Karanam Chiranjeevulu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT:

SRI KARANAM CHIRANJEEVULU, M.A., LL.M.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Wednesday the 10th day of August, 2016

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 157/2013

Between:

Marreddy Uma W/o Mohana Reddy, House- wife, aged about 35 years, r/o Nidamarru village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.

… Plaintiff.

And

1. Kasukurthi Sankaramma W/o late Venkateswarlu, House wife, Hindu, aged about 70 years, r/o Bethapudi village, Mangalagiri Mandal, guntur District.

2. Kasukurthy Rajeswari w/o late Veeranjaneyulu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, r/o Dr.No.1-164, Ramalayam Street, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District.

3. Kasukurthy Raghavendra s/o late Veeranjaneyulu, Hindu, aged about 24 years, r/o Dr.No.1-164, Ramalayam Street, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District.

4. Kasukurthy Srinivasa Rao s/olate Veeranjaneyulu, Hindu, aged about 22 years, r/o Dr.No.1-164, Ramalayam Street, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District.

5. Kasukurthy Lavanya D/o late Veeranjaneyulu, Hindu, aged about 17 years, being minor represented by her mother and natural guardian 2nd defendant, r/o Dr.No.1-164, Ramalayam Street, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing before me on 14-7-2016 in the presence of Sri S.B. Murali Krishna, Advocate for Plaintiff; and of Sri L.Sivaram Prasad, Advocate for defendants and the matter is having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the estate of late

Kasukurthy Veeranjaneyulu, which is in the hands of defendants, 2 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,33,066/- being principal and interest due on promissory note dated 12-6-2012 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the late Kasukurthy Veeranjaneyulu in favour of the plaintiff, along with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a., from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization and for costs.

2.The contents of the plaint narrated in brief, necessary for the disposal of the suit are that one Kasukurthi Veeranjaneyulu, who is no other than the son of 1st defendant, husband of 2nd defendant and father of defendants 3 to 5 borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 12-6-2012 from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family and business expenses and executed promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or her order on demand.

Subsequently, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators for repayment of the debt due under the promissory notes, the said Kasukurthi Veeranjaneyulu never cared to discharge the debt due to the plaintiff. On 5-9-2013 the said Kasukurthi Veeranjaneyulu died intestate leaving behind him all the defendants as his legal representatives upon whom the entire estate of the deceased Kasukurthi Veeranjaneyulu devolved.

Subsequently, on 13-9-2013 the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to discharge the debt due and the defendants refused to revive the same. Hence, the suit.

3. The second defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by D1, D3 to D5, denied the material allegations and contended that the deceased Veeranjaneyulu married the first defendant during the 3 year 1991. At the time of the marriage, the parents of the first defendant declared gift of Ac.0.50 cents of land at Bethapudi village towards her pasupukumkuma besides entrusting gold and cash of Rs.50,000/-. By the time of marriage, the said Veeranjaneyulu was working as Clerk in flower shop at Vijayawada. During the year 1999, the deceased sold away the landed property given towards pasupukumkuma for the first defendant and augmented the amounts realized by sale of the property in due course of time. In or about during the year 2000, family was shifted to

Vijayawada by taking house on rent. Later, during the year 2002 the deceased Veeranjaneyulu, being the kartha of the family, by investing the amounts of the first defendant on hand as well as by sale of the gold ornaments of the first defendant purchased house site in his name at

Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada and got constructed RCC building therein. In the year 2006 the deceased Veeranjaneyulu started wholesale flower stall business at shop No.77 in Wholesale Flower Market at Vijayawada under the name and style of HFS in joint with Shaik Hussain and Shaik Subhani of Vijayawada. Thus, the deceased Veeranjaneyulu prospered from time to time in business and in the said process, due to competition in business some of the persons developed eye sore towards the well being of the deceased Veeranjaneyulu. The deceased used to transact flower business dealing at Bethapudi and Nidamarru villages. Due to financial pressures in business transactions, under suspicious circumstances the said

Veeranjaneyulu died on 5-9-2013 in the fields of Bethapudi village and in that connection the Mangalagiri Rural Police registered case in

Cr.No.220/2013 U/Sec.174 Cr.P.C., but the police did not take actin against the persons Viz., Bathula Venkateswarlu and Srinu Naidu named in the slip seized from the deceased on the spot. In as much as the first defendant is approaching the police for taking action against the persons 4 responsible for the death of her husband, the persons responsible for the death got filed the suits through several persons including the plaintiff herein by creating promissory notes as if the same were executed by the deceased to dictate terms to the defendants and to make them claim by diverting their attention. While things were thus, after the death of

Veeranjaneyulu, on intimating about execution of the Will by

Veeranjaneyulu by one of the attestors and scribe of it and on search of documents, the unregistered Will dated 23-8-2013 executed by

Veeranjaneyulu has come into light and on going through the contents, the defendants came to know that the deceased Veeranjaneyulu in a sound and disposing state of mind executed the Will in terms of which he bequeathed the immovable properties standing in his name in favour of the first defendant with absolute rights. Thus, on the death of

Veeranjaneyulu, the first defendant being the legatee came into possession and enjoyment of all the immovable properties in the name of deceased

Veeranjaneyulu.

After filing the suits, the defendants effected enquiries and came to know that the person name Srinu Naidu noted in the slip seized by the police is none other than the father of the plaintiff in O.S.No.327/2013 on the file of Hon'ble VI Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada against the defendants herein and that he was enquired by the police in connection with the death of Veeranjaneyulu. Thus, the Srinu Naidu fabricated the promissory notes with evil intention to knock away the immovable properties of the deceased got filed the suits against the defendants. The plaintiff is a migrant to Bethapudi village from Unnava village near Guntur and he is commonly known and called as Unnava Narayana. The plaintiff have no avocation or properties at Bethapudi village and usually acts as an agent for the villagers in dealing with government office and police matters.

5

The plaintiff has no capacity to lend any amount muchless the amounts as mentioned in the plaint. The deceased Veeranjaneyuylu did not borrow the amounts from any body much less from the plaintiff at any point of time and he did not owe any amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit may be dismissed.

4. That after hearing both parties, this court settled the following issues for trial.

1) Whether the suit promissory notes dated 12-6-2012 is true, valid and binding on the defendants ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit

amount of Rs.1,33,066/- with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., ?

3) To what relief ?

5) The plaintiff was examined as PW1. Besides herself, Pw 2 was examined. They filed their chief affidavits and the contents of the chief affidavit of PW1 is more or less equal to that of the contents of the plaint and hence, it is needless to re-write again hereunder and it would be discussed later. The evidence of Pws 1and 2 is subjected to cross examination. The plaintiff filed certain documents marked as Exs.A1 to

A3.

6) After closure of plaintiff's side evidence, the second defendant was examined as DW1. Besides herself Dws 2 and 3 are examined. They filed their chief affidavits and the contents of the chief affidavit of DW1 is more or less equal to that of the contents of the written statement and hence, it is needless to re-write again hereunder and it would be discussed later. The evidence of Dws 1 to 3 is subjected to cross examination. The defendants filed certain documents marked as Exs.B1 to B6.

7) Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned counsel for the defendants.

6

ISSUE No. 1 : Whether the suit promissory notes dated 12-6-2012

is true, valid and binding on the defendants ?

8.That after hearing both the parties and looking into the evidence as brought on record at the trial, the defendants took the plea that Ex.A1 is fabricated and collusion with the attestors and with the instigation of Srinu Naidu. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration thereunder. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 who reiterated the contents of plaint, besides herself Pw 2 was examined. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 is subjected to cross examination.

9. According to PW1 the principal borrower Kasukurthi

Veeranjaneyulu is the son of D1, husband of D2 and father of D3 to

D5 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.A1 from the plaintiff on 12-6-2012 and executed Ex.A1 on agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a.

10.EX.A1 is dated 12-6-2012 said to have been executed by

principal borrower. The evidence of PW1 was subjected to cross

examination.

11.In the cross examination, PW1 admitted that she do not have any other properties except a house site in which presently they are constructing a house. She further admitted that one Marreddy

Vijayamma the plaintiff in OS. 158/13 related as Junior mother-in- law by crusty. Marreddy koti reddy filed suit in O.S.159/2013 is also related to her. Her husband also filed Mohana Reddy also filed a suit in O.S.No.161/2013 against the same defendants. So all the suits are filed by Marreddy family. Admittedly PW1 has no properties of 7 her own, then how can she gathered Rs.1.00,000/- without there being any income source. Therefore, the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the money under Ex.A1. It is further admitted by the plaintiff that by the date of Ex.A1 either herself or her husband are not having any idea about the financial capacity of Veeranjaneyulu and his income and expenses and investment in the flower business. It is further admitted that PW1 along with the plaintiffs in

O.S.Nos.158/2013 to 161/2013 filed the suits against the defendants. Vuyyuru Srikrishna Kantha Reddy filed a suit in

O.S.No.112/2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court,

Mangalagiri. Admittedly, the principal borrower is a flower vendor.

His income may Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. PW2 was examined who is attestor to Ex.A1. The evidence of PW2 is subjected to cross examination.

12. In the cross examination of PW2, it is admitted that the said Veeranjaneyulu used to run collection point at Bethapudi village in the fields for collection of flowers and he used to engage and the services of workers for collection from fields. He used to be busy with business activity in a risk manner from 7.00 a.m to 11.00 a.m in the morning. It is further admitted that there were no business transactions between him and Veeranjaneyulu. He do not know his financial position and capacity. Thus, the principal borrower has no capacity to repay the money knowing fully well the plaintiff weaved a story that she lend money under Ex.A1 to the

principal borrower. As seen from the case record, the plaintiff has no

capacity to lend the money and the principal borrower also no 8 capacity to repay the money. Thus, the execution of Ex.A1 is suspicious and liable to be discarded with suspicion. Discarded accordingly.

14.The own admissions of PW1, in her cross examination narrated in the preceding paragraphs would clinchingly goes to show that the principal borrower is a flower vendor, collecting flowers from the fields of Bethapudi village and in turn he used to sell the same to the others. Thus, the income of the principal borrower at any rate not more than Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. Knowing fully well about the financial capacity of the principal borrower, she said to have been advanced Rs.1 lakhs under Ex.A1. When admittedly, the principal borrower is a flower vendor, the advancing money under Ex.A1 by PW1 is meaningless. Because, prima facie the

principal borrower has no capacity to repay the money. There was no

explanation from the end of the plaintiff for advancing money of Rs.1 laksh under Exs.A1. Knowing fully well the plaintiff said to have advanced huge amount under Ex.A1. The plaintiff along with the other plaintiffs in O.S.No.158/2013, 159/2013, 160/2013 on the file of this court and also OS.112/13 on the file Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Mangalagiri lent the amount. Thus, the execution of

promissory notes by the principal borrower, in all the suits would cast a bonafide doubt in the mind of the court that the promissory notes said to have been executed by the principal borrower are doubtful and suspicious.

9

15. Therefore, the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and Ex.A1 is liable to be discarded with suspicion. Discarded accordingly. In view of the foregoing reasons, the issue is answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of

suit amount of Rs.1,33,066/- with subsequent interest @ 24%

p.a., ?

16.In view of my finding in issue No.1, the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration thereunder, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed for.

17.Coming to the evidence of Dws 1 to 3, the defendant concentrated the case in respect of Ex.B1-certified copy of unregistered Will. There is no counter claim from the end of the defendants for declaration of title of right under Ex.B1. In case of a money suits, it is not necessary to decide the validity of a Will filed by the defendants. Further, the evidence DW1 is hear say that she came to know about the execution of Will by her husband through the attestors. Such a version of the DW1, did not inspires the confidence of the court. However, it is not for the court to decide the validity of the Will, it is subjected to proof in case of need in future.

With these observation I found that it is need less to discuss the evidence of Dws 1 to 3 as the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden lies on him, Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

10

ISSUE NO.3: To What relief ?

18.In view of my findings in issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for.

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

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 10th day of August, 2016.

Sd/- Karanam Chiranjeevulu

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:-

P.W.1: Mareddy Uma PW2 : Vuyyuru Sri Krishna Kanth Reddy

For Defendant:-

DW1 : Kasukurthi Rajeswari

DW2 : Katragadda Srinivasa Rao

DW3 : Bobbili Ashok Ravi Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:- Ex.A1/12-6-2012: Promissory note

Ex.A2/13-9-2013: Office copy of legal notice

Ex.A3/16-9-2013: Returned legal notice

For Defendant:-

Ex.B1/Certified copy of unregistered Will dt. 23-8-13

Ex.B2/Certified copy of sale deed dt.12-3-99 11

Ex.B3/Certified copy of registered sale deed dt. 12-3-99

Ex.B4/Certified copy of registered sale deed 12-3-99

Ex.B5/Certified copy of News paper clipping of Eenadu, Guntur dt.9-2-2014

Ex.B6/Certified copy of News paper clipping of Eenadu, Guntur dt.19-3-2015.

Sd/- Karanam Chiranjeevulu

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT:

SRI KARANAM CHIRANJEEVULU, M.A., LL.M.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Wednesday the 10th day of August, 2016.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 135/15

Between:

Sunkara Venkateswara Rao S/o Kotaiah, aged 65 years, Hindu, Business, r/o Dr.No.20-3-464, Ilabazar, Kayalavari Street, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. … Plaintiff.

And

1. Tondepu Murali Krishna S/o Venkataratnam, aged 37 years, Hindu, Business, C/o A. Vijay Kumar, Dr.No.77-13-10/1, Shanthinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2. Madireddy Pandu Ranga Rao S/o Surya Prakasha Rao, aged 60 years, Hindu, employee, C/o J.K. Constructions & Developers, House No.208/3, R.T.Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing before me on 8-6-2016 in the presence of Sri K.S. Chjandramowleeswara Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff; and Defendants having remained exparte and the matter is having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for (a) specific performance of contract of sale dated 31-5-2012, directing the first defendants execute regular registered sale deed by to receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-; (b) alternatively for refund of amount of Rs.6,88,783/- including the advance amount of Rs.4,25,000/- together with interest of

Rs.2,63,783/- @ 24% p.a.; (c) subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of suit till the realization; (d) costs of the suit.

2. The contents of the plaint narrated in brief, necessary for the disposal of the suit are that the suit schedule property originally belongs to 2nd defendant under registered sale deed dated 14-2- 1995 under Doc.No.497/95, SRO, Mangalagiri and accordingly having got marketable title, the second defendant entered into agreement of sale dated 31-5-2012 in favour of first defendant for a valid consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- and received a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/- with the covenants that the second defendant should obtain no objection certificate from Endowment Department and hand over the same to the first defendant and then within 10 days therefrom, the first defendant shall pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- and obtained registered sale deed either in favour of the first defendant or his nominee, that a day

before registration the 2nd defendant agreed to produce E.C., and

get the land measured and also furnish Adangal copy among others, while undertaking that the said land is not encumbered or alienated in any way in favour of any body else, and if the balance sale consideration is not so paid within 10 days after producing no- objection certificate from Endowment Department, the first defendant shall pay interest @ 24% p.a. While so, the first defendant entered into agreement of sale with the plaintiff for his family necessities on 18-7-2012 for a sum of Rs.8,25,000/- having received

Rs.4,25,000/- agreeing to receive the balance sale consideration of

Rs.4,00,000/- within 10 days from the date of production of no- objection certificate from Endowment Department by the second defendant and t hen the requisite registered sale deed will be executed either in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee. It is further agreed that on a day before registration, E.C., Adangal, and other documents will be furnished and the land be measured, specifying boundaries by the said Panduranga Rao i.e., the 2nd defendant. If the balance sale consideration is not so paid within 10 days after production of no-objection certificate by the 2nd defendant, the balance sale consideration shall be paid with interest 2 24% p.a.

The plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of agreement, but the defendants to perform their part of contract, postponing the same under one pretext or other. In the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff got issued registered notice dated 3-2- 2015 calling upon the defendants to perform their part of agreement, but the defendants got returned the notices. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendants called absent on 1-9-2015 even after publication, hence, the defendants are set exparte.

4.The plaintiff was examined as PW1 reiterating the contents of the plaint in his chief affidavit. Besides himself Pws 2 and 3 are also examined. Exs.A1 to A4 marked. The evidence of

PWs1 to 3 was not challenged by the defendants and it was supported by Exs.A1 to A4. Therefore, the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 is accepted. The suit claim is proved.

5.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of judgment after receipt of balance of sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- at the expenses of the plaintiff and to deliver the vacant possession . Failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to obtain a regular sale deed in his favour through process of law as prayed for.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 10th day of August, 2016.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:-

P.W.1: S. Venkateswara Rao P.W.2: V. Lokamanya P.W.3: Anabathula Siva Sankar @ Siva

For Defendants:- None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:- Ex.A1/18-7-2012 : Contract of sale

Ex.A2/31-1-2015 : Office copy of registered notice

Ex.A3/5-2-2015 : Returned registered notice

Ex.A4/9-2-2015 : Returned registered notice

For Defendants:-

NIL

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT:

SRI KARANAM CHIRANJEEVULU, M.A., LL.M.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Wednesday the 10th day of August, 2016.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 135/15

Between:

Sunkara Venkateswara Rao S/o Kotaiah, aged 65 years, Hindu, Business, r/o Dr.No.20-3-464, Ilabazar, Kayalavari Street, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. … Plaintiff.

And

1.Tondepu Murali Krishna S/o Venkataratnam, aged 37 years, Hindu, Business, C/o A. Vijay Kumar, Dr.No.77-13-10/1, Shanthinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2.Madireddy Pandu Ranga Rao S/o Surya Prakasha Rao, aged 60 years, Hindu, employee, C/o J.K. Constructions & Developers, House No.208/3, R.T.Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad. … Defendants.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for (a) specific performance of contract of sale dated 31-5-2012, directing the first defendants execute regular registered sale deed by to receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-; (b) alternatively for refund of amount of Rs.6,88,783/- including the advance amount of Rs.4,25,000/- together with interest of Rs.2,63,783/- @ 24% p.a.; (c) subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of suit till the realization; (d) costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on: 13-3-2015 Plaint filed on: 30-3-2015

Cause of action for the suit arose on 18-7-2012 when the first defendant as a purchaser under contract of sale dated 31-5-2012 executed by the 2nd defendant in his favour, executed the suit contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.8,25,000/- and received Rs.4,25,000/- as advance on the same day, while furnishing xerox copy of his agreement of sale obtained from the 2nd defendant, agreeing to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- within 10 days from the date of production of no objection certificate from Endowment Department by the 2nd defendant, and then executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee, when t he first defendant further agreed t hat a day before registration they would produce E.C., Adnagals, and Etc., and get the land measured and boundaries specified, when it is further agreed that in case of delay of payment by the plaintiff in spite of production the above requisite documents, such balance amount would carry interest @ 24% p.a., when the time is not the essence of the contract having regard to nature of transaction and conduction of parties, when the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part under the agreement of sale all the while, when t he defendants are postponing their part of contract under one pretext or other while making empty promises, that on escalation of prices due to announcement of state capital at Tullur, the defendants are learnt to be indulging in delay tactics ultimately to deny the suit contract, on 3-2-2015 when the plaintiff got issued registered notice to the defendants in that behalf, on 5-2-2015 and 9-2-2015 when the defendants got it returned respectively, at Mangalagiri where the suit contract was executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff to the knowledge of the 2nd defendant and when suit property is situated, within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court.

Valuation: This being a suit for specific performance of contract of sale dt. 18- 7-2012 for a sum of Rs.8,25,000/-

On which a court fees of Rs.10726/- is paid U/Sec.39 of APCF and SV Act, 1956.

Alternative relief for refund of Rs.6,88,783/- with interest. On which a court fee of Rs.9326/- is paid U/Sec.20 of APFC and SV Act.

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is : Rs.8,25,000/-.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing before me on 8-6-2016 in the presence of Sri K.S. Chjandramowleeswara Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff; and Defendants having remained exparte and the matter is having stood for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree :-

(i)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed directing the defendants to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of judgment after receipt of balance of sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- at the expenses of the plaintiff and to deliver the vacant possession; ii) that failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to obtain a regular sale deed in his favour through process of law as prayed for;

(ii)that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.10,728/- towards institution costs of the suit and do bear their own costs Rs.Nil. (CM and FC Not filed)

Plaint schedule is herewith attached.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 10th day of August, 2016.

SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff:- for Defendants:- (CM & FC not filed) (Exparte) Stamp on vakalat 2-00 -- Stamp on plaint 10726-00 -- Stamp on petition -- -- Stamp on process-- -- Advocate fee (Senior) -- – Advocate fee ( Junior)-- -- Type charges -- -- Writing charges -- --

------------- ----------

Total 10728-00 NIL

------------- ----------

SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT:

SRI KARANAM CHIRANJEEVULU, M.A., LL.M.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Thursday the 11th day of August, 2016.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 44/2014

Between:

Vangara Venkateswara Rao S/o Ranga Rao, Hindu, aged about 43 years, Employee, r/o Mothadaka village, Guntur District. … Plaintiff.

And

Potlacheruvu Venkata Ramana W/o late Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Employee, r/o Mothadaka vilage, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing before me on 1-8-2016 in the presence of Sri S. Subba Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff; and Defendant having remained exparte and the matter is having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,07,000/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a., from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization and for costs.

2. The contents of the plaint narrated in brief, necessary for the disposal of the suit are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-3-2011 for her family necessities and on the same day executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded him to repay the debt under promissory note, but the defendant postponing the same on one pretext or other. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant called absent on 17-3-2016 and failed to cross examine Pws 1 and 2 and no representation, hence, the defendant is set exparte.

4.The plaintiff was examined as PW1 reiterating the contents of the plaint in his chief affidavit. Besides himself PW2 was also examined. Ex.A1 was marked. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 was not challenged by the defendant and it was supported by

Ex.A1. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is accepted. The suit claim is proved.

5.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for

Rs.5,07,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 11th day of August, 2016.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:-

P.W.1: Vangara Venkateswara Rao P.W.2: Gutta Venkateswarlu

For Defendant:- None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:- Ex.A1/20-3-2011 : Promissory note

For Defendant:-

NIL

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT:

SRI KARANAM CHIRANJEEVULU, M.A., LL.M.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Thursday the 11th day of August, 2016.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 44/2014

Between:

Vangara Venkateswara Rao S/o Ranga Rao, Hindu, aged about 43 years, Employee, r/o Mothadaka village, Guntur District. … Plaintiff.

And

Potlacheruvu Venkata Ramana W/o late Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Employee, r/o Mothadaka vilage, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. … Defendant.

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.5,07,000/- being the

principal and interest amount due under promissory note for

Rs.3,00,000/- dated 20-3-2010 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with subsequent compound interest @ 24% and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 10-3-2014 Plaint filed on: 10-3-2014

Cause of action for the suit arose 20-3-2011 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff towards her family expenses and executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand at Mothadaka and subsequently when the defendant failed to discharge the debt due to the plaintiff in spite repeated demands of the plaintiff and when all the mediations made by the plaintiff proved futile and where the suit promissory note executed i.e., Mothadaka and where the plaintiff and defendant are residing are all within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

Valuation:

Principal amount due under suit

pronote dt. 20-3-2011Rs.3,00,000-00

Interest thereon at 24% p.a., from 20-3-2011 to 4-2-2014Rs.2,07,000-00 -------------------- Rs.5,07,000-00 -------------------- The value of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is Rs.5,07,000/-.

On which a court fees of Rs.7526/- is paid U/Sec.20 of APCF and SV Act, 1956.

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is : Rs.5,07,000/-.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing before me on 1-8-2016 in the presence of Sri S. Subba Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff; and Defendant having remained exparte and the matter is having stood for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree :-

(i)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed for Rs.5,07,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization;

(ii)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7528/- towards institution costs of the suit and do bear his own costs Rs.Nil. (CM and FC Not filed)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 11th day of August, 2016.

SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff:- for Defendant:- (CM & FC not filed) (Exparte) Stamp on vakalat 2-00 -- Stamp on plaint 7526-00 -- Stamp on petition -- -- Stamp on process -- -- Advocate fee (Senior) -- – Advocate fee ( Junior) -- -- Type charges -- -- Writing charges -- --

------------- ----------

Total 7528-00 NIL

------------- ----------

SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Case Historyhttp://172.17.62.2/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.ph..

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI

Case No. :OS/0000267/2015 PADARTHI RAJA GOPALA KRISHNA Vs TIYYAGURA RAVINDRA REDDY

Date : 10-08-2016

Business: Plaintiff called absent. Witness not produced. Petitioner counsel absent. No representation. Suit is dismissed for default. No costs. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 10-08-2016

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI

1 of 111/11/24, 16:52

Case Historyhttp://172.17.62.2/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.ph..

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI

Case No. :OS/0000220/2015 TADIBOINA SRINIVASA RAO Vs KALLAM PANAKALA REDDY

Date : 10-08-2016

Business: P.W.1 called absent. Costs not paid. No reprsed for default. No costs.representation. Suit is dismissed for default Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 10-08-2016

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI

1 of 111/11/24, 16:51