M. Johnson

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT :: WARANGAL.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2015.

Present :- Sri M. Johnson,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

O.S.No.283 of 2014

Between:-

Chintala Rama Krishna … Plaintiff

And

1. The State of A.P., through the District Collector, Warangal.

2. The State of A.P., through the Tahasildar, Hasanparthy.

3. The State of A.P., through the District Collector, Karimnagar.

4. The State of A.P., through the Tahasildar, Karimnagar.

5. The Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Guremetical Branch, Gulbarga District, Karnataka State.

6. The Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Narayanpet, Mahaboobnagar District.

7. The Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Chowrasta Branch, Jeevanlal Complex, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

8. To whomsoever it may concern … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and DefendantsNo. 1 to 7 called absent and set ex parte and Sri Ch. Malla Reddy, Advocate for Defendant No.7 and upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

The plaintiff herein filed the present suit against the Defendants No.1 to 7 and D8/Towhomsoever it may concern, seeking relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the Legal Heir of Chintala Yashodha, who died on 9.3.2002, due to

Kidney failure at Shiva Ram Hospital, Karimnagar, leaving behind the sole plaintiff herein as surviving Legal representative.

2.As per the plaint averments, the case of the plaintiff as hereunder:

2

That the plaintiff is the adopted son of late Chintala Yashodha, who died on 9.3.2002.

3.According to plaint averments Chintala Yashodha, died on 9.3.2002 and her husband Chintala Rajamouli predeceased her on 31.7.1989. After the demise of Chitala Rajamouli, late Chintala Yashodha, adopted the plaintiff herein, as there are no other legal heirs to look after her. Later Chintala

Yashodha, died on 9.3.2002, due to kidney failure at Shiva Ram Hospital,

Karimnagar leaving behind the plaintiff as her sole successor. The plaintiff further submits that the deceased is having Fixed Deposits with the defendants such as Special Term Deposit vide 1. No. 16/LF46/0318416, dt. 5.9.2000 for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-; 2. FB/LP/23, M/P3/LF80 TDR No. 094050, dt.

21.6.2001 for Rs. 30,000/-; 3. 15/LF61 for an amount of Rs. 6,000/- with

Defendant No. 2; and 4.Amounts lying in S.B. Account No. 3761 with Defendant

No. 4. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that late Chintala Yashodha, also having Ac. 1=17 gts. of Agricultural dry land out of Sy. No. 220 of

Theegalaguttapalli village of Karimnagar District. It is further submitted that the

Plaintiff approached the Defendants for release of the above said fixed deposits and for mutation of his name for Ac. 1=17 gts. of agricultural land, in the revenue records. The Defendant authorities advised the Plaintiff to produce the

Legal Heir Certificate from the competent Court of Law.

4. Therefore, as there is no other go, the plaintiffs filed the present suit praying the court to declare the sole plaintiff herein as the Legal Heir of the deceased Chintala Yashodha, who died on 9.3.2002. Accordingly, the plaintiff herein prayed the court to pass Judgment and Decree in his favour.

5.On filing the suit, this court directed to issue summons to the Defendants

No. 1 to 7 and paper publication for Defendant No. 8. Sri Ch. Malla Reddy,

Advocate filed Vakalath for Defendant No. 7. As per the process report, there is sufficient service of summons on the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and proof of paper 3 publication was also filed against defendant No. 8, but there was no representation on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and 8. Consequently, the

Defendants 1 to 6 and 8 were set ex parte by this court.

6.As per the written statement filed on behalf of Defendant No. 7, it was contended that late Chintala Yashodha, was not having any sort of fixed deposits, special term deposits or saving bank accounts with Defendant

No.7/Bank and the plaintiff without verifying the facts filed the above suit against the defendant No. 7 and therefore, the suit is bad for mis-joinder of D7, as party in the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit against D7 with costs.

7.During the course of ex parte hearing, on behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff gave evidence as PW1/Ch. Rama Krishna and he got marked Exs.A1 to A3 as documentary evidence. Then, the counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, reported no further evidence. Thus, the plaintiff's evidence closed.

8.Then, the counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff submitted his arguments.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

"Whether the plaintiffs herein entitle to relief of

declaration that he is Legal heir of deceased person

Chintala Yashodha, as prayed for?"

10.Point: So far as the relief of declaration, Legal Character/ Status is concerned, I have gone through the provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief

Act that reads as hereunder:

Sec. 34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right. — Any person

entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may

institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to

such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a

declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask

for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff,

being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do

so.

Explanation. — A trustee of property is a “person interested to deny” a title

adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and whom, if in

existence, he would be a trustee.

4

11.This section does not deal with any form of declaration but deals with only such a declaration which the plaintiff is entitled to regarding a specific legal character or to any right as to property. Therefore, a declaratory decree may be granted or refused depending upon the circumstances of each case since the claim of such relief is not an absolute one but only a discretionary one, but no such discretion can be exercised arbitrarily, but in accordance with well established principles of law. A relief of declaration being a discretionary relief cannot be granted except in cases where substantial injury is established. To entitle to plaintiff to maintain declaratory suit, he must show that he has legal character or some right to the property and that his opponent was denying or interested to denying the same. Further Section 35 clarifies that the declaration given under section 34 of Specific Relief Act is binding only between the parties; it is a declaration in personam and not in rem.

12.Now, coming to the evidence of PW1, he has filed his affidavit as evidence of chief reiterating the same facts that are stated in the plaint. In proof, the testimony of PW1, is that he is the adopted son of late Chintala Yashodha, who died on 9.3.2002. The husband of Chintala Yashodha, predeceased her on 31.7.1989. As there are no other legal heirs to her, Chintala Yashodha adopted him as her son. late Chintala Yashodha, is having certain fixed deposits with the defendants and she is having Ac. 1=17 gts. of Agricultural dry land at

Theegalaguttapalli village of Karimnagar District. The plaintiff herein approached the bank authorities for the release of fixed deposits and also approached the revenue authorities for mutation of his name in the revenue records. But they advised the plaintiff to produce Legal Heir Certificate from the competent Court of Law. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit to declare him as legal heir of the deceased Chintala Yashodha.

5

13.In order to prove his case he filed Ex.A1, Death Certificate pertaining to

Chintala Yashodha, Dt. 14.3.2002. Ex.A2, Death Certificate of Chintala

Rajamouli, dt. 23.12.1989 and Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of Will Deed, dt.

28.4.1999. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of relief sought for, I have also gone through the case law in this regard.

14.To answer the point in issue and question, I have gone through the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which are in pari materia with those of Section 42 of the old Act. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads thus :- "Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. Explanation: xx xx xx xx xx xx

15.In Bansilal v. Shankarlal, A.I.R. (20) 1933 Nag. 292, it was held that "a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff was and continued to be the adoptive father of the defendant was virtually a suit to declare that the defendant was the adopted son of the plaintiff and was maintainable. I am inclined to think that this case certainly lends support to the appellant's contention, though it may be that a declaration of a person being the adoptive father of another may, where the former owns some property, involves an element of injury to his absolute title to that property. It is nevertheless a case in which the 'legal character,' by which I mean the status of the adoptive father, is involved".

16.Before I refer to cases in which the words 'legal character' in Section 42,

Specific Relief Act, were interpreted as an expression of wide import so as to embrace the status of the person concerned, I may just make a brief observation with regard to the meaning which, in my view, should be assigned to that expression. In the first place, it must be kept in view that these words have 6 specific reference to the person or the party seeking a declaration under this section without the same being affected by the circumstance whether or not he has a right to any property also. The words 'legal character' and right as to any property have been used disjunctively and not conjunctively, so as to entitle the plaintiff to a declaration on the exclusive basis of either the one or the other.

Again, the word 'legal' before the word character is also not without significance.

It signifies the status in society of the person seeking a declaration. Whether a man is a legitimate son of an other, whether he is the adoptive father of another, whether he has legally married a particular woman or whether by virtue of his relationship with a particular family, he is entitled to a certain privilege and concession are instances of questions involving his 'legal character' within the meaning of this section, and if he finds a danger or entertains any fear of a challenge to his status as such, he may surely seek relief in a Court of law. This position appears to be amply supported by the rulings which I shall now mention.

17.In Naqi Hussain v. Mt. Chhaji Begam, A. I. R. (12) 1925 Oudh 210, it was remarked :

'It may be that the plaintiff has the intention of using the declaration which he may obtain from the Court for the purpose of inducing the authorities concerned to accept his claim to the pension, but this motive of his cannot, in my opinion, be either a bar to the maintainability of the suit for a declaration under

Section 4, Pensions Act, or a sufficient ground for dismissing it in the exercise of the discretion under Section 42, Specific Relief

Act ..... The relief for a declaration of status is substantial relief per se and under the provisions of Section 42, Specific Relief Act, such a claim would be maintainable, though it has no reference whatsoever to any right as to any property."

18.Then there are two Full Bench decisions, one of the Calcutta High

Court in Noor Jehar Begum v. Eugene Tiscenko, A. I. R. (19) 1942 Cal.

325, and the other of the Lahore High Court in Abdul Karim v. Mt. Sarraya

Begam, A.I.R. (38) 1945 Lah 266, in which the Calcutta case was noticed with approval In the former the meaning of the expression 'legal character' received 7 the attention of the learned Judges, and it was held that the words were wide enough to include the status of a person. In the latter also the same meaning was assigned to those words. It was pertinently remarked that:

"Where the relationship does carry with it certain legal consequences, even though it may not affect or involve any right to property, a suit for a declaration as to the existence of such relationship is competent."

19.Therefore, following the above legal position, as there is no rival claim against the plaintiff herein, his contention that he is the sole Legal Heir of

Chintala Yashodha, who died on 9.3.2002 and who is his adopted mother by relation as such the evidence of PW.1 can be accepted and I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration that he alone is the Legal Heir of late Chintala Yashodha.

Accordingly, point answered in favour of the plaintiff herein.

20.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed, holding that the plaintiff herein is the Legal Heir of Chintala Yashodha, who died on 9.3.2002.

(Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of May, 2015.)

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW-1 : Ch. Rama Krishna- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff : Ex.A-1 : Death Certificate, dt. 14..3.2002. Ex.A-2 : Death Certificate, dt. 23.12.1989. Ex.A-3 : C.C. of Registered Will Deed, dt. 28.4.1999.

For Defendants: - Nil -

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ::

WARANGAL.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2015.

Present :- Sri M. Johnson,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

O.S.No.314 of 2015

Between:-

1. Thoutireddy Jayasree

2. T. Ashok Reddy

3. T. Jawahar Reddy

4. T. Sucharitha @ K. Saritha … Plaintiffs

And

1. To whomsoever it may concern

2. The State of Telangana rep. by District Collector, Warangal

3. Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Warangal. … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Ashirvadam, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Defendants called absent and set ex parte and upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

The plaintiffs herein filed the present suit against the defendant

No.1/To whom so ever it may concern, D2/The State of Telangana represented by District Collector, Warangal and D3/Joint Director

Animal Husbandry, Warangal, seeking relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are Legal Heirs of late Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy, who died on 1.2.2014 leaving behind the plaintiffs herein as surviving Legal representatives.

2.As per the plaint averments, the case of the plaintiffs as hereunder:

2

That the plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are the sons and plaintiff No. 3 is the married daughter of the deceased

Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy.

3.According to plaint averments the husband of plaintiff No.1 namely Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy, died on 1.2.2014 at H.No. 3- 14-411, Durga Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. In support of her contention, the plaintiff No.1 also filed Death Certificate of the deceased person issued by the competent authority Registrar of

Births and Deaths, Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal, dt.

17.4.2014.

4.It is further stated in the plaint, that the deceased Thoutireddy

Rabinder Reddy, used to work as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, in the office of the third defendant. Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy, incurred hospital expenses prior to his death and he was entitled for the reimbursement of the medical expenses from the third defendant. But due to sudden demise of Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy, he could not avail the reimbursement of medical expenses. All the medical expenses were borne by the plaintiffs and they are entitled to claim the medical expenses from the third defendant. Therefore, after death of the deceased Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy, the plaintiffs being the wife, sons and daughter of Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy, approached the Authorities of D3 for reimbursement of medical expenses but they refused to release the expenses and and advised the plaintiffs to produce Legal Heir Certificate competent Court of law. Therefore, as there is no other go, the plaintiffs filed the present suit praying the Court to declare that they are the Legal Heirs 3 of the deceased Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy, who died on 1.2.2014.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs herein prayed the Court to pass Judgment and Decree in their favour.

5.On filing the suit, this court directed to issue summons to defendants No. 2 and 3 and Paper publication was ordered against D1 in "Praja Shakthi" Telugu Daily. As per the process report, there is sufficient service of summons on the second and third defendants and proof of publication was filed against D1. On 24.4.2015 defendants

No. 2 and 3 were called but they were called absent and no body have appeared before the Court against the claim of the plaintiffs on behalf of D1. As such D1 to D3 were set ex parte. Therefore, the matter heard ex parte.

6.During the course of ex parte hearing, on behalf of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.3/son of late Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy, gave evidence as PW1/Thoutireddy Jawahar Reddy, and he got marked

Exs.A1 to A5 as documentary evidence. Then, the counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, reported no further evidence. Thus, the plaintiffs evidence closed.

7.Then, the counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs submitted his arguments.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

"Whether the plaintiffs herein entitle to

relief of declaration that they are the

Legal heirs of deceased person

Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy, as prayed

for?" 4

9.Point: So far as the relief of declaration, Legal Character/

Status is concerned, I have gone through the provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act that reads as hereunder:

Sec. 34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right. —

Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to

any property, may institute a suit against any person denying,

or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the

court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is

so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any

further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the

plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere

declaration of title, omits to do so.

Explanation. — A trustee of property is a “person interested to

deny” a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in

existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.

10.This section does not deal with any form of declaration but deals with only such a declaration which the plaintiff is entitled to regarding a specific legal character or to any right as to property.

Therefore, a declaratory decree may be granted or refused depending upon the circumstances of each case since the claim of such relief is not an absolute one but only a discretionary one, but no such discretion can be exercised arbitrarily, but in accordance with well established principles of law. A relief of declaration being a discretionary relief cannot be granted except in cases where substantial injury is established. To entitle to plaintiff to maintain declaratory suit, he must show that he has legal character or some right to the property and that his opponent was denying or interested to denying the same. Further Section 35 clarifies that the declaration given under section 34 of Specific Relief Act is binding only between the parties; it is a declaration in personam and not in rem.

5

11.Now, coming to the evidence of PW1, he has filed his affidavit as evidence of chief reiterating the same facts that are stated in the plaint. In proof, the testimony of PW1 is that he is the Son of deceased Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy, Death Certificate under Ex.A1 to that effect. Further more, Ex.A2 is the House-hold Card of

Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy. Exs.A3 to A5 are the Aadhar Cards of deceased Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy and Plaintiffs 2 and 3, issued by the Government of India. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of relief sought for, I have also gone through the case law in this regard.

12.To answer the point in issue question I have gone through the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which are in pari materia with those of Section 42 of the old Act. Section 34 of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads thus :- "Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. Explanation: xx xx xx xx xx xx

13.In Bansilal v. Shankarlal, A.I.R. (20) 1933 Nag. 292, it was held that "a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff was and continued to be the adoptive father of the defendant was virtually a suit to declare that the defendant was the adopted son of the plaintiff and was maintainable.

I am inclined to think that this case certainly lends support to the appellant's contention, though it may 6 be that a declaration of a person being the adoptive father of another may, where the former owns some property, involves an element of injury to his absolute title to that property. It is nevertheless a case in which the 'legal character,' by which I mean the status of the adoptive father, is involved".

14.Before I refer to cases in which the words 'legal character' in

Section 42, Specific Relief Act, were interpreted as an expression of wide import so as to embrace the status of the person concerned, I may just make a brief observation with regard to the meaning which, in my view, should be assigned to that expression. In the first place, it must be kept in view that these words have specific reference to the person or the party seeking a declaration under this section without the same being affected by the circumstance whether or not he has a right to any property also. The words 'legal character' and right as to any property have been used disjunctively and not conjunctively, so as to entitle the plaintiff to a declaration on the exclusive basis of either the one or the other. Again, the word 'legal' before the word character is also not without significance. It signifies the status in society of the person seeking a declaration. Whether a man is a legitimate son of an other, whether he is the adoptive father of another, whether he has legally married a particular woman or whether by virtue of his relationship with a particular family, he is entitled to a certain privilege and concession are instances of questions involving his 'legal character' within the meaning of this section, and if he finds a danger or entertains any fear of a challenge to his status as such, he may surely seek relief in a Court of law. This position appears to be amply supported by the rulings which I shall now mention.

7

15.In Naqi Hussain v. Mt. Chhaji Begam, A. I. R. (12) 1925

Oudh 210, it was remarked :

'It may be that the plaintiff has the intention of using the declaration which he may obtain from the Court for the purpose of inducing the authorities concerned to accept his claim to the pension, but this motive of his cannot, in my opinion, be either a bar to the maintainability of the suit for a declaration under

Section 4, Pensions Act, or a sufficient ground for dismissing it in the exercise of the discretion under

Section 42, Specific Relief Act ..... The relief for a declaration of status is substantial relief per se and under the provisions of Section 42, Specific Relief Act, such a claim would be maintainable, though it has no reference whatsoever to any right as to any property."

16.Then there are two Full Bench decisions, one is of the

Calcutta High Court in Noor Jehar Begum v. Eugene Tiscenko, A. I.

R. (19) 1942 Cal. 325, and the other is of the Lahore High Court in

Abdul Karim v. Mt. Sarraya Begam, A.I.R. (38) 1945 Lah 266, in which the Calcutta case was noticed with approval In the former the meaning of the expression 'legal character' received the attention of the learned Judges, and it was held that the words were wide enough to include the status of a person. In the latter also the same meaning was assigned to those words. It was pertinently remarked that:

"Where the relationship does carry with it certain legal consequences, even though it may not affect or involve any right to property, a suit for a declaration as to the existence of such relationship is competent."

17.Therefore, following above legal position as there is no rival claim against the plaintiffs herein, their contentions that they are the

Legal Heirs of the deceased by relation and the evidence of PW1 can be accepted and I am of view that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief 8 of declaration that they are the Legal Heirs of the deceased person

Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy.

Accordingly, point answered in favour of the plaintiffs herein.

18.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed, holding that the plaintiffs herein are the Legal Heirs of the deceased

Thoutireddy Rabinder Reddy, who died on 1.2.2014.

(Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 8th day of May, 2015).

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW-1 : Thoutireddy Jawahar Reddy- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A-1 : Death Certificate, DT. 17.4.2014. Ex.A-2 : House-hold Card of T. Rabinder Reddy. Ex.A-3 : Aadhar Card of T. Jawahar Reddy. Ex.A-4 : Aadhar Card of T. Ashok Reddy. Ex.A-5 : Aadhar Card of T. Jayasree.

For Defendants: - Nil -

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT :: WARANGAL.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2015.

Present :- Sri M. Johnson,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

O.S.No. 990 of 2013

Between:-

Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda Branch rep, by its Branch Manager … Plaintiff

And

1. G. Vijayalaxmi

2. G. Rajender

3. A. Mahender … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Seshadri, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendants remained ex parteand upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court delivered the following:- s

: J U D G M E N T :

The plaintiff bank filed the present suit for recovery of money of

Rs.77,636/- from the defendant herein with pendent lit interest @ 15% p.a. with monthly rests on sum of Rs.77,636/-and also to award the costs of the suit.

2.As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff bank is being functioning under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 having its Head Office situated at Bangalore and its branch office at

Hanamkonda.

It is also the case of the plaintiff bank that the defendant No.1 herein borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loan for running Kirana and General

Stores business on 18.2.2008 and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the said loan and credited the amount in the account of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 also executed an Agreement of Hypothecation in favour of the plaintiff bank and agreed to pay interest @ 11% p.a. Defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the amount obtained by defendant No.1.

2

Further the defendants also agreed to pay penal interest @ 2% in case of default and further agreed to pay interest as charged by the bank from time to time, as per the guide lines of Reserve Bank of India, but despite the terms of agreement, the defendants failed to repay the amount in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendants have become defaulters and there was due of Rs.77,636/- to be paid by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, but he failed to do so. All the necessary documents are filed herewith by the plaintiff including the application and Agreement of Hypothecation. Therefore, the plaintiff herein filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.77,636/- with interest as prayed for.

3. On filing this suit, summons issued to the defendants and as per the process report, summons were served on the defendant No.3 but he failed to appear before the court on 6.6.2013 and consequently, D3 was set ex parte on the same day. Paper publication was ordered against D1 and D2 and on 22.12.2014 proof of paper publication was filed and D1 and D2 were called absent hence, D1 and D2 were set ex parteand posted the matter for ex parte evidence on 23.2.2015.

4. Subsequently, on behalf of the plaintiff Bank the Senior Branch

Manager, PW1/K. Nagendra Kumar, filed his affidavit as evidence in chief and also got marked Exs.A1 to A8 as documentary evidence. Ex.A1 to A8 are the documents relied on by the plaintiff Bank to prove it's case. Though sufficient opportunity was given to Defendants, the defendants did not come forward to file any written statement or adduce any evidence on their behalf. Then the counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, submitted arguments with reference to evidence on record.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

"Whether the plaintiff bank is entitle to recover the

suit amount of Rs.77,636/- from the defendants

herein with interest thereon @ Rs. 13% per annum

3 as prayed for?"

6.Point:- In support of the case of the plaintiff-bank, PW1 filed his affidavit as evidence in chief and he reiterated the same facts pleaded in the plaint. According to version of PW1, the defendant herein borrowed Rs.35,000/- for running Kirana and General Stores business and the plaintiff bank credited the same on 18.2.2008 by taking Agreement of Hypothecation. The plaintiff bank also placed reliance on the Statement of Account under Ex.A8 in respect of the defendant No.1 loan account which shows that the defendant No.1 has availed loan of Rs. 35,000/- for running Kirana and General Stores business and the defendants have become defaulters from the beginning itself and she never paid any installments towards the loan amount. However, as per the statement of account of plaintiff bank under Ex.A5, as on 16.9.2013 there was an over due of Rs.77,636/- after calculating the interest thereon till filing of the suit the total amount due was Rs.77,636/- and the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the same from the defendants herein. Therefore,I am in acceptance with submissions of counsel for the plaintiff and I am inclined to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff as hereunder:

7.The plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount of

Rs.77,636/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree. Further the plaintiff bank is also entitle to interest on the

principal amount of Rs. 35,000/- @ 6% p.a. from the date of the decree till

realization of entire amount. Further the plaintiff bank is also entitled to costs of the suit. Accordingly, the point answered in favour of the plaintiff-bank.

8. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff-bank is hereby decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.77,636/- with interest @ 12% p.a.

from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 35,000/- from the date of the decree till 4 realization.

(Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of May, 2015).

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW-1 : K. Nagendra Kumar- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A-1 : Loan Application, dt. 18.2.2008. Ex.A-2 : Sanction Letter, dt. 18.2.2008. Ex.A-3 : Demand Promissory Note, dt. 18.2.2008. Ex.A-4 : Loan Agreement-cum-Hypothecation Deed, dt.18.2.2008. Ex.A-5 : Letter of Guarantee, dt. 18.2.2008. Ex.A-6 : Letter of Repayment, dt. 18.2.2008. Ex.A-7 : Acknowledgment of liability, dt. 18.11.2010. Ex.A-8 : Statement of Account.

For Defendant: - Nil -

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT :: WARANGAL.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2015.

Present :- Sri M. Johnson,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

O.S.No. 790 of 2013

Between:-

Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda Branch rep, by its Branch Manager … Plaintiff

And

1. Sumaya Mahila Podupu Sangam, Hanamkonda (S.H.G) Rep. by its Members.

2. Tabasum Yasmeen

3. Rabbani

4. Anjum

5. Ameena Begum

6. Farheem

7. Jahangeer Sulthana

8. Ameena Bee

9. Shaheem Sultana 10.Zareena 11.Shahanu … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Seshadri, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendants remained ex parteand upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

The plaintiff bank filed the present suit for recovery of money of

Rs.50,147/- from the defendants herein with pendent lit interest @ 15% p.a.

with monthly rests on sum of Rs.50,147/- and also to award the costs of the suit.

2.As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff bank is being functioning under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 having its Head Office situated at Bangalore and its branch office at

Hanamkonda.

It is also the case of the plaintiff bank that the defendant No.1 herein being the Mahila Podupu Sangam and D2 to D11 are it's members. D2 and D3 2 are the authorized signatories of Defendant No.1, borrowed a sum of

Rs.50,000/- towards loan on 30.7.2007 and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the said loan and credited the amount in the account of the defendant No.1 and the defendants No.1 to 11 also executed an Interse Agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank and agreed to pay interest @ 11% p.a. Defendants 2 and 11 stood as guarantors for the amount obtained by defendant No.1 society.

Further the defendants also agreed to pay penal interest @ 2% in case of default and further agreed to pay interest as charged by the bank from time to time, as per the guide lines of Reserve Bank of India, but despite the terms of agreement, the defendants failed to repay the amount in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendants have become defaulters and there was due of Rs.50,147/- to be paid by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank, but they failed to do so.

All the necessary documents are filed herewith by the plaintiff including the application and Agreement of Hypothecation. Therefore, the plaintiff herein filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.50,147/- with interest as prayed for.

3. On filing this suit, summons issued to the defendants and as per the process report, summons were unserved on the defendants and paper publication was ordered against D1 to D4 and on 22.12.2014 proof of paper publication was filed and D1 to D4 were called absent hence, D1 to D11 were set ex parte and posted the matter for ex parte evidence on 23.2.2015.

4. Subsequently, on behalf of the plaintiff Bank the Senior Branch

Manager, PW1/K. Nagendra Kumar, filed his affidavit as evidence in chief and also got marked Exs.A1 to A3 as documentary evidence. Ex.A1 to A3 are the documents relied on by the plaintiff Bank to prove it's case. Though sufficient opportunity was given to Defendants, the defendants did not come forward to file any written statement or adduce any evidence on their behalf. Then the counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, submitted arguments with reference 3 to evidence on record.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

"Whether the plaintiff bank is entitle to recover the

suit amount of Rs.50,147/- from the defendants

herein with interest thereon @ Rs. 13% per annum

as prayed for?"

6.Point:- In support of the case of the plaintiff-bank, PW1 filed his affidavit as evidence in chief and he reiterated the same facts pleaded in the plaint. According to version of PW1, the defendant No.1 herein borrowed

Rs.50,000/- towards loan and the plaintiff bank credited the same on 30.7.2007 by taking Interse Agreement. The plaintiff bank also placed reliance on the

Statement of Account under Ex.A3 in respect of the defendant No.1 loan account which shows that the defendant No.1 has availed loan of Rs. 50,000/- towards loan and the defendants have become defaulters from the beginning itself and they never paid any installments towards the loan amount. However, as per the statement of account of plaintiff bank under Ex.A3, as on 26.6.2013 there was an over due of Rs.50,147/- after calculating the interest thereon till filing of the suit the total amount due was Rs.50,147/- and the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the same from the defendants herein. Therefore,I am in acceptance with submissions of counsel for the plaintiff and I am inclined to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff as hereunder:

7.The plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount of

Rs.50,147/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree. Further the plaintiff bank is also entitle to interest on the

principal amount of Rs. 50,000/- @ 6% p.a. from the date of the decree till

realization of entire amount. Further the plaintiff bank is also entitled to costs of the suit. Accordingly, the point answered in favour of the plaintiff-bank.

8. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff-bank is hereby decreed with 4 costs against the defendants 1 to 11 jointly and severally for a sum of

Rs.50,147/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.

50,000/- from the date of the decree till realization.

(Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of May, 2015).

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW-1 : K. Nagendra Kumar- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A-1 : Interse Agreement, dt. 30.7.2007. Ex.A-2 : Acknowledgment of liability, dt. 30.6.2010. Ex.A-8 : Statement of Account.

For Defendant: - Nil -

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT :: WARANGAL.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2015.

Present :- Sri M. Johnson,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

S.C.S.No. 87 of 2013

Between:-

Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Hanamkonda Branch rep. by its Legal Assistant M. Shiva Prasad … Plaintiff

And

1.P. Shiva Ram Reddy 2.K. Vijaya Lakshmi 3.S. Srinivasulu 4.K. Hari Krishna … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Balachander Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendants remained ex parte and upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

Heard.

2.Upon hearing the plaintiff and considering the material on record, this Court doth the following Judgment:

3.This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,082/-.

4.The defendants 1 to 4 remained ex parte and did not choose to contest the matter.

5.The plaintiff-chit fund company has led ex parte evidence of Sri M. Shiva

Prasad, Legal Assistant, as PW-1, who reiterated the plaint averments. In support of his evidence Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked. Among them Exs.A-1 to A- 4 go to show that the defendant No.1 has joined as a chit subscriber in the plaintiff-chit fund company and received prize amount and further defendants 2 to 5 stood as guarantors for the prize amount and also executed agreement of guarantee and thereby became jointly and severally liable to pay the future liability. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 has committed default in payment of 2 future liability despite notice under Ex.A-5. Further more, Ex.A-10 statement of account goes to show that the defendants fell due of suit sum. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay the same.

6.The defendants 1 to 4 are aware of the pleadings of the plaint but did not choose to rebut the same by way of cross-examination. Thus, the whole evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-13 clinchingly proves the suit claim and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.3,082/- against the defendants 1 to 4 with costs and interest payable @ 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,322/- from the date of suit till it's realisation.

(Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of May, 2015.)

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW-1 : M. Shiva Prasad- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A-1 : Chit Agreement, dt. 19.8.2008. Ex.A-2 : Agreement of Guarantee, dt. 11.7.2009. Ex.A-3: Pro-Note, dt. 11.7.2009. Ex.A-4: Payment Voucher, dt. 11.7.2009. Ex.A-5: Office copy of the Legal notice, dt. 23.2.2013. Ex.A-6&A7 : Postal Acknowledgement Cards of D2 and D4, dt.23.2.2013. Ex.A-8&A9 : Postal Returned cover of D1 and D3, dt. 23.2.2013. Ex.A-10: Statement of Account, dt. 22.5.2013. Ex.A-11: Authorisation Letter, dt. 15.11.2012. Ex.A-12: CC of Firm Registration, dt. 6.5.1998. Ex.A-13 : Authorisation Letter, dt. 16.9.2013.

For Defendant: - Nil -

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.