No. 84/1 is sub divided and defendant purchased his property in R.S.No. 84/1B, an extent of 8 cents.

He field Ex.B1 original registered sale deed on perusal of said document it clearly revealing defendant purchased the property an extent of 8 cents i.e.,

384. 02 Sq,.yards of vacant site in R.S.No. 84/1B from his vendor Rangeneni

Seetamma for consideration of Rs. 3,88,000/- on 11.09.2014.

14.Plaintif came to court contending that she purchased an extent of 314.6

Sq.yards of site in R.S.No. 84/1 and defendant trying to encroach into her property. So, it is the burden of plaintif to prove her case that she purchased an extent of 314.6 Sq.yards by cogent documentary evidence. Plaintif contending that after purchase she measured the land by surveyor paying challan to M.R.O. surveyor surveyed her land and fixed the boundary stones in the presence of village elders. But defendant who is a neighboring owner encroaching into the suit schedule property by removing the Survey stones. To show that she surveyed her land she examined P.W.2 to P.W.4 as per the plaintif they are village elders in their presence surveyor measured her land and fixed the boundary stones. Plaintif in her plaint fails to mention P.W.2 to 7

P.W.4 names that they are present at the time of surveying the land. Even she was not mentioned their names in her evidence affidavit and also in cross eamination. Further plaintif not filed either copy of challan which she paid amount to M.R.O for appointment of surveyor and even not filed surveyor report to prove her case and further not examined the said surveyor who surveyed the land, which creates doubt on plaintif contention.

15.On perusal of testimony of P.W.2 to P.W.4 they filed their evidence affidavit in same lines supporting the plaintif case that she purchased an extent of 314.6 Sq.yards and she surveyed her site in their presence and defendant trying to encroach into the schedule property illegally by removing boundary stones. During the cross examination of P.W.2 learned counsel for defendant elicited that P.W.2 is a relative of plaintif’s husband and when plaintif and her husband shifted to Vijayawada and running hotel business at

Krishna Lanka P.W.1 purchased suit schedule property and he was not present at the time of sale transaction and he do not know link documents and he never gone through the title deed of suit schedule property and he do not remember date, month and year of survey conducted to suit schedule property and he do not know survey number of suit schedule property. P.W.3 deposed in his cross examination that, his native place is Vadlamaanu Village, Guntur

District he shifted to Pydurupaadu Village 7 years back he was not seen link documents of suit schedule property and he was not remember date, month and year of survey of schedule property other than the day of survey he never visited schedule property and he do not know contents of his evidence affidavit. P.W.4 deposed that he was using plaintif’s cattle shed at

Pydurupaadu for last 3 years without rent and he worked as a plaintif’s tractor driver for 4 years and he never seen link documents and title documents of suit schedule property and he do not know contents of link documents and extent of property mentioned in link documents he also do not know contents of his 8 evidence affidavit. He went to suit schedule property twice 1st time when survey was conducted and 2nd time when defendant tried to tresspass into schedule property. P.W.4 also deposed that he do not know date, month and year of survey conducted to the schedule property and also date of trespass by the defendant.

16.On perusal of testimony of P.W.2 to P.W.4 it is clear that they are all interested persons relatives and worker of P.W.1 and her husband they are not village elders they are all planted witnesses to support plaintif’s case that she surveyed land and fixed the boundary stones. No photographs filed to show that boundary stones are fixed and no cogent documents filed that she surveyed the land. Evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 is not trust worthy all the witnesses coherently deposed that they never saw link documents and title documents and they do not know extent of property mentioned in documents either in link documents or in title document of plaintif. Furthermore, they are deposing that they are present at the time of survey and went to suit schedule property on the day of survey only. But they fails to mention when the property was surveyed. Even plaintif also fails to mention when she was surveyed her property. So, it probabalises that she never surveyed her property. Plaintif fails to prove her vendors are possessed with an extent of 314.6 Sq.yards by filing link documents. Further plaintif fails to prove extent of property as she suppressed the material documents and material witnesses i.e., not examined either her vendors or surveyor of Mandal revenue officer to prove her contention that she purchased 314.6 Sq.yards.

17.It is the contention of the defendant that, plaintif’s vendor not possessed with an extent of 314.6 Sq.yards. They only possessed 240 Sq.yards to that extent during cross examination P.W.1 denied the suggestion. Further denied the suggestion that R.S.No. 84/1 is not in existence it is sub divided into 84/1A and 84/1B and to suppress sub division she was not produced R.O.R record. To 9 support his case D.W.1 filed Ex.B4 to Ex.B8 which are copies of R.O.R, list of joint registrar holders and pattadar Adangals of R.S.No. 84/1A and 84/1B along with F.M.B. D.W.2 who is a V.R.O came to court to give evidence on witness summons clearly deposed that as per record the R.S.No. 84/1 is an extent of 13 cents only and said R.S.No. 84/1 divided into 84/1A and 84/1B and the R.S.No.

84/1A is an extent of 5 cents only and in R.S.No. 84/1B is 8. As per record 84/1B pattadar name is Rangeneni Sittamma who is vendor of defendant and as per record there is no mention of pattadar name for R.S.No. 84/1A. Even after notice plaintif counsel not cross examined V.R.O and not filed any objections with regard to documents and evidence of D.W.2. Which shows that plaintif has no objection and only to suppress the actual extent as contended by learned counsel for defendant with knowledge in plaintif’s title document they mentioned R.S.No. 84/1 only but not 84/1A.

18.During cross examination of D.W1 learned counsel for plaintif tried to elicited that defendant not filed link documents and he purchased property after purchase of plaintif and plaintif’s name not shown as one of the boundary owner and pen written name shown in Ex.B1 is written by defendant himself so it does not contain initial of registrar D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that his property and plaintif’s property situated in diferent R.S numbers and for both, vendors are diferent and his property situated in

R.S.No. 84/1B and he purchased an extent of 8 cents and he was not surveyed his land at the time of purchase. Ex.B2 is application given to the collector by the defendant to survey his land as plaintif trying to encroaching into her property. Ex.B3 stating that plaintif encroached an extent of 1 ½ cents land denied the suggestion that, Ex.B3 stating there is no encroachment at all.

Denied the suggestion that he removed the survey stones and police called him 20.09.2016.

10

19. As seen from the documents filed by defendant it clearly proving that

R.S.No. 84/1 sub divided into 84/1A and 84/1B and plaintif’s vendor is in possession of 8 cents prior to the alienation of property and same was sold to the defendant and as per the Ex.B6 84/1A is only an extent of 5 cents. As per the documents and evidence of defendant witnesses D.W.1 and D.W.2 and as per Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 M.R.O also gave endorsement under Ex.B2 that on perusal of both registered documents total extent of 14 ½ cents were registered under two documents but as per Adangal in R.S.No. 84/1A 5 cents and in R.S.No.

84/1B 8 cents total 13 cents of site only in existence on ground. So, there is a dispute between both parties an extent of 1 ½ cents. Under Ex.B3 also M.R.O gave endorsement that both documents i.e., plaintif and defendant’s documents showing registration of excess land i.e., 1 ½ cents more than land in existence in S.R.No. 84/1. So, it is civil dispute they cannot decide the same.

20.As seen from the overall discussion as per the documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 it is crystal clear that defendant purchased an extent of 8 cents in R.S.No.

84/1B from his vendor Rangeneni Sitamma who is possessed 8 cents as per

Adangals and R.S.R. But plaintif fails to prove her case that R.S.No. 84/1 not sub divided and she purchased her site in 84/1 only an extent of 6 ½ cents. As per the record total extent of property in R.S.No. 84/1B is 8 cents and total extent was purchased by defendant. As plaintif fails to file her link documents and fails to examine her vendor which adversely efects her case that she suppressed intentionally material evidence to show that R.S.No.84/1 not divided and she purchased the 6 ½ cents. Hence, plaintif fails to prove her case that she is absolute owner of an extent of 314.6 Sq.yards and defendant trespassed into her property. Hence, she was not entitled for suit claim as prayed for Issues 1 and 2 answered accordingly against plaintif in favour of defendant.

11

Issue No.3.

21.In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to dictation directly by steno corrected on laptop and pronounced in open court on this 14th day of February, 2018

II Addl. Junior Civil FAC:. VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1 : Rangineni Venkata RamanaDW.1 : Rangineni Tirupataiah PW.2 : Y.Venkateswara RaoDW.2 : K.Siva Parvathi PW.3 : Ravu Ranga Rao PW.4 : Vemula Chakravarthi.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

EX.A1Regd., sale deed executed by one Julapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Subba Rao, 2).Kotha Aruna, W/o Kotha Srinivasa Rao and 3).Vemula Suneetha, W/o Vemula Sudhakar,(children of Julapalli late Subba Rao ) of Paidurapadu village, vide Doc.No.3379/2014 dated 02.07.2014. EX.A2Bunch of property tax receipts of the plaint schedule property dated.20.12.2016. EX.A3Electricity service connection aproval by electricity authority in the plaint schedule property dated.03.08.2016. EX.A4Encumbrance certificate of the plaint schedule property stands in his name dated.30.07.2016.

For Defendants:

EX.B1Original sale deed of the defendant dated.11.09.2015 EX.B2Office copy of MRO letter to collector, Krishna District, dated.17.05.2016. EX.B3Office copy of endorsement issued by collector to the defendant. EX.B4Copy of RSR compared with original with regard to survey NO.84 12

EX.B5Copy of detailed list of joint register holders. EX.B6Copy of pattadar adangal for survey NO.84/1A EX.B7Copy of pattadar adangal for survey NO.84/1B EX.B8Copy of FMB.

II Addl. Junior Civil FAC:. VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: ­ Smt. G.Kalarchana, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, FAC VI Additional Junior Civil Judge,Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 21st day of February, 2018.

O.S. NO. 90/2017

Between :

1.Kotturu Veeraiah. 2.Puli Ramakrishna 3.Yedavalli Venkata Janardhana Murthy :: Plaintiffs

And:

1.Ch.Suri Babu 2.K.Kanaka Durga 3.A.Jayalakshmi 4.A.Gowrisankar 5.G.Rama Rao 6.Maruthi Apartments owners Association, Rept.by its president N.Ramanujacharyulu.

:: Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 24.01.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Rama Chandra Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri A.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the defendants a advocates for Defendants and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction against the defendants 1 to 5 to remove the out door units of Air conditioner machines from common corridors of Maruthi Apartment complex along with costs.

2.Brief averments of plaint:

It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs 1 and 3 are absolute owners of flat NO.2 and 4 and 2nd plaintiff is tenant of Flat No.F3. 1st defendant is tenant of F1 owned by 2nd defendant, 3rd defendant is owner of S1 flat and 4th 2 defendant is owner of S2. And 3rd defendant is wife of 4th defendant. 5th defendant is resident of flat no.S4. 4th defendant acting as secretary of Maruthi

Apartment owners association and 6th defendant is working as president and owner of flat No.G4.

3.Plaintiffs further submits that recently in the month of 2016 defendants 1, 3 to 5 installed out door units of split air conditioners in the common corridors of plaint schedule Maruthi Apartments against the easement rights of inmates and against the provisions of A.P. Apartments ( promotion of construction and owner ship) Act 1987. Due to affixing of outdoor units in common corridors the plaintiffs and other residents of the flats moving and using common corridors for their ingress and egress suffering inconvenience due to humidity, hot vapor and waste water leaking from outdoor units. Which is hazardous to the health of plaintiffs and other residents. And they affixed

AC outdoor units without consent of other occupants of the Apartment.

Plaintiffs informed all the defendants orally and also through registered post and requested them to remove the outdoor units of A.C Machines immediately, in spite of that defendants paid deaf ear and fails to remove them. In turn all the defendants developed grudge against plaintiffs quarreling with them and abusing in filthy language then plaintiffs issued legal notice dated 13.12.2016 to the defendants demanding them to remove outdoor units of AC Machines. In spite of intimation defendants not given any reply and removed the AC outdoor units till today. Even negotiations and mediations were proved futile. Hence, they have no other option constrained to file the present suit.

Brief averments of written statements:-

4. 4th Defendant filed the written statement adoption memo of D1 to D3,

D5 and D6 filed. Defendants admitted the relationship and possession of respective flats and denied the material allegations against them and claimed for strict proof of all allegations. And submitted that all the outdoor units of AC 3

Machines were fixed by them to their own walls of respective flats the cause of action is not correct by that they are not disturbing ingress and egress of the common corridor of the Maruthi Apartments and they are not causing any disturbance to the neighboring flat owners. The AC machines were fixed at the height of above seven feet to the respective own walls of defendants flats. At the time of affixing AC outdoor units plaintiffs or any other inmates never objected and they attended general body meeting in S2 flat on 24.04.2016 evening at 4.00 PM then also they are not objected for fixation of AC units.

5.Defendants further submits that all the inmates of 2nd floor Maruthi

Apartments are senior citizens and suffering from several aliments and Maruthi apartment was constructed 3 decades ago A.C units cannot be fixed at Balcony of their respective flats due to lack of grip and strength of walls technicians not suggested to do so to affix the units to back walls. Further submits that on 11.11.2016 committee consisting of 3 office bearers democratically passed resolution with quorum for the right usage of split air condition units as below.

(a) Hight should be above flat entrance door or window of the flat without any obstruction for free movement,

(b) direction of hot air should be such that it escapes open into sky.

6.Defendants further submits that defendants 3 to 5 are residents of 2nd floor which is top floor and all are senior citizens the president of Maruthi

Apartment owners association framed some guide lines and principles for fixation of AC units orally and he gave affidavit mentioning the same the present suit is filed with false allegations each and every owner of flat are at liberty to alienate or dispose their flats to the highest bidder but the previous committee consisting of the plaintiffs used to control sale transactions of the flats of Maruthi apartments dictate sellers and demand commissions as realtors the present committee consisting of defendants opposed the illegal activities 4 of the previous committee hence, present suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants to remove the A.C outdoor units to harass them. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

7.Basing on the rival contentions the following issues are framed by predecessors in office for trail:-

I) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction

directing defendants NO.1 TO 5 to remove the outdoor units of Air

conditioner machines from Corridor of Maruthi Apartment complex as

prayed for ?

ii) To what relief ?

8..During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiffs 3rd plaintiff examined as

PW.1 and exhibited documents Exs.A1 to A21. On behalf of defendants 4th defendant examined as DW.1 and exhibited EX.B1 to B16. And his wife 3rd defendant examined as DW.2 marked EX.B17 and B.18 and son of 2nd defendant examined as DW.3 marked EX.B19 to B.21.

9.Heard both learned counsels and perused written arguments filed by both along with record and oral and documentary evidence.

10.Learned counsel for plaintiffs argued that defendants affixed A.C outdoor units in common corridors without consent of inmates of Maruthi Apartments and against A.P Apartment Act provisions. The common corridors are meant for ingress and egress of all the inmates of Apartments and all the inmates have right over common corridors against the said right and without any proper authority affixed outdoor units by which all the inmates facing inconvenience and harassment while using the corridors due to hot air and humidity and also leaking of water from outdoor units in common corridor which causing health hazards to them. Even after request and negotiations and issuing notice not removed the outdoor units hence, plaintiffs filed this suit for mandatory 5 injunction. As per the documents filed by the plaintiff defendants liable to remove outdoor units.

11.Per contra learned counsel for defendants argued that all the outdoor units affixed in 2nd floor corridor which is a top floor and all the residents of 2nd floor are senior citizens suffering with health ailments they are very much in need of Air Conditioners during summer and other seasons further argued that they affixed outdoor units to their own walls at the height of seven feet by which it is not obstructing ingress and egress of other inmates and also the hot air is moving up words not comes down and for water out let there is a pipe line so there is no water leakage form out door unit further all the inmates not objected affixing Ac outdoor units in common corridors even on 24.04.2016 when inmates attended general body meeting in S2 flat they not raised any objection about fixing of AC units. Plaintiffs who are previous committee members who used to demand commissions as realtors from sale transactions of inmates the same was opposed by the present committee who are defendants by boring grudge filed this suit to harass them to prove their case they examined DW.1 to D3 and marked EX.B1 to B21 which proves their case and plaintiffs fails to show any inconvenience due to outdoor units. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

Issue NO.1:

12. It is admitted fact that all the parties to the suit are inmates of

Maruthi Apartments and defendants affixed A.C outdoor units to their common corridors in the year 2016. it is the case of the plaintiff that due to outdoor units they are suffering inconvenience and causing obstruction for their ingress and egress. Per contra defendants contending that AC outdoor units are affixed 6 at the height of 7 feet and not causing any obstruction for ingress and egress of inmates.

13.To substantiate case of the plaintiffs 3rd plaintiff examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A21, EX.A1 is three photographs and A2 to A21 are office copies of notices issued to defendants 1 to 6 and their acknowledgements and return covers. During cross examination PW.1 admitted that defendants 3 to 5 are residing at 2nd floor which is top floor due to their age they need air conditioner provision and they have not passed any resolution not to fix AC outdoor units to the own walls of flat owners in common corridor and also admitted that outdoor units are fixed above 7 or 8 feet from floor. Denied the suggestion that on 11.11.2016 owners association passed resolution that AC units can be fixed to their own walls. To prove their case defendants filed resolution passed on 11.11.2016 under Ex.B2 for fixing the outdoor units.

Though learned counsel for plaintiff suggested that all the signatures on Ex.B2 is forged but not taken any steps to disprove the document and Ex.B16 affidavit given by president of owner’s association supporting the resolution.

Hence as per resolution there is no objection to fix the outdoor units without inconvenience to other inmates.

14.As seen from the evidence of PW.1 he admitted that plaintiffs are the residents of 1st and ground floor and defendants are residents of 2nd floor, and they use 2nd floor common path way during emergency and in necessity.

Further the AC outdoor units are affixed at the height of 7 to 8 feet above. And also as per his evidence they reach common terrace from ground floor without using common pathway in 2nd floor. So as per his evidence there is no obstruction in using common path way for ingress and egress and also they are not using common path way regularly for their use. The 2nd floor common path way was used by 2nd floor inmates and there is no dispute between them.

Plaintiff admitted with regard to the resolutions passed by the committee 7 meetings conducted on several occasions for general body meetings and there is no discussion with regard to affixing outdoor units in 2nd floor corridors and issue was not included in Agenda and admitted on 24.04.2016 meeting was conducted in flat NO.S2 belongs to 4th defendant/Dw1 as on that day AC was already fixed but on that day they not disputed about fixing of AC out door units. So as per the Pw1 evidence itself no inconvenience was causing in using the outdoor units by the inmates of apartment for the reason defendants fixing out door units in common corridor and other inmates also not disputing or objecting the same only plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed the present suit but no one supported their contention. Hence, plaintiff fails to prove affixing of outdoor units causing inconvenience.

15.During cross examination of DW.1 to Dw.3 nothing specific elicited by plaintiff counsel in support of their case. DW.1 deposed that Maruthi

Apartments association was not registered one and denied the suggestion that all the documents filed by defendants showing resolution passed by association are not valid or binding on the inmates. Though the association was not registered but for amicable living and maintenance OF apartment some members are electing as secretary and president they are conducting meetings and passing resolutions suitable for their peaceful living and proper maintenance of apartment. Further PW.1 also admitted that they have unregistered owner’s association and occasionally all the owners of apartment meet to decide contingent problem and take the decisions in written on the basis of majority with quorum. So, the suggestion of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that as the owners association is not registered one so all the resolutions not binding on inmates is not tenable.

16.As seen from pleadings and evidence defendants contending that suit schedule property is not Apartment and Apartment Act not applicable but their 8 documents specially Ex.B1 i.e. agreement between builder and owners of land and other documents stating the suit schedule property is an Apartment but not Group house, so, A.P. Apartment Act applicable to them. No doubt

Apartment Act applicable and as per said Act all the owners have equal right over common corridors and other inmates not to obstruct free ingress and egress of all inmates from using the same. In this case as discussed above the out door units are not obstructing ingress and egress and also office bearers on majority permitted to fix the AC outdoor units by following some guidelines and defendants filed their A.C outdoor units as per guidelines so there is no violation of rules of Apartment Act.

17. Further plaintiffs have no right to obstruct or allege using of AC outdoor units which are above 7 to 8 feet height and not causing any obstruction for ingress and egress Ex.B16 affidavit given by president of suit schedule

Apartment i.e. 6th defendant basing on resolution Dt.11.11.2016 under Ex.B2 permitting inmates to fix out door units above 7 to 8 feet, which clearly stated at para 3 that ‘A common corridor is left for ingress and egress of the flat owners and all the owners of Apartment are allowed to fix outdoor A.C units without disturbance for passage and to fix the same 7 feet above their own wall’. There is no specific cross examination with regard to Ex.B16 so it supports the defendant contention that all the inmates can fix the outdoor units without any inconvenience above the height of 7 feet to their own walls.

Photographs filed by plaintiffs EX.A1 and also EX.B18 clearly showing AC units are more than 7 feet above. So they are not causing any obstruction for ingress and egress of in mates and photographs under EX.B18 also showing that there is water outlet pipe line so there is no leakage of water in common corridor to cause any inconvenience to ingress and egress. As per the over all discussion plaintiff fails to prove the outdoor units causing inconvenience for 9 the inmates and hazardous to their health. Hence, I am inclined to dismiss the suit. Issue no.1 answered accordingly against plaintiffs in favour of defendants.

Issue No.2:-

18.In the result, suit is dismissed. Both parties bear their own costs.

Typed to dictation directly by steno corrected on laptop and pronounced in open court on this 21st day of February, 2018

II Addl. Junior Civil FAC:. VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1: Yadavalli Venkata Janardana Murthy DW.1:A.Gowri Sankar. DW.2 : A.Jayalakshmi DW.3 : Raghava Sachidanana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

EX.A13 photos with CD dated.28.01.2017 EX.A2Office copy of notice to defendant NO.1 by plaintiffs dated 21.11.2016. EX.A3Refused notice from defendant NO.1 dated.25.11.2016. EX.A4Office copy of notice to the husband of defendant NO.2 by plaintiff dated.21.11.2016. EX.A5Postal acknowledgement from D2 dated.23.11.2016. EX.A6Office copy of notice to defendant NO.3 by plaintiffs dated.21.11.2016 EX.A7Postal acknowledgement from defendant NO.3 dated.23.11.2016. EX.A8Office copy of notice to defendant NO.4 by plaintiffs dated.21.11.2016. EX.A9Postal acknowledgement from defendant NO.4 dated.2.11.2016 EX.A10Office copy of notice to defendant NO.5 by plaintiffs dated.21.11.2016.

10

EX.A11Postal acknowledgement from defendant NO.5 dated.23.11.2016. EX.A12Office copy of notice to defendant NO.6 by plaintiffs marking a copy to defendant NO.4 dated.10.11.2016. EX.A13Postal acknowledgement fromD4 to Doc. NO.14 dated.23.11.2016. EX.A14Refused notice from defendant No.6 dated 23.11.2016 EX.A15Office copy of legal notice to defendants dated.13.12.2016. EX.A16Postal booking receipts (7) to Doc.No.17 dated.13.12.2016. EX.A17Postal acknowledgement from defendant NO.1 dated.14.12.2016. EX.A18Postal acknowledgement from defendant NO.3 dated.17.12.2016. EX.A19Postal acknowledgement from defendant NO.4 dated.17.12.2016. EX.A20Returned cover from defendant NO.5 dated.15.12.2016. EX.A21Postal acknowledgement from defendant NO.6 dated.14.12.2016.

For Defendants:

EX.B1Model copy of Agreement between builders and the owners of the land dated 19.08.1989 EX.B2Resolution of the committee office bearers for fixing A/c units dated 11.11.2016 EX.B3Proceedings of the meeting dated 30.01.2011 EX.B4 Mandate for operation of S.B.Account NO.03711111012122 dated 04.02.2011 EX.B5Proceedings of the meeting dated 27.11.2011 EX.B6Proceedings of the meeting dated 30.09.2012 EX.B7Proceedings of the meeting dated 01.03.2015 EX.B8Notice for meeting dated 24.04.2016 EX.B9Minutes cum proceedings of meeting at Flat S.2 of D4 dated 24.04.2016 EX.B10Warranty card of A/c in the name of 4th respondent/defendant dated 16.01.2014 EX.B11Bill of Split A/c in the name of the 3rd respondent/defendant dated 22.05.2015 EX.B12Health record and Discharge summa;ry of 5th respondent/defendant

dated 12.04.2014 to 06.07.2016

EX.B13Aadhar card of the 3rd defendant dated 22.05.2013 EX.B14Aadhar card of the 4th defendant dated 21.05.2013 EX.B15Aadhar card of the 5th defendant dated 17.09.2014 EX.B16Affidavit submitted by the president of the Maruthi Apartment owners Association dated 04.04.2017 EX.B17Registered sale deed dated 13.09.1989 executed in favour of A.Jayalakshmi, W/o Gowri Sankar EX.B187 Photographs along with CD.

11

EX.B19Registered sale deed dated 28.08.1989 executed in favour of K.Kanaka Durga, W/o Balagopalam. EX.B20Aadar Card of K.Kanaka Durga Compared with original. EX.B21Aadar card of Sachidananda Compared with original.

II Addl. Junior Civil FAC:. VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT : SMT. G.KALARCHANA

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

Monday, this the 19th day of February, 2018.

O.S. NO. 813/2017

Between:

V. Lakshmi Kishore, W/o Prabhu Kishore Hindu, a/a 54 years, Prop.M/S Varun Finance, Reptd., by her authorized person and G.P.A Holder MyneniSai Prakash, S/o Sai Babu, Hindu, a/a 29 years, Legal officer in Varun Finance, D.NO.40-1-126, Varun Motors, Bajaj Circle, M.G.Road, Vijayawada. :: Plaintif.

And: 1.Kala Devenamma, W/o Bala Raju, Hindu, a/a 43 years, R/o Qr.NO.UD/LD-459, B.Colony, Kondpalli, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Kala Bala Raju, s/o Venkata Ramana, Hindu, a/a 45 years, R/o Qr.NO.UD/LD-459, B.Colony, Kondpalli, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.

3.Gondela Lakshman, S/o Chinna Ramulu, Hindu, a/a 46 years, R/o Qr.NO.SG – 3, B.Colony, Kondpalli, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District. :: Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 16.02.2018 for plaintiff evidence in the presence of Sri I.Venkateswara Rao and Sri I. Vikram Kumar, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.38,546/- on the basis of hypothecation amount borrowed for purchase of two wheeler from the plaintiff finance company along with costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint:-

Plaintiff is proprietary concern firm, which provides vehicle finance on hypothecation basis and the 1st defendant is hypothecator he approached the plaintiff for finance to purchase two wheeler i.e., Bajaj Discover – 125cc. After due verification plaintiff provided finance amount of Rs.55,000/- to first 2 defendant to purchase the vehicle accordingly defendant executed loan and guarantee agreement on 02.01.2016 and also promissory note executed on the same day for future liability of Rs.65,988/- along with interest. The loan amount of Rs.52,000/- shall be payable together with interest @ 13.45% within 24 monthly installments @ Rs.2,750/- per month commencing from 02.02.2016 to 02.01.2018 with a condition that if the plaintiff fails to repay any installment within stipulated time i.e., within 30 days from the due date plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the vehicle financed and second rd defendant stood as guarantors for prompt payment of monthly installments. Both the defendants executed agreement of loan and guarantee on 02.01.2016. First defendant has paid 12 monthly installments of Rs.32,750/- by 17.05.2017 and committed willful default from 13th installment onwards. As per accounts statement defendants are due of Rs.38,346/- as on 29.07.2017. Plaintiff demanded several times defendants going on postponing the payments. Finally, plaintiff got issued legal notice on 29.07.2017 to the defendants to discharge the debt due. But they neither issued any replay nor complied the demand made by the plaintiff even after receiving the notice. Hence, the present suit for recovery of suit claim.

3.Defendants 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel but fails to file written statement despite ample opportunities for the reasons best know to them. Defendant NO.3 appeared personally but fails to engage the counsel and file the written statement. Hence, set exparte.

4.Plaintiff filed proof affidavit through its legal officer by name Myneni Sai

Prakash, S/o. Saibabu who is GPA Holder and authorized to conduct proceedings on behalf of plaintiff firm to show the same Ex.A1 certified copy of GPA executed in favour of the plaintiff, dt. 01.10.2014 marked as Ex.A1. It is the case of the plaintiff firm that it is a proprietary firm providing vehicle finance on hypothecation, first defendant approached for loan to purchase two wheeler i.e.,

Bajaj Discover – 125cc by an application, dt.02.01.2016 the application marked as Ex.A2 and on the even date defendant was provided loan and after receiving the loan 1st defendant executed loan and guarantee agreement and also promissory note. As per the conditions defendant has to pay borrowed amount of Rs.52,000/- in 24 monthly installments @ Rs.2,750/- per month along with interest @ 13.45% from 02.02.2016 to 02.01.2018 if defendant fails to pay monthly installments regularly in stipulated time i.e. within one month from due date plaintiff's firm entitled to take possession of the vehicle. Second defendant stood as guarantor to first defendant for payment of prompt monthly 3 installments by executing loan and guarantee agreement Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 promissory note on 02.01.2016.

5.The first defendant paid installments regularly for 12 monthly of complete

Rs.32,750/- he committed default from 13th installment onwards. Even after demand made by the plaintiff firm defendants not turn up to pay the installments regularly thus plaintiff firm issued legal notice, dt.29.07.2017 marked as Ex.A5. Ex.A6,A7 & A8 are postal receipt of 1st defendant to 3rd defendants dated.05.08.2017, Ex.A9 is account copy, dt. 29.07.2017. As per the account copy Ex.A9 defendants are due to pay Rs.38,546/- which is outstanding due to be payable by the defendants on 29.07.2017. Even after receiving notice defendants not turn up either to give reply or pay outstanding due to the plaintiff. Exs.A1 to A9 along with oral evidence of PW.1 clinchingly proved plaintiff's case. The averments mentioned in the chief affidavit are remained unchallenged as there is no appearance on behalf of the defendants.

Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendants for the amount mentioned in the plaint.

6. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3. The defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.38,546/- to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit i.e., 29.07.2017 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. on an outstanding due amount of Rs.38,546/- from the date of decree till realization.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of February, 2018.

Sd/-G.Kalarchana

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif: For Defendant:

PW.1/M. Sai Prakash – NONE –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif:

Ex.A.1 : 01.10.2014 : Certified copy of G.P.A executed in favour of P.W.1.dated.01.10.2014.

4

Ex.A.2 : 02.01.2016 : Application made by the defendants for the purchase of motor vehicle on hypothecation scheme from plaintiff firm,

Ex.A.3 : 02.01.2016 : Loan and Guarantee agreement.

Ex.A.4 : 02.01.2016 : Promissory note executed by the defendant.

Ex.A.5 : 29.07.2017 : Office copy of legal demand notice.

Ex.A6 : 05.08.2017 : Postal receipt of 1st defendant.

Ex.A.7 : 05.08.2017 : Postal receipt of 2nd defendant.

x.A.8 : 05.08.2017 : Postal receipt of 3rd defendant.

Ex.A.9 : 29.07.2017 : Account copy.

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/- G.Kalarchana

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

-// True Copy //-

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT : SMT. G.KALARCHANA

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

Friday, this the 31st day of February, 2018.

O.S. NO. 1153/2017

Between:

V. Lakshmi Kishore, W/o Prabhu Kishore Hindu, a/a 54 years, Prop.M/S Varun Finance, Reptd., by her authorized person and G.P.A Holder MyneniSai Prakash, S/o Sai Babu, Hindu, a/a 29 years, Legal officer in Varun Finance, D.NO.40-1-126, Varun Motors, Bajaj Circle, M.G.Road, Vijayawada. :: Plaintif.

And: 1.Mohmed Ibrahim, S/oDastagiri Mohiddin, Muslim, a/a 34 years, R/oD.NO.6-115, Sai Mahal Centre, Vuyyuru village and Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Mohmed Rafi, s/o Abdul Allam, Muslim, a/a 42 years, R/o D.NO.7-236-238, 7th Ward, Vuyyuru village and Mandal, Krishna District. :: Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 15.02.2018 for plaintiff evidence in the presence of Sri I.Venkateswara Rao and Sri I. Vikram Kumar, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.42,146/- on the basis of hypothecation amount borrowed for purchase of two wheeler from the plaintiff finance company along with costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint:-

Plaintiff is proprietary concern firm, which provides vehicle finance on hypothecation basis and the 1st defendant is hypothecator he approached the plaintiff for finance to purchase two wheeler i.e., Bajaj Platina - ES. After due verification plaintiff provided finance amount of Rs.46,000/- to first defendant to purchase the vehicle accordingly defendant executed loan and guarantee agreement on 10.09.2016 and also promissory note executed on the same day for future liability of Rs.60,251/- along with interest. The loan amount of 2

Rs.46,000/- shall be payable together with interest @ 15.49% within 24 monthly installments @ Rs.2,510/- per month commencing from 10.10.2016 to 10.09.2018 with a condition that if the plaintiff fails to repay any installment within stipulated time i.e., within 30 days from the due date plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the vehicle financed and second and 3rd defendants stood as guarantors for prompt payment of monthly installments. Both the defendants executed agreement of loan and guarantee on 10.09.2016. First defendant has paid 7 monthly installments of Rs.22,010/- by 02.09.2017 and committed willful default from 8th installment onwards. Plaintiff demanded several times defendants going on postponing the payments. Finally, plaintiff got issued legal notice on 28.10.2017 to the defendants to discharge the debt due. But they neither issued any replay nor complied the demand made by the plaintiff even after receiving the notice. Hence, the present suit for recovery of suit claim.

3.Defendants 1 and 2 refused suit summons, hence treated as sufficient service and not appeared before the Court. Hence, set exparte.

4.Plaintiff filed proof affidavit through its legal officer by name Myneni Sai

Prakash, S/o.Saibabu who is GPA Holder and authorized to conduct proceedings on behalf of plaintiff firm to show the same Ex.A1 certified copy of GPA executed in favour of the plaintiff, dt. 01.10.2014 marked as Ex.A1. It is the case of the plaintiff firm that it is a proprietary firm providing vehicle finance on hypothecation, first defendant approached for loan to purchase two wheeler i.e.,

Bajaj Platina - ES by an application, dt.10.09.2016 the application marked as

Ex.A2 and on the even date defendant was provided loan and after receiving the loan 1st defendant executed loan and guarantee agreement and also promissory note. As per the conditions defendant has to pay borrowed amount of

Rs.46,000/- in 24 monthly installments @ Rs.2,510/- per month along with interest @ 15.49% from 10.10..2016 to 10.09.2018 if defendant fails to pay monthly installments regularly in stipulated time i.e. within one month from due date plaintiff's firm entitled to take possession of the vehicle. Second defendant stood as guarantor to first defendant for payment of prompt monthly installments by executing loan and guarantee agreement Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 promissory note on 10.09.2016.

5.The first defendant paid installments regularly for 7 monthly of complete

Rs.22,010/- he committed default from 8th installment onwards. Even after demand made by the plaintiff firm defendants not turn up to pay the 3 installments regularly thus plaintiff firm issued legal notice, dt.28.10.2017 marked as Ex.A5. Ex.A6 and A7 are postal receipt of 1st defendant and 2nd defendant dated.28.10.2017, Ex.A8 is account copy, dt. 18.11.2017. As per the account copy Ex.A8 defendants are due to pay Rs.42,146/- which is outstanding due to be payable by the defendants on 18.11.2017. Even after receiving notice defendants not turn up either to give reply or pay outstanding due to the plaintiff. Exs.A1 to A8 along with oral evidence of PW.1 clinchingly proved plaintiff's case. The averments mentioned in the chief affidavit are remained unchallenged as there is no appearance on behalf of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendants for the amount mentioned in the plaint.

6. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants 1 & 2. The defendants 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.42,146/- to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit i.e., 18.11.2017 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. on an outstanding due amount of Rs.42,146/- from the date of decree till realization.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of February, 2018.

Sd/-G. Kalarchana

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif: For Defendant:

PW.1/M. Sai Prakash – NONE –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif:

Ex.A.1 : 01.10.2014 : Certified copy of G.P.A executed in favour of P.W.1.dated.01.10.2014.

Ex.A.2 : 10.09.2016 : Application made by the defendants for the purchase of motor vehicle on hypothecation scheme from plaintiff firm,

Ex.A.3 : 10.09.2016 : Loan and Guarantee agreement.

Ex.A.4 : 10.09.2016 : Promissory note executed by the defendant.

4

Ex.A.5 : 28.10.2017 : Office copy of legal demand notice.

Ex.A6 : 28.10.2017 : Postal receipt of 1st defendant.

Ex.A.7 : 28.10.2017 : Postal receipt of 2nd defendant.

Ex.A.8 : 18.11.2017 : Account copy.

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/- G.Kalarchana

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

-// True Copy //-

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt. G.Kalarchana,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of October, 2017

O.S.NO. 593 / 2017

Between :

Venkateshan Umapathi, S/o Venkateshan, Hindu, a/a 48 years, D.NO.6­13­101, Prop.Rama Sai Furniture Near Saibaba Temple, Gollapalemgattu, Vijayawada Town. :: Plaintiff 

And:

Vanga Lalitha Lakshmi Prasanna, W/o Balagamsetti, Hindu, a/a 32 years, D.NO.23­35­33A, Lakshmi Nagar, Vijayawada. :: Defendant

Thissuitiscomingbeforemeon24­10­2017for summons in the presence of Sri P.Sridevi, Sri Sridhar Kanteti, Sri S.Sravanthi, and Sri V.Prasanna Advocates for the plaintiff and Sri K.Kumar for defendant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J u d g e m e n t

1. Suit claim against defendant to pass decree and judgement for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant and his men and agents restraining them from ever interfering with his rightful possession and enjoyment as statutory tenant and not getting him evicted except under due process of law and for costs.

2.PW.1 called absent, no representation till 4.10 P.M., costs not paid, defendant counsel regularly attending court but plaintiff not turn up to proceed with trial which shows plaintiff not interested in suit proceedings. Hence, suit dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of October, 2017.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL. 

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2