1 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. APGU010000122024
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),
GUNTUR
Present: Smt.M.Kumudini,
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division).
Thursday, this the 02nd day of April, 2026
O.S.No.05/2024
Between:
Challa Anjali Devi W/o.Late Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 41 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o.Upstairs of Door No.88-8-2993, 1st Lane, Seetharama Nagar, Nallapadu Road, Guntur. … Plaintiff. -And-
Challa Narayana S/o.Late Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 44 years, Occ:Watchman and R/o.Door No.88-8-2993, 1st Lane, Seetharama Nagar, Nallapadu Road, Guntur.
...Defendant.
This suit came up on 02-02-2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffSri M.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff, and SriSri Y.Subba Rao, Advocate for the Defendant, and and the matter havingY.Subba Rao, Advocate for the stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.30,05,330/- with subsequent interest at the contract rate from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual realization and for costs of the suit.
2 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
(i)It is averred that one late Challa Srinivasa Rao S/o.Satyanarayana is the husband of the plaintiff. They blessed with two children namely
Deevena and Arpana. The husband of the plaintiff i.e., late Challa
Srinivasa Rao did business at Mirchi yard, Guntur during his life time.
The defendant is the brother of the said Srinivasa Rao, who is working as a watchman in a shop at Mirchi Yard.
(ii)It is further averred that the husband of the plaintiff looked after the entire family affairs and the defendant is well aware about the same.
Unfortunately, on 30-07-2021, the said Challa Srinivasa Rao passed away leaving behind the plaintiff and his daughters including his movable and immovable properties. On the death of Challa Srinivasa Rao, the plaintiff received insurance amounts from LIC, Guntur. The defendant pretended that he will look after the welfare of the family of the plaintiff and her children and made the plaintiff and her children to believe his words.
(iii)It is further averred that the plaintiff is uneducated and studied upto 10th class and the defendant received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- out of the said Insurance amount from the plaintiff by way of transferring the said amountthroughRTGSunderICICR-52021111700461310/
UBIN0812528/CHALLA NAR from her Savings Bank Account 3 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. No.722201500637 of ICICI Bank, Pattabhipuram Branch, Guntur to the account of the defendant on 17-11-2021 and the said amount was received by the defendant by stating that he will look after the payments for meeting the education fee of the plaintiff’s daughters and also promised to send the said amount as and when required towards payment of the educational fees and expenditure for the plaintiff’s daughters as they proceeded abroad for their studies.
(iv)It is further averred that subsequent to the receipt of the above said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff, the defendant in one way or the other way postponed to send the amount to the plaintiff’s daughters and also harassing the plaintiff in one way or the other and also failed to affect the partition of the property covered under registered Sale Deed vide document No.5260/1993, dated 28-06-1993 which resulted in causing a legal notice dated 20-11-2023 by the plaintiff and her children for partition of the property of the residential house wherein the plaintiff is living in the 1st floor. The defendant having smelt the contents of the said notice, got the same returned to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff got issued registered notice dated 28-11-2023 to the defendant calling upon him to refund the above said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- received by him from the plaintiff together with interest within a week from the date of receipt of the said notice, but the defendant having received the same on 4 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. 30-11-2023, did not choose to comply the legitimate demands of the plaintiff or did not give any reply and simply kept quiet. The provisions of
Acts IV of 1938 VII of 1977; 45 of 1987 and 2 of 1990 are not applicable to the facts of the case. Hence, the suit.
3.3.The defendant filed written statement resisting the averments of theThe defendant filed written statement resisting the averments of the plaint. The brief averments of the written statement are as under:plaint. The brief averments of the written statement are as under:
(i)(i)It is submitted that one Challa Satyanarayana and his wife wereIt is submitted that one Challa Satyanarayana and his wife were blessed with two sons and one daughter i.e., husband of the plaintiff,blessed with two sons and one daughter i.e., husband of the plaintiff, defendant and Battula Padmavathi. The father of the defendantdefendant and Battula Padmavathi. The father of the defendant purchased the plaint schedule property with his hard earnings and alsopurchased the plaint schedule property with his hard earnings and also with hard earnings of the defendant and with the monies given by thewith hard earnings of the defendant and with the monies given by the mother of the defendant, under registered sale deed vide documentmother of the defendant, under registered sale deed vide document
No.5260/1993 dated 28-06-1993 for valid and proper sale considerationNo.5260/1993 dated 28-06-1993 for valid and proper sale consideration from Battula Venkateswarlu and others. After that, the defendant madefrom Battula Venkateswarlu and others. After that, the defendant made some alterations by spending huge amounts with his hard earnings. Thesome alterations by spending huge amounts with his hard earnings. The husband of the plaintiff did not pay single pie in this regard. The father ofhusband of the plaintiff did not pay single pie in this regard. The father of the defendant Challa Satyanarayana and the defendant have been inthe defendant Challa Satyanarayana and the defendant have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property without anypeaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property without any objection from anyone.objection from anyone.
(ii)(ii)It is further submitted that the defendant and his parents gave hugeIt is further submitted that the defendant and his parents gave huge amount to the husband of the plaintiff for their welfare and family needs.amount to the husband of the plaintiff for their welfare and family needs.
5 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. The husband of the plaintiff addicted to all sorts of vices and spent hugeThe husband of the plaintiff addicted to all sorts of vices and spent huge amount for his vices. Due to that, the mother of the defendant sold awayamount for his vices. Due to that, the mother of the defendant sold away the immovable property standing in her name and gave the entire amountthe immovable property standing in her name and gave the entire amount to him and the defendant also gave huge amount to him. The plaintiff hasto him and the defendant also gave huge amount to him. The plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- which was taken by the plaintiff andto pay an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- which was taken by the plaintiff and her husband. The defendant and his parents several times requested theher husband. The defendant and his parents several times requested the plaintiff to repay the said amount and she gave evasive replies and didplaintiff to repay the said amount and she gave evasive replies and did not pay single pie.not pay single pie.
(iii)(iii)It is further submitted that to wreck vengeance against theIt is further submitted that to wreck vengeance against the defendant and his parents, the plaintiff filed the present suit by creatingdefendant and his parents, the plaintiff filed the present suit by creating cock and bull story to escape from her liabilities and to harass thecock and bull story to escape from her liabilities and to harass the defendant. The plaintiff has to pay Rs.70,00,000/- which was given by thedefendant. The plaintiff has to pay Rs.70,00,000/- which was given by the defendant and his mother. On this ground alone, the suit is liable to bedefendant and his mother. On this ground alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed.dismissed.
(iv)(iv)It is also further submitted that the plaintiff transferred an amount ofIt is also further submitted that the plaintiff transferred an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- out of the insurance amount to the defendant by way ofRs.20,00,000/- out of the insurance amount to the defendant by way of transferringtransferringthethesaidsaidamountamountthroughthroughRTGS:RTGS:ICICR-ICICR- 52921111700461310/UBIN0812528/CHALLA NAR from her savings bank52921111700461310/UBIN0812528/CHALLA NAR from her savings bank account No.722201500637 of ICICI Bank, Pattabhipuram, Guntur, but itaccount No.722201500637 of ICICI Bank, Pattabhipuram, Guntur, but it was transferred only for the purpose of paying bank loans of plaintiff’swas transferred only for the purpose of paying bank loans of plaintiff’s husband, but the plaintiff suppressed the same and filed the present suithusband, but the plaintiff suppressed the same and filed the present suit 6 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. to harass the defendant and for wrongful gain. The husband of theto harass the defendant and for wrongful gain. The husband of the plaintiff died by committing suicide, but the defendant by misusing theplaintiff died by committing suicide, but the defendant by misusing the said fact before Insurance authorities, received insurance amountssaid fact before Insurance authorities, received insurance amounts illegally and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. illegally and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.4.Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed.Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
5.5.During trial, the plaintiff herself is examined as PW1 and she alsoDuring trial, the plaintiff herself is examined as PW1 and she also examined one Battula Ramanjaneyulu as PW2. Exs.A1 to A3 are markedexamined one Battula Ramanjaneyulu as PW2. Exs.A1 to A3 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff.on behalf of the plaintiff.
The defendant is examined as DW1 and no documents areThe defendant is examined as DW1 and no documents are marked on behalf of the defendant. marked on behalf of the defendant.
6.6.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff andHeard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and written arguments filed by the defendant. Perused the entire material onwritten arguments filed by the defendant. Perused the entire material on record.record.
7.7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that after the death ofThe learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that after the death of the plaintiff's husband, the plaintiff received insurance amount of herthe plaintiff's husband, the plaintiff received insurance amount of her husband and out of the said amount, she transferred Rs.20,00,000/-husband and out of the said amount, she transferred Rs.20,00,000/- through bank to the account of the defendant in order to send the amountthrough bank to the account of the defendant in order to send the amount to the daughters of the plaintiff for their educational expenses, but inspiteto the daughters of the plaintiff for their educational expenses, but inspite of repeated demands, he did not choose to send the amount to theof repeated demands, he did not choose to send the amount to the 7 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. daughters of the plaintiff or to repay the said amount to the plaintiffdaughters of the plaintiff or to repay the said amount to the plaintiff despite issuing legal notice. It is also argued that the plaintiff proved herdespite issuing legal notice. It is also argued that the plaintiff proved her case by filing Ex.A1 and the defendant did not deny the receipt of thecase by filing Ex.A1 and the defendant did not deny the receipt of the said amount through bank transfer, but he failed to adduce any evidencesaid amount through bank transfer, but he failed to adduce any evidence that the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant and sought the court tothat the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant and sought the court to decree the suit. decree the suit.
8.8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant filed memo ofPer contra, the learned counsel for the defendant filed memo of written arguments and submitted that the plaintiff transferred the saidwritten arguments and submitted that the plaintiff transferred the said amount for the purpose of paying bank loans of the plaintiff's husbandamount for the purpose of paying bank loans of the plaintiff's husband and the husband of the plaintiff addicted to vices and he borrowed hugeand the husband of the plaintiff addicted to vices and he borrowed huge amount and the mother of the defendant sold her immovable propertyamount and the mother of the defendant sold her immovable property and gave the entire amount to the husband of the plaintiff and theand gave the entire amount to the husband of the plaintiff and the defendant also gave huge amount to the husband of the plaintiff and thedefendant also gave huge amount to the husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- which was taken by theplaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- which was taken by the plaintiff and her husband and the defendant has no liability to pay to theplaintiff and her husband and the defendant has no liability to pay to the plaintiff and prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.plaintiff and prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.
9.9.Issue No.1:- Issue No.1:-
In a suit of this nature, the initial burden always lies on theIn a suit of this nature, the initial burden always lies on the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that, she transferred an amount ofplaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that, she transferred an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- through RTGS under ICICR–52021111700461310/Rs.20,00,000/- through RTGS under ICICR–52021111700461310/
UBIN0812528/ CHALLA NAR from her savings bank account bearingUBIN0812528/ CHALLA NAR from her savings bank account bearing 8 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. No.722201500637 of ICICI Bank, Pattabhipuram Branch, Guntur to theNo.722201500637 of ICICI Bank, Pattabhipuram Branch, Guntur to the defendant’s account on 17-11-2021 in order to meet the educational feedefendant’s account on 17-11-2021 in order to meet the educational fee of the plaintiff's daughters as they are studying in abroad.of the plaintiff's daughters as they are studying in abroad.
10.10.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself isTo substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself is examined as PW1. She also filed her evidence affidavit in lieu of her chiefexamined as PW1. She also filed her evidence affidavit in lieu of her chief examination, which is nothing but, replica of the plaint. She alsoexamination, which is nothing but, replica of the plaint. She also examined her brother as PW.2. According to her, the defendant is theexamined her brother as PW.2. According to her, the defendant is the brother of her husband and after the death of her husband, she receivedbrother of her husband and after the death of her husband, she received insurance amounts from the LIC, Guntur and the defendant pretendedinsurance amounts from the LIC, Guntur and the defendant pretended that he will look after the welfare of the family of the plaintiff and herthat he will look after the welfare of the family of the plaintiff and her children and made her to believe his words. As the plaintiff is uneducatedchildren and made her to believe his words. As the plaintiff is uneducated and studied only upto 10thand studied only upto 10th class, believing the words of the defendant, class, believing the words of the defendant, she transferred a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- out of the insurance amount byshe transferred a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- out of the insurance amount by way of transferring the amount through RTGS under ICICR-way of transferring the amount through RTGS under ICICR- 52021111700461310/UBIN0812528/CHALLA NAR from the plaintiff’s52021111700461310/UBIN0812528/CHALLA NAR from the plaintiff’s savings bank account bearing No.722201500637 of ICICI Bank,savings bank account bearing No.722201500637 of ICICI Bank,
Pattabhipuram Branch, Guntur to the account of the defendant on 17-11-Pattabhipuram Branch, Guntur to the account of the defendant on 17-11- 2021 under Ex.A1 2021 under Ex.A1 and the said amount was received by the defendant byand the said amount was received by the defendant by stating that he will send the said amount as and when required towardsstating that he will send the said amount as and when required towards part payment of the education fees and expenditure of the plaintiff‘spart payment of the education fees and expenditure of the plaintiff‘s daughters as they proceeded to abroad for their studies. After receivingdaughters as they proceeded to abroad for their studies. After receiving 9 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff, the defendant in onethe said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff, the defendant in one way or other way is postponing to send the amount to the plaintiff’sway or other way is postponing to send the amount to the plaintiff’s daughters and also harassing the plaintiff in one way or the other waydaughters and also harassing the plaintiff in one way or the other way and failed to affect the partition of the property covered under registeredand failed to affect the partition of the property covered under registered sale deed bearing No.5260/1993, dated 28-06-1993 and on that, a legalsale deed bearing No.5260/1993, dated 28-06-1993 and on that, a legal notice dated 20-11-2023 was issued for partition of the property and thenotice dated 20-11-2023 was issued for partition of the property and the said notice was returned to the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated requests, thesaid notice was returned to the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated requests, the defendant did not choose to repay the said amount and on that, thedefendant did not choose to repay the said amount and on that, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 28-11-2023 vide Ex.A2 demandingplaintiff got issued legal notice dated 28-11-2023 vide Ex.A2 demanding to refund the above said amount and the same was received by theto refund the above said amount and the same was received by the defendant on 30-11-2023 and failed to repay the same and kept quiet.defendant on 30-11-2023 and failed to repay the same and kept quiet.
Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgment dated 30-11-2023. PW2 is theEx.A3 is the postal acknowledgment dated 30-11-2023. PW2 is the brother of PW1 and he also deposed in similar lines corroborating thebrother of PW1 and he also deposed in similar lines corroborating the evidence of PW1.evidence of PW1.
11.11.It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant and ChallaIt is pertinent to mention here that the defendant and Challa
Srinivasa Rao, who is the husband of the plaintiff are brothers and theySrinivasa Rao, who is the husband of the plaintiff are brothers and they are the sons of Challa Satyanarayana. The plaintiff and Challa Srinivasaare the sons of Challa Satyanarayana. The plaintiff and Challa Srinivasa
Rao blessed with two daughters namely Deevana and Arpana.Rao blessed with two daughters namely Deevana and Arpana. The said The said
Challa Srinivasa Rao died on 30-07-2021 leaving behind the plaintiff andChalla Srinivasa Rao died on 30-07-2021 leaving behind the plaintiff and her daughters Deevana and Arpana. The plaintiff received insuranceher daughters Deevana and Arpana. The plaintiff received insurance amounts from LIC, Guntur, after the death of Challa Srinivasa Rao andamounts from LIC, Guntur, after the death of Challa Srinivasa Rao and 10 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. the above said facts are not in dispute.the above said facts are not in dispute.
12.12.The defendant, who is examined as DW1, filed his evidenceThe defendant, who is examined as DW1, filed his evidence affidavit which is nothing but replica of his written statement. Theaffidavit which is nothing but replica of his written statement. The defendant is admitting even in his written statement and also in hisdefendant is admitting even in his written statement and also in his evidence that the plaintiff transferred an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- out ofevidence that the plaintiff transferred an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- out of the insurance amount to the defendant under Ex.A1 through RTGS underthe insurance amount to the defendant under Ex.A1 through RTGS under
ICICR–52921111700461310/UBIN0812528/CHALLA NAR from theICICR–52921111700461310/UBIN0812528/CHALLA NAR from the plaintiff’s savings bank account bearing No.722201500637 of ICICI Bank,plaintiff’s savings bank account bearing No.722201500637 of ICICI Bank,
Pattabhipuram Branch, Guntur to the defendant’s account on 17-11-Pattabhipuram Branch, Guntur to the defendant’s account on 17-11- 2021, but it is contended by the defendant that, it was transferred only for2021, but it is contended by the defendant that, it was transferred only for the purpose of paying bank loans of the plaintiff’s husband.the purpose of paying bank loans of the plaintiff’s husband.
13.13.In cross-examination, PW1 categorically denied that sheIn cross-examination, PW1 categorically denied that she transferred Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant in respect of the loantransferred Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant in respect of the loan borrowed by her husband for the purpose of educational of her childrenborrowed by her husband for the purpose of educational of her children and accordingly, the defendant discharged the same and the defendantand accordingly, the defendant discharged the same and the defendant did not borrow the amount from her and she only transferred the amountdid not borrow the amount from her and she only transferred the amount for discharging the mortgage by deposit of tittle deeds to the bank. Shefor discharging the mortgage by deposit of tittle deeds to the bank. She also denied that she got educated her daughters and sent them toalso denied that she got educated her daughters and sent them to abroad with the insurance amount.abroad with the insurance amount.
14.14.PW2 admitted that the husband of the plaintiff mortgaged thePW2 admitted that the husband of the plaintiff mortgaged the house in which they are residing with the bank for the purpose ofhouse in which they are residing with the bank for the purpose of 11 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. educational expenses of children. He also stated that he came to knoweducational expenses of children. He also stated that he came to know that the plaintiff received an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from Lifethat the plaintiff received an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from Life
Insurance Corporation of India, after the death of her husband. He alsoInsurance Corporation of India, after the death of her husband. He also denied that PW1 gave an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant todenied that PW1 gave an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant to discharge the mortgage debt to the bank. He further stated that thedischarge the mortgage debt to the bank. He further stated that the plaintiff discharged the mortgage debt with the insurance amountplaintiff discharged the mortgage debt with the insurance amount received by her.received by her.
15.15.DW1 in his cross-examination admitted that the plaintiff and herDW1 in his cross-examination admitted that the plaintiff and her daughters filed a suit for partition vide OS.No.03/2024 on the file of IIdaughters filed a suit for partition vide OS.No.03/2024 on the file of II
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur against him and he filedAdditional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur against him and he filed
his written statement and contesting the suit. He also stated that he ishis written statement and contesting the suit. He also stated that he is working as watchman in Mirchi Yard, Guntur on monthly salary ofworking as watchman in Mirchi Yard, Guntur on monthly salary of
Rs.20,000/- per month and except his monthly salary, there is no otherRs.20,000/- per month and except his monthly salary, there is no other source of income and the house in which he is residing is in the name ofsource of income and the house in which he is residing is in the name of his father, who died in the year 2006 and during his life time, he alsohis father, who died in the year 2006 and during his life time, he also worked in Mirchi Yard, Guntur and that the said house is the self-worked in Mirchi Yard, Guntur and that the said house is the self- acquired property of his father. He also stated that the husband of theacquired property of his father. He also stated that the husband of the plaintiff did Mirchi export business for about 15 years and he was anplaintiff did Mirchi export business for about 15 years and he was an income tax assessee and after the death of his father, the husband of theincome tax assessee and after the death of his father, the husband of the plaintiff started Mirchi export business. His testimony also goes to showplaintiff started Mirchi export business. His testimony also goes to show that after the death of his brother, the plaintiff along with her daughtersthat after the death of his brother, the plaintiff along with her daughters 12 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. received an amount of Rs.2 crores from the insurance company and thereceived an amount of Rs.2 crores from the insurance company and the plaintiff took him to the ICICI bank to enquire whether the insuranceplaintiff took him to the ICICI bank to enquire whether the insurance amount was credited or not. He also admitted that by that time, theamount was credited or not. He also admitted that by that time, the daughters of his brother are studying in Guntur and again adds that onedaughters of his brother are studying in Guntur and again adds that one of his daughters went to abroad and again she returned to India. He alsoof his daughters went to abroad and again she returned to India. He also admitted that during the life time of his brother Srinivasa Rao, his elderadmitted that during the life time of his brother Srinivasa Rao, his elder daughter was studying Medicine in Philippines and on the date of deathdaughter was studying Medicine in Philippines and on the date of death of his brother, the education of his elder daughter was not completed andof his brother, the education of his elder daughter was not completed and after the death of Srinivasa Rao, his younger daughter went to USA toafter the death of Srinivasa Rao, his younger daughter went to USA to study MS. He denied the suggestion that the education fee of thestudy MS. He denied the suggestion that the education fee of the daughters of his brother was paid by the plaintiff through him. He denieddaughters of his brother was paid by the plaintiff through him. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff transferred amount from her account tothe suggestion that the plaintiff transferred amount from her account to his account for the purpose of payment of education fee of her daughters,his account for the purpose of payment of education fee of her daughters, as the first plaintiff shall not come outside due to the death of his brother,as the first plaintiff shall not come outside due to the death of his brother, but he did not pay the same and appropriated for his personal use. Hebut he did not pay the same and appropriated for his personal use. He also admitted that the plaintiff is residing in the first floor and he isalso admitted that the plaintiff is residing in the first floor and he is residing in the ground floor of the same building. He also stated that theresiding in the ground floor of the same building. He also stated that the plaintiff transferred an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to his account for theplaintiff transferred an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to his account for the purpose of releasing the mortgage in respect of the house and he paidpurpose of releasing the mortgage in respect of the house and he paid the same and discharged the mortgage loan obtained by his brother. Hethe same and discharged the mortgage loan obtained by his brother. He also undertook to file the documents to show that he discharged the saidalso undertook to file the documents to show that he discharged the said 13 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. debt. He also stated that the mortgage release deed was executed by thedebt. He also stated that the mortgage release deed was executed by the bank authorities in favour of his mother, plaintiff, her sisters, himself andbank authorities in favour of his mother, plaintiff, her sisters, himself and his sister. He denied the suggestion that the mortgage was released, ashis sister. He denied the suggestion that the mortgage was released, as the plaintiff cleared the debt. He also stated that there is no document tothe plaintiff cleared the debt. He also stated that there is no document to show that the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- to him. Heshow that the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- to him. He admitted that he did not issue any legal notice to the plaintiff requestingadmitted that he did not issue any legal notice to the plaintiff requesting her to pay the said Rs.70,00,000/- and there is no document to show thather to pay the said Rs.70,00,000/- and there is no document to show that himself and his mother got Rs.70,00,000/- cash.himself and his mother got Rs.70,00,000/- cash.
16.16.From the evidence of DW1, it is clear that the elder daughter ofFrom the evidence of DW1, it is clear that the elder daughter of the plaintiff was studying Medicine in Philippines by the date of the deaththe plaintiff was studying Medicine in Philippines by the date of the death of the husband of the plaintiff. After the death of Srinivasa Rao, theof the husband of the plaintiff. After the death of Srinivasa Rao, the younger daughter of the plaintiff went to USA to study M.S. younger daughter of the plaintiff went to USA to study M.S.
17.17.According to the plaintiff, she is an uneducated woman andAccording to the plaintiff, she is an uneducated woman and studied only upto 10thstudied only upto 10th class and as per custom, she shall not come class and as per custom, she shall not come outside, due to the death of her husband and she transferredoutside, due to the death of her husband and she transferred
Rs.20,00,000/- out of the insurance amount from her account to theRs.20,00,000/- out of the insurance amount from her account to the account of the defendant for the purpose of payment of education fee ofaccount of the defendant for the purpose of payment of education fee of her daughters, who are studying in abroad. her daughters, who are studying in abroad.
18.18.The only contention raised by the defendant is that, the saidThe only contention raised by the defendant is that, the said amount was transferred only for the purpose of paying bank loans of theamount was transferred only for the purpose of paying bank loans of the plaintiff’s husband. If the bank loan is repaid with the amount which wasplaintiff’s husband. If the bank loan is repaid with the amount which was 14 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. transferred by the plaintiff from her account to the account of thetransferred by the plaintiff from her account to the account of the defendant, then the said discharge will reflect in the account of thedefendant, then the said discharge will reflect in the account of the defendant. The defendant did not file any scrap of paper before the courtdefendant. The defendant did not file any scrap of paper before the court to show that the said Rs.20,00,000/- amount was transferred from histo show that the said Rs.20,00,000/- amount was transferred from his account to the loan account of his brother. Though the defendant statedaccount to the loan account of his brother. Though the defendant stated in his evidence that the plaintiff transferred Rs.20,00,000/- to his accountin his evidence that the plaintiff transferred Rs.20,00,000/- to his account for the purpose of releasing the mortgage in respect of the house and hefor the purpose of releasing the mortgage in respect of the house and he paid the same and discharged the loan obtained by his brother and thepaid the same and discharged the loan obtained by his brother and the mortgage release deed was executed by the bank authorities in favour ofmortgage release deed was executed by the bank authorities in favour of his mother, plaintiff, her daughters, himself and his sister, he did nothis mother, plaintiff, her daughters, himself and his sister, he did not choose to file the said mortgage release deed which is said to have beenchoose to file the said mortgage release deed which is said to have been executed by the bank authorities in favour of the plaintiff, her daughters,executed by the bank authorities in favour of the plaintiff, her daughters, defendant, his mother and sister to appreciate the same. Non filing of anydefendant, his mother and sister to appreciate the same. Non filing of any documentary proof to establish that an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- out ofdocumentary proof to establish that an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- out of the insurance amount of the husband of the plaintiff was transferred tothe insurance amount of the husband of the plaintiff was transferred to the defendant only for the purpose of paying bank loans of the plaintiff’sthe defendant only for the purpose of paying bank loans of the plaintiff’s husband and the defendant paid the same, is fatal to the case of thehusband and the defendant paid the same, is fatal to the case of the defendant. The plaintiff by filing Ex.A1 categorically discharged her initialdefendant. The plaintiff by filing Ex.A1 categorically discharged her initial burden, whereas the defendant failed to substantiate his contention thatburden, whereas the defendant failed to substantiate his contention that the amount which was transferred by the plaintiff from her account to thethe amount which was transferred by the plaintiff from her account to the account of the defendant is only for the purpose of paying the bank loanaccount of the defendant is only for the purpose of paying the bank loan 15 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. of the plaintiff's husband and he discharged the bank loan of the plaintiff’sof the plaintiff's husband and he discharged the bank loan of the plaintiff’s husband with the amount transferred by the plaintiff on 17-11-2021.husband with the amount transferred by the plaintiff on 17-11-2021.
Moreover, except the oral say of the defendant, there is no proof filed byMoreover, except the oral say of the defendant, there is no proof filed by the defendant that the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.70,00,000/-the defendant that the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- which was taken by her and her husband. Hence, the version of thewhich was taken by her and her husband. Hence, the version of the defendant that the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.70,00,000defendant that the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- to him/- to him is also not believable.is also not believable.
19.19.On the other hand, the dispute with regard to partition of theOn the other hand, the dispute with regard to partition of the property of Challa Satyanarayana is the subject matter of OS.No.03/2024property of Challa Satyanarayana is the subject matter of OS.No.03/2024 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur and theon the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur and the said suit has no bearing over this suit transaction, because the subjectsaid suit has no bearing over this suit transaction, because the subject matter of that suit is noway related to the present suit.matter of that suit is noway related to the present suit.
20.20.At the outset, it can be said that after the death of the husband ofAt the outset, it can be said that after the death of the husband of the plaintiff, herself and her daughters received insurance amount of herthe plaintiff, herself and her daughters received insurance amount of her husband and out of the said amount, she transferred an amount ofhusband and out of the said amount, she transferred an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/-Rs.20,00,000/-bybywaywayofofRTGSRTGSunderunder
ICICR-52021111700461310/UBIN0812528/CHALLA NAR from herICICR-52021111700461310/UBIN0812528/CHALLA NAR from her
Savings Bank Account No.722201500637 of ICICI Bank, PattabhipuramSavings Bank Account No.722201500637 of ICICI Bank, Pattabhipuram
Branch, Guntur to the account of the defendant on 17-11-2021 for theBranch, Guntur to the account of the defendant on 17-11-2021 for the purpose of payment of the education fee of the daughters of the plaintiff,purpose of payment of the education fee of the daughters of the plaintiff, who were studying in abroad, but the defendant did not send the saidwho were studying in abroad, but the defendant did not send the said 16 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. amount as and when required towards payment of education fee andamount as and when required towards payment of education fee and expenditure of the plaintiff’s daughters and subsequently, inspite of noticeexpenditure of the plaintiff’s daughters and subsequently, inspite of notice issued under Ex.A2, the defendant failed to repay the same. Therefore,issued under Ex.A2, the defendant failed to repay the same. Therefore, the plaintiff clinchingly established her case by examining herself as PW1the plaintiff clinchingly established her case by examining herself as PW1 and by examining PW2 and marking Ex.A1 and accordingly, the plaintiffand by examining PW2 and marking Ex.A1 and accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim, as prayed for. Hence, this issue is answeredis entitled for the suit claim, as prayed for. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
21.21.Issue No.2:In the light of my findings in issue no.1, the suit is toIssue No.2:In the light of my findings in issue no.1, the suit is to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs against theIN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant, for an amount of Rs.30,05,330/- (Rupees thirty lakhs fivedefendant, for an amount of Rs.30,05,330/- (Rupees thirty lakhs five thousand three hundred and thirty only) together with interest at the ratethousand three hundred and thirty only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree andof 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization, on thethereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization, on the
principal amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only).principal amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only).
Dictated to Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, correctedDictated to Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 02ndand pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 02nd day of April, 2026. day of April, 2026.
Sd/-Smt.M.Kumudini. Sd/-Smt.M.Kumudini.
Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiff:
PW1 Challa Anjali Devi PW2 Battula Ramanjaneyulu 17 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. For Defendant:
DW1 Challa Narayana.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A1 is the statement of account of ICICI Bank, Pattabhipuram Branch, Guntur relating to the account of the plaintiff through which the amount was transferred to the defendants account through RTGS dated 31-12- 2021. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 28-11-2023. Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgment dated 30-11-2023.
For Defendant:- --NIL
Sd/-Smt.M.Kumudini.
PCJ (SD).
//True Copy//
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Guntur.
18 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),
GUNTUR
Present: Smt.M.Kumudini,
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division).
Thursday, this the 02nd day of April, 2026
O.S.No.05/2024
Between:
Challa Anjali Devi W/o.Late Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 41 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o.Upstairs of Door No.88-8-2993, 1st Lane, Seetharama Nagar, Nallapadu Road, Guntur. … Plaintiff. -And-
Challa Narayana S/o.Late Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 44 years, Occ:Watchman and R/o.Door No.88-8-2993, 1st Lane, Seetharama Nagar, Nallapadu Road, Guntur.
...Defendant.
The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.30,05,330/- with subsequent interest at the contract rate from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual realization and for costs of the suit.
Plaint Presented on: 29-12-2023 & registered on: 29-12-2023.
CAUSE OF ACTION:- Cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintiff has received Insurance amounts from the Life Insurance Corporation of India on the death of her husband late Srinivasa Rao; on 17-11-2021 when the defendant has received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff by way of transfer of the same from her account tot he account of the defendant through RTGS, on the pretext of look after the payments for meeting the educational fees of the daughters of the plaintiff and also send the said amount as and when required towards payment of the educational fees and expenditure for the plaintiff’s daughters; thereafter when the defendant postponed to send the amounts to the daughters of the plaintiff; there after inspite of the repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the said amount tot he 19 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur. plaintiff; on 28-11-2023 when the fp got issued a registered notice tot he defendant calling him to repay the above said amount tot he plaintiff together with interest; when the defendant having received the said notice did not choose to comply the legitimate demands of the plaintiff made therein or to give any reply notice; when the better counsels and best mediations of the plaintiff also proved futile and at Guntur, Guntur Mandal, where the transfer of the money from the account of the plaintiff to the account of the defendant and their respective banks are situated and where the defendant is residing all are within the jurisdiction of the
Hon’ble Court.
PARTICULARS OF VALUATION:-
Amount taken by the defendant from the plaintiff by way of RTGS dated 17-11-2021….Rs.20,00,000-00
Interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum from 17-11-2021 to 23-12-2023 ….Rs.10,05,330-00 ------------------------- ….Rs.30,05,330-00 -------------------------- On which a court fee of Rs.32,526/- is paid under Schedule 1, Article 1 (a) (b) (c) and Section 20 of Act VII of APCF and SV Act,1956.
Value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.30,05,330-00 /-.
This suit came up on 02-02-2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffSri M.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff, and SriSri Y.Subba Rao, Advocate for the Defendant, and and the matter havingY.Subba Rao, Advocate for the stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:-
1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed against theagainst the defendant, for an amount of Rs.30,05,330/- (Rupees thirty lakhs fivedefendant, for an amount of Rs.30,05,330/- (Rupees thirty lakhs five thousand three hundred and thirty only) together with interest at the ratethousand three hundred and thirty only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree andof 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization, on thethereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization, on the
principal amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only).principal amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only).
20 O.S.No.05/2024 dt.02-04-26 PCJ (SD), Guntur.
2. That the defendant do pay a sum of Rs.1,22,828/- to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit and the defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil. (Cost memo not filed by the defendant).
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 02nd day of April, 2026.
Sd/-Smt.M.Kumudini.
Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.
TABLE OF COSTS
For PlaintiffFor Defendant
1. Stamp on Vakalath2-00(Cm not filed)
2. Plaint Fee32,526-00
3. Stamp on process200-00
4. Advocate fee(As claimed) 90,000-00
5. Writing & type charges100-00
Total 1,22,828-00 --Nil--
Sd/-Smt.M.Kumudini.
PCJ (SD), GNT.
//True Copy//
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Guntur.