M D V N Sindhura

1 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(SENIOR DIVISION), VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: M.D.V.N.Sindhura, I Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, this the 09th day of April, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.903/2016

Between:

Kunuku Srinu, S/o late Appanna, Hindu, Male, Aged 44 years, R/at D.No.58-1-20/1, Marripalem, 41st ward, Visakhapatnam-530018.

... Plaintiff

And:

1.Sadaram Yerukamma, W/o late Apparao, Hindu, female, Aged 80 years, R/at D.No.58-1-20, Upstairs, Marripalem, 41st ward, Visakhapatnam- 530018.

2.Nalla Mahesh Babu, S/o Late Appalaswamy, Hindu, aged about 45 years, R/at D.No.58-1-216/25, SNAR Enclave, Flat No.27, Karasa, NAD post, Visakhapatnam.

3.Sadaram Eswara Rao, S/o Late Sadaram Apparao, Hindu, aged 52 years, R/at 20490, Glasgow drive, Saratoga, California, USA, represented by GPA Holder, Makka Siva Kumar, S/o Balaram Naidu, R/at D.No.14-1-79/2, Maharanipeta, Pandimetta, Visakhapatnam-2

(3 rd defendant is added as per orders in I.A.275/2022, dt:04.08.2025)

... Defendants

This suit coming on 09.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.N.Srinivas, Advocate for the Plaintiffand the Defendants-2 & 3 remained exparte and the Defendant No.1 died and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

J U D G M E N T

Suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from evicting the plaintiff forcibly from the plaint schedule property or from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property except upon due process of law and for costs and other reliefs.

2.T h e plaint averments in brief are as follows:

i.The plaintiff is running Milk Food business in the name and style of

Sri Vinayaka Milk Foods in a shop bearing No.58-1-20/1, situated at

Marripalem, Visakhapatnam since the year 2001. The plaintiff is selling milk sachets, badam milk, ice creams, etc. under the name of the above said business. He is residing in a small house abutting and connecting to the said shop. The shop-cum-residence would herein after referred to as plaint schedule property. The plaintiff obtained registration certificate for his business on 15.06.2016 which is valid up to 31.03.2019. The 1st defendant is the owner of the said property while the 2nd defendant is the close associate.

ii. On 15.08.2001, the 1st defendant had let out the shop room to the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.1,860/- with a refundable interest free advance of Rs.1,00,000/-. Subsequently in the year 2013, the defendant has carried out some renovations to the shop room and the house. At that point of time, the plaintiff requested the defendant to let out the house for his residence. Accordingly, on 11.04.2013, the 1st defendant let out the shop room together the said small house on a month rent of Rs.5,000/- with additional interest free refundable advance of Rs.2,00,000/-. In total the plaintiff has paid Rs.3,00,000/- towards advance.

3 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

iii. Subsequently during April, 2015, the 1st defendant has enhanced the rent by Rs.1,000/- and the existing rent is Rs.6,000/-. There was no written instrument between them to the effect of the lease. Therefore, the lease is stated to be oral extending from month to month since, 2001, till the date. The plaintiff has been enjoying the property as tenant without any interruption by paying the rents regularly. The plaintiff installed a BSNL telephone coin box in the shop room in the year 2001 which continued till some time around 2007. Further the plaintiff has also installed Reliance telephone coin box in the shop room in the year 2006 and continued up to 2008.

iv. Later the plaintiff has surrounded the coin box to the respective service providers for the telephone coin boxes became redundant. In the year 2013, the plaintiff has invested amount on the schedule property for the purpose of purchasing the equipments essential to preserve the mil foods and also he invested for making furniture in the shop. The 2nd defendant is doing the same business in

Visakhapatnam, as such, he made up his mind to start the same business in the schedule property and ever since he started visiting the plaint schedule property and started pressuring the plaintiff to vacate the property.

v. The 2nd defendant had also convinced the children of the 1st defendant to take steps for eviction of the plaintiff from the schedule property. Since June, 2016, the defendant have been threatening the plaintiff to vacate the property or else they will dispossess him highhandedly. The plaintiff approached the elders of that locality for resolving the dispute, at that point of time, the elders reprimanded the defendants not to indulge in any sort of criminal activities. The 2nd defendant since had interest in the property, they did not stop their 4 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

high handed behaviour and continued their attempts to dispose the plaintiff from the schedule property. The plaintiff requested the defendants to continue the tenancy or else to give some time so that he can shift the business. The 1st defendant did not consider his request and continued the pressure to vacate the property.

vi. While the matter stood thus, on 24.07.2016 when the plaintiff is conducting his business in the schedule property the defendant s along with some people came to the schedule property and created galata. The elders of the locality resisted the defendants on that date but the defendants while leaving the premises proclaimed that they will come again with more force and dispose the plaintiff from the schedule property. The plaintiff has no other source of income except the milk food business. His family is entirely depending upon his earnings. Therefore if the plaintiff is vacated from the schedule property at this point of time, he would suffer huge loss and the entire family would come on to the roads. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit. Hence the suit.

3.The 1 st defendant filed her written statement dismissing the allegations and she inter-alia contended that i.The 1st defendant’s husband namely Sadaram Appa Rao has acquired the vast land in and around Visakhapatnam. During his life time, he executed a Will in favour of his children. The plaint schedule property is one among the properties covered under that Will and the same has been bequeathed to Sadaram Eswara Rao, the son of the 1st defendant. All the children of the 1st defendant has settled in their life and reading a respectful life along with their families in different places.

5 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

ii. The said Eswara Rao went abroad for his livelihood and settled their with his family. After demise of 1st defendant’s husband, she is passing her life with her other children in India by staying alternatively. The 1st defendant when visited her one of the son’s house adjacent to the suit schedule property, she came to know that the plaintiff is their tenant inducted by her son.

iii. The plaintiff slowly developed association with the 1st defendant by showing utmost love and affection as if a son. Due to the conduct of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant has blindly trusted and developed lot of confidence and she used to discuss several topics including the personal affairs with the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is a widow and aged above 85 years old and more over she is an ill-iterate suffering from various ailments.

iv. Taking advantage of her illiteracy and loneliness the plaintiff made her to affix her thump impression on some papers stating that they were required for getting a gift box. The 1 ½ year ago, the family members of the 1st defendant have met in one occasion and at that time her son requested the plaintiff to vacate the schedule property stating his necessity. The plaintiff agreed to vacate the property. But the plaintiff after the 1st defendant’s son left abroad, changed his version and squatted on the property.

v. After some time, the 1st defendant was dismayed to receive summons from the court and immediately she quested the plaintiff about the same. Then the plaintiff has revealed his true colours by showing the document which has been fabricated by him by using the white papers containing her thump impressions. The said document was fabricated as if the 1st defendant has taken Rs.3,00,000/- from the 6 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

plaintiff in respect to the suit schedule property. In fact the 1st defendant who is at her old age has no necessity to take any sort of money but the plaintiff created the documents only with an ill-motive to squat on the property.

vi. The 2nd defendant is complete stranger to the 1st defendant but the 2nd defendant was added only to strengthen this suit filed against the 1st defendant. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant hand in glove filed this suit targeting the 1st defendant. They felt that the 1st defendant could not approach the police station on account of old age. Thus the plaintiff has no right to continue the possession in the plaint schedule property and therefore prays to dismiss the suit.

4.The 2 nd defendant filed his written statement separately

dismissing the allegation both in the plaint and the written statement

of the 1 st defendant. He inter-alia contended that i.In the first week of May, 2016, the plaintiff approached him along with some common friends and showed some documents and requested to take him to any local advocate as he intends to file some case against the shop owner. He further told that the shop owner has been harassing him with ill-motive only to enhance the monthly rent.

Then he took the plaintiff to the local advocate namely Sri S.J.R at

Kancharapalem.

ii. During 2nd week of May, 2016, after the discussions went on, he understood that the plaintiff is manipulating the documents only to file a false suit against his owner with ulterior motive to evade the payment of arrears of rent. He further learnt that the plaintiff has narrated to him regarding the harassment by the owner is only a concocted story. The advocate to whom he took the plaintiff did not 7 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

show any interest to file the case after realizing the candor of the plaintiff. He told that he is also a tenant to one of the land lords, as such, he has no interest to file such false cases.

iii. The advocate also explained the plaintiff that receipt dt:11.04.2013 which the plaintiff has concocted requires payment of stamp duty and penalty and hence advised the 2nd defendant to do mediation between the parties. After three days, the 2nd defendant and the common friends advised the plaintiff not to file any false case against the owner as it would effect negatively to all the tenants doing business in that locality. The 2nd defendant never rendered his support to the plaintiff and even stopped talking with him realizing his crooked mentality.

iv. Further during July 2nd week, 2016, the plaintiff requested their common friends to act as the witness along with 2nd defendant for purpose of filing the suit. The 2nd defendant then warned the common friends as well not to encourage filing of the false cases.

The plaintiff on that day got furious and abused the 2nd defendant and left immediately. In fact, he has no connection with the suit schedule property. The suit might have been filed only out of the grudge as he did not support the plaintiff. Thus prays for dismissal of the suit.

5.Pending the suit proceedings the 1st defendant died and in pursuance of the orders dt:04.08.2025 passed in I.A.275/2022, 3rd defendant was impleaded in the suit proceedings has being the legal representations of the deceased 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant did not choose contest the suit proceedings and was set exparte on 15.09.2025. Since reported that the counsel on record appearing for the 2nd defendant was passed away, the summons has been issued to the 2nd defendant and on receipt of same, he 8 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

failed to appear before this court and on account of the same, the 2nd defendant was set exparte on 29.12.2025.

6.Basing on the pleadings on either side, this court has settled the following issues for trial:

1)Whether the plaintiff was in lawful tenancy possession as on

the date of filing of the suit?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as

prayed for?

3)To what relief?

7.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and 2 were examined and Ex-A.1 to A.7 were marked.

8.Heard for the plaintiff.

Issues 1 and 2: As the both issues are interconnected and interconnected, they are taken up together for common discussion.

9.The plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from forcible dispossessing him from the plaint schedule shop as well as the residence bearing D.No.58-1-20/1. The contention of the plaintiff is that he has been a tenant of the plaint schedule property since the year 2001, running business under the name and style

Sri Vinayaka Milk Foods. He initially paid monthly rent of Rs.1,860/- and advance of Rs.1,00,000/-. While in the year 2013, after rectification he also occupied the abutting residence agreeing to pay the total rent of Rs.5,000/-.

He then paid the interest free advance of Rs.2,00,000/- to his owner. In the year 2015, the rent was enhanced to Rs.6,000/-, which he has been paying without any default.

9 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

10.The plaintiff asserts that since June, 2016, the 1st defendant who is the land lord along with his active supporter i.e. 2nd defendant have been threatening the plaintiff to vacate the property or else they will dispossess him highhandedly. He alleged that the 2nd defendant intended to shift his business into the plaint schedule property and with that motive, he influenced the 1st defendant and made her to demand for the vacation of the plaint schedule property. Despite requesting the 1st defendant for time to verify a suitable premises to shift his business, the 1st defendant in collusion with the 2nd defendant are trying to dispossess him. Further he alleged that on 24.07.2016, the defendants arrived with several people and created a disturbance threatening to dispossess him by force. Having no other source of income for his family livelihood, he has filed this suit to protect his possession until the conclusion of the due process of law.

11.Conversely, the 1st defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim asserting that the property was already bequeathed to her son Sadaram Eswara Rao through a Will executed by her late husband. She contended that she is 85 years old illiterate widow, who had blindly trusted the plaintiff after he she showed parental affection. Therefore, she alleged that the plaintiff fraudulently obtained her thumb impression on blank papers under the pretext of getting a gift box, which he then used to fabricate a document showing a Rs.3,00,000/- advance. She claimed that she has no financial necessity to take such money. She further contended that the 2nd defendant was a complete stranger to her and was only added to the suit, by the plaintiff to strengthen a false case. She contended that the plaintiff has no right to continue in the possession and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

12.The 2nd defendant contended that during May, 2016, the plaintiff approached him to find a lawyer to file a case against the land lord solely to evade the rent arrears. Further he contended that after taking the plaintiff to 10 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

a local advocate, it became clear that the plaintiff was manipulating documents. When he and some common friends advised the plaintiff against filing a false case, the plaintiff grew furious. Further he contended that he has no interest or connection to the suit schedule property and claimed that he was only impleaded in the suit out of personal grudge caused when he refused to support the plaintiff’s crooked schemes.

13.The plaintiff to substantiate his case examined himself as P.W.1 wherein he reiterated the plaint averments. To substantiate his case, he filed Ex-A.1 registration certificate of Sri Vinayaka Milk Foods and Ex-A.3 its renewal registration certificate. Further he filed Ex-A.2 telephone bills,

Ex-A.5 electricity demand notices and Ex-A.6 electricity demand receipts.

Further Ex-A.7 is the interview call post card addressed by APITCO Ltd, to

P.W.1 which also bespeaks that the plaintiff is in the possession of the said shop and residence. It is evident that the defendants also in their written statement did not dispute the possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. But it is specifically contended that the defendant was asked to vacate the premises by the original owner i.e. 3rd defendant herein.

But the plaintiff though admitted to vacate the premises initially but later he refused to do so and started playing fraud on the 1st defendant.

14.Notwithstanding the defence set up in the written statement, in respect to the candor of the plaintiff, Exs-A.1 to A.6 and further the admitted facts in the written statement prove the settled legal possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. It is proved that the plaintiff has been conducting business and residing in the suit schedule property for a significant duration. Since the tenancy is admitted and supported by documentary evidence, it can be safely held that the plaintiff is found to be in the settled possession of the property as a tenant. It is pertinent to mention here that a tenant in settled possession cannot be evicted forcibly 11 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

and can only be dispossessed by following the due process of law. While the 1st defendant died pending the proceedings, the 3rd defendant who is original owner of the property has chosen to remain exparte. The 2nd and 3rd defendants did not cross examine P.W.1.

15.The plaintiff on the other hand also examined an individual witness namely Korada Anudeep who in his chief affidavit stated that the plaintiff has been doing Milk business in the plaint schedule property and residing in the abutting house to the knowledge of one and all and he also witnessed that during July, 2016, the defendants threatened the plaintiff for his dispossession from the plaint schedule property. The testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the threat of forcibly dispossession remained unchallenged and unrebutted. While the 1st defendant raised allegation of fraud regarding the advancement of Rs.3,00,000/-, the said contention does not give a landlord the right to use force to evict a tenant. Regardless the merits of the financial dispute, the tenant should be evicted only by due process of law.

Since the plaintiff proved his possession and the threat of illegal eviction, therefore, he is entitled to the protection until the landlord follows the legal procedure for eviction. In the light of the documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff, his settled possession is beyond doubt and further the defendants’ failure to cross examine the plaintiff’s witnesses or presenting their evidence on oath during trial would lead to an adverse inference under

Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act that the contentions stated in the written statements are not true and correct.

16.In this regard, I would like to place my reliance in a judgment

Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441, as under:

“Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness

box and states his own case on oath and does not offer

12 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

himself to be cross examined by the other side, a

presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not

correct.”

Thus in the light of the afore going discussion and in view of the ratio laid down in the above case, I hold that the plaintiff has proved his legal possession in the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and further the threat of dispossession. Accordingly, the issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

Issue No.3:

17.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, except by following due process of law.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected in my

personal laptop and pronounced by me in open Court, this 09 th day of April, 2026.

I Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendants:

P.W.1 Kunuku Srinu - None -

P.W.2: Korada Anudeep 13 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

Documents marked for

Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1 is the True copy of the Registration Certificate of Sri Vinayaka Milk Foods issued by Registering inspector through mee-seva

Ex. A2 is the Telephone Bill dtd. 05.11.2006 issued by BSNL, Visakhapatnam in the name of PW1

Ex.A3 is the True copy of the Registration renewal certificate of Sri Vinayaka Milk Foods issued by Registering Officer through mee-seva.

Ex.A4 is the Notice dtd. 03.11.2015 vide L.No.K647/2015 issued by Asst. Labour Officer, V-Circle, Visakhapatnam to PW1.

Ex.A5 is the Electricity demand notices (6 in number) issued by APEPDCL, Marripalem Section, in the name of S.Apparao,

Ex.A6 is the Electricty payment receipt dtd:18.09.2015 paid in the name of S.Apparao through AP online.

Ex.A7 is the Interview call post card addressed by APITCO Ltd., to PW1.

Defendants:- NIL

I ACJ(S.D)/VSP.

14 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

15 I ASCJ COURT, VSP

O.S.No.903/2016

1 O.S.1281/2017 I ASCJC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(SENIOR DIVISION), VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: M.D.V.N.Sindhura, I Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.1281/2017

Between

Malapareddy Annapurna, W/o Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, aged 56 years, R/o 14-33-31, Sri Balaji Residency, Opp. KGH, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintiff AND :

1. Kolluri Subba Lakshmi, W/o late Ramakrishna Rao, Hindu, aged 72 years, R/o D.No.39-33-21, MIG-200. Vuda Colony, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam-18.

2. Kolluri Venkata Ramanamurthy, S/o late Ramakrishna Rao, Hindu, aged 39 years, R/o D.No.39-33-21, MIG-200, Vuda Colony, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam-18.

3. K.Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, S/o late Ramakrishna Rao, Hindu, aged 39 years, R/o D.No.39-33-21, MIG-200, Vuda Colony, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam-18.

4. M.Bhanu Lakshmi, W/o M.Ramana Murthy, Hindu, aged 58 years, C/o Kolluri Subba Lakshmi, D.No. 43-5-23, Kota Lakshmi Nilayam, Near Municipal School, Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam-530016.

5. H.Lakshmi Kumari, W/o H.Srinivas Purushottam, Hindu, aged 45 years, C/o Kolluri Subba Lakshmi, D.No. 43-5-23, Kota Lakshmi Nilayam, Near Municipal School, Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam-530016.

6.K.S.N.Murthy, S/o Late Ramakrishna Rao, Hindu, Aged 43 years, C/o K.V.L.N.Murthy, MIG-200, Vuda Colony, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam-18.

(D4 to D6 are added being the legal heirs of deceased 1 st defendant as

per orders in I.A.376/2023, dt:13.04.2023)

... Defendants

2 O.S.1281/2017 I ASCJC/VSP

This suit coming on 17.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sri K.Rama Kireeti, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Sri D.N.Murthy, Advocate for the Defendants 3 to 6, Defendant-1 died and suit against Defendant 2 is abated and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Suit is filed for a preliminary decree for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. together with costs basing on a strength of a suit promissory note dt:09.11.2014 and further for costs and other reliefs.

2.Initially the suit was filed against the defendants 1 to 3. Pending the proceedings, the 1st defendant died, as such, her legal heirs, the defendants 4 to 6 were impleaded in the suit proceedings as per the orders

dt:13.04.2023 in I.A.376/2023

3.The plaint averments mentioned in the neat copy of plaint are briefly stated are as follows:

i.The 1st defendant is the mother while the 2nd and 3rd defendants are her children. The defendants 1 to 3 have jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.11.2014 for the purpose of their family necessities and they accordingly executed a promissory note jointly agreeing to repay the principal amount with interest @ 24% p.a.

ii.On 08.11.2016, the defendants 1 to 3 have approached the plaintiff and executed a deed of security on a non judicial paper worth of

Rs.100/- by depositing the original sale deed bearing

Doc.No.9935/1983 towards security. At that time, they assured the plaintiff that she could sale the property if they failed to repay the debt amount. Later the plaintiff has made several demands to defendants 3 O.S.1281/2017 I ASCJC/VSP 1 to 3 to pay either principal or interest but the defendants have not paid even a single pie.

iii.Being vexed with their conduct, the plaintiff sent a legal notice

dt:15.02.2017 demanding for the amount due under the promissory

note, the said notices were received by the defendants 1 and 3 while the 2nd defendant ‘s notice was returned unserved. Even after receipt of the notices, the defendants did not come forward to repay the amount. They are neither agriculturists nor artisans of tools, therefore, they are not entitled for any debt relief laws. Thus under the given circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit.

4.The defendants filed their written statement dismissing all the

allegations levelled against them and they inter-alia contended that :

i.This suit is based on a false and fabricated document. They further contended that they have never executed any security deed in favour of the plaintiff nor did they hand over their original sale deed to her.

Originally one K.Rama Krishna Rao had passed the document to the plaintiff through one Erothi Prakash who was unsuccessful against the defendants in O.S.472/2009.

ii.The said Erothi Prakash has filed the said suit for refundable security deposit and damages to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- on the defendants 1 to 3 and their other family members. The said suit was dismissed after the full fledged trial. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the said suit is behind the present suit.

iii.In the relation to the construction agreement, the defendants gave their original sale deed to Erothi Prakash. As the said Prakash has not complied with the terms and conditions in the agreement, it was 4 O.S.1281/2017 I ASCJC/VSP not progressive and consequently the suit O.S.472/2009 was filed and later dismissed on merits.

iv.The defendants 1 to 3 further contended that they have no acquaintance with the plaintiff nor did they did any direct transaction with her. The suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document. Thus prays to dismiss the suit.

5.After impleadment of the defendants 4 to 6, the 3rd defendant filed his

additional written statement and the same has been adopted by the

defendants 1 and 2 as well as the defendants 4 to 6 by filing their respective adoption memo.

6.In the additional written statement, once again re-affirmed that they have no acquaintance with the plaintiff at any point of time nor did they handover the sale deed. Originally, the plaintiff was in possession of the document dt:08.11.2016, bu the same was not mentioned in pleadings. The plaintiff has mischievously added the term preliminary decree as if the suit is based on mortgage deed. Hence the suit is liable for dismissal.

7.Basing on the pleadings on either side, the following issues are settled for trial:

1)Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, supported by

consideration and binding on the defendants?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as

prayed for?

3)To what relief?

8.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to 3 were examined and Ex-A.1 to A.6 were marked. While, on behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 and 2 were examined and Ex-B.1 to B.3 were marked.

5 O.S.1281/2017 I ASCJC/VSP

9.Heard both sides.

Issue Nos.1 & 2: As the both issues are interconnected and interdependent, they are taken up together for common discussion.

10.The plaintiff claimed to lent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendants 1 to 3 and in consideration there of, they have jointly executed the suit promissory note marked as Ex-A.1 on 09.11.2014, agreeing to repay the principal along with interest @ 24% p.a. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 3 have borrowed the amount for their family necessities and further on 08.11.2016, the defendants allegedly executed a

Security Deed and deposited the original sale deed marked as Ex-A.6 to create an equitable mortgage. Despite issuance of legal notice

dt:15.02.2017 marked as Ex-A.2, the defendants 1 to 3 failed to repay the

debt amount.

11.During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the 1st defendant died and the defendants 4 to 6 were impleaded as her legal heirs. Conversely, the defendants in their written statement denied the Ex-A.1 transaction and further they set up the defence that the suit is fabricated document orchestrated by one Erothi Prakash, builder who failed in previous litigation in O.S.472/009 against them. They claim the original sale deed was given to the said Prakash for a development agreement in the year 2006 and he is now misusing this by setting up plaintiff to file the false suit.

12.In view of the defence set up by the defendants, the primary burden of proving execution of Ex-A.1 promissory note lies on the plaintiff as per the Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act. To discharge this burden, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1. and examined the attestors of Ex-A.1 promissory note namely Kasarapu Satyanarayana and Koya 6 O.S.1281/2017 I ASCJC/VSP

Chandrasekhar as P.W.2 and 3 respectively. P.W.1 in her chief affidavit has reiterated the plaint averments regarding the transaction allegedly to have held on 09.11.2014 and further handing over Ex-A.6 registered sale deed on 08.11.2016 to her by executing a Deed of Security on a N.J stamp paper worth of Rs.100/- to create an equitable mortgage. She specifically mentioned in her chief affidavit that the liberty was given to her to sell away the property and adjust the amount for the debt if the defendants 1 to 3 failed to repay the amount within the time. Despite mentioning so in her pleadings and in her chief affidavit, PW.1’s testimony in her cross examination regarding the Security Deed is highly contradictory. She conceded that she never instructed her counsel to mention about such a document and claimed that the defendants never executed it.

13.In her own words, she deposed as follows – “ I did not instruct my

counsel to mention in Ex-A.2 legal notice that, on 08.11.2016, the

defendants executed a Deed of Security on a NJ stamp paper worth of

Rs.100/- by depositing the original sale deed dt:05.09.1983 vide

Doc.No.9935/1983. The defendants did not execute any such

document in my favour on 08.11.2016. After 09.11.2014, no other

financial transactions were held between the defendants and me till

the date”.

14.This highly contradictory statement of P.W.1 strikes at the root of the equitable mortgage plea. The plaintiff breaking the regular rule has got summoned the attestors Kasarapu Satyanarayana and Koya

Chandrasekhar through the court and examined them as P.W.2 and 3. In her cross examination, PW1 stated that the defendants brought the attestors to witness the Ex-A.1 transaction. But in this regard, the testimonies of PWs2 and 3 are inconsistent. While P.W.2 Kasarapu

Satyanarayana who mentioned that he witnessed the Ex-A.1 transaction 7 O.S.1281/2017 I ASCJC/VSP and signed as the attestor in Ex-A.1 promissory note, during cross examination, he deposed that he has no prior facial acquaintance with D1 to D3. He also categorically deposed in his chief examination that the plaintiff used to reside at I Town area previously where they got acquaintance with each other. In his chief examination, he further clarified that the plaintiff and her husband asked him to come to their house and stand as witness for the transaction. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 in this regard is inconsistent.

15.P.W.3 Koya Chandrasekhar also in his cross examination deposed that he has no acquaintance with the defendants prior to the date of Ex-A1 except with the plaintiff and her husband. During his cross examination, he categorically deposed that the plaintiff’s husband Hanumantha Rao contacted him over phone in the morning hours of 09.11.2014 and requested to come to his house for acting as witness for the money transaction. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 is also highly inconsistent in this regard.

16.P.W.2 testified that by the time he went to the house of plaintiff on 09.11.2014, the plaintiff, her husband, D1 to D3 and the scribe Ramana

Murthy as well as the other attestor Chandrasekhar(PW3) were already present there. On the same aspect,PW3 Chandrasekhar testified that by the time he went to the plaintiff’s house, the plaintiff, her husband, the attestor

Satyanarayana (PW2) the scribe Ramana Murthy and the defendants 1 to 3 were already present. Though it is not unusual to forget the things that has happened many years ago, but in view of the unusual circumstances, the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 are taken with suspicion.

17.The 3rd defendant examined as D.W.1 has reiterated the written statement contentions in his chief affidavit and in support of his defence, he 8 O.S.1281/2017 I ASCJC/VSP filed Ex-B.1 certified copy of the Development Agreement dt;09.04.2006 executed in between themselves and Erothi Prakash Rao. Ex-B.2 judgment

dt:29.02.2016 passed by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge Court,

Visakhapatnam in O.S.472/2009 evidently bespeaks that the defendants had prior legal battle with Erothi Prakash. The fact that the plaintiff holds the original document (Ex-A6) which the defendants’ stated to have given to

Prakash for construction, lends immense credibility to the defence theory that the document was misused. The defendants moved the court to send the disputed signatures to the Truth Labs, Hyderabad along with the admitted signatures of D1 to D3 in pan card, job joining report, registered sale deed, income tax return verification form for the year 2014-15, Income tax return verification form for the year 2015-16, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant executive perquisites income tax exemption claim report of the years 2013- 14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and Andhra bank memorandums.

18.Ex-X.1 is the Truth Laps report marked through D.W.2 GVHV Prasad, the Director of Truth Labs, Hyderabad. D.W.2 testified that the signatures on Ex-A.1 promissory note do not tally with the admitted signatures of D1 to

D3. While an expert’s opinion is not always binding, it carries significant weight subject to the other suspicious circumstances. Here the defendants’ contention is that they had given the original registered sale deed to Erothi

Prakash. As already referred in one of the preceding paragraphs, P.W.1 deposed inconsistent about giving the Deed of security. In addition to this, the testimonies of PW.2 and 3 are also found inconsistent. All this would give credibility to the defence set up by the defendants that the document was misused.

19.Under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there is a presumption of consideration, when once the execution is proved.

However, here the execution itself is in grave doubt. PW.1 claimed that the 9 O.S.1281/2017 I ASCJC/VSP money was accrued from her husband’s retirement benefits, yet her husband who allegedly contacted the witnesses P.W.2 and 3 for the reasons best known did not sign Ex-A.1 promissory note nor he was examined to prove the source of funds. P.Ws.2 and 3 deposed that before coming to the court, they have gone through the contents of the promissory note and also spoke to the plaintiff about this case. P.Ws.2 and 3 gave parrot like evidence regarding the time and denomination yet their evidence did not instill confidence in the mind of the court over their veracity.

20.The plaintiff’s failed to explain how she came into possession of Ex-

A.6 sale deed despite clarifying that no Deed of Security was executed by the defendants 1 to 3. Therefore, in the light of her own admission, it suggests that the documents were created through means other than a voluntary mortgage by the defendants. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the defendants, the plaintiff has mentioned in the relief portion of the plaint, as if this suit is based on a mortgage deed. The plaintiff with her evidence turned her very primary case into doubtful. While the oral testimony is important, the physical evidence of forgery supported by forensic expert created a strong rebuttal to the plaintiff’s claim. Even P.W.1 in her testimony regarding the time of transaction shifting from 7.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. showed a lack of clarity regarding the transaction. Therefore, the defendants successfully linked the plaintiff to third party Erothi Prakash.

21.The arguments of the defendants that they had no acquaintance with the plaintiff in a transaction involved Rs.3,00,000/- which is a significant sum in the year 2014, it is unusual for a person to lend such amount to total strangers without a very strong verifiable connection which the plaintiff failed to establish. It is needless to say that in civil law, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities. Since the defendants provided a more probable explanation for why their documents were in the plaintiff’s 10 O.S.1281/2017 I ASCJC/VSP hands and the signatures were scientifically certified as distinct, the execution was deemed legally doubtful. Though I do agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the expert opinion is only an opinion evidence and the role of the expert is to provide the court with the necessary scientific criteria for testing that accuracy of their conclusion, the court must satisfy itself that the opinion is correct by looking at the reasons provided by the expert not just and final result.

22.In the instant case, Ex-X.1 report is strong because it aligns with the suspicious circumstances arise through the plaintiff’s contradictions and inconsistent evidence of P.W.2 and 3. Thus in the light of afore going discussion, I hold that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Ex-A.1 promissory note by a preponderance of probabilities. The evidence of

P.W.1 is contradictory regarding the very document she relies upon for a preliminary decree. Ex-X.1 confirming forgery combined with the connection between the plaintiff with Erothi Prakash who the defendants alleged is the real person behind this suit creates serious cloud of suspicious over the plaintiff’s case. Thus I hold that the defendants successfully rebutted the statutory presumption and established that the suit is based on fabricated document. Accordingly the issues are answered in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3:

23.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected in my

personal laptop and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

I Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

11 O.S.1281/2017 I ASCJC/VSP

Appendix of evidence

No. of witness es examined for

Plaintiff: Defendants:

P.W.1 :Malapareddy Annapurna D.W.1: K.V.L.Narasimha Murthy P.W.2 :K.Satyanarayana D.W.2: GVHV Prasad, P.W.3 : K.Chandrasekhar

Documents marked for

Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1 is the Promissory note dt.09.11.2014 executed for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by the D1 to D3 in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2 is the Office copy of the legal notice dt. 15.02.2017 got issued by the Plaintiff to D1 to D3.

Ex.A3 is the Served Postal Acknowledgment dt.07.04.2017 received from the deceased 1st defendant.

Ex.A4 is the returned postal cover unserved on the D2.

Ex.A5 is the Served Postal Acknowledgment dt. 07.04.2017 received from the D3.

Ex.A6 is the Registered Sale Deed td.05.09.1983 executed by Meharnusha Begum in favour of Kolluri Ramakrishnarao (husband of D1).

Defendants:-

Ex.B1 is the Certified copy of the Development agreement dtd.09.04.2006 executed in between defendants and Erothi Prakasa Rao

Ex.B2 is the Certified copy of the Decree and Judgment dtd.29.02.2016 passed by the VI ASCJC, Visakhapatnam in OS No.472/2009

Ex.B3 is the Certified copy of the registered sale deed dtd.06.10.2016 executed by defendants in favour of Gompa Triveni.

I ACJ(SD)/VSP.

12 O.S.1281/2017 I ASCJC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :M.D.V.N.Sindhura I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2023.

Original Suit No.1075/2017

Between : Yerra Narayana Rao, S/o late Y.Ramu, Hindu, aged 70 years, r/at old D.No.26-8-51, new D.No.26-8-52, Raja Rammohan Roy Road, Woodyard Street, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam, Aadhaar No.3535 0597 1038, Cell No.9441384643. … Plaintiff

A n d :

1. Yerra Sai, S/o Yerra Narayana Rao, Hindu, aged 41 years, r/at D.No.26-8- 52, Woodyard Street, RRM Road, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam-530 001.

2. Piradi Madhavi, W/o Piradi Venugopal, Hindu, aged 43 years, r/at D.No.53- 20-19, Chaitanya Nagar, Opp.Street Varasiddi Vinayaka temple, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam-530 013.

3. Ravi Ramani, W/o Muralikrishna, Hindu, aged 39 years, r/at D.No.50-2-95, Gandhi Nagar, Near Satyam Junction, Nakkavanipalem, Visakhapatnam- 530 013. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 08-11-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.N.S.V.Reddy, Sri.P.Rambabu & K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri.K.Madhusudana Rao & Ms.K.Parameswari Devi, Advocates for the 1st defendant and of Sri.P.Gowri Sankar, Advocate for the Defendants 2 and 3 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and other three shares to the defendants and for costs and other reliefs.

2. After concise details in the plaint, the material averments are as follows:-

(a)The plaint schedule property is an independent house consisting of ground and first floor admeasuring 49.11sq.yds. bearing door No.26-8-52 covered under survey No.432, plot No.24 situated at market area, Velampeta in

Visakhapatnam. The plaint schedule property was purchased by the deceased

Prabhavati, the wife of the plaintiff during her lifetime under a registered sale deed, dt.17-11-1987 vide document No.310/1998 from one Yerra Ramu and his sons. Ever since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff and his wife Prabhavathi has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till her demise without any interference from others. During the lifetime of Prabhavathi, the plaintiff and she performed the marriages of all their children i.e. defendants 1 to 3. The defendants ever since from the date of their respective marriages have been living with their families separately. The 1st defendant is working at abroad and he is earning very good income in terms of salary. The defendants 2 and 3 who are the daughters of the plaintiff used to look after him after demise of their mother Prabhavathi. The 1st defendant never bothered about the welfare of the plaintiff and he even did not provide minimum basic facilities for the livelihood of the plaintiff.

(b)The plaintiff’s wife Prabhavathi died intestate leaving behind her, the plaintiff and the defendants as her legal representatives to succeed her property.

The plaintiff has no other income generating sources as such he is facing lot of inconvenience to attend his medical expenses and other necessities, on several occasions he expressed his inconvenience to 1st defendant and requested to provide minimum facilities for his livelihood but the 1st defendant never took responsibility of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the plaintiff demanded the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule property but the defendants refused for the partition and did not consider the words of the plaintiff either. Hence, the plaintiff having no other go was constrained to approach the Court for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to him. Hence the suit.

3. The 1 st defendant repelling the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint filed his written statement contending as follows :-

(a)During the lifetime of Yerra Prabhavathi she had executed a Will, dt.30-06-2016 while in a sound state of mind bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of 1st defendant. After demise of the said Prabhavathi, the Will came into operation and acted upon, consequently the 1st defendant became absolute owner of the suit schedule property. In view of his job the 1st defendant have stayed in different places in abroad. Due to travel ban he was held up at

Qatar and was not able to attend his mother’s death ritual and soon after the ban was lifted during August, 2017 he came down to Visakhapatnam by then, the relations among their family members were ruined due to misunderstandings and that was happened only due to the attitude of the plaintiff and his sisters. The plaintiff as well as his sisters have knowledge about the Will executed by his mother Prabhavathi but still they have been making efforts to grab the plaint schedule property.

(b)The plaint schedule property consists of three shop rooms, first and second floors are residential portions. After demise of his mother he being the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property made demand to the tenants in the building to pay the rents to him. However, the plaintiff and his sisters in active collusion used to collect rents from the tenants by making false representation to him that they will refund the amount to him whenever he comes down to

Visakhapatnam. As the 1st defendant has no knowledge about the true colours of the plaintiff and his sisters he believed them and accepted for their proposal but the plaintiff and his sisters did not refund the amount. 1st defendant being a soft temperament person to safeguard the relation with his family members has sent huge funds to the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 as well as to his niece

Sushma on the assurance given to purchase immovable property in his name but they misused the hard earnings of the 1st defendant by purchasing the immovable properties in their name. In such circumstances, having no other go the 1st defendant was constrained to file suits against his father and were pending, out of the grudge for filing the suit as a counterblast the plaintiff in collusion with defendants 2 and 3 filed this present suit despite knowing about the execution of

Will of his mother Prabhavathi in his favour.

(c)The 1st defendant in the memory of his beloved mother performed her first death anniversary ceremony on 24-10-2017 with his funds and the said fact was known to one and all in their family circle. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant even did not attend the said ceremony which shows that they are mere interested in her assets rather then rituals. Therefore, under the said circumstances, the 1st defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

4. The defendants 2 and 3 also filed their written statement wherein they stated as follows :-

The plaintiff is an aged person having no other sources of income and their brother i.e. 1st defendant never looked after the welfare of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule property belonged to their mother Prabhavathi who died intestate leaving behind her, the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and them as the legal representatives to succeed her estate. Therefore, the plaint schedule property shall have to be partitioned into four equal shares for which they have no objection.

5. Basing on the pleadings of either side, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues for trial :-

1. Whether the plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property ?

2. Whether the Will dated 30-06-2016 propounded by the 1 st defendant executed by Yerra Prabhavathi in favour of the 1 st defendant is true, valid, binding on the parties to the suit ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition of plaint schedule property into four equal shares, to allot one such share to the plaintiff and the remaining three shares equally to defendants 1 to 3 respectively ?

4. To what relief.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. The defendants 1 to 3 have not adduced either oral and documentary evidence despite sufficient time was granted, as such their side evidence was closed on 25-07-2023.

7.Heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiff. No arguments advanced on behalf of the defendants 1 to 3.

8. Admitted facts as per the pleadings of either side :-

The plaintiff Yerra Narayana Rao is the father of the defendants 1 to 3. The wife of the plaintiff as well as the mother of the defendants namely Yerra

Prabhavathi is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property who purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dt.17-11-1987 bearing document

No.310/1998 from one Yerra Ramu and his sons Yerra Narayana Rao, Yerra

Venkata Surya Ramprasad, Yerra Trinadh, Yerra Paparao and Basanna

Ramayyamma. Apart from the defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiff there are no other legal heirs left behind the deceased Prabhavathi.

9. Issues 1 to 3 : As the three issues are interconnected and interdependent they are taken up together for common discussion.

The plaintiff claimed that his wife Prabhavathi died intestate leaving behind her, the defendants and him as her legal representatives to succeed the plaint schedule property. That ever since the date of demise of his wife, they four have been in joint and constructive possession of the plaint schedule property being the legal heirs of Prabhavathi and that his children especially his son i.e. 1st defendant is not looking after his welfare as such, he has been facing lot of inconvenience to attend his day to day basic necessities and hence he intends to get the plaint schedule property partitioned for allotment of one share in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff to substantiate his case filed Ex.A1 registered sale deed, dt.17-11-1987 under which his wife purchased the plaint schedule property, Ex.A2 death certificate of his wife Prabhavathi and Ex.A3 tax passbook which stands in the name of his wife Prabhavathi. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are not in dispute in view of the defence set up by the 1st defendant. It is evident that defendants 2 and 3 in their written statement reported no objection for partition of the plaint schedule property.

10.The 1st defendant alone has contested the suit by filing the written statement referring about a Will executed by his mother Prabhavathi. As per the defence of 1st defendant, during the lifetime of his mother Prabhavathi, she had executed a

Will, dt.30-06-2016 in a sound and dispossessing state of mind in his favour bequeathing the plaint schedule property to him. Therefore, the burden of proof to prove the execution of the said Will by his deceased mother Prabhavathi lies upon 1st defendant as per Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act. The 1st defendant though in his written statement vehemently contended that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of this Will but, at the later point of time has not chosen to file any sort of evidence to substantiate his defence. The 1st defendant though conducted cross-examination of PW.1 through his counsel nothing was elicited from PW.1 except putting suggestions.

11.As regards the Will, the plaintiff as PW.1 denied to all the suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the 1st defendant. Also he denied to the suggestions that he and his daughters in collusion filed the present suit knowing about the execution of Will by his deceased wife Prabhavathi in favour of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant also referred about suits filed by him against his father and sisters on the pretext that they misappropriated his funds and purchased properties in their name by persuading him that they would purchase the property in his name. It is evident that 1st defendant has not let in any evidence in this regard as well. Therefore, in the absence of any sort of evidence on behalf of the 1st defendant especially when he is obligated to prove the execution of Will by his deceased mother Prabhavathi, I hold that the defendant had taken the plea for name sake and it does not bear any truth. In this context, I would like to place my reliance in a case between Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao & Anr. reported in AIR 1999 SC page 1441 wherein it is held as follows :- “Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness

box and states his own case on oath and does not offer

himself to be cross examined by the other side, a

presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not

correct.”

12.Thus in view of the findings in the above mentioned Vidhyadhar Vs.

Manikrao & Anr. case and further in view of my foregoing discussion, I hold that the plaintiff proved that the plaint schedule property has been in joint and constructive possession of his children and him after the demise of his wife

Prabhavathi. Accordingly, the issues are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the 1 st defendant.

13. Issue No.4 :

IN THE RESULT, the suit is preliminary decreed by partitioning the plaint schedule property into four equal and equitable shares by allotting one such share to the plaintiff and one such share each to the defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff is entitled for the separate possession of his respective 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property on a separate application filed in accordance with the law.

In view of the relationship among the parties each party do bear their own respective costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of November, 2023.)

Sd/- M.D.V.N.SINDHURA

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

For Plaintiff : For Defendants : PW.1 : Yerra Narayana RaoNone

No. of documents marked for

For Plaintiff : Ex.A1 : Extract of registered sale deed, dt.17-11-1987 in favour of plaintiff’s wife Yerra Prabhavathi.

Ex.A2: Death certificate of the plaintiff’s wife Yerra Prabhavathi, dt.29-12- 2016.

Ex.A3: Tax passbook in respect of the plaint schedule property.

For Defendants : -NIL-

Sd/- M.D.V.N.SINDHURA

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Date of Presentation : 23-10-2017 Date of Filing : 23-10-2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :M.D.V.N.Sindhura I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2023.

Original Suit No.1075/2017

Between : Yerra Narayana Rao, S/o late Y.Ramu, Hindu, aged 70 years, r/at old D.No.26-8-51, new D.No.26-8-52, Raja Rammohan Roy Road, Woodyard Street, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam, Aadhaar No.3535 0597 1038, Cell No.9441384643. … Plaintiff

A n d :

1. Yerra Sai, S/o Yerra Narayana Rao, Hindu, aged 41 years, r/at D.No.26-8- 52, Woodyard Street, RRM Road, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam-530 001.

2. Piradi Madhavi, W/o Piradi Venugopal, Hindu, aged 43 years, r/at D.No.53- 20-19, Chaitanya Nagar, Opp.Street Varasiddi Vinayaka temple, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam-530 013.

3. Ravi Ramani, W/o Muralikrishna, Hindu, aged 39 years, r/at D.No.50-2-95, Gandhi Nagar, Near Satyam Junction, Nakkavanipalem, Visakhapatnam- 530 013. … Defendants

Suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and other three shares to the defendants and for costs and other reliefs.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.4,84,200/- and a Court fee of Rs.200/- is paid U/Sec.34 (2) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on 08-11-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.N.S.V.Reddy, Sri.P.Rambabu & K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri.K.Madhusudana Rao & Ms.K.Parameswari Devi, Advocates for the 1st defendant and of Sri.P.Gowri Sankar, Advocate for the Defendants 2 and 3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and passed the following :

D E C R E E

i. that the suit be and the same is hereby preliminary decreed by partitioning the plaint schedule property into four equal and equitable shares by allotting one such share to the plaintiff and one such share each to the defendants 1 to 3; ii. that the plaintiff is entitled for the separate possession of his respective 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property on a separate application filed in accordance with the law; and iii. that each party do bear their own respective costs in view of the relationship among the parties. (A copy of the suit schedule is herewith attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 22nd day of November, 2023.

Sd/- M.D.V.N.SINDHURA

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

No costs memo filed by either side.

Sd/- M.D.V.N.SINDHURA

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

As per orders in I.A.984/2023 in O.S.1075/2017, dt.16-12-2023 the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is allowed condoning the delay in filing cost memo.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff :

Stamps on VakalatRs.2-00

Stamps on PlaintRs.200-00

Process FeeRs.189-00

Advocate FeeRs.25,000-00

Junior Advocate FeeRs.8,333-00

Total Costs CertifiedRs.33,724-00

Sd/- CH.VIVEK ANAND SRINIVAS

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

O.S.186/2017, Dt : 14-11-2023 1 PSCJC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :M.D.V.N.Sindhura I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday, this the 14th day of November, 2023.

Original Suit No.186/2017

Between :

1. Pyla Adinarayana (died), S/o late Rama Swamy.

2. Pyla Suryanarayana, S/o late Rama Swamy, Hindu, aged 57 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhaar No.2584 1511 6990.

3. Pyla Surya Rao, S/o late Rama Swamy, Hindu, aged 53 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhaar No.4339 3189 9754.

4. Pyla Appa Rao, S/o Krishnamma, Hindu, aged 55 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

5. Pyla Yerrayya, S/o Krishnamma, Hindu, aged 61 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

6. Pyla Chinna Rao, S/o Surya Rao @ Surayanarayana, Hindu, aged 55 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

7. Pyla Rama Rao, S/o late Chinnayya, Hindu, aged 39 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhaar No.7902 6421 3599.

8. Pyla Pydi Raju, S/o late Chinnayya, Hindu, aged 51 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhaar No.7433 8006 9258. … Plaintiffs

A n d :

1. Battula Krishna, S/o Ramulu, r/o S.C.Colony, Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Jaggupalli Jaya, W/o Appala Raju, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Sector-IV, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam.

3. Pappala Venkatesh, S/o Sanjeeva Rao, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

4. Korada Suramma, W/o Suryanarayana, r/o Yethapeta Village, Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

5. Korada Appa Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, r/o Yethapeta Village, Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

6. Gompa Atchanna, S/o Durgayya, r/o S.C.Colony, Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

O.S.186/2017, Dt : 14-11-2023 2 PSCJC/VSP

7. Siripurapu Madhava Rao, S/o Appa Rao, r/o S.C.Colony, Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 06-11-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.R.Srikanth, Advocate for the Plaintiffs 2 to 8, the suit against 1st plaintiff is dismissed as abated on 23-03-2023, Defendants 1 to 3, 6 are set exparte on 08-03-2018, 7th defendant is set exparte on 09-02-2018, the suit against defendants 4 and 5 is dismissed as not pressed on 11-04-2023 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for costs and other reliefs.

2.After concise details in the plaint, the material averments in the plaint are as follows :-

(a)The ancestors of plaintiffs were the absolute owners of vacant land of an extent of Ac.11.25cents covered under survey No.44/2 at Pandalapaka Village of Anandapuram Mandal out of which, an extent of Ac.3.46cents was sold to defendants 4 and 5 under registered sale deeds, dt.17-01-1974, dt.12-02-1980 and dt.27-10-1982. Apart from this, the ancestors of the plaintiffs sold another extent of Ac.0.66cents to the defendants 4 and 5 through unregistered sale deeds in the year 1974. Further they lost an extent of Ac.1.45cents out of the remaining extent for the road widening. Therefore, the plaintiffs inherited an extent of

Ac.6.34cents. While filing the plaint, foremost the plaintiffs being unaware of the said transactions with defendants 4 and 5 mentioned the total extent of

Ac.11.25cents in the schedule which they later amended as Ac.6.34cents. Also, the plaintiffs consequently not pressed the suit against the defendants 4 and 5.

O.S.186/2017, Dt : 14-11-2023 3 PSCJC/VSP

(b)The plaint schedule property has been devolving on the next generations from the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The parents of the plaintiffs namely Pyla Rama Swamy, Pyla Yerthanna, Pyla Chinnayya and Pyla

Krishnamma on succeeding the plaint schedule property from their ancestors let out part of the suit schedule property to one Gompa Atchanna and Korada

Suramma for annual lease under oral lease agreement. The said Atchanna and

Suramma cultivated part of suit schedule property for few years and their names were also reflected in village account No.3 as leaseholders. Subsequently, the parents of the plaintiffs took back the leasehold property from Atchanna and

Suramma cancelling the lease agreement. Ever since, the parents of the plaintiffs had been in the possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of the property till their demise. They cultivated the said property without any interruption from others. The names of the plaintiffs’ parents were also entered into pattadar passbooks and other revenue records.

(c)The said Rama Swamy, Yerthanna, Chinnayya and Krishnamma died intestate leaving behind them, the plaintiffs as their legal representatives to succeed their estate. Ever since from the date of demise of their parents, the plaintiffs have been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interruption. The Revenue Authorities, meanwhile did not make any deletion of names of Gompa Atchanna and Korada Suramma from the village account No.3 as leaseholders due to which several representations have been made to the Revenue Authorities for deletion of their names.

(d)While the matter stood thus, the legal heirs of Gompa Atchanna and

Korada Suramma along with these defendants started creating nuisance at the suit

O.S.186/2017, Dt : 14-11-2023 4 PSCJC/VSP

schedule property taking advantage of the entries in the village account No.3. The plaintiffs erected a fencing around the suit schedule property so as to protect their property from encroachments. At that juncture, one Jaggupalli Jaya and others filed a complaint against these plaintiffs without any manner of right, as such the plaintiffs filed a complaint before A.P. State Commission for S.Cs. and S.Ts. The said Commission directed the District Collector to take necessary action vide proceedings R.C.No.S1/001324/VSP/SC/2016, dt.14-03-2016. The plaintiffs thereof filed R.C.C. before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam against these defendants and sought for mutation of their names in the village account

No.3 by deleting the names of Gompa Atchanna and Korada Suramma. The defendants in the said R.C.C. have not filed their counter and kept on postponing the same on one pretext or the other. On the other hand they made their attempt to trespass into the plaint schedule property. Except to the defendants 4 and 5, the plaintiffs or their ancestors never executed any document in favour of anyone in respect to the extent covered under the subject matter survey number.

(e)While the matter stood thus, on 29-01-2017 at about 10:30a.m. some of the defendants along with their men came to the suit schedule property and made an attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property by threatening the plaintiffs to vacate the same stating that they are the original owners of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs resisted them with the help of neighbours and questioned the defendants to show the documents if any executed by their ancestors or anyone in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendants highhandedly and illegally made an attempt to trespass into the property without responding to the plaintiffs’ inquiry. When the plaintiffs resisted the acts of the

O.S.186/2017, Dt : 14-11-2023 5 PSCJC/VSP

defendants they left the suit schedule property proclaiming that they will come again and trespass into the property by hook or crook. As the plaintiffs are under apprehension of dispossession from the plaint schedule property, they were constrained to file this suit. Hence the suit.

3.Initially the defendants 4 and 5 have filed their written statements but pending the suit before commencing of the trial the suit has been not pressed against the defendants 4 and 5 and the schedule of the plaint was amended for the extent of Ac.6.34cents by deleting Ac.3.46cents which the ancestors of the plaintiffs have sold to the defendants 4 and 5. Therefore, I feel no necessity to mention the written statement contentions of defendants 4 and 5. The defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 7 have chosen to remain exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked.

5.Heard for the plaintiffs.

6. Now the points stood for consideration are :-

A) Whether plaintiffs are in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property ?

B) Whether the defendants are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property without any right ?

C) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants ?

D) To what relief.

O.S.186/2017, Dt : 14-11-2023 6 PSCJC/VSP

7. Points A to C : As the three points are interconnected and interdependent they are taken up together for common discussion.

The 7th plaintiff filed his chief affidavit as PW.1 reiterating the plaint averments. To substantiate the possession of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property, they filed the true copies of village account No.3, dt.22-06-2004 and 19-07-2006 marked as Exs.A1 and A2, Ex.A3 Adangal which reflects the ownership of ancestors of the plaintiff over the entire extent of Ac.11.25cents.

Further the land revenue receipts which have been issued in the name of Pyla

Rama Swamy were marked as Exs.A4 and A5. Further, Ex.A6 is the settlement fair adangal and the village account No.3 of the year 2016 which reflects the name of Pyla Rama Swamy, Pyla Yerthanna, Pyla Chinnayya and Pyla Krishnamma as the enjoyment holders of the said extent of Ac.11.25cents. Ex.A7 is the letter which has been addressed by the Deputy Director, Officer on Special Duty to the

District Collector in respect to lodging of the complaint by these plaintiffs before the A.P. State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Ex.A8 is the photographs along with corresponding C.D. of the plaint schedule property.

The defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 7 despite knowing the allegations levelled against them in the plaint have not chosen to contest the matter and remained exparte, as such, the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 remained unchallenged.

8.Therefore, Exs.A1 to A8 clinchingly reveals that the ancestors of the plaintiffs are having possession over the plaint schedule property which have been inherited by the plaintiffs’ parents and therefrom devolved to the plaintiffs. The defendants since did not choose to contest the suit, therefore in view of the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A8, I hold that the plaintiffs proved their

O.S.186/2017, Dt : 14-11-2023 7 PSCJC/VSP

possession in the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and further proved the cause of action stated against that the defendants. Accordingly,

the points are answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants 1 to

3, 6 and 7.

9. Point No.D :

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 7 from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. The suit against defendants 4 and 5 is dismissed as not pressed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected in my laptop and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of November, 2023.)

Sd/- M.D.V.N.SINDHURA

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

For Plaintiffs : For Defendants : PW.1 : Pyla Rama RaoExparte

No. of documents marked for

For Plaintiffs : Ex.A1 : Village account No.3, dt.22-06-2004.

Ex.A2: Village account No.3, dt.19-07-2006.

Ex.A3: Fasili, dt.19-08-2007.

Ex.A4: Paid tax receipt, dt.01-01-1984 to 1987.

Ex.A5: Paid tax receipt, dt.01-01-1988 to 1991.

Ex.A6: Adangal, settlement fair adangal and village account No.3, dt.12-02-2016.

Ex.A7: Letter, dt.14-03-2016 to District Collector.

Ex.A8: Photos and C.D., dt.29-01-2017 (4 in number) For Defendants : Exparte

Sd/- M.D.V.N.SINDHURA

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

O.S.186/2017, Dt : 14-11-2023 8 PSCJC/VSP

Date of Presentation : 21-02-2017 Date of Filing : 21-02-2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :M.D.V.N.Sindhura I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday, this the 14th day of November, 2023.

Original Suit No.186/2017

Between :

1. Pyla Adinarayana (died), S/o late Rama Swamy.

2. Pyla Suryanarayana, S/o late Rama Swamy, Hindu, aged 57 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhaar No.2584 1511 6990.

3. Pyla Surya Rao, S/o late Rama Swamy, Hindu, aged 53 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhaar No.4339 3189 9754.

4. Pyla Appa Rao, S/o Krishnamma, Hindu, aged 55 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

5. Pyla Yerrayya, S/o Krishnamma, Hindu, aged 61 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

6. Pyla Chinna Rao, S/o Surya Rao @ Surayanarayana, Hindu, aged 55 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

7. Pyla Rama Rao, S/o late Chinnayya, Hindu, aged 39 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhaar No.7902 6421 3599.

8. Pyla Pydi Raju, S/o late Chinnayya, Hindu, aged 51 years, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhaar No.7433 8006 9258. … Plaintiffs A n d :

1. Battula Krishna, S/o Ramulu, r/o S.C.Colony, Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Jaggupalli Jaya, W/o Appala Raju, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Sector-IV, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam.

3. Pappala Venkatesh, S/o Sanjeeva Rao, r/o Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

4. Korada Suramma, W/o Suryanarayana, r/o Yethapeta Village, Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

5. Korada Appa Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, r/o Yethapeta Village, Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

6. Gompa Atchanna, S/o Durgayya, r/o S.C.Colony, Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

7. Siripurapu Madhava Rao, S/o Appa Rao, r/o S.C.Colony, Pandalapaka Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. … Defendants

O.S.186/2017, Dt : 14-11-2023 9 PSCJC/VSP

Suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for costs and other reliefs.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.15,00,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.17,426/- is paid U/Sec.26 Sch.I Art.I (b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on 06-11-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.R.Srikanth, Advocate for the Plaintiffs 2 to 8, the suit against 1st plaintiff is dismissed as abated on 23-03-2023, Defendants 1 to 3, 6 are set exparte on 08-03-2018, 7th defendant is set exparte on 09-02-2018, the suit against defendants 4 and 5 is dismissed as not pressed on 11-04-2023 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and passed the following :

D E C R E E

i.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 7 from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property ; ii. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed against defendants 4 and 5; and iii. that the defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 7 do pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.19,549/- (Rupees nineteen thousand five hundred and forty-nine only) towards institutional costs of the suit. (A copy of the suit schedule is herewith attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 14th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- M.D.V.N.SINDHURA

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiffs : For Defendants :

No costs memo filed by either side.

Stamps on VakalatRs.2-00

Stamps on PlaintRs. 17,426-00

Stamps on PetitionRs.21-00

Stamps on DocumentRs.10-00

Process FeeRs.1,290-00

Publication ChargesRs.800-00

Total Institutional Costs AllowedRs. 19,549-00

Sd/- M.D.V.N.SINDHURA

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

- 1 - O.S.No.112/2019, Dt : 28-11-2024 PCJ (Sr.Div.)/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :M.D.V.N.Sindhura I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), (FAC) Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, this the 28th day of November, 2024.

Original Suit No.112/2019

Between : Akkireddy Bhavani, W/o Bangaraiah, Hindu, aged 46 years, r/at D.No.10-49, Sai Ganesh Nagar, Papayyarajupalem, Sujatha Nagar Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530 051. … Plaintiff

A n d :

1. Tandrangi Appala Raju, S/o late Ramu, Hindu, aged 45 years, r/at D.No.7-71, Gollavillivanipalem, Sujatha Nagar Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530 051. (Died)

2. Tandrangi Ramu, W/o Appala Raju, Hindu, aged 38 years, r/at D.No.7- 71, Gollavillivanipalem, Sujatha Nagar Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530 051.

3. Tandrangi Sai Kiran, S/o late Appala Raju, Hindu, aged 26 years, r/at D.No.13-89/1, Plot No.28, Gollavillivanipalem, Sujatha Nagar Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530 051.

4. Tandrangi Ganesh, S/o late Appala Raju, Hindu, aged 23 years, r/at D.No.13-89/1, Plot No.28, Gollavillivanipalem, Sujatha Nagar Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530 051. (The defendant Nos.3 and 4 are added as legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 as per orders in I.A.No.193/2023, dt.14-07- 2023.) … Defendants

This suit is coming on 13-11-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.Ramji, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri.D.Satti Babu, Advocate for the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and of Sri.Ch.Kiran Kumar, Advocate - 2 - O.S.No.112/2019, Dt : 28-11-2024 PCJ (Sr.Div.)/VSP for the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,25,200/- due under the foot of four promissory notes, dt.10-12-2015 together with subsequent interest and costs.

2. After concise details in the plaint, the material averments are as follows :-

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife respectively and they approached the plaintiff on 10-12-2015 and jointly borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- to attend their family expenses and for clearing sundry debts.

The defendant Nos.1 and 2 in consideration thereof, had executed four demand promissory notes for Rs.50,000/- each on the even date agreeing to repay the principal amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

Thereafter, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not repay the amount to the plaintiff despite making several demands, be it either principal or interest they kept on postponing the payment on some pretext or the other. In view of the conduct of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 12-04- 2018 demanding them to repay the entire amount with interest due under the promissory notes. The defendants having receipt of the said notice on 18-04- 2018, they neither paid the amount nor sent any reply notice. As such, the plaintiff having no other go was constrained to file this suit seeking recovery of amount due under the promissory notes. Hence, the suit.

3.Pending disposal of the suit, the defendant No.1 died leaving behind him his wife and children arrayed as defendant Nos.2 to 4 respectively as his legal - 3 - O.S.No.112/2019, Dt : 28-11-2024 PCJ (Sr.Div.)/VSP representatives to succeed his estate. As such the defendant Nos.3 and 4 were impleaded as per the orders in I.A.No.193/2023, dt.14-07-2023.

4.The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement at the first instance denying most of the allegations made in the plaint and inter alia they contended that they never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and the promissory notes filed by the plaintiff are rank forged ones. That they had financial transaction in the year 2012 which they discharged but instead of returning the blank signed promissory note, the plaintiff taking advantage of the possession of the blank signed promissory note had conveniently forged their signatures and created the promissory notes. They received the legal notice and being felt surprise of its contents have started making inquiries about the plaintiff and her intention behind sending the legal notice. In that course, they were not able to issue reply immediately and later they received the summons in this suit and got to know that the suit has been instituted by the plaintiff. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.

5.After the defendant Nos.3 and 4 were impleaded the defendant No.3 filed his written statement and adopting the same, the defendant No.4 filed adoption memo. The defendant No.3 in his written statement denied the allegations made by the plaintiff in the neat copy of the plaint and inter alia contended that he does not know the scribe and attestors of the suit promissory notes and the suit documents were brought into existence in collusion with a view to grab money from them. Their parents never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and the promissory notes filed by the plaintiff are inadmissible documents. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.

- 4 - O.S.No.112/2019, Dt : 28-11-2024 PCJ (Sr.Div.)/VSP

6. Basing on the pleadings of either side, the following issues are settled for trial :-

1. Whether the four suit promissory notes, dt.10-12-2015 for

Rs.50,000/- each are true, valid, genuine, binding on the defendant

Nos.1 and 2 and supported by consideration ?

2. Whether the three promissory notes from out of the four

promissory notes filed by the plaintiff are fabricated as contended

by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 ?

3. Whether defendant Nos.1 and 2 repaid the amount borrowed in the

year 2012 under a promissory note obtained in the year 2012, as

contended by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant Nos.1 and 2 ?

5. To what relief ?

7.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants.

8.Heard arguments for the plaintiff. No arguments advanced on behalf of the defendants.

9. Issue Nos.1 to 4 : As the four issues are interconnected and

interdependent they are taken up together for common discussion.

The plaintiff claimed to have lent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 for their family expenses and to clear the sundry debts on 10-12-2015 and accordingly the defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed four promissory notes for Rs.50,000/- each agreeing to repay the principal amount - 5 - O.S.No.112/2019, Dt : 28-11-2024 PCJ (Sr.Div.)/VSP together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Per contra, the defense of the defendants is one promissory note out of the four is a fabricated document while the rest of the three are forged.

10.In view of the defense set up by the defendants, the initial burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff to prove the execution of four promissory notes by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 on receipt of consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. The plaintiff as P.W.1 had reiterated the plaint pleadings and she filed the four promissory notes marked as Exs.A1 to A4. Perusal of Exs.A1 to A4 discloses that Exs.A1 and A2 were executed by both defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly, while the remaining two promissory notes marked as Exs.A3 and A4 were executed by the deceased defendant No.1 alone.

11.The plaintiff further to prove that she demanded the defendants to repay the amount before filing of the suit got filed the legal notice, dt.12-04-2018 (office copy) marked as Ex.A5 which she has been issued to the defendant

Nos.1 and 2. It is evident that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not dispute the receipt of Ex.A5 legal notice and they stated that due to making of inquiries about the plaintiff, they were not able to issue reply to Ex.A5 legal notice. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 for the reasons best known have not chosen to cross- examine P.W.1.

12.On the other hand, the plaintiff to further fortify her claim against the defendants examined the second attestor of the Exs.A1 to A4 namely Kalisetty

Sankara Rao as P.W.2 who in his chief affidavit deposed that he witnessed the passing of consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant

Nos.1 and 2 and further the execution of Exs.A1 to A4 by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. P.W.2 further asserted that along with him, the other attestor R.Neeraja - 6 - O.S.No.112/2019, Dt : 28-11-2024 PCJ (Sr.Div.)/VSP and the scribe V.Demullu witnessed the transaction. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 also did not choose to cross-examine P.W.2. Therefore, the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 has remained unchallenged and further Exs.A1 to A4 also remained unchallenged and disproved.

13.The defendants also failed to enter the witness box to state their case on oath. In this context, I place my reliance in a case law reported in AIR 1999

SC page 1441 held in between Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao & Anr. wherein it is held as follows :- “Where a party to the suit does not appear into the

witness box and states his own case on oath and does

not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side,

a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is

not correct.”

14.In view of the ratio decided in the aforementioned case law, I have to hold that what the defendants have pleaded in their written statement is not true and they pleaded for the name sake. Thus, in view of my foregoing discussion, I hold that the plaintiff by examining herself and the attestor and also by filing Exs.A1 to A4 promissory notes able to prove that the defendant

Nos.1 and 2 borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from her on 10-12-2015 and executed the said documents. Accordingly, the issues are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

15. Issue No.5 :

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.3,25,200/- (Rupees three lakh twenty-five thousand two hundred only) against the defendant No.2 independently and against the estate of deceased - 7 - O.S.No.112/2019, Dt : 28-11-2024 PCJ (Sr.Div.)/VSP defendant No.1 lying in the hands of the defendant Nos.2 to 4 together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and therefrom at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only).

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of November, 2024.).

Sd/- M.D.V.N.SINDHURA

I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), (FAC) Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

For Plaintiff : For Defendants : PW.1 : A.BhavaniNone PW.2 : K.Sankara Rao

No. of documents marked for

For Plaintiff : Ex.A1 : Promissory note, dt.10-12-2015 for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A2: Promissory note, dt.10-12-2015 for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A3 : Promissory note, dt.10-12-2015 for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A4: Promissory note, dt.10-12-2015 for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A5: Office copy of registered lawyer’s notice, dt.12-04-2018.

Ex.A6: Postal acknowledgment from defendant No.1, dt.18-04-2018.

Ex.A7: Postal acknowledgment from defendant No.2, dt.18-04-2018.

For Defendants : -NIL-

Sd/- M.D.V.N.SINDHURA

I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), (FAC) Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Visakhapatnam.

- 8 - O.S.No.112/2019, Dt : 28-11-2024 PCJ (Sr.Div.)/VSP

Date of Presentation : 07-08-2018/12-11-2018 Date of Filing : 28-03-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :M.D.V.N.Sindhura I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), (FAC) Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, this the 28th day of November, 2024.

Original Suit No.112/2019

Between : Akkireddy Bhavani, W/o Bangaraiah, Hindu, aged 46 years, r/at D.No.10-49, Sai Ganesh Nagar, Papayyarajupalem, Sujatha Nagar Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530 051. … Plaintiff

A n d :

1. Tandrangi Appala Raju, S/o late Ramu, Hindu, aged 45 years, r/at D.No.7-71, Gollavillivanipalem, Sujatha Nagar Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam- 530 051. (Died)

2. Tandrangi Ramu, W/o Appala Raju, Hindu, aged 38 years, r/at D.No.7-71, Gollavillivanipalem, Sujatha Nagar Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam- 530 051.

3. Tandrangi Sai Kiran, S/o late Appala Raju, Hindu, aged 26 years, r/at D.No.13-89/1, Plot No.28, Gollavillivanipalem, Sujatha Nagar Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530 051.

4. Tandrangi Ganesh, S/o late Appala Raju, Hindu, aged 23 years, r/at D.No.13- 89/1, Plot No.28, Gollavillivanipalem, Sujatha Nagar Post, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530 051. (The defendant Nos.3 and 4 are added as legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 as per orders in I.A.No.193/2023, dt.14-07-2023.) … Defendants

Suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,25,200/- due under the foot of four promissory notes, dt.10-12-2015 together with subsequent interest and costs.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.3,25,200/- and a Court fee of Rs.12,104/- is paid U/Sec.20 Sch.I Art.I (b) & (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

- 9 - O.S.No.112/2019, Dt : 28-11-2024 PCJ (Sr.Div.)/VSP

This suit is coming on 13-11-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.Ramji, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri.D.Satti Babu, Advocate for the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and of Sri.Ch.Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court doth order and passed the following :

D E C R E E

1. that the defendant No.2 independently and defendant Nos.2 to 4 do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,25,200/- (Rupees three lakh twenty-five thousand two hundred only) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and therefrom at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) out of the estate of deceased defendant No.1 lying in the hands of the defendant Nos.2 to 4; and

2. that the defendant No.2 independently and defendant Nos.2 to 4 do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.12,241/- (Rupees twelve thousand two hundred and forty-one only) towards costs of the suit out of the estate of deceased defendant No.1 lying in the hands of the defendant Nos.2 to 4.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 28th day of November, 2024.

Sd/- M.D.V.N.SINDHURA

I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), (FAC) Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff : For Defendants : No costs memo filed on either side.

Stamps on VakalatRs.2-00 Stamps on PlaintRs.12,104-00 Stamps on PetitionsRs.2-00 Process FeeRs.133-00 Total Costs InstitutedRs.12,241-00

Sd/- M.D.V.N.SINDHURA

I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), (FAC) Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Visakhapatnam.