Sri M Johnson

1 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

 IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE AT :: SIRCILLA

PRESENT: M.JOHNSON, 

IX ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

Wednesday,this the 27h day of April, 2022

O.S. NO.28OF 2018

(Old O.S. NO.6/2014)

Between:­

Yelka Hanmaiah @ Hanmanthu, S/o. Late Mysaiah, Aged 61 year, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gundaram Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal. …. Plaintiff.

And

1 Yelka Ramulu, S/o. Late Mysaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.6­3­1247/232, Rajnagar, Opp: Raj Bhavan, Khairathabad, Hyderabad.

2 Yelka Laxmi, W/o. Late Venkatnarsaiah, Aged 65 years, Occ: Household, 3Yelka Babu, S/o. Late Venkatnarsaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ: VRO, 4Yelka Devaiah, S/o. Late Venkatnarsaiah, Aged 34 years, Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o. H.No.1­23/6, Gundaram Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal.

5Pabbathi Manemma, W/o. Jhony, Aged 33 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.6­3­1247/271, Rajnagar, Opp: Raj Bhavan, Khairathabad, Hydeabad.

6Yelka Yadaiah, S/o. Late Venkatnarsaiah, Aged 28 years, Occ: Private Teacher, R/o. H.No.1­23/6, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal.

2 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

7Kompelli Rajaiah, S/o. Late Narsaiah, Aged 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.3­9, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

8Kompelli Gouravva, W/o. Rajaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.3­9, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

9Kompelli Lingaiah, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.3­9, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

10Shaik Abdul Karim, S/o. Hyder Saab, Aged 68 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2­50/2, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

11Vadluri Mallaiah, S/o. Late Durgaiah, Aged 78 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.3­17, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

12Vadluri Kishtaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.3­17, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District 13Vadluri Parshaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.3­17, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

14Kompelli Pochavva, W/o. Balaiah, Aged 67 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.2­96, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

15Kompelli Balaiah, S/o. Late Narsaiah, Aged 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2­96, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

16Kompelli Pochamallaiah, S/o. Balaiah, Aged 30 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.2­96, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

17Pothula Yellavva, W/o. Ramulu, Aged 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.2­50/10, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

3 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

18Pothula Pochavva, W/o. Late Lingaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.2­50/10, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

19Pothula Pedda Kanakavva, W/o. Chinna Pochaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.2­50/10, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

20Pothula Chinna Kanakavva, W/o. Lachaiah, Aged 32 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.2­50/10, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

21Goddati Narsaiah, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1­23, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

22Pulla Pochaiah, S/o. Balamallu, Aged 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1­23/1, 2, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

23Sangem Lachavva, W/o. Late Mallaiah, Aged 73 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1­29, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

24Peddolla Kanakaiah, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged 68 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1­80, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

25Yenugula Yellavva @ Lachavva, W/o. Late Komuraiah, Aged 35 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1­23/2/1, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

26Are Dharmalingam, S/o. Rajamallaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1­33, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

27Pothula Kanakaiah, S/o. Durgaiah, Aged 36 years, Occ: Village Servant, R/o. H.No.1­34, Gundaram, Village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

28The District Collector, Karimnagar.

29The Tahsildar, Ellanthakunta Mandal.

…..Defendants.

4 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

This suit is coming before me on 04.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Vasantham, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri

M.Ramesh, Advocate for defendants No.1 to 6, 21 to 27, and Sri

G.Chandrashekar Reddy, Advocate for defendants No.7 to 9, 11, 13 to 16, and Defendants No.10, 12, 17 to 20, 28 and 29 having chosen to remain exparte, and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:­ : J U D G M E N T :

The plaintiff herein filed the suit against the defendants herein seeking relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties claiming 1/3rd share of the properties and to pass a preliminary decree to that effect and also to appoint Advocate

Commissioner to effect partition and also to pass a decree of recovery of possession of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff from the defendants No.1 to 27 of the suit schedule properties directing the defendant No.29 herein to rectify the entries in revenue records.

5 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

2.The suit schedule properties described by the plaintiff as hereunder:­

Item Sy. Area Situated at 

No. No. Acres – Guntas 1 18503­13 GundaramV/o. Ellanthakunta Mandal.

East :: The land of Kompelli Kishtaiah and others. West :: The land of Peddolla Kanakaiah and others. North :: The land of Gangadhara Narsaiah and others. South :: The land of Kompelli Yellaiah and others.

2 18706­07GundaramV/o. Ellanthakunta Mandal.

East :: The land of Kompelli Yellavva and others. West :: The land of Dameer Kishtaiah. North :: The land of Papaiahgari Narayana and others. South :: The land of Ullendula Ekanandam and others.

319010­28GundaramV/o. Ellanthakunta Mandal.

East :: The land of Elkanti Narsimhareddy and others. West :: The land of Shaik Abdul Kareem and others. North :: The land of Kompelli Gouravva and others. South :: The land of Dasari Anjaiah and others.

467801­18GundaramV/o. Ellanthakunta Mandal.

East :: The house of Kodhani Nampelli and another. West :: The house of Kaparthi Anjaiah and others. North :: The house of Rolla Radhavva and another. South :: The house of Banda Babu and another.

TOTAL Acres 21­26 guntas

6 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

3.Originally the suit is filed before the court of Hon’ble District

Judge, Karimnagar, and made over to the Judge, Family Court,

Karimnagar and subsequently, the suit has been transferred to this court in the year 2018 by virtue of proceedings of the Hon’ble District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar, vide Dis. No.215/PR.42/2008/

Dist.SRCL/Estt/ADK/DCK, dated 10.01.2018 at the stage of trial. The said suit in O.S. No.28/2018 is renumbered on the file of this court vide O.S. No.6/20148.

4.According to the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that he is second son of late Yelka Mysaiah, who died on 14.08.1988 leaving behind his his three sons namely Venkatnarsaiah, Hanmaiah @

Hanmanthu, the plaintiff herein and Ramulu (defendant No.1), who had no daughters apart from his wife late Lachavva. It is stated in the plaint that the father of the plaintiff Yelka Mysaiah, during life time was given in agricultural lands described as plaint schedule properties by the Government as “service innam lands” for rendering his services as “Sethsindi” previously called as “Nowkari Innam or Innam

Nowkari”, situated at Gundaram village of Ellanthakunta Mandal, hereinafter called the “suit schedule properties”, and it is the case of 7 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

the plaintiff that till death of his father Yelka Mysaiah, his father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and wife of Mysaiah namely Lachavva, died about five years ago and the plaintiff and his brothers are only legal heirs and successors of the suit schedule properties and as a matter of fact late Y.Mysaiah, his sons were in joint possession of the properties till his death, and whereas, Venkatnarsaiah and other brothers including defendant

No.1 have not preferred any application before the R.D.O., Sircilla, for grant of patta certificate in their favour though Government has abolished the service Inams. However, after death of Venkatnarsaiah, his share of 1/3rd succeeded by his wife, sons and the daughter i.e., defendants No.2 to 6 hereina nd they have been in joint possession along with the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 till December, 2012.

Therefore, the plaintiff herein and the defendant No.1 are entitle to 1/3rd share each whereas, defendants No.2 to 6 together entitle to 1/3rd share of the suit schedule properties devolved from Yelka

Mysaiah, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the husband of defendant No.2, and paternal grandfather of defendants

No.3 to 6. The family pedigree also drawn in the plaint showing Yelka

Mysaiah, as common ancestor who died on 14.08.1988. While so, in 8 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

the month of January, 2013, the plaintiff herein demanded the defendant No.1 to make partition and allotment of 1/3rd share to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 in collusion with legal representatives of

Venkatnarsaiah i.e., defendants No.2 to 6 refused to make partition and taking advantage of wrong entries in revenue records in the year 2008, defendants No.7 to 27 claiming to have in possession of the suit schedule properties ultimately the defendants No.1 to 7 denied the claim of the plaintiff on 12.11.2013 and as such, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties for allotment of 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff and also rectification of entries in revenue records and recovery of possession of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff from the defendants herein.

5.After filing of the suit, on receipt of summons, the defendants

No.1 to 6, 21 to 27 and defendants No.7 to 9, 11, 13 to 16 have filed their written statements by engaging their advocate and whereas, defendants No.10, 12, 17 to 20, 28 and 29 were set exparte.

6.As per the joint written statement of defendants No.1 to 6, 21 to 27 they denied the plaint averments and the claim of the plaintiff for 9 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share out of the suit schedule properties. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has already sold out his share from the joint family properties and he cannot seek for partition of the said properties and the present suit is filed without any basis and the plaintiff has sold out his share through Simple Sale Deeds and now filed the present suit concealing the true and real facts and trying to mislead the court for obtaining the preliminary decree of partition and as such, there is no valid cause of action to file the suit for partition and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7.Whereas, the written statement of defendant No.7 shows that defendants No.7 and 8 have jointly purchased the land in Sy. No.185 to an extent of Acres 03.13 gunas, in Sy. No.190 to an extent of Acres 02.27 guntas totaling to Acres 06.00 guntas from the original owner

Yelka Mysaiah, who is father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 through registered Sale Deed bearing document No.2652/1987 dated 02.11.1987 on the file of S.R.O., Sircilla, and since then defendants

No.7 and 8 are in possession of the properties purchased by them without any interruption and the defendants No.7 and 8 also got 10 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

mutated their names in revenue records and obtained pattedar passbook and title deeds. It is further stated the Deputy Tahsildar,

Ellanthakaunta, has issued 1­B certificate in favour of defendants

No.7 to 9 and the names of defendants No.7 to 9 also been recorded in revenue records and the pahanies from 1995­96 to 2007­2008 reflects the names of defendants No.7 to 9 and as such, they are in possession of properties covered by Sy. No.185 and Sy. No.190 and also Sy.

No.184 (not suit land). Similarly, defendant No.13 filed the written statement and the same has been adopted by defendants No.11 and 12 by filing a memo and in the written statement of defendant No.13, it is pleaded that they have jointly purchased the land in Sy. Nos.187 and 190 to an extent of Acre 01.20 guntas from the original owner namely Yelka Venkatanarsaiah, i.e., father of defendants No.2 to 6 through simple Sale Deed long back and since then they are in possession of the properties purchased by them and the simple Sale

Deed was validated before the revenue authorities by virtue of R.O.R., proceedings and the name s of defendants No.11, 12 and 13 also being recorded in pahanies from 1995­96 onwards. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not at all maintainable as it is devoid of merits and lack of cause of action.

11 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

8.So also, defendants No.16 filed the written statement separately and he also claiming that defendant No.15 purchased the land in Sy.

No.190 to an extent of Acres 06.29 gunas from one Yelka Hanmaiah i.e., the plaintiff herein through simple Sale Deed dated 21.04.1983 and since then he is in possession of the property purchased from the plaintiff and the name of the defendant No.15 was entered into revenue records and also revenue authorities of Ellanthakunta, issued 13­B and 13­C certificates pertaining to the land in Sy. No.190 in favour of defendants No.15 and 16, and thereby they have obtained pattedar passbook and title deeds in their favour and the entries in revenue records more particularly the pahanies from 1995­96 to 2007­2008 are the correct entries, basing on the entries made by

V.R.O., Gundaram village. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff is false frivolous and the plaintiff is not entitle to seek the partition of entire properties described in the plaint schedule and as such, the plaintiff is not entitle to seek relief of partition and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9.Basing on the pleadings of the plaintiff and contesting defendants, on 19.09.2014 the following issues were framed by the court as hereunder:­ 12 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

(1) Whether the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 constitute 

Hindu Joint Family and whether the suit schedule

property is their joint family property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.1 already sold

away their share house sites under Simple Sale Deeds and

registered Sale Deeds to defendants No.7 to 27 as

contended in the written statement?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint 

schedule property into three equal shares and for

allotment of one such share to the plaintiff?

(4) To what relief?

10.During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself gave evidence as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A16 and after the evidence of plaintiff/P.W.1 when the matter posted for examination of P.W.1, none of the defendants have come forward to cross­examine P.W.1 and this court granted several adjournments for cross­examination of P.W.1 from 29.01.2020 to 25.10.2021, there was no representation on behalf of any of the contesting defendants and when the suit posted as last chance finally for cross­examination of

P.W.1, on 15.11.2021 though the witness P.W.1 stepped into witness box and sworned in for cross­examination, there was no representation on behalf of any of the defendants and none of the 13 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

defendants were present on the day and as such, the cross­ examination of P.W.1 was recorded as nil. Subsequently, the counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff reported no further evidence and even though the matter posted for the evidence of defendants if any, but no defendant has come forward to produce evidence and the defendants who filed the written statements also have not come forward to produce any evidence. Thus, the defendants evidence was closed by the court on 07.03.2022. Thereafter, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted his arguments.

FINDINGS

11.Issues No.1 to 3:­

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the issues framed in the suit, issues No.1 to 3 are taken up together and the plaintiff/P.W.1 Yelka Hanmaiah @ Hanmanthu, has filed his affidavit, as evidence in chief reiterating the plaint averments and he filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties described as items No.1 to 4 of the suit schedule properties and according to the evidence of P.W.1, the suit is filed by the plaintiff/P.W.1 claiming 1/3rd share in each survey 14 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

number of the schedule properties. According to the P.W.1, the land in Sy. No.185 is measuring Acres 03.13 guntas with specific boundaries, Sy. No.187 is measuring Acres 06.07 guntas with specific boundaries, land in Sy. No.190 is measuring Acre 10.28 guntas with specific boundaries and whereas Sy. No.678 measuring Acre 01.18 guntas with specific boundaries and all the lands are situated at

Gundaram village of Ellanthakunta Mandal.

12.In support of the claim of the plaintiff/P.W.1, he placed reliance of the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A16. Out of those documents Ex.A1 is khasra pahani for the year 1954­1955 which clearly shows that the lands in suit survey numbers were in the name of Yelka Mysaiah, the father of the plaintiff herein and defendant No.1.

Furthermore, the pahanies for the year 1982­1983 marked as Ex.A2 and the pahanies under Exs. A3 to A6 up to 1994­1995 and Exs.A7 to

A15 for the years 1999­2000 to 2010­2011 and another pahani under

Ex.A16 is for the year 1992­1993 which clearly establishes the claim of the petitioner and according to him there were certain wrong entries in revenue records. Though the plaintiff has not filed any rejoinder or reply as against the written statements filed by the defendants, the 15 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

burden of proof lies on the defendants to prove their pleadings by adducing evidence, but none of the defendants have come forward to produce their oral evidence and to mark any documentary evidence.

Therefore, the testimony of the plaintiff/P.W.1 is remaining unchallenged and the pleadings of the defendants without there being any evidence, cannot be taken into consideration and it appears that the suit schedule properties held by late Yelka Mysaiah, during his life time and after his death, the plaintiff along with his brother defendant

No.1 and wife and children of another brother Yelka Venkatnarsaiah (died 7 years ago as on the date of filing of the suit).

13.Therefore, the family pedigree described in the plaint shows the relationship between the deceased Yelka Mysaiah and his three sons

Venkatnarsaiah, Ramulu (defendant No.1), and the plaintiff Hanmaiah @ Hanmanthu. It is also clear from the evidence of P.W.1, that after death of Venkatnarsaiah, his wife Yelka Laxmi, and her children defendants No.3 to 6 succeeded to the share of Venkatnarsaiah, though the defendants claiming to have purchased the lands from

Yelka Mysaiah, during his life time and also from Venkatnarsaiah and the plaintiff herein through simple or registered documents, but no 16 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

amount of evidence is produced before the court during the course of trial. Furthermore, the defendants not even chosen to cross­examine the P.W.1 to disprove his evidence. Therefore, the unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 is to be accepted holding that the plaintiff is entitle to claim 1/3rd share of the suit schedule properties along with defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 6 of 1/3rd share each.

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitle to preliminary decree as prayed for and accordingly, issues No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants herein.

14. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed for partition of the suit schedule properties by allotting 1/3rd share of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendant

No.1 and defendants No.2 to 6 also entitle to 1/3rd share each out of the suit properties and let a preliminary decree may be passed to that effect.

15. Issues No.4:­ To what relief?

Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed by granting preliminary decree and the plaintiff/P.W.1 is also entitled to recovery of possession of his 1/3rd share from each survey number of the 17 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

plaint schedule properties. So far as the relief of rectification of entries in revenue records is concerned, after passing final decree the necessary directions shall be given to the revenue authorities.

Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. However, in the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the court on this the 27th day of April, 2022.

Sd/­ 

IX ADDL., DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS: P.W.1 Yelka Hanmaiah @ Hanmanthu.­­­None­­­

EXHIBIT MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1C.C. of khasra pahani for the year 1954­55. Ex.A2C.C. of pahani for the year 1982­1983. Ex.A3C.C. of pahani for the year 1989­1990. Ex.A4 C.C. of pahani for the year 1990­1991. Ex.A5C.C. of pahani for the year 1993­1994. Ex.A6C.C. of pahani for the year 1994­1995. Ex.A7C.C. of pahani for the year 1999­2000. Ex.A8C.C. of pahani for the year 2001­2002. Ex.A9C.C. of pahani for the year 2002­2003.

18 of 18

OS NO.28/2018

Ex.A10C.C. of pahani for the year 2005­2006. Ex.A11C.C. of pahani for the year 2006­2007. Ex.A12C.C. of pahani for the year 2007­2008. Ex.A13C.C. of pahani for the year 2008­2009. Ex.A14C.C. of pahani for the year 2009­2010. Ex.A15C.C. of pahani for the year 2010­2011. Ex.A16C.C. of pahani for the year 1992­1993.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: ­­­Nil­­­

Sd/­

IX ADDL., DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

..

1 of 4

EP 57/2021 IN ARB 445/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE AT :: SIRCILLA.. 

PRESENT: M.JOHNSON, 

IX ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

Wednesday, this the 27th day of April, 2022

E.P. NO.57OF 2021

in

ARBITRATION CASE NO. 445 OF 2020

Between:­

M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, A Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Mookambika Complex, IIIrd Floor, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai, and having several branches throughout India, which one such branch at Korutla, Jagityal District, represented by it’s GPA Holder, Mr. Mohammad Afsaruddin, S/o. Mohammad Nazeeruddin, Aged about 32 years, working as Corporate Law Associates as Retainer Advocate, R/o. Korutla. …. Decree Holder.

And 

1 Mende Shankar, s/o. Ellaiah, Aged about Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3­67/8, Gollapally Nampally, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District – 505 302.

2 Rafik Moammad, S/o. Azeed, Aged about Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2­51, Nampally Village, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District – 505 301. (DIED). …..Judgment Debtors.

2 of 4

EP 57/2021 IN ARB 445/2020

This petition is coming before me on 12.04.2022 for final disposal in the presence of Sri Ashwin C. Irukulla, Advocate for Decree Holder, and Judgment Debtor No.1 having chosen to remain ex­parte, and petition against Judgment Debtor No.2 is not pressed since he died, and having heard and stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:­ :: O R D E R ::

The petitioner Company/Decree Holder represented by it’s authorized signatory and General Power of Attorney Holder namely

Mohammad Afsaruddin, filed this Execution Petition as against

Judgment Debtors for recovery of the amount of Rs.11,99,654/­ with interest and costs, but even after passing the award by the sole arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.445/2020 dated 29.08.2020, the respondents/judgment debtors have failed to pay the about said amounts and as such, the present Execution Petition is filed seeking attachment of movable properties. It is further stated the warrant of attachment of movable properties may be issued under Order 21, Rule 43, C.P.C., for attachment of the movable properties mentioned in the schedule annexed to the petition.

2.After filing this Execution Petition, this court directed to issue notices to the respondents No.1 and 2/judgment debtors No.1 and 2, 3 of 4

EP 57/2021 IN ARB 445/2020

and after receipt of the said notice judgment debtor No.1 failed to appear and file counter and hence, judgment debtor No.1 was set ex­ parte on 08.03.2022. Whereas, the notice sent to judgment debtor No.2 was returned as judgment debtor No.2 died, hence, the decree holder

Company has filed a memo stating that petition against judgment debtor No.2 is not pressed. Hence, Execution Petition dismissed against judgment debtor No.2.

3.Considering the submissions of counsel for the petitioner/decree holder Company, I have gone through the material on record including the documents filed and relied on by the petitioner such as, certified copy of the award passed in Arbitration Case No.445/2020 passed by the sole arbitrator dated 29.08.2020. Since the judgment debtor No.1 being the principal borrower and judgment debtor No.2 being the guarantor to judgment debtor No.1, and as the petition against judgment debtor No.2 is not pressed as he died. Hence, the judgment debtor No.1 movable property is liable to be attached.

4.Therefore, I am inclined to allow this Execution Petition as prayed for and I hereby order to issue Rule 43 warrant directing the Field 4 of 4

EP 57/2021 IN ARB 445/2020

Assistant, to attach the petition schedule property of respondent No.1/ judgment debtor No.1 and report the same to the court by next date of hearing. Accordingly, the Execution Petition is ordered, issue warrant of attachment of movable property as per the schedule annexed, (excluding the movable property of judgment debtor No.2 as he died and the petitioner/decree holder Company has filed a memo to that effect), on payment of necessary process by decree holder, call on 17.06.2022.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, and after corrections

pronounced by me in the court on this the 27th day of April, 2022.

Sd/­

IX ADDL., DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

­­­Nil­­­

Sd/­

IX ADDL., DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

1 of 4

EP 63/2021 IN ARB 1181/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE AT :: SIRCILLA 

PRESENT: M.JOHNSON, 

IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

Wednesday, this the 27th day of April, 2022

E.P. NO.63OF 2021

in ARBITRATION CASE NO. 1181 OF 2019

Between:­

M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, A Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Mookambika Complex, IIIrd Floor, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai, and having several branches throughout India, which one such branch at Korutla, Jagityal District, represented by it’s GPA Holder, Mr. Mohammad Afsaruddin, S/o. Mohammad Nazeeruddin, Aged about 32 years, working as Corporate Law Associates as Retainer Advocate, R/o. Korutla. …. Decree Holder.

And 

1 Malyala Lingam, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged about Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1­30, Kondapur Village, Venkatraopet Post, Rajanna Sircilla – 505 301.

2 Cherukupalli Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Not known to Decree Holder, Aged about Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1­2/A, Venkatraopet Village, Konaraopet Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla – 505 303. …..Judgment Debtors.

This petition is coming before me on 12.04.2022 for final disposal in the presence of Sri Ashwin C. Irukulla, Advocate for Decree Holder, and Judgment Debtors No.1 and 2 having chosen to remain ex­parte, 2 of 4

EP 63/2021 IN ARB 1181/2019

and having heard and stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:­ :: O R D E R ::

The petitioner Company/Decree Holder represented by it’s authorized signatory and General Power of Attorney Holder namely

Mohammad Afsaruddin, filed this Execution Petition as against

Judgment Debtors for recovery of the amount of Rs.2,84,188/­ with interest and costs, but even after passing the award by the sole arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.1181/2019 dated 31.10.2019, the respondents/judgment debtors have failed to pay the about said amounts and as such, the present Execution Petition is filed seeking attachment of movable properties. It is further stated the warrant of attachment of movable properties may be issued under Order 21, Rule 43, C.P.C., for attachment of the movable properties mentioned in the schedule annexed to the petition.

2.After filing this Execution Petition, this court directed to issue notices to the respondents No.1 and 2/judgment debtors No.1 and 2, and after receipt of the said notices judgment debtors No.1 and 2 failed to appear and file counter and hence, judgment debtors No.1 and 2 were set ex­parte on 15.03.2022.

3 of 4

EP 63/2021 IN ARB 1181/2019

3.Considering the submissions of counsel for the petitioner/decree holder, I have gone through the material on record including the documents filed and relied on by the petitioner such as, certified copy of the award passed in Arbitration Case No.1181/2019 passed by the sole arbitrator dated 31.10.2019. Since the judgment debtor No.1 being the

principal borrower and judgment debtor No.2 being the guarantor to

judgment debtor No.1, both the judgment debtors No.1 and 2 movable properties are liable to be attached.

4.Therefore, I am inclined to allow this Execution Petition as prayed for and I hereby order to issue Rule 43 warrant directing the Field

Assistant, to attach the petition schedule properties of respondents

No.1 and 2/judgment debtors No.1 and 2 and report the same to the court by next date of hearing. Accordingly, the Execution Petition is ordered and issue Rule 43 warrant of attachment of movable properties as per the schedule annexed on payment of necessary process by decree holder, call on 17.06.2022.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, and after corrections

pronounced by me in the court on this the 27th day of April, 2022.

Sd/­

IX ADDL., DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

1 of 3

EP 37/2021 IN ARB 322/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE AT :: SIRCILLA.. 

PRESENT: M.JOHNSON, 

IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

Thursday, this the 28th day of April, 2022

E.P. NO.37OF 2021

in ARBITRATION CASE NO. 322 OF 2016

Between:­

M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Sircilla Branch, Rep. by it’s Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. A.Mallikharjun, S/o. Srinivas, Aged 29 years, R/o. Karimnagar. …. Decree Holder.

And 

1 Badesab Sayyad, S/o. Sayyad Himam, R/o. H.No.2­27/1, Village Rallapeta, Mandal Thangallapally, District Rajanna Sircilla.

2 Bandari Laxmaiah, S/o. Veeramallu, R/o. H.No.16­16/1, Laxminagar,Mandirial, District Adilabad. …..Judgment Debtors.

This petition is coming before me on 19.04.2022 for final disposal in the presence of Sri Ch. Mahesh Goud, Advocate for Decree Holder, and Judgment Debtors No.1 and 2 having chosen to remain ex­parte, and having heard and stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:­ :: O R D E R ::

The petitioner Company/Decree Holder represented by it’s authorized signatory and General Power of Attorney Holder namely Mr.

2 of 3

EP 37/2021 IN ARB 322/2016

A.Mallikharjun, filed this Execution Petition as against Judgment

Debtors for recovery of the amount of Rs.2,39,312/­ with interest and costs, but even after passing the award by the sole arbitrator in

Arbitration Case No.322/2016 dated 30.08.2017, the respondents/ judgment debtors have failed to pay the about said amount and as such, the present Execution Petition is filed for Rs.2,39,312/­ i.e., (Rs.1,57,396/­ (Decreetal amount) + Rs.87,590/­ (Interest) =

Rs.2,44,986/­ ­ Rs.11,000/­ (Less payments received) = Rs.2,33,986/­ + Rs.4,485/­ (Award cost) + Rs.39/­ (EP costs) + Rs.802/­ (Advocate fee in EP)) seeking attachment of movable properties. It is further stated the warrant of attachment of movable properties may be issued under

Order 21, Rule 43, C.P.C., for attachment of the movable properties mentioned in the schedule annexed to the petition.

2.After filing this Execution Petition, this court directed to issue notice to the respondent No.1/judgment debtor No.1, but the judgment debtor No.1 refused to receive the said notice and hence, the judgment debtor No.1 was set exparte on 08.03.2022 3 of 3

EP 37/2021 IN ARB 322/2016

3.Considering the submissions of counsel for the petitioner/decree holder, I have gone through the material on record including the documents filed and relied on by the petitioner such as, certified copy of the award passed in Arbitration Case No.322/2016 passed by the sole arbitrator dated 30.08.2017. Since the judgment debtor No.1 being the

principal borrower the movable properties are liable to be attached.

4.In the result, this Execution Petition is allowed as prayed for and

I hereby order to issue Rule 43 warrant directing the Field Assistant, to attach the petition schedule properties of respondent No.1/judgment debtor No.1 and report the same to the court by next date of hearing.

Accordingly, the Execution Petition is ordered, issue Rule 43 warrant of attachment of movable properties as per the schedule annexed on payment of necessary process by decree holder, call on 17.06.2022.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, and after corrections

pronounced by me in the court on this the 28th day of April, 2022.

IX ADDL., DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.