Smt. M. Anjani Priyadarshini

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.

Thursday, this the 18rd day of January, 2018

O.S. NO. 562/2016

Between :

Edupuganti Satyanarayna@Satyanaraya Swamy, S/o Vishnu Babu, Hindu, a/a 30 years, R/o D.NO.40-9-56, Kala Nagar, Central Bank Street, Near Benz circle, Vijayawada. :: Plaintif

And:

Edupuganti Vishnu Babu, s/oSatyanarayana, Hindu, a/a 60 years, R/oD.NO.40-9-56, Kala Nagar, Central Bank Street, Near Benz circle, Vijayawada.

:: Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 08.01.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri U.V.Subrahmanyam Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri Nutakki Udaya Kumar advocate for 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 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, from alienating the plaint schedule property to 3rd parties in any manner along with costs.

2.Brief averments of plaint:

It is the case of the plaintif that plaint schedule property is self-acquired property of his paternal grandmother Smt Edupuganti Sarojanamma who purchased the same from Garapati Rajeswaramma said sale was registered as

Doc.NO.190/1966 on the file of SRO Kankipadu. Other than suit schedule property the said Sarojanamma also having other properties. During life time 2 of Sarojanamma she became devote of God Sri Rama Chandra Murthy (Sri

Chakradhara Muni Sri Janaki Devi) and her entire life was sacrificed for the service of the God Sri Rama Chandra Murthy (Sri Chakradhara Muni Sri Janaki

Devi) and intended to utilize her properties for services of God for decades by her family members. The said Sarojanamma was blessed with 3 sons one of the son is defendant.

3.The plaintif further submits that late Sarojanamma during her life time executed a settlement deed in favour of God Sri Rama Chandra Murthy (Sri

Chakradhara Muni Sri Janaki Devi) on 10.11.1978 said document registered as

Doc.No.1392/1978 and appointed Ashram Authorities to look after the plaint schedule property and the Ashram Authorities are her three sons. The said

Sarojanamma executed settlement deed relating to plaint schedule property and also her house schedule property which shown as ‘’A’’ schedule and plaint schedule as ‘’B’’ schedule in the said document. The contents of said document clearly mentioned that ‘’A’’ schedule property should be used for maintenance of Ashram. And the persons who are looking after Ashram are alone entitled to look after plaint schedule property without any right to sell or alienate the schedule property and schedule property should be within the family of Sarojanamma. Said Sarojanna died on 05.07.2009.

4.Plaintif further submits that as per the settlement deed intention is to look after the Ashram and half of the vield of the plaint schedule property should be utilized for the purpose of the Ashram. Later the other two sons

Venkanna Babu and Ram Babu not concentrated on Ashram work and given up their rights in favouar of Ashram in the year 1982, from then onwards defendant only looking after Ashram till 2006, in the year 2006 defendant accustomed to bad vices and not looking after Ashram and utilizing plaint schedule property and Ashram for his self goals. Then the plaintif and his brother and mother managing Ashram as per the desire of Sarojanamma. Due to that disputes arose between family members and the defendant. By that 3 defendant trying to alienate the property though he has no personal right.

Contrary to the condition imposed by Sarojanamma defendant is trying to alienate plaint schedule property in favour of 3rd party concealing the fact. In fact defendant was not available to plaintif’s family since long time so they gave police complainant to Machavaram police station about defendant missing while the matter stood thus, his mother received a divorce notice sent by the defendant in O.P.NO.300/2016 on the file of Hon’ble Family Court,

Vijayawada. If the defendant allowed to transfer plaint schedule property the very purpose of the settlement deed will be defeated. Hence, prima faice case, balance of convenience is in favour of plaintif. Hence, filed the suit for permanent injunction.

5.Brief averments of written statements:-

The defendant appeared through his counsel and field written statement denying the material allegations which are not specifically admitted and claimed the plaintif to put strict proof of plaint allegations.

6.The defendant denied the allegation that he was going to sell away the plaint schedule property to others in fact the schedule property is not alienable to the 3rd parties and the said property is meant for maintenance of Ashram only, further contended that defendant entered into the agreement of sale with one Makkina Anjaneya Rao with regard to the property other than the suit schedule property. The said agreement of sale entered with Makkina Anjaneya

Rao at the insist of plaintif and his mother, brother and sister and they themselves received part sale consideration. And they themselves stood as attester to the agreement.

7.Defendant further submits that plaintif his mother and other family members not looking after his welfare and harassing, threatening him and they necked out him from the house so he left the house and intended to take divorce from plaintif’s mother filed the divorce petition. Defendant further 4 submits that with utmost dedication he is looking after Sri Chakradhara Muni

Janaki Devi Ashram and its properties and he never intended to alienate plaint schedule property and the plaintif with an ulterior motive to harass and torture the defendant, got filed this false suit. There is no prima faice case, balance of convenience in favour of the plaintif and there is no cause of action, the alleged cause of action is concocted story for filing of this suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

8.On the basis of rival contentions of both parties learned predecessor in office framed the following issues for trial:

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for ?

ii) To what relief ?

9.During the course of trial, plaintif examined herself as PW.1 and exhibited EX.A1 and A2 documents. During cross examination of DW.1 EX.A3 was marked on his admission. In his support examined his mother as PW.2 and his maternal uncle as PW.3. Defendant examined himself as DW.1 and no documents marked on his behalf.

10.Heard both leaned counsels perused entire record along with oral and documentary evidence.

11.Learned counsel for plaintif argued that defendant is father of plaintif there are disputes between plaintif’s mother and father i.e., defendant here in to harass the plaintif and his mother, defendant intentionally without having any right trying to alienate the property including suit schedule property which is meant for maintenance of Ashram as per the settlement deed executed by plaintif’s paternal grandmother. Actually, suit schedule property is self- 5 acquired property of plaintif’s paternal grandmother. She executed settlement deed in favour of Ashram and appointed her three sons to look after maintenance of Ashram without right to alienate the properties meant for maintenance of Ashram. Later other two sons relinquished their rights defendant only looking after maintenance of Ashram till 2006. in the year 2006 he addicted to bad vises by that trying to utilize Ashram and plaint schedule property for his personal goals. In that view he entered into the agreement of sale with Makkina Anjaneya Rao and also trying to alienate plaint schedule property without any right to alienate the same. Hence, plaintif who is at present looking after maintenance of Ashram filed this suit restraining the defendant to alienate the property. In his support he examined himself and

Pws 2 and 3 supported the plaintif version. Hence entitled for decree as prayed for.

12.Per contra learned counsel for defendant argued that there are family disputes between plaintif’s mother and defendant to harass the defendant filed the present suit without any right or cause of action. Plaintif, his mother, brother harassing him not looking after the defendant’s welfare. Hence, he left the house that there is no other option left to lead amicable life with plaintif’s mother and her family. Hence, he filed divorce petition and he entered into agreement of sale. plaintif’s mother and plaintif and his brother has received the consideration passed to defendant. And defendant know very well that schedule property is not meant for alienation and he has no right to alienate property. So he never tried to alienate the property and prays to dismiss the suit.

Issue No.1:

13.As per the pleadings it is admitted fact that defendant is plaintif’s father.

There are family disputes between plaintif’s mother and father i.e., defendant herein. The suit schedule property is self acquired property of plaintif’s 6 grandmother i.e., defendant’s mother late Sarojanamma to that extent plaintif filed EX.A1 original sale deed in favour of late Sarojanamma by Garapati

Rajeswaramma dated 29.01.1966 in R.S.NO.41/2 an extent of 119 cents. The said property registered as Doc.No.190/1966 before SRO of Kankipadu. EX.A2 is certified copy issued by registration and stamps department dated19.09.2015 with regard to the settlement deed vide Doc NO.1392/1978 executed by late Sarojanamma settling the plaint schedule property in favour of Ashram, registration and stamp department issued nil encumbrance certificate. EX.A3 is copy of settlement deed marked during cross examination of DW.1 on admission. Thus, the case of the plaintif is that his father defendant herein trying to alienate suit schedule property to prove his case he examined himself as PW.1 and field his evidence affidavit reiterating plaint averments. During cross examination learned counsel for defendant tried to elicit that plaintif not having any avocation and depending enjoying their life on the properties earned by the defendant. Denied the suggestion that his father never tried to alienate the schedule property and also denied suggestion as long as his father lived with them till 2015, he rendered service to Ashram.

Plaintif admitted that they have no documentary proof to show that defendant alienating the plaint schedule property and also denied the suggestion that there is no cause of action that defendant trying to sale Ashram property.

Denied the suggestion that defendant is the absolute owner of plaint schedule in agreement of sale executed by him in favor of Makkena Anjaneya Rao.

Denied the suggestion that the family members forced defendant to enter into the agreement of sale for Anjaneya Rao. Denied the suggestion that plaintif, his mother and brother and sister are attesters of agreement of sale and entire value of the amount utilized by plaintif his brother and mother.

14.Plaintif examined his mother as PW.2 she filed her evidence affidavit reiterating plaint averments. The learned counsel for defendant cross 7 examined PW.2 with regard to the matrimonial disputes between defendant and herself. Denied the suggestion that plaintif and his brother without any avocation and earning depending on defendant’s properties and enjoying lavishly.

15.Plaintif further examined one Kodali Dinesh Kumar who is maternal uncle of PW.1 by filing evidence affidavit he supported the plaintif’s case. During cross examination of P.W3 deposed that he know about the settlement deed executed by defendant’s mother and he came to know fact about the alienation by defendant from his friends. He did not know to whome defendant tried to alienate the property and there is no documentary proof to show that defendant going to alienate suit schedule property. Denied the suggestion that as there are matrimonial disputes between PW.2 here in and defendant to harass him he was deposing false. Denied the suggestion that on 23.11.2015 plaintif and her family members necked out the defendant from his house and illegally enjoying the defendant property. Filed the present suit.

16.Defendant examined himself as DW.1 during his cross examination the learned counsel for plaintif on admission marked the settlement deed as

EX.A3, as per settlement deed his mother gave him life time enjoyment to him and her legal heirs without any right to alienation. Denied the suggestion after demise of his mother he fails to look after Ashram so plaintif and his brother came forward to look after the Ashram. He executed agreement of sale to one

Makkina Anjaneya Rao said agreement not pertains to the property of settlement deed executed by his mother i.e schedule property mentioned in settlement deed. Agreement of sale related to house property in favour of

Makkina Anjaneya Rao. And admitted that he has no right to alienate suit schedule land. As per evidence on record it is admitted fact that EX.A3 suit schedule property meant for the maintenance of Ashram, defendant and his brothers gave life time right without any right to alienate the schedule 8 property. Out of the proceeds from the suit schedule property should be utilized for maintenance of Ashram. As per the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 there is no documentary proof to show that defendant entered into any agreement of sale to sell the suit schedule property to 3rd parties. But defendant threatened plaintif’s and his family members that he is going to sell all the properties and he fails to maintain Ashram. As the property is not alienable as per settlement deed by family members of Sarojanamma and they have no right to sell the property or alienate in any manner. Hence, defendant and his heirs are restrained from alienating suit schedule property. As per the discussions supra

I am inclined to decree the suit restraining the defendant and heirs from alienating property in future.

17.In the result, this suit is decreed without costs granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintif against defendant, restraining the defendant from alienating plaint schedule property to 3rd parties in any manner.

Dictation given to the steno corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this 18th day of January, 2018.

Sd/-Smt. G. Kalarchana

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, FAC VI Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1: Edupuganti Satyanarayan Swamy DW.1:E.Vishnu Babu

PW.2: Edupuganti Seetha Mahalakshmi

PW.3 : Kodali Dinesh Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

9

EX.A1Registered sale deed vide Doc.No.190/1966 of SRO, Kankipadu executed by Smt. Garapati Rajeswaramma in favour of Smt. Edupuganti Sarojini Regarding the plaint schedule property. EX.A2Encumbrance certificate in the name of Smt.E.Sarojanamma regarding the plaint schedule property issued by SRO, Kankipadu. EX.A3Settlement deed

For Defendants: .. Nil..

Sd/- Smt. G. Kalarchana

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, FAC VI Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

1

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

Present: ­ M.Anjani Priaydarsini,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 22nd day of April, 2021.

O.S. NO. 1102/2020.

Between:

Sabinkar Lakshmi Bai, W/o late Sabinkar Krishnaji, Hindu, a/a 60 years, Housewife, R/o D.NO.11-6-29, 1st floor, Abdul Azeem Street, Islampet, Vijayawada. :: Plaintiffs.

And:

Dhavala Kalyani, W/o Rajendra, Hindu, a/a 40 years, Business, R/o D.NO.11-6-30, Ground floor, Abdul Azmeen Street, Islampet, Vijayawada. :: Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 19.04.2021 for plaintiff evidence in the presence of Sri V.Nagendra Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant 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.This is a suit for eviction directing the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff and directing the defendant to pay arrears of rent for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- for 9 months from

February 2020 to October 2020@Rs.15,000/- per month and directing the defendant to pay the arrears of water charges for 11 months from December 2019 to October 2020@Rs.850/- per month and directing the defendant to pay the damages @ Rs.30,000/- per month commencing from 01.11.2020 to till date of delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments in the affidavit as follows :

It is submitted that is the absolute owner of the building bearing

D.NO.11-6-30, Abdul Azeem Street, Vijayawada, which is morefully described in 2 the schedule annexed hereunder and hereinafter referred to as plaint schedule property. The defendant approached the plaintiff in the month November 2019 and requested her to let out the ground floor of the plaint schedule property.

The defendant promised to pay a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- on or before 1st week of every succeeding month. The tenancy is a monthly tenancy commencing from 1st day of every calendar month. The defendant was inducted as a tenant in the schedule premises and the tenancy starts from 1st December 2019 and requested her to let out the ground floor of the plaint schedule property. The defendant promised to pay a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- on or

before 1st week of every succeeding month. The tenancy is a monthly tenancy

starts from 1st December, 2019. as per the understanding the defendant agreed to pay the electricity charges as per meter reading to the APSPDCL. The defendant also agreed to pay an amount of Rs.850/- per month as water charges. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- as an advance to the plaintiff. There is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for the plaint schedule premises. The defendant paid rent for the month of December, 2019 by way of DD dated.01.01.2020 drawn on State Bank of India, Vijayawada in the name of the plaintiff for Rs.15,000/- and the rent for the month of January, 2020 was paid ;by way of DD dated 03.02.2020 drawn on State Bank of India,

Vijayawada in the name of the plaintiff. Subsequently the defendant committed willful default in payment of monthly rent @ Rs.15,000/- from the month of

February 2020 till October 2020 i.e., from 9 months to a tune of Rs.1,35,000/-.

The defendant further indebted to pay the water charges @ Rs.850/- per month from December 2019 till today i.e., for 11 months to a tune of Rs.9,350/-. The defendant got filed a suit for permanent injunction against this plaintiff in

O.S.NO.255/2020 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The

plaintiff herein got filed her written statement in the said suit on 03.10.2020 and the same is pending. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 03.09.2020 by terminating the tenancy by 31st October, 2020 and for eviction 3 of the defendant from the plaint schedule premises and to deliver vacant possession of the same. In the said eviction notice, the plaintiff also demanded the defendant to pay Rs.30,000/- as damages per month for the use and occupation of the plaint schedule premises after termination of the tenancy i.e., by 31st October 2020 as he will be treated as Trespasser and he is liable to pay damages from 1st November 2020. The defendant received the said notice on 05.09.2020 and got issued a reply on 14.09.2020 with all false and untenable allegations. The defendant did not vacated the plaint schedule premises and not handed over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule premises. Hence, the plaintiff is obliged to file this suit for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule premises; for damages @ Rs.30,000/- per month from 1st

November, 2020 and for arrears of rent and for other reliefs. The plaint schedule premises is located in a prime area of Vijayawada city and it is well developed area and commercial firms are located in and around the said area.

The plaintiff wants to start a tailor shop as she is in need of the plaint schedule premises for her personal occupation. Hence, the suit.

3. Written statement is not filed by the defendant. Defendant called absent.

No representation. Then this court set her as exparte and posted for plaintiff's evidence.

4. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff himself examined as P.w.1 and reiterated all the averments in the plaint in lieu of chief affidavit and same is treated as his chief examination. He also exhibited the documents Ex. A.1 to

A.4. EX.A1 : Certified copy of registered gift deed pertaining the plaint schedule premises, EX.A2 : Office copy of the legal notice dated.03.09.2020,

EX.A3 : Acknowledgement of the defendant dated. 05.09.2020, EX.A4 : reply notice issued by the defendant dated.14.09.2020 As per the provisions of 106 of T.P. Act notice, the plaintiff has given sufficient time to the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property and there is no contra evidence from the 4 side of defendant for his non appearance. The evidence of P.w.1 juxtaposed

Exs. A.1 to A.4, the plaintiff proved his case against the defendant. Except the evidence of P.w.1, there is no evidence on record to grant the damages as claimed by the plaintiff. In the absence of any cogent evidence from the side of plaintiff with regard to the damages, this court is not inclined to grant the same.

However, the plaintiff is at liberty to move separate application to ascertain the damages by placing cogent evidence.

5. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to vacate the plaint schedule property within 1 month, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get evict him through process of court, directing the the defendant to pay arrears of rent for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- for 9 months from February 2020 to October 2020@Rs.15,000/- per month and directing the defendant to pay the arrears of water charges for 11 months from December 2019 to October 2020@Rs.850/- per month and directing the defendant to pay the damages @

Rs.30,000/- per month commencing from 01.11.2020 to till date of delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property.

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

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2021.

 II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1/Sabinkar Lakshmi Bai – NONE –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

EX.A1 : Certified copy of registered gift deed pertaining to the plaint schedule premises.

EX.A2 : Office copy of the legal notice dated.03.09.2020.

5

EX.A3 : Acknowledgement of the defendant dated.05.09.2020.

EX.A4 : Reply notice issued by the defendant dated.14.09.2020.

For Defendant: NIL

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

1

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

Present: ­ Smt. M.Anjani Priaydarsini, II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC VI Additional Junior Civil Judge,Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 23rd day of March, 2018.

O.S. NO. 951/2017

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.Raavi Venkata Subba Rao,S/o Narasimha Rao, Hindu, a/a 43 years, R/o D.NO.1/30, Chinnayadara, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

2.Darapureddi Samba Siva Rao, S/o Naga Surya Chandra Rao, Hindu, a/a 46 years, R/o D.NO.1-22, Chinnayadara, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

:: Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 21.03.2018 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.96,299/- 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 pulsar - 150. After due verification plaintiff provided finance amount of Rs.71,000/- to first defendant to purchase the vehicle accordingly defendant executed loan and guarantee agreement on 14.03.2016 and also promissory note executed on the same day 2 for future liability of Rs.92,286/- along with interest. The loan amount of

Rs.70,000/- shall be payable together with interest @ 14.49% within 24 monthly installments @ Rs.8,850/- per month commencing from 14.04.2016 to 14.03.2018 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 defendant stood as guarantors for prompt payment of monthly installments. Both the defendants executed agreement of loan and guarantee on 14.03.2016. First defendant has paid 3 monthly installments of Rs.11,000/- by 31.08.2016 and committed willful default from 4th installment onwards. Plaintiff demanded several times defendants going on postponing the payments. Finally, plaintiff got issued legal notice on 09.09.2017 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 Pulsar - 150 by an application, dt.14.03.2016 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.71,000/- in 24 monthly installments @ Rs.3,850/- per month along with interest @ 14.49% from 14.04.2016 to 14.03.2018 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 guarantors to first defendant for payment of prompt monthly installments by executing loan and guarantee agreement Ex.A3 and

Ex.A4 promissory note on 14.03.2016.

5.The first defendant paid installments regularly for 3 monthly of complete

Rs.11,000/- he committed default from 4th 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. 09.09.2017 marked as Ex.A5. Ex.A6 is returned registered cover from D1 dated.09.09.2017,

EX.A7 postal receipt of D2 dated.15.09.2017, Ex.A8 is account copy, dt.

26.09.2017. As per the account copy Ex.A8 defendants are due to pay

Rs.96,299/- which is outstanding due to be payable by the defendants on 26.09.2017. 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 and 2. The defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.96,299/- to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit i.e., 26.09.2017 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. on an outstanding due amount of Rs.96,299/- 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 23rd day of March, 2018.

 II Additional Junior Civil Judge, FAC VI Additional 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 : 14.03.2016 : Application made by the defendants for the purchase of motor vehicle on hypothecation scheme from plaintiff firm,

Ex.A.3 : 14.03.2016 : Loan and Guarantee agreement.

4

Ex.A.4 : 14.03.2016 : Promissory note executed by the defendant.

Ex.A.5 : 09.09.2017 : Office copy of legal demand notice.

Ex.A6 : 09.09.2017 : Postal receipt of 1st defendant.

Ex.A.7 : 15.09.2017 : Postal receipt of 2nd defendant.

Ex.A.8 : 26.09.2017 : Account copy.

For Defendant: NIL

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC VI Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

1

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

Present: ­ M.Anjani Priyadarsini II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Monday, this the 26 th day of April, 2021.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 4 of 2020.

Between: 

Cheemakurthi Punna Rao, S/o Baparao, Hindu, a/a 42 years, R/oD.NO.31­5­20, Prakasa Rao Street, Maruthi Nagar, Vijayawada.

..PLAINTIFF

And

Syed Abdul Azeez, S/o Masthan Saheb(late), Muslim, a/a 45 years, R/o 2nd floor, Sai Ram Residency, VenkayyaNagar(MoulaliNagar),Gollapudi, Vijayawada.

...DEFENDANT.

This suit is coming before me on 23.04.2021 in the presence of Sri A.K.Basha, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained exparte; and the matter having stood over till this date and upon perusal of the material on record, the Court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T 

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 11,31,500/­ being principal and interest due on a pronote dated 20.11.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 7,50,000/­ repayable with interest @ 12% per annum and for costs of the suit.

Brief averments of the plaint.

2.It is the case of plaintiff that defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.7,50,000/­ on 20.11.2017 from the plaintiff for the purpose of his business expenses and executed a promissory note in his favour at

Vijayawada agreeing to repay same @ 12% per annum interest to him or to his order on demand.

3.Plaintiff further submits that in spite of repeated demands made by him to discharge the debt defendant issued a cheque 2 dated.06.12.2019 bearing NO.000847 for Rs.5,00,000/­ drawn on State

Bank of India, Station Road Branch, Vijayawada towards part payment of pronote debt with a request to present the cheque for payment. The plaintiff presented the said cheque in his account in ICICI Bank,

Vijayawada on 09.12.2019 for collection but surprisingly the said cheque was returned to the plaintiff on 10.12.2019 with an endorsement funds insufficient. On receipt of the legal notice also the defendant did not choose to repay the pronote amount to the plaintiff or to issue reply notice and kept quite. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of the amount due under the suit promissory note dated.20.11.2017 along with interest @ 24% per annum. Hence, the suit.

4.After receiving summons defendant called absent not appeared

before the court for the reasons best known to him there is no

representation on his behalf. Hence, set exparte.

5.The defendant is not entitled to any of the relief provided under various debt relief laws.

6.Plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined himself as P.W.1 and filed proof affidavit retaining plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A1.

EX.A1 is the original suit demand promissory note dated 20.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/­.

7.As per the evidence of the P.W.1 and Ex.A1 the suit pronote was executed on 20.11.2017, as per the Ex.A1 it is very clear that defendant borrowed sum of Rs.7,50,000/­ from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 promissory note on 20.11.2017. On a perusal of Ex.A1, it is disclosing that it was executed by defendant before attestors by name B.Nani and and scribed by G.J.N.Rajesh defendant signed across one revenue stamp and also affixed his purported thumb impression in token of receipt of

Ex.A1 amount, defendant borrowed suit amount for his business expenses, which clinchingly proves, defendant was not an agriculturist or artisan of tools, hence she was not entitle to get relief under Debt

Relief Acts. The suit is within limitation from the date of execution of the promissory note on 20.11.2017 the suit filed on 03.01.2020. The 3 plaintiff proved his case by documentary and oral evidence and the plaintiff’s claim is not challenged by the defendant, as there is no contrary evidence to disprove the plaintiff’s claim. Hence, the plaintiff is established his claim. So, in these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount. However plaintiff not issued legal notice hence he was not entitled for interest as claimed hence I am inclined to allow interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization on

principal amount of Rs.7,50,000/­.

8.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for an amount of Rs.11,31,500/­ together with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization on principal amount of Rs.7,50,000/­.

Typed to dictation to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 26th day of April, 2021.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintiff Defendant

PW.1: Cheemakurthi Punna Rao ­­Exparte­­

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintiff: 

Ex.A1Original Promissory Note executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants dated 20.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/­.

Defendant: ­­NIL­­

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

4

1

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

Present: ­ M.Anjani Priyadarsini,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 27 th day of April, 2021.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 1151 of 2020.

Between:

Vallabhaneni Ramadevi, W/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, a/a 61 years, Resident of Flat No.303, Amrutha Heights, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Poranki Village, Oenamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

..PLAINTIFF

And

Yalamanchili Srikanth, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, a/a 44 years, Resident of D.NO.1­57, Bear Bosubomma, Godavarru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

...DEFENDANT.

This suit is coming before me on 20.04.2021 in the presence of Sri P.Rama Mohana Rao and Sri A.Raja Rajeswari, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte; and the matter having stood over till this date and upon perusal of the material on record, the Court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T 

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.3,75,150/­ being principal and interest due on a pronote dated 01.10.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 2,95,000/­ repayable with interest @ 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

Brief averments of the plaint.

2.It is the case of plaintiff that defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,95,000 /­ on 01.10.2019 from the plaintiff for the purpose of his business necessities and executed a promissory note in his favour at

Vijayawada agreeing to repay same @ 24% per annum interest to him or to his order on demand.

2

3.Plaintiff further submits that in spite of repeated demands made by him to discharge the debt defendant not repaid the amount postponing the same on some or other pretext even after demand not come forward to pay the amount due under the promissory note debt.

Finally the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated.05.11.2020 by registered post through his advocate to the defendant demanding him to clear the amount borrowed from the plaintiff together with agreed interest. The defendant returned the said notice with an endorsement ‘’Addressee 7 days continuously absent, hence returned to sender ‘’ on 15.11.2020. hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of the suit promissory note debt against the defendant.

4. Defendant called absent . No representation. Hence, set exparte.

5.As the Debt Relief Acts do not apply to the defendant because he is an agriculturist, as such he is not entitled to any benefits of the said

Acts.

6.Plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined himself as P.W.1 and filed proof affidavit reiterating plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A1 to

A4. EX.A1 is the original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,95,000/­ dated 01.10.2019, EX.A2 is office copy of legal notice, dated.05.11.2020, EX.A3 is postal receipt dated.06.11.20520, EX.A4 is returned cover dated.15.11.2020.

7.As per the evidence of the P.W.1 and Ex.A1, the suit pronote was executed on 01.10.2019 and it is very clear that defendant borrowed sum of Rs.2,95,000/­ from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 promissory note on 01.10.2019. On a perusal of Ex.A1, it is disclosing that it is scribed by

Y.Srikanth and attested by K.Srinivasa Rao and defendant signed across one revenue stamp in token of receipt of Ex.A1 amount, defendant borrowed suit amount for his family expenses, which clinchingly proves, defendant was not an agriculturist or artisan of tools, hence he was not entitle to get relief under Debt Relief Acts. The suit is within limitation from the date of execution of the promissory note on 01.10.2019 the suit filed on 24.11.2020. The plaintiff proved his case by documentary and oral evidence and the plaintiff’s claim is not 3 challenged by the defendant, as there is no contrary evidence to disprove the plaintiff’s claim. Hence, the plaintiff is established his claim. So, in these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount. 

8.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for an amount of Rs.3,75,150/­ together with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till decree and @ 6 % from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of Rs.2,95,000/­.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2021.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintiff Defendant

PW.1: Vallabhaneni Ramadevi ­­Exparte­­

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintiff: 

EX.A1 : Original promissory note dated.01.10.2019 for an amount of

Rs.2,95,000/­.

EX.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dated.05.11.2020.

EX.A3 : Postal receipt dated.06.11.2020.

EX.A4 : Returned cover dated.15.11.2020.

Defendant: ­­NIL­­

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

4