Smt. M. Meena Devi

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur

PDJ Court Complex, Guntur · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

Smt. M. Meena Devi, Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, is posted at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,375 court orders on record since 2014. 19 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, CC cases.

1,375

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/200004/2015 Convicted

Tadi Anjanehyulu vs Gollapudi Madhu

05 Oct 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE , GUNTUR.

Present : Smt. M. Meena Devi, B.Sc., M.L., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, the 5th day of OCTOBER, 2016.

C.C. 4 of 2015

(Old C.C. No.191/2014 on the file of V Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur.)

Between: Tadi Anjaneyulu.… Complainant.

- And -

Gollapudi Madhu.… Accused.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 30-09-2016 in the presence of Sri P.Raja Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri

Y.Phani Kumar, Advocate for the Accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This Calendar Case is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 (for brevity in the succeeding paragraphs, the Act will be referred as “NI Act”).

2.The averments of the complaint in brief are:

Accused is working as Lecturer in Hindu College, Guntur. He is residing at Flat No.301 of Surya Towers and complainant is also living in the same apartment in Flat No.402. Accused made several false representations and made the complainant believe that he was in urgent need of Rs.8,00,000/- for his children's education. Thereafter, accused borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- from complainant on 31.5.2013 and executed two 2 promissory notes for Rs.4,00,000/- each dated 31.5.2013 in favour of complainant, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to complainant or his order on demand. On the same day, accused issued two postdated cheques for Rs.4,00,000/- each under cheque Nos.870923 and 870924 dated 8.8.2013 towards part payment of the amounts due under the above said promissory notes, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Arundelpet Branch, Guntur.

Complainant received a notice dated 28.7.2013 through the counsel for accused by name Sri C.Venkataramaiah, which was aimed at several of his alleged creditors and the complainant was shown as 13th member. The notice was issued with omnibus allegations. Immediately, thereafter complainant contacted the accused on phone and accused stated that the said notice was aimed at other creditors who were threatening him.

Accused also promised that he would honour the postdated cheques issued to complainant. So, complainant presented the said cheques in his bank i.e.

Syndicate Bank, District Court Compound Branch, Guntur on 8.8.2013 for collection but the same were dishonoured by way of cheque return memo

dated 12.8.2013 with the endorsement “funds insufficient”.

Thereafter, complainant got issued a registered legal notice

dated 21.8.2013 requesting the accused to pay the amount within 15 days

from the date of receipt of the notice but accused knowing the contents of the notice, managed to return the same with the endorsement that the addressee left without instructions. The non-payment of cheque amount by accused is intentional and he is liable to be prosecuted for the offence

U/Sec.138 of NI Act. Hence, the complaint.

3.Sworn affidavit of complainant was filed and complaint was 3 taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before the Court, he was furnished with copies of the documents as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaining the accusations made against him in the complaint, for which, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of complainant, he got himself examined as P.W.1.

The scribe of Exs.P1 and P2 was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P10 were got marked. Exs.P1 and P2 are the promissory notes dated 31.05.2013.

Exs.P3 and P5 are the cheques bearing Nos.870293 and 870924 dated 8.8.2013 for Rs.4,00,000/- each. Exs.P4 and P6 are the cheque return memos issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce dated 12.8.2013. Ex.P7 is the memo issued by Syndicate Bank. Ex.P8 is the office copy of legal notice issued by complainant on 21.8.2013 to accused. Ex.P9 is the returned postal cover. Ex.P10 is the statement of account of Tadi

Dhanalakshmi i.e. P.W.1's wife.

6.After completion of complainant evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against him from the oral and documentary evidence of complainant. Accused denied the same and reported defence evidence.

7.Accused did not choose to examine himself but he got filed a petition to issue summons to one Madhavapeddi Ramachandra Prasad @

Ramachandra Rao and the same was allowed. Summons were issued 4 several times to the said witness but they were not served on the witness.

Finally, handover summons were also issued to the accused but he failed to serve summons on the said person. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

Ex.D1 was marked during the cross-examination of P.W.1.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.On careful consideration, the points that arise for consideration are:

1.Whether there is legally enforceable debt between the complainant and accused for issuance of Exs.P3 and

P5-cheques?

2.Whether the complainant is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act?

3.To what order?

POINT NO.1:

Whether there is legally enforceable debt between the complainant and accused for issuance of Exs.P3 and P5- cheques?

10.The case of complainant as can be seen from the evidence of

P.W.1-Tadi Anjaneyulu is that accused borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- from him on 31.5.2013 for family necessities and evidencing the same, executed Exs.P1 and P2-promissory notes for Rs.4,00,000/- each on the same day, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to him or his order on demand. On the same day, accused issued Exs.P3 and P5-postdated cheques dated 8.8.2013 bearing Nos.870923 and 870924 respectively for 5

Rs.4,00,000/- each towards part payment of the amounts due under Exs.P1 and P2-promissory notes. The said cheques were drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Arundelpet Branch, Guntur. Subsequently, P.W.1 received a notice dated 28.7.2013 (got marked as Ex.D1 during cross-examination of

P.W.1) from the counsel of accused by name C.Venkata Ramaiah making omnibus allegations on several of the creditors of the accused.

Immediately, P.W.1 contacted the accused on phone but he stated that the notice was aimed at other creditors who were threatening him and promised that he would honour the postdated cheques issued to P.W.1. On 8.8.2013,

P.W.1 presented the said cheques in his bank i.e. Syndicate Bank but the same were returned by way of Exs.P4 and P6-memos issued by Oriental

Bank of Commerce i.e. accused bank and the same was communicated to him by way of Ex.P7-memo issued by the complainant's bank. On 21.8.2013 P.W.1 got issued a legal notice under original of Ex.P8 demanding him to pay the amounts due under the promissory notes but the same was managed by the accused and got returned under Ex.P9. So, he had to file this complaint.

11.The complainant also examined the scribe of Exs.P1 and P2

T.Subrahmanyam as P.W.2, by issuing summons to him through Court. He also deposed that the accused borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- from P.W.1 on 31.5.2013 under Exs.P1 and P2 and that he scribed the same. He further deposed that one A.Rama Krishna and Nunna Venkata Rao attested Exs.P1 and P2.

12.The case of accused as can be seen from the suggestions put to P.W.1 is that one Madhavapeddi Ramachandra Rao borrowed amount 6 from P.W.1 and in that transaction, blank promissory notes and blank cheques were obtained from accused by P.W.1 towards surety and that there was no debtor and creditor relationship between P.W.1 and accused.

13.The learned counsel for complainant submitted that complainant proved his case by examining P.Ws.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for accused failed to elicit anything from them to discredit their testimony and as such, complainant has discharged his initial burden. The learned counsel further submitted that the presumptions U/Secs.118 and 139 of NI Act have to be drawn in favour of complainant as accused admitted the signatures on Exs.P1 and P2-promissory notes and Exs.P3 and P5-cheques.

14.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that complainant failed to prove that he has got financial capacity to lend

Rs.8,00,000/- to accused and that blank cheques and promissory notes were obtained from accused only towards surety and that there was no existing debt as on the date of obtaining the cheques by P.W.1 and as such, it does not attract the ingredients of Sec.138 of NI Act. Hence, the learned counsel sought to acquit the accused.

15.The case put-forth by the accused makes it clear that he is admitting his signatures on Exs.P1 and P2-promissory notes and Exs.P3 and P5-cheques. So, the presumptions U/Secs.118 and 139 of NI Act can be drawn in favour of complainant. Therefore, it is necessary to see whether accused has been able to elicit anything from P.Ws.1 and 2 or has been able to bring about any circumstances which probablise the contention of accused to rebut the presumptions that have arisen in favour of 7 complainant.

16.The learned counsel for the accused primarily sought to acquit the accused on the ground that complainant failed to prove that he has financial capacity to lend the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as on the date of

Exs.P1 and P2. The learned counsel further submitted that complainant did not choose to file any document to prove the source of income and Ex.P10- statement of account of P.W.1's wife has been filed subsequently only to cover up the lacuna in the case of complainant and as such, Ex.P10 cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.1 himself stated that he is not an income tax assessee and as such, complainant cannot be allowed to recover any amount which was not disclosed in his income tax returns. To substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions reported in:

(1) 2011 CRI.L.J. 552 between

Amzad Pasha vs. H.N.Lakshmana

Wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that complainant has not placed any evidence to show that he had any financial capacity to lend the amount and as no document evidencing the loan transaction has come into existence, it was held that the learned Magistrate was justified in holding that the complainant lend the amount to respondent is highly improbable and not acceptable.

(2) 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 603 (SC) between

K.Subramani vs. K.Damodara Naidu

Wherein the trial Court came to a conclusion that complainant had no 8 source of income to lend Rs.14,00,000/- to accused and also failed to prove that there was a legally recoverable debt payable by accused to complainant on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the conclusion of the trial Court has been arrived at on proper appreciation of material evidence on record.

(3) 2009 CRI.L.J. 3777 between

Sanjay Mishra vs. Ms. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and Another.

Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that Section 138 of

NI Act cannot be resorted for recovery of unaccounted money i.e. the amount not disclosed in the income tax returns and that the alleged debt cannot be said to be a legally recoverable debt.

17.In the present case on hand, P.W.1 deposed that he is a retired judicial employee. The same was not denied by the accused. During the course of further cross-examination on 24.10.2014, P.W.1 deposed that there is documentary proof to show that he is having cash of Rs.8,00,000/- on 31.5.2013 i.e. by the date of Exs.P1 and P2. To prove that P.W.1 has got the capacity to lend the amount to accused, he got filed Ex.P10-statement of account of his wife on 12.11.2014 itself along with the petition. The said statement of account has been marked at a later stage by recalling P.W.1.

So, the contention of the learned counsel for accused that the statement of account was filed at later stage as an after thought is not acceptable.

18.P.W.1 categorically deposed in his further chief-examination that he deposited the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- received from his retirement benefits in the name of his wife in fixed deposit and thereafter, his wife 9 withdrew the said amount and gave it to him. P.W.1 further deposed that he added the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- available in his house and lent Rs.8,00,000/- to accused under Exs.P1 and P2-promissory notes.

During cross-examination of P.W.1 also he deposed that the fixed deposit in the name of his wife for Rs.6,00,000/- was matured on 19.5.2013 but he did not renew the same as accused asked him to lend the amount. He also stated that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- added to his retirement benefits was the amount received by him towards lease from his agricultural lands.

19.It was not denied by accused that P.W.1 is a retired judicial employee. Ex.P10-account copy reveals that Rs.6,63,934/- was credited to the account of P.W.1's wife by transfer on 21.5.2013 and the said amount has been withdrawn from her account at Rs.1,00,000/- per each day till 30.6.2013. It is pertinent to note that it was never suggested to P.W.1 that he never received the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards retirement benefits or that he does not have any agricultural lands or that he never received

Rs.2,00,000/- towards lease from his lands. It is also pertinent to note that it was only suggested to P.W.1 that accused and his wife are employees and that they have no necessity to borrow any amounts from P.W.1. But it was never suggested to P.W.1 that he has no capacity to lend any amount to accused. Hence, it can be said that complainant has proved his source and financial capacity to lend amount to the accused. Therefore, with due respect, this Court finds that the decisions 1 and 2 cited supra are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

20.Regarding the arguments put-forth by the learned counsel for accused relating to income tax returns, the learned counsel for complainant 10 submitted that complainant is a retired judicial employee and the retirement benefits are exempted from tax and even in the event of any amount being taxable, the same will be deducted at source itself, by the concerned authorities. The learned counsel further submitted that the agricultural income is also exempted from tax and as such, the question of the amount lent by complainant being unaccounted does not arise. It is pertinent to note that it was never contended by the accused that the complainant is not a retired judicial employee. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for complainant, agricultural income is exempted from tax and even if any part of the retirement benefits are taxable, the same will be deducted by the concerned authorities i.e. the Drawing and Disbursing Officer or the Sub-

Treasury Officer. So, the question of the amount being unaccounted does not arise. Hence, with due respect, this Court finds that the decision No.3 cited supra relied upon by the learned counsel for accused is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

21.The learned counsel for accused also argued that one

Madhavapeddi Ramachandra Rao borrowed amount from P.W.1 and on demand of P.W.1, accused had to issue blank cheques and promissory notes to P.W.1 towards security for the amount borrowed by the said

Ramachandra Rao and as such, there was no legally enforceable debt on the date of issuance of the cheque and as such, the provisions U/Sec.138 of

NI Act are not attracted. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in:

2006 (1) ALD (Crl.) 300 (AP) between Laxminivas Agarwal vs. Andhra Semi Conductors Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and others.

In the said case, the complainant deposited Rs.3,00,000/- on 17.9.1998 by way of two separate cheques dated 17.9.1998 one for Rs.1,10,000/- and the other for Rs.1,90,000/- and again on 15.4.1999 another sum of

Rs.1,30,000/- was deposited by way of a cheque to supply the BEL

Components and cheques were issued by accused towards security in case of failure to supply the BEL Components. In such circumstances, it was held by our Hon'ble High Court that there was no existing liability or debt incurred/borrowed by the accused from the complainant by the date on which accused issued cheques and those cheques were issued as security for future contingent liability that may be incurred in the event of failure to supply the BEL Components and as such, it cannot be construed that the accused issued the cheques voluntarily for discharge of any debt or legal liability and therefore, the provisions U/Sec.138 of NI Act are not attracted.

22.In the present case, P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that accused borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- under Exs.P1 and P2-promissory notes in their presence. P.W.1 also denied the suggestion that one Madhavapeddi

Ramachandra Rao borrowed amount from him and that he received blank cheques and promissory notes from accused towards surety. He also stated that Exs.P3 and P5-cheques were handed over to him on the date of

Exs.P1 and P2 and that the cheques were filled by P.W.2. During the cross- examination of P.W.2 also he specifically stated that he had acquaintance with the accused since 5 years as they used to visit the shop namely Sai

Santhoshi Plastics of his friend Kollipara Satya Sai which is at a distance of 20 yards to his house. He also specifically deposed that the accused, Anna

Ramakrishna i.e. the 2nd attestor, one friend of accused and himself went to 12 the house of P.W.1 on the date of transaction and P.W.1 brought the cash bag and handed over the same to accused and accused counted the same, handed over the promissory notes to him and asked him to fill up the same.

He specifically stated that he filled Exs.P1 and P2 as per the instructions of accused and that he scribed two promissory notes at the instance of accused himself. He also deposed that he handed over Exs.P1 and P2 after scribing the same and accused put his signatures on Exs.P1 and P2 and obtained the signatures of attestors and later asked him to put the signature as scribe. He further stated in his cross-examination that on the same day accused handed over his cheque book to him and asked him to fill up two cheques by putting post dates i.e. 8.8.2013 and amount as

Rs.4,00,000/- in each cheque. He also stated that he handed over the cheques to accused after filling up the same and the accused signed on them and handed over to P.W.1. Except giving suggestion to P.W.2 denying the said evidence, nothing has been elicited from P.W.2 to discard his evidence. Hence, it can be said that complainant has proved the existence of liability by the time of issuing the cheques and that the learned counsel

for accused failed to bring about any circumstances from the cross-

examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 to probablise the version put-forth by the accused.

23.It may not be out of place to mention that accused filed a

Crl.M.P.1185/2015 seeking to issue summons to one Madhavapeddi

Ramachandra Prasad @ Ramachandra Rao to prove the contention of accused that blank cheques and promissory notes were obtained from him when the said Ramachandra Rao borrowed amount from P.W.1. The said petition was allowed and summons were issued several times but they were 13 not served on the said witness. Subsequently, handover summons were ordered by this Court and accused was directed to serve the summons on the said witness. However, accused failed to serve summons and produce the witness before this Court inspite of several opportunities. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to probablise the version of accused that he gave the blank cheques and promissory notes to P.W.1 when

Madhavapeddi Ramachandra Rao borrowed amount from P.W.1 or even to show that the said Madhavapeddi Ramachandra Rao borrowed amount from P.W.1.

24.In view of the above circumstances and evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, this court finds that there was a legally enforceable debt under Exs.P1 and P2 by the date of issuance of Exs.P3 and P5-cheques to complainant on 31.5.2013. Hence, with due respect, this Court finds that the above cited decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

25.The learned counsel for accused also argued that accused issued Ex.D1-notice dated 28.7.2013 to complainant requesting him and other creditors of accused to return all the blank stamp papers, printed promissory notes and cheques etc., within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and that itself is sufficient to prove that P.W.1 obtained blank cheques and promissory notes from accused. Ex.D1-legal notice was got marked on admission by P.W.1 during his cross-examination. Ex.D1 reveals that P.W.1 is the 13th person to whom the above said notice has been issued and that it is a general notice issued to P.W.1 and also several other creditors of accused stating that some selfish people made the accused to 14 stand as surety for the amounts borrowed by them and since they committed default, accused was forced to borrow amounts on higher interest and he became scapegoat and in that process, accused was indebted to P.W.1 and several others. It was also further stated that accused intended to discharge the debts to his creditors by selling his properties and also requesting them to return the blank instruments available with him containing the signatures.

26.As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for complainant, the above said notice was issued in general to all the creditors and it does not specify the names of the persons to whom accused stood as surety and because of whose default, he had to pay the amounts to creditors. More over, it does not help the accused in any manner to rebut the presumptions that have arisen in favour of complainant. Hence, Ex.D1 is not of much help to the accused.

27.Summing up the above discussion, this Court finds that Exs.P3 and P5-cheques have been issued by accused towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt due under Exs.P1 and P2. Hence, this point is answered in favour of complainant.

POINT NO.2:

Whether the complainant is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act?

28.While answering point No.1, it was held that Exs.P3 and P5- cheques have been issued by accused to complainant towards discharge of 15 the debt due under Exs.P1 and P2-promissory notes. The learned counsel

for accused argued that Ex.P8-statutory notice was not served on the

accused as required U/Sec.138(b)& (c) of NI Act as the notice was returned with the endorsement “addressee left without instructions”. The learned counsel for complainant submitted that the legal notice has been sent to the correct address of the accused and accused himself managed to return the same and as such, it has to be deemed that the notice has been served on the accused.

29.Ex.P9 has been sent to the accused with the following address:

R/o. Door No: 3-10-20, 3rd Lane, Old Pattabhipuram,

Flat No:301, Surya Towers,

Guntur.

The said notice was returned on 22.8.2013 with the endorsement “addressee left without instructions”. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for complainant it is pertinent to note that in Ex.D1-legal notice sent by accused through his counsel to P.W.1 on 28.7.2013, the address of the accused was mentioned as Flat No.301, Surya Towers, 3rd Line,

Pattabhipuram, Guntur i.e. the same address to which Ex.P9-notice has been sent. It is also pertinent to mention that it was not suggested to P.W.1 that the address mentioned in Ex.P9 is incorrect. So, since the legal notice sent to the correct address of the accused, it is deemed to have been served on the accused. So, the contention of the learned counsel for accused is not tenable. Hence, this Court finds that the complainant has able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour 16 of complainant.

POINT NO.3:

To what order?

30.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act and he is convicted U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 5th day of October, 2016.

Sd/- Smt. M.Meena Devi

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

In regard to the quantum of sentence:

31.When the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he stated that he is an employee and that his parents are also depending on him for their livelihood and requested to take a lenient view in sentencing him. In view of the nature of offence proved against the accused, it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act.

32.Accordingly, the accused is convicted U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act.

33.Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (1) month.

34.The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal before 17

Hon’ble Sessions Court against this judgment and he is also informed about

his right to get free legal aid from District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, if he has no means.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 5th day of October, 2016.

Sd/- Smt. M.Meena Devi

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Complainant:For Defence:

P.W.1: Tadi Anjaneyulu.None. P.W.2: T.Subrahmanyam.

Documents Marked

For Complainant:

Ex.P1/31.5.2013 : Promissory note for Rs.4,00,000/-. Ex.P2/31.5.2013 : Promissory note for Rs.4,00,000/-. Ex.P3/8.8.2013: Cheque bearing No.870293 for Rs.4,00,000/-. Ex.P4/12.8.2013 : Cheque return memo issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce. Ex.P5/8.8.2013: Cheque bearing No.870294 for Rs.4,00,000/-. Ex.P6/12.8.2013 : Cheque return memo issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce. Ex.P7/13.8.2013 : Memo issued by Syndicate Bank. Ex.P8/21.8.2013 : Office copy of legal notice issued by complainant to accused. Ex.P9/-- : Returned postal cover. Ex.P10/-- : Statement of account of Tadi Dhanalakshmi i.e. P.W.1's wife. For Defence: Ex.D1/28.7.2013 : Office copy of legal notice.

Sd/- Smt. M.Meena Devi

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

// True Copy //

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE , GUNTUR.

C.C.4 of 2015.

Date of

Comme Appre-Released Closure of Sentence or OffenceFilingncement hensionon bailthe trial Order. of trial 06-9-1305-10-13–--08-10-1417-11-1505-10-16

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY: Initially, complaint was taken on file in the Court of V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and numbered as C.C.191/2014. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C on 14.08.2014. On 10.09.2014, accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C and he denied the accusation made against him and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 8.10.2014 P.W.1 was examined in- chief and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On 24.10.2014 P.W.1 was cross-examined and Ex.D1 was marked. Subsequently, Crl.M.P.5461/2014 was filed to issue handover summons to scribe to give evidence and the said petition was allowed and on 24.2.2015 P.W.2 was examined in-chief. On 25.2.2015 P.W.2 was cross- examined and reported no further evidence on complainant side and complainant side further evidence was closed. On 2.3.2015 accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating evidence found in the complainant side evidence and reported defence evidence. Crl.M.P.1185/2014 was filed to issue summons to Madhavapeddi Ramachandra Prasad and the said petition was allowed. Subsequently, this case was transferred to this Court as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No.2949, dt.13.05.2015 and renumbered as C.C.4/2015. Since the summons not served on the witness inspite of several adjournments, the defence evidence was closed on 17.11.2015. Subsequently, this case was transferred to the Court of Spl. Mobile Magistrate, Guntur on the point of jurisdiction but the case was again transferred to this Court in view of the orders of the Hon'ble District Judge, Guntur. On 8.1.2016 heard the complainant counsel. In the meanwhile, Crl.M.P.107/16, 108/16, 109/16 were filed to recall P.W.1 and to mark the documents through P.W.1 and the said petitions were allowed and on 2.9.2016 further chief-examination of P.W.1 was filed and Ex.P10 was marked and on 9.9.2016 P.W.1 was further cross-examined. On 28.9.2016 heard both counsels. On 30.9.2016 heard reply arguments. On 05.10.2016 judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Name of the Complainant: Tadi Anjaneyulu, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Aged 66 yrs., R/o. 3rd Line, Old Pattabhipuram, Surya Towers, Flat No.402, Guntur.

Name of the father’s age Religion calling Village.

accused name Gollapudi Madhu, S/o. Rama Rao, Hindu, Aged 55 yrs., R/o. Door No: 3-10-20, 3rd Lane, Old Pattabhipuram, Flat No.301, Surya Towers, Guntur.

Offence: Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (Dishonour of cheuqe issued to discharge legally enforceable debt) Finding : Guilty. Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is convicted U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. He is sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months 19 // 2 // and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month. The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal before Hon’ble

Sessions Court against this judgment and he is also informed about his right to get

free legal aid from District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, if he has no means.

Sd/- Smt. M.Meena Devi

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon'ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur.

// True Copy //

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

OS/439/2015

State Bank of India, vs Kamma Venkateswara Rao

30 Sep 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. M. Meena Devi, B.Sc., M.L., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Friday, the 30th day of SEPTEMBER, 2016

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 439 OF 2015

Between: State Bank of India, Chuttugunta Branch, Guntur, Rep. by its Manager.… Plaintiff.

- And -

1. Kamma Venkateswara Rao.

2. M/s. Raghavendra Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director.… Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 29.09.2016 in the presence of Sri G.Jagadeesa Chandra Babu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri M.Gangaiah, Advocate for the 2nd Defendant and the 1st Defendant having remained exparte and after perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,34,534/- from 1st defendant due to the plaintiff bank under a loan transaction with interest at 15.25% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization with monthly rests and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are that:- 1st defendant is the borrower and 2nd defendant is the Cold

Storage represented by Managing Director under the name and style of

M/s.Raghavendra Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., situated at Door No.21/A, 2

Nallapadu Road, Ankireddypalem, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District.

1st defendant had stocked 132 bags of red chillies at 2nd defendant and 2nd defendant issued cold storage receipts bearing Nos.2017 for 78 bags; 2018 for 28 bags; 2019 for 26 bags dated 21.3.2011. 1st defendant obtained agricultural demand loan from plaintiff bank under A/c bearing No.31703486490 for Rs.2,60,000/-, agreeing to repay the same jointly and severally to the plaintiff bank on demand or order or whenever demand for value received with interest from 8.4.2011 @ 5% p.a., above/below SBAR with a minimum of 8.5% p.a., at monthly rests till the date of realization by depositing the afore-mentioned bonds issued by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant. On 8.4.2011, 1st defendant executed demand promissory note for Rs.2,60,000/-, application-cum-appraisal for loans against warehouse receipts, terms and conditions acceptance letter, warehouse/cold storage receipts, undertaking-cum-take delivery letter in favour of plaintiff bank. Notice of the bank's lien on specified goods addressed to 2nd defendant by the plaintiff bank acknowledging that the plaintiff bank has received the original bank's charge on the goods recorded in their books, submission of credit information to CIBIL issued by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank, warehouse receipts, demand loan control card furnished by the 1st defendant, certificate of extension of storage bond period for the stock covered under the above said receipts, tripartite agreement executed by and between 2nd defendant, 1st defendant and plaintiff bank as first, second and third parties, personal assets and liabilities statement and xerox copy of the pattadar passbook, etc. were furnished by 1st defendant.

It is recited in the Tripartite Agreement dated 8.4.2011 that 2nd 3 defendant agrees with the bank that in the event of default of repayment by the borrower, plaintiff bank shall be entitled to demand upon the 2nd defendant to deliver the custody of the produce covered under the aforesaid warehouse receipts with full rights to sell them as pledge for realization of the loan granted by the plaintiff bank to the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant undertakes to comply with the demand so made by the plaintiff bank forthwith without claiming any rights.

The 1st defendant paid Rs.46,000/- on 27.7.2012; Rs.20,000/- on 6.8.2012; Rs.13,000/- on 19.10.2012 and payment of Rs.13,000/- by way of deposit transfer dated 19.10.2012. Subsequently, 1st defendant committed default in payment of agricultural demand loan amount due to the plaintiff bank inspite of repeated demands made by the bank. Thereafter, plaintiff bank issued notices to the defendants on 17.09.2012 calling upon them to pay the debt but there was no response from the defendants. Since the defendants did not respond to the notice, plaintiff bank got auctioned the property kept by the 1st defendant with 2nd defendant through an auctioneer and the amount got in the said auction was credited to the loan amount i.e.

Rs.1,09,347/- dated 5.1.2013 and Rs.1,588/- dated 28.3.2013 as single sided repayments were made. Thereafter, the plaintiff bank got issued a registered legal notice on 1.7.2013 to both the defendants, demanding them to pay the balance amount of Rs.97,830/- as on 29.6.2013 and including rent (to the 2nd defendant) and commission to the recovery agent within 10 days from the date of receipt of notice. 1st defendant received the notice on 22.7.2013 and kept quiet. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.1,34,534/- as on 30.4.2014 with interest thereon.

Hence, the suit.

3.1st defendant remained exparte.

4.2nd defendant company filed its written statement, denying the averments of the plaint while admitting that the 2nd defendant issued receipts to farmers who kept stock in the cold storage as acknowledgment and that 1st defendant availed loan facility from the plaintiff bank, agreeing to repay the same in 12 months.

It was contended by the 2nd defendant company that the plaintiff bank unilaterally asserts “agreeing to repay the same jointly and severally to the plaintiff bank on demand”. The liabilities and responsibilities of 1st defendant are different from that of 2nd defendant, to the plaintiff bank. The liability of this defendant starts when he failed his responsibility in keeping the goods in good condition. It was also contended that it learnt that the 1st defendant paid the suit amount to plaintiff bank subsequent to filing of this suit. Hence, the 2nd defendant company sought to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

2.Whether the 2nd defendant is also liable to pay the loan to the plaintiff bank?

3.To what relief?

6.On behalf of the Plaintiff Bank, its Branch Manager of the bank was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked.

7.Memo was filed on behalf of 2nd defendant stating that there 5 was no evidence on its side and that there is no necessity to adduce evidence on behalf of this defendant since as per the agreement, this defendant handed over the goods to the plaintiff in good condition and nothing remained to be done by this defendant and any liability to discharge of loan is on 1st defendant.

8.Heard both sides.

ISSUES 1 AND 2:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

2.Whether the 2nd defendant is also liable to pay the loan to the plaintiff bank?

9.P.W.1-Kandyala Pullaiah, Branch Manager of plaintiff bank who deposed as per Exs.A1 and A2-authorization letters, has reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief-examination which reveals that 1st defendant obtained loan from the plaintiff bank by pledging the storage bonds issued by 2nd defendant and thereafter, committed default in paying the installments to the plaintiff bank and as such, plaintiff bank had to file this suit against defendants 1 and 2.

10.1st defendant remained exparte. 2nd defendant company filed its written statement and cross-examined P.W.1. The 2nd defendant company did not enter into the witness box but filed a memo stating that there is no evidence as the documents filed by the plaintiff bank itself proves the contention of 2nd defendant.

11.The learned counsel for 2nd defendant argued that none of the 6 documents filed by plaintiff bank prove that 2nd defendant is also jointly and severally liable to discharge the suit amount to the plaintiff bank and that the bank has to proceed only against the 1st defendant to recover its amount but cannot proceed against the 2nd defendant as the duty of 2nd defendant company is only to handover the stock stored in its company in a good condition to the plaintiff bank whenever demanded by them and except that the 2nd defendant does not have any other liability i.e. to discharge the amount in case of default by the 1st defendant. Hence, the learned counsel for defendant sought to dismiss the suit against 2nd defendant. In reply to the said arguments, the learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that as per

Ex.A11-tripartite agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants, the 2nd defendant is also jointly liable with the 1st defendant to discharge the suit amount.

12.In view of the arguments put-forth by both the counsels, this

Court finds it is necessary to carefully look into the documents got filed on behalf of plaintiff bank. Ex.A3 is the application-cum-appraisal for loans against warehouse receipts signed by the 1st defendant for sanction of loan to 1st defendant basing on the warehouse receipts issued by 2nd defendant.

Ex.A4 is the arrangement letter issued by plaintiff bank sanctioning the loan to 1st defendant. Ex.A5 is the warehouse/cold storage receipts undertaking- cum-delivery letter by 1st defendant to plaintiff bank pledging the warehouse receipts/bonds issued by 2nd defendant and undertaking not to obtain delivery of the said goods until the loan has been repaid. Ex.A6 is the letter by plaintiff bank to 2nd defendant cold storage company regarding the notice of bank's lien on the goods of 1st defendant pledged with the bank. Ex.A7 is the consent letter by 1st defendant to the plaintiff bank for disclosure of the 7 loan advanced to him to CIBIL by the plaintiff bank. Ex.A8 is the warehouse receipts demand loan control card signed by the 1st defendant. Ex.A9 is the certificate issued by 2nd defendant company to plaintiff bank for extension of storage period for the stock covered under the receipts. Ex.A12 is the personal assets and liabilities statement of 1st defendant. All the said documents reveal that the 2nd defendant cold storage company never applied for loan to the plaintiff bank along with the 1st defendant and never signed on any of the above said documents accepting any liability to discharge the debt in the event of default of 1st defendant.

13.During cross-examination of P.W.1, he admitted that plaintiff bank did not obtain any documents from 2nd defendant company regarding the properties of the company towards security for the present loan transaction. However, he added that 2nd defendant signed on Ex.A10 demand promissory note and take delivery letter. However, perusal of

Ex.A10 reveals that the demand promissory note was executed by 1st defendant only and no demand promissory note has been executed by 2nd defendant company. More over, the demand promissory note clearly reveals that it was executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant and the D.P. Note take delivery letter beneath the promissory note reveals that the demand promissory note executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant was endorsed to plaintiff bank. So, there is no demand promissory note executed by 2nd defendant in favour of plaintiff bank.

14.Ex.A11 is the tripartite agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants i.e. the document which was mainly relied upon by the plaintiff counsel. At this juncture it is necessary to extract the terms and 8 conditions entered into between the parties:

1.The Firm states that the Borrower has stored the produce in the Go down and that the Warehouse Receipt

No/s _________ dated ________ truly represents the produce of the Borrower stored in the Go down.

2.The Firm understands that the Bank is extending the produce loan of Rs. _________ to the Borrower on the strength of the Warehouse Receipt issued by them and agrees that they will not part with of deliver the produce except after receipt of the written authorization of the Bank.

The Firm further agrees not to deal with the produce in any manner without referenced the Bank.

3.This Firm agrees with the bank that in the event of default of repayment by the Borrower, the Bank shall be entitled to demand upon the Firm to deliver custody of the produce covered under the aforesaid Ware House Receipt/s with full rights to sell them as pledge for realization of the loan granted by the Bank to the Borrower and the Firm undertakes to comply with the demand so made by the

Bank forthwith without claiming any rights.

4.The Firm agrees to indemnify the Bank as against any loss, damage or injury caused to the produce stored by the

Borrower in the go down. In the event of any such loss, damage or injury being caused to the produce of the

Borrower, the Firm shall forthwith pay the value of the produce to the Bank.

5.The Borrower agrees that the Bank need not necessarily exercise its right for realization from the produce alone and that the Borrower is responsible to repay the loan on a demand being made by the Bank.

6.The Bank agrees that in the event of payment of all the dues to the Bank by the Borrower, the Warehouse Receipts aforesaid will be discharged and returned to the Borrower and the Firm informed of the withdrawal of Bank's rights over the produce.

7.The Firm and the Borrower agree that this Agreement is in addition to the other documents executed or to be executed 9 in favour of the Bank.

15.As per the above terms and conditions, it is clear that the 2nd defendant company agreed not to deal with the produce except after receipt of written authorization from the bank and not to deal with the produce in any manner without reference from the bank. As per the third term in the said agreement, it was clearly laid down that in the event of default of repayment by the borrower i.e. 1st defendant, the bank shall be entitled to demand the firm to deliver custody of the produce to sell them for realization of the loan and the firm has to comply with the demand forthwith without claiming any rights. The firm also agreed to indemnify the bank against any loss, damage or injury caused to the produce in the go-down and in the event of any such loss, the firm has to forthwith pay the value of the produce to the bank. In the present case, it is not the contention of plaintiff bank that any loss, damage or injury has been caused to the produce stored by the 1st defendant in the 2nd defendant go-down. So, the said term does not apply in the present case. In the 5th condition, it was clearly contemplated that the borrower agreed that the bank need not exercise its right for realization from the produce alone and that the borrower is responsible to repay the loan on demand by the bank. It is pertinent to note that no mention was made about the liability of the 2nd defendant to repay the loan but it was specifically mentioned about the borrower i.e. the 1st defendant. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for 2nd defendant, the above said terms and conditions make it very much clear that there is no liability upon the 2nd defendant company to discharge the loan to plaintiff bank in the event of default of payment by 1st defendant, except to handover the produce stored in the go-down on demand by the plaintiff bank. At this juncture, it is 10 pertinent to note that P.W.1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the 2nd defendant company handed over the stock to the plaintiff bank and the bank auctioned the stock and realized the amount. It was also deposed by P.W.1 that plaintiff bank did not make any complaint to 2nd defendant company regarding the quality of stock at the time of handing over the stock to the bank. Hence, the argument put-forth by the learned plaintiff counsel in this regard is unacceptable.

16.It is also pertinent to mention that even as per Ex.A14-legal notice issued by plaintiff bank to the defendants, it was specifically mentioned at Para 3 that 1st defendant executed demand promissory note for obtaining the loan. It was never mentioned that 2nd defendant also executed demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff bank. Similarly, in the last paragraph, it was clearly mentioned that the 1st defendant is called upon to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and that 1st defendant will be held responsible for the consequences and costs thereon. It is pertinent to note that though the notice was issued to both the defendants, it was no where mentioned that the 2nd defendant is also liable to pay the due amount.

17.In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court finds that plaintiff bank has been able to prove that the 1st defendant obtained loan from the bank but failed to repay the same. The suit was also filed against the 2nd defendant also. However, in view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court finds that the 2nd defendant is not liable to discharge the suit amount to plaintiff bank. Hence, this Court finds that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the 1st defendant 11 only but not from the 2nd defendant. Hence, issues 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

18.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff bank against 1st defendant for the suit amount of Rs.1,34,534/- with subsequent interest @ 15.25% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the amount of Rs.1,34,534/-. The suit claim against 2nd defendant is hereby dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30th day of September, 2016.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1: Kandyala Pullaiah.

For 1st Defendant : Exparte.

For 2nd Defendant : Memo filed stating no evidence.

Documents Marked For Plaintiff: Ex.A1/-- : Authorization letter dated 13.1.2014. Ex.A2/-- : Authorization letter dated 24.3.2014. Ex.A3/-- : Application cum appraisal for loans against warehouse receipts dated 8.4.2011. Ex.A4/-- : Arrangement letter dated 8.4.2011. Ex.A5/-- : Warehouse/cold storage receipts undertaking cum take delivery letter dated 8.4.2011. Ex.A6/-- : Notice of the bank's lien on specified goods dated 8.4.2011. Ex.A7/-- : Consent letter by the 1st defendant for disclosure by the plaintiff for submission of credit information to CIBIL. Ex.A8/-- : Warehouse receipts demand loan control card. Ex.A9/-- : Certificate of extension of storage period for the stock covered under receipts dated 8.4.2011. Ex.A10/-- : Demand promissory note executed by 1st defendant in 12 favour of plaintiff bank dated 8.4.2011. Ex.A11/-- : Tripartite agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants dated 8.4.2011. Ex.A12/-- : Personal assets and liabilities statement of 1st defendant

dated 8.4.2011.

Ex.A13/-- : Notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the 1st defendant

dated 19.9.2012.

Ex.A14/-- : Office copy of the legal notice got issued by plaintiff to defendants dated 1.7.2013. Ex.A15/-- : Postal acknowledgment of 1st defendant dated 22.7.2013. Ex.A16/-- : Statement of account dated 30.4.2014.

For 1st Defendant : - Nil -.

For 2nd Defendant : - Nil -.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. M. Meena Devi, B.Sc., M.L., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Friday, the 30th day of SEPTEMBER, 2016

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 439 OF 2015

Between: State Bank of India, Chuttugunta Branch, Guntur, Rep. by its Branch Manager, L.Vidya Sagar, S/o. L.Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged about 52 yrs., R/o. Guntur, Guntur JCJC.… Plaintiff.

- And -

1. Kamma Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Hindu, Aged about 33 yrs., R/o. Popuru Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

2. M/s. Raghavendra Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Company (Managing Director), Door No.21/A, Nallapadu Road, Ankireddypalem Village-522 005, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, Guntur JCJC.… Defendants.

This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,34,534/- from 1st defendant due to the plaintiff bank under a loan transaction with interest at 15.25% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization with monthly rests and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 31-05-2014 Plaint filed on : 04-08-2015

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendants approached the plaintiff bank for the purpose of agricultural demand loan to the 1st defendant and on 08.4.2011 for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- and when the defendants executed all necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank to avail the loan; the 1st defendant got mentioned on the application cum appraisal for loans against warehouse receipts proposed to pay the above loan before 7.4.2012; on 17.9.2012 when the plaintiff bank issued notice to the defendants; when the defendants failed to pay the debt; and when the plaintiff bank got auctioned the goods and credited the sale proceeds to the debt; and when the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice through its counsel

dated 1.7.2013 to both the defendants and when the defendants failed to

pay the outstanding amount of Rs.1,34,534/- due to the plaintiff bank as on 30.4.2014 and at Guntur City, Mandal and District where the plaintiff bank situated and all the transactions have taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court.

// 2 // Particulars of Valuation:- The amount due by the 1st defendant as per the account copy as on 30.4.2014: Rs. 1,34,534-00.

On which, a Court fee of Rs.5,776/- is paid U/Sec.20 of APCF & SV Act.

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.1,34,534/-.

1) that the 1st defendant do pay to the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs.1,34,534/- with subsequent interest @ 15.25% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the amount of Rs.1,34,534/-;

2) that the suit claim against 2nd defendant is hereby dismissed;

3) that the 1st defendant do also pay to the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs.5,778/- (CM & FC not filed) towards institutional costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil/- (Exparte).

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 30th day of September, 2016.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For D1: For D2: Rs. Rs.Rs.

Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 Exparte -- Plaint Fees 5,776-00 -- -- Petition Stamp -- -- -- Process Fee -- -- -- Advocate Fees CM & FC not filed --CM & FC not filed Writing Charges -- -- -- Type Charges -- -- --

----------------------- --------

Total : 5,778-00 - Nil - - Nil -

----------------------- --------

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

OS/442/2015

State Bank of India vs Kanda Srinivasa Rao and another

30 Sep 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. M. Meena Devi, B.Sc., M.L., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Friday, the 30th day of SEPTEMBER, 2016

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 442 OF 2015

Between: State Bank of India, Chuttugunta Branch, Guntur, Rep. by its Manager.… Plaintiff.

- And -

1. Kanda Srinivasa Rao.

2. M/s. Raghavendra Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director.… Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 28.09.2016 in the presence of Sri G.Jagadeesa Chandra Babu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri M.Gangaiah, Advocate for the 2nd Defendant and the 1st Defendant having remained exparte and after perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,80,526/- from 1st defendant due to the plaintiff bank under a loan transaction with interest at 15.25% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization with monthly rests and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are that:- 1st defendant is the borrower and 2nd defendant is the Cold

Storage represented by Managing Director under the name and style of

M/s.Raghavendra Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., situated at Door No.21/A, 2

Nallapadu Road, Ankireddypalem, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District.

1st defendant had stocked 140 bags of red chillies at 2nd defendant and 2nd defendant issued cold storage receipts bearing Nos.2534 for 41 bags; 2743 for 99 bags dated 3.5.2011. 1st defendant obtained agricultural demand loan from plaintiff bank under A/c bearing

No.31732567126 for Rs.2,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same jointly and severally to the plaintiff bank on demand or order or whenever demand for value received with interest from 3.5.2011 @ 5% p.a., above/below SBAR with a minimum of 8.5% p.a., at monthly rests till the date of realization by depositing the afore-mentioned bonds issued by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant. On 3.5.2011, 1st defendant executed demand promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/-, application-cum-appraisal for loans against warehouse receipts, terms and conditions acceptance letter, warehouse/cold storage receipts, undertaking-cum-take delivery letter in favour of plaintiff bank. Notice of the bank's lien on specified goods addressed to 2nd defendant by the plaintiff bank acknowledging that the plaintiff bank has received the original bank's charge on the goods recorded in their books, submission of credit information to CIBIL issued by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank, warehouse receipts, demand loan control card furnished by the 1st defendant, certificate of extension of storage bond period for the stock covered under the above said receipts, tripartite agreement executed by and between 2nd defendant, 1st defendant and plaintiff bank as first, second and third parties, personal assets and liabilities statement and xerox copy of the pattadar passbook, etc. were furnished by 1st defendant.

It is recited in the Tripartite Agreement dated 3.5.2011 that 2nd 3 defendant agrees with the bank that in the event of default of repayment by the borrower, plaintiff bank shall be entitled to demand upon the 2nd defendant to deliver the custody of the produce covered under the aforesaid warehouse receipts with full rights to sell them as pledge for realization of the loan granted by the plaintiff bank to the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant undertakes to comply with the demand so made by the plaintiff bank forthwith without claiming any rights.

The 1st defendant paid part payment of Rs.88,000/- on 21.1.2012. Subsequently, 1st defendant committed default in payment of agricultural demand loan amount due to the plaintiff bank inspite of repeated demands made by the bank. Thereafter, plaintiff bank issued notices to the defendants on 1.10.2012 calling upon them to pay the debt but there was no response from the defendants. Since the defendants did not respond to the notice, plaintiff bank got auctioned the property kept by the 1st defendant with 2nd defendant through an auctioneer and the amount got in the said auction was credited to the loan amount i.e. Rs.1,00,264/- dated 5.1.2013 and Rs.3,516/- dated 18.2.2013 and Rs.555/- on 20.3.2013 as single sided repayments were made. Thereafter, the plaintiff bank got issued a registered legal notice on 1.7.2013 to both the defendants, demanding them to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,40,161/- as on 29.6.2013 and including rent (to the 2nd defendant) and commission to the recovery agent within 10 days from the date of receipt of notice. 1st defendant received the notice and kept quiet. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.1,80,526/- as on 30.4.2014 with interest thereon. Hence, the suit.

3.1st defendant remained exparte.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

2.Whether the 2nd defendant is also liable to pay the loan to the plaintiff bank?

3.To what relief?

6.On behalf of the Plaintiff Bank, its Branch Manager of the bank was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked.

7.Memo was filed on behalf of 2nd defendant stating that there was no evidence on its side and that there is no necessity to adduce evidence on behalf of this defendant since as per the agreement, this 5 defendant handed over the goods to the plaintiff in good condition and nothing remained to be done by this defendant and any liability to discharge of loan is on 1st defendant.

8.Heard both sides.

ISSUES 1 AND 2:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

2.Whether the 2nd defendant is also liable to pay the loan to the plaintiff bank?

11.The learned counsel for 2nd defendant argued that none of the documents filed by plaintiff bank prove that 2nd defendant is also jointly and severally liable to discharge the suit amount to the plaintiff bank and that the 6 bank has to proceed only against the 1st defendant to recover its amount but cannot proceed against the 2nd defendant as the duty of 2nd defendant company is only to handover the stock stored in its company in a good condition to the plaintiff bank whenever demanded by them and except that the 2nd defendant does not have any other liability i.e. to discharge the amount in case of default by the 1st defendant. Hence, the learned counsel for defendant sought to dismiss the suit against 2nd defendant. In reply to the said arguments, the learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that as per

Ex.A11-tripartite agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants, the 2nd defendant is also jointly liable with the 1st defendant to discharge the suit amount.

12.In view of the arguments put-forth by both the counsels, this

Ex.A4 is the arrangement letter issued by plaintiff bank sanctioning the loan to 1st defendant. Ex.A5 is the warehouse/cold storage receipts undertaking- cum-delivery letter by 1st defendant to plaintiff bank pledging the warehouse receipts/bonds issued by 2nd defendant and undertaking not to obtain delivery of the said goods until the loan has been repaid. Ex.A6 is the letter by plaintiff bank to 2nd defendant cold storage company regarding the notice of bank's lien on the goods of 1st defendant pledged with the bank. Ex.A7 is the consent letter by 1st defendant to the plaintiff bank for disclosure of the loan advanced to him to CIBIL by the plaintiff bank. Ex.A8 is the warehouse receipts demand loan control card signed by the 1st defendant. Ex.A9 is the 7 certificate issued by 2nd defendant company to plaintiff bank for extension of storage period for the stock covered under the receipts. Ex.A12 is the personal assets and liabilities statement of 1st defendant. All the said documents reveal that the 2nd defendant cold storage company never applied for loan to the plaintiff bank along with the 1st defendant and never signed on any of the above said documents accepting any liability to discharge the debt in the event of default of 1st defendant.

1.The Firm states that the Borrower has stored the produce in the Godown and that the Warehouse Receipt 8

No/s _________ dated ________ truly represents the produce of the Borrower stored in the Go down.

The Firm further agrees not to deal with the produce in any manner without referenced the Bank.

Bank forthwith without claiming any rights.

4.The Firm agrees to indemnify the Bank as against any loss, damage or injury caused to the produce stored by the

Borrower in the go down. In the event of any such loss, damage or injury being caused to the produce of the

Borrower, the Firm shall forthwith pay the value of the produce to the Bank.

7.The Firm and the Borrower agree that this Agreement is in addition to the other documents executed or to be executed in favour of the Bank.

15.As per the above terms and conditions, it is clear that the 2nd 9 defendant company agreed not to deal with the produce except after receipt of written authorization from the bank and not to deal with the produce in any manner without reference from the bank. As per the third term in the said agreement, it was clearly laid down that in the event of default of repayment by the borrower i.e. 1st defendant, the bank shall be entitled to demand the firm to deliver custody of the produce to sell them for realization of the loan and the firm has to comply with the demand forthwith without claiming any rights. The firm also agreed to indemnify the bank against any loss, damage or injury caused to the produce in the go-down and in the event of any such loss, the firm has to forthwith pay the value of the produce to the bank. In the present case, it is not the contention of plaintiff bank that any loss, damage or injury has been caused to the produce stored by the 1st defendant in the 2nd defendant go-down. So, the said term does not apply in the present case. In the 5th condition, it was clearly contemplated that the borrower agreed that the bank need not exercise its right for realization from the produce alone and that the borrower is responsible to repay the loan on demand by the bank. It is pertinent to note that no mention was made about the liability of the 2nd defendant to repay the loan but it was specifically mentioned about the borrower i.e. the 1st defendant. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for 2nd defendant, the above said terms and conditions make it very much clear that there is no liability upon the 2nd defendant company to discharge the loan to plaintiff bank in the event of default of payment by 1st defendant, except to handover the produce stored in the go-down on demand by the plaintiff bank. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that P.W.1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the 2nd defendant company handed over the stock to the plaintiff bank 10 and the bank auctioned the stock and realized the amount. It was also deposed by P.W.1 that plaintiff bank did not make any complaint to 2nd defendant company regarding the quality of stock at the time of handing over the stock to the bank. Hence, the argument put-forth by the learned plaintiff counsel in this regard is unacceptable.

17.In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court finds that plaintiff bank has been able to prove that the 1st defendant obtained loan from the bank but failed to repay the same. The suit was also filed against the 2nd defendant also. However, in view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court finds that the 2nd defendant is not liable to discharge the suit amount to plaintiff bank. Hence, this Court finds that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the 1st defendant only but not from the 2nd defendant. Hence, issues 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

18.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff bank against 1st defendant for the suit amount of Rs.1,80,526/- with subsequent interest @ 15.25% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the amount of Rs.1,80,526/-. The suit claim against 2nd defendant is hereby dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30th day of September, 2016.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1: Kandyala Pullaiah.

For 1st Defendant : Exparte.

For 2nd Defendant : Memo filed stating no evidence.

Documents Marked For Plaintiff: Ex.A1/-- : Authorization letter dated 13.1.2014. Ex.A2/-- : Authorization letter dated 24.3.2014. Ex.A3/-- : Application cum appraisal for loans against warehouse receipts dated 3.5.2011. Ex.A4/-- : Arrangement letter dated 3.5.2011. Ex.A5/-- : Warehouse/cold storage receipts undertaking cum take delivery letter dated 3.5.2011. Ex.A6/-- : Notice of the bank's lien on specified goods dated 3.5.2011. Ex.A7/-- : Consent letter by the 1st defendant for disclosure by the plaintiff for submission of credit information to CIBIL. Ex.A8/-- : Warehouse receipts demand loan control card. Ex.A9/-- : Certificate of extension of storage period for the stock covered under receipts dated 3.5.2011. Ex.A10/-- : Demand promissory note executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank dated 3.5.2011. Ex.A11/-- : Tripartite agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants dated 3.5.2011.

Ex.A12/-- : Personal assets and liabilities statement of 1st defendant

dated 3.5.2011.

Ex.A13/-- : Notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the 1st defendant

dated 1.10.2012.

Ex.A14/-- : Office copy of the legal notice got issued by plaintiff to defendants dated 1.7.2013. Ex.A15/-- : Postal acknowledgment of 1st defendant. Ex.A16/-- : Statement of account dated 30.4.2014.

For 1st Defendant : - Nil -.

For 2nd Defendant : - Nil -.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. M. Meena Devi, B.Sc., M.L., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Friday, the 30th day of SEPTEMBER, 2016

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 442 OF 2015

Between: State Bank of India, Chuttugunta Branch, Guntur, Rep. by its Branch Manager, L.Vidya Sagar, S/o. L.Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged about 52 yrs., R/o. Guntur, Guntur JCJC.… Plaintiff.

- And -

1. Kanda Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkatrao, Hindu, Aged about 32 yrs., R/o. Malladi Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District.

This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,80,526/- from 1st defendant due to the plaintiff bank under a loan transaction with interest at 15.25% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization with monthly rests and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 01-05-2014 Plaint filed on : 04-08-2015

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendants approached the plaintiff bank for the purpose of agricultural demand loan to the 1st defendant and on 03.5.2011 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and when the defendants executed all necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank to avail the loan; on 1.10.2012 when the plaintiff bank issued notice to the defendants; when the defendants failed to pay the debt; and when the plaintiff bank got auctioned the goods and credited the sale proceeds to the debt; and when the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice through its counsel

dated 1.7.2013 to both the defendants and when the defendants failed to

pay the outstanding amount of Rs.1,80,526/- due to the plaintiff bank as on 30.4.2014 and at Guntur City, Mandal and District where the plaintiff bank situated and all the transactions have taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court.

14 // 2 // Particulars of Valuation:- The amount due by the 1st defendant as per the account copy as on 30.4.2014: Rs. 1,80,526-00.

On which, a Court fee of Rs.4,326/- is paid U/Sec.20 of APCF & SV Act.

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.1,80,526/-.

1) that the 1st defendant do pay to the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs.1,80,526/- with subsequent interest @ 15.25% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the amount of Rs.1,80,526/-;

2) that the suit claim against 2nd defendant is hereby dismissed;

3) that the 1st defendant do also pay to the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs.4,328/- (CM & FC not filed) towards institutional costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil/- (Exparte).

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 30th day of September, 2016.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For D1: For D2: Rs. Rs.Rs.

Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 Exparte -- Plaint Fees 4,326-00 -- -- Petition Stamp -- -- -- Process Fee -- -- -- Advocate Fees CM & FC not filed --CM & FC not filed Writing Charges -- -- -- Type Charges -- -- --

----------------------- --------

Total : 4,328-00 - Nil - - Nil -

----------------------- --------

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

OS/572/2015 Compromised

Perumalla Jayalakshmi and another vs Kalisetty Sankara Rao

18 Aug 2016

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. M.Meena Devi, B.Sc., M.L., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, the 18th day of AUGUST, 2016.

Original Suit No.572 of 2015.

Between:

1. Perumalla Jayalakshmi.

2. Perumalla Kiran Kumar.… Plaintiffs.

- And -

Kalisetty Sankara Rao.… Defendant.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 12.08.2016 in the presence of Sri G.V.Ramana, Sri K.Padma Sree, Advocates for Plaintiffs and of Sri Dasari Uma Maheswara Rao, Sri R.Koteswara Rao, Advocates for Defendant and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for eviction of defendant from the plaint schedule property and for Rs.10,000/- towards damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule property i.e. shop.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule shop and the same was leased out to defendant for doing general stores business about 20 years back on monthly rental basis and the present monthly rent being paid by defendant is Rs.6,810/-. It was further averred that plaintiffs intended to alter the structure of the building in which the plaint schedule shop is situated as some portion of the building requires immediate repairs and alteration work. The plaintiffs also require the same 2 for their own use. So they have been demanding the defendant for the last several months to vacate from the plaint schedule shop and deliver vacant possession of the same but defendant has been postponing the same and continuing in the property unwarrantedly and illegally. Therefore, plaintiffs issued a notice dated 12.6.2015 terminating the tenancy ending by 30.6.2015. Inspite of service of the notice, defendant did not vacate the plaint schedule shop but on the other hand, got issued a reply legal notice on 5.7.2015 with false averments. Hence, the suit.

3.Defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint but admitted the ownership of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule shop and issuance of notice on 12.6.2015 by plaintiffs.

It is his contention that since few months plaintiffs have been demanding him to enhance the monthly rents exorbitantly against the terms and conditions of the lease agreement in respect of the plaint schedule shop. After receiving the notice from plaintiffs, defendant approached the plaintiffs and questioned them about the same but they failed to give a proper reply. Subsequently, on 8.7.2015 defendant met the plaintiffs personally and requested them to receive the rent amount and to issue a proper receipt but they paid a deaf ear. Having no other go, defendant obtained a demand draft for the rent to be paid for the month of June, 2015 and sent the same to plaintiffs along with a notice dated 11.7.2015 and requested the plaintiffs to acknowledge the same and also requested the plaintiffs to inform their account number, name of the bank and its branch etc., to enable the defendant to deposit the rent for the future months if necessary. Plaintiffs received the said D.D and also informed the bank account number and other details. So, defendant has been depositing the 3 rental amount from July, 2015 into the bank account of plaintiffs.

It was further averred that as per the agreement between plaintiffs and defendant, in case of any repairs to the schedule property, it has to be repaired by the defendant himself by bringing it to the notice of plaintiffs and accordingly, the defendant used to meet the repairs whenever required, with the consent of plaintiffs and as such, no repairs are required to the plaint schedule shop. Recently the 1st floor of the building in which the plaint schedule property is situated has been repaired and modified from

Post office to small go-downs or shops by the plaintiffs. Further, plaintiffs have been running a lodge under the name and style of “Balaji Lodge” and a

Dormitory in the 2nd floor after completion of repairs. There are two or three rooms in the 3rd floor. There is no necessity to do any repairs to the ground floor of the building where the defendant's shop and shops of other tenants are situated and as such, there is no need of any immediate repairs or alterations to the said building or any portion of the building as stated by plaintiffs. It was further contended that as agreed between the defendant and plaintiffs, defendant has been enhancing the rents regularly and paying the same without any default. Like wise, defendant is also paying the electricity consumption charges to the plaint schedule shop. So, the defendant or other tenants need not to evict their respective shops.

It was further contended that earlier also when the plaintiffs tried to disturb the defendant and other tenants by demanding abnormal rents, they approached the II Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur and stay orders were passed in favour of defendant and he was also permitted to deposit the rent amounts into the Court. During pendency of the said suit, the matter was compromised and defendant and other tenants enhanced the rents. Having knowledge of demolition of municipal vegetable 4 market, Guntur situated near the plaint schedule property, plaintiffs filed this suit with an evil intention to lease out the plaint schedule property to new tenants, expecting higher rents and advances by evicting the present tenants. The suit was filed by suppressing the above facts and mentioning frivolous reasons for eviction. Defendant and other tenants have been paying the more rents than that of the prevailing rents in and around the plaint schedule property. Defendant has no other avocation except the business in the schedule property. Plaintiffs have no reasonable and bonafide requirement for carrying out the repairs or alterations or additions which cannot be carried out without the plaint schedule property being vacated. So, plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the relief of eviction.

Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiffs, 2nd plaintiff Perumalla Kiran Kumar was examined as P.W.1. Exs.A1 and A2 were got marked. On behalf of defendant, he got himself examined as D.W.1. Ex.B1 was got marked.

6.Heard both sides.

ISSUE NO.1:

7.The case of plaintiffs as can be seen from the evidence of 5

P.W.1-Perumalla Kiran Kumar is that the 1st plaintiff is his paternal grand mother and they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule shop, which was leased out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.6,810/-. His further evidence is that the plaintiffs intended to alter the structure of the building as some portion requires immediate repairs and alteration work and the same is also needed for their personal use and as such, they have been demanding the defendant since several months to vacate from the plaint schedule property but defendant has been postponing the same and continuing in the property. So, they got issued Ex.A1-legal notice dated 12.6.2015 terminating the tenancy by 30.6.2015 but inspite of receiving the said notice, defendant did not vacate the plaint schedule shop. Instead he got issued Ex.A2-reply notice dated 5.7.2015 with false averments. So, plaintiffs had to file the suit.

8.The learned counsel for plaintiffs argued that the lease between plaintiffs and defendant is only oral lease and the same can be terminated either by the lessor or lessee by issuing a notice as contemplated

U/Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the same has been complied with as plaintiffs got issued Ex.A1-notice prior to filing of the suit.

The learned counsel further submitted that the defendant has been lessee of the plaint schedule shop since a long period and plaintiffs have been asking him to vacate the schedule shop for the last several months but defendant postponed the same, due to which plaintiffs filed the suit to evict the defendant under due process of law.

9.The ownership of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule shop is not denied by defendant. There is also no dispute relating to the quantum of rent or payment of rent between the parties. However, the case of 6 defendant as can be seen from the evidence of D.W.1 is that the first floor of the building was repaired and modified recently from hotel to small go- downs or shops by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs have been running a dormitory under the name and style of “Balaji Lodge”. Further there is an agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant that in case of any repairs in the ground floor of the building in which the schedule shop is situated, the defendant has to get the repairs done by intimating the same to the plaintiffs and accordingly, defendant and other tenants in the ground floor used to make the repairs whenever required and as such, no repairs are required to the building in which the schedule shop is situated right now or in the near future. The further case of defendant is that plaintiffs filed the suit with an evil intention to evict the defendant and other tenants from the building and to give the schedule shop and other shops to third parties at higher rents, due to demolition of PVK Naidu Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur which is situated nearby the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs have no reasonable and bonafide requirements and as such, the defendant cannot be evicted from the plaint schedule property.

10.Regarding the repairs to the plaint schedule property, the learned counsel for defendant submitted in his written arguments that plaintiffs failed to establish that the eviction of the schedule property is for their bonafide requirement as they did not take any steps to apply to Guntur

Municipal Corporation either to effect repairs immediately or to alter the structure of building or for reconstruction of existing building etc., and therefore, the grounds mentioned by the plaintiffs are subterfuge to evict the tenant. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in:

7 2005 (5) ALD 483 between

B.Suresh Babu vs. T.Ramakrishnaiah

In the said case which was filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the eviction was sought for by the landlord on the ground of reconstruction after demolition but it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the ground was a subterfuge to evict the tenant and there was no bonafides as no step was taken by the landlord to apply to the Municipality either to effect repairs or to demolish building for reconstruction.

11.In this context, it is necessary to note that P.W.1 categorically stated in his cross-examination that he did not apply to Municipal

Corporation for alteration of the approved plan. However he added that he can apply to the corporation for alteration of the plan only after the tenants vacate from the property as the alterations have to be completed within a stipulated time. D.W.1 also admitted in his cross-examination that the construction of the building has to be completed within two years from the date of approval of plan by the Guntur Municipal Corporation. He also stated that he does not know whether 2nd plaintiff could not apply to the

Guntur Municipal Corporation for approval of the plan as himself and other tenants did not vacate the property inspite of repeated requests. So, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for plaintiffs, trying to obtain the necessary permissions or approvals from the Guntur Municipal Corporation without keeping the premises available for making the necessary alterations or constructions would only be a pre-mature step by the plaintiffs. Hence, the contention of the learned defendant counsel is not tenable. Hence, with 8 due respect, this Court finds that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

More over, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel was filed for eviction U/Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control Act, 1960 but the present suit was filed invoking Section 106 of

Transfer of Property Act.

12.The other plea raised by the defendant is that plaintiffs filed this suit only to evict him from the plaint schedule property and to lease out the said premises to third parties for higher rents and advances in view of demolition of PVK Naidu Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur. Admittedly, the said market is situated very near to the plaint schedule property. It was elicited during cross-examination of P.W.1 that there were several shops in the said market and the same was demolished in October, 2015. During cross-examination, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he intended to vacate the tenants in the ground floor of his building in order to give the same to other tenants at higher rates because of the demolition of PVK Naidu

Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that D.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that one Ghanta

Peddabbai did hotel business in the first floor of Kiran Buildings i.e. the building in which the schedule property has been situated and that he vacated the first floor about 3 years back. During cross-examination of

P.W.1, it was suggested to him that the rooms in the first floor were kept vacant and they were remodeled for the purpose of using as shops. The above said evidence of D.W.1 and suggestion put to P.W.1 manifests that the first floor has been kept vacant since 3 years. If the version of defendant that the plaintiffs filed the suit to lease out the same to others at 9 higher rents is true, then the plaintiffs should have leased out the first floor to third parties in October, 2015 itself i.e. after demolition of PVK Naidu

Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur but they would not have kept it vacant till date. More over, D.W.1 categorically deposed in his cross-examination that he has been doing business in the schedule property since 25 years which by itself reveals that defendant has been doing his business peacefully and without any obstruction from the plaintiffs since a very long period. So, the plea taken by defendant in this regard is not tenable.

13.Now it is time to consider the most important point i.e. regarding

Ex.A1-notice dated 12.6.2015 which was issued U/Sec.106 of Transfer of

Property Act by plaintiffs to defendant. Issuance of Ex.A1 is not disputed by defendant. The validity or legality of Ex.A1 was not questioned by defendant either in Ex.A2-reply notice, written statement or in the cross- examination of P.W.1. However, the learned counsel for defendant submitted in his written arguments that one of the important ingredients of

Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act is 15 days notice and that the burden lies upon the plaintiffs to produce the postal receipts or the acknowledgments signed by defendant to show when the defendant received the notice but plaintiffs did not file the postal receipts or acknowledgments to prove the same.

Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act reads as follows:

"106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage :- (1)In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of 10 immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice.

(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub- sec.(1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice.

(3)A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section.

(4)Every notice under sub-sec. (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property.”

The above section makes it clear that in case of lease of immovable property for any purpose other than for agricultural or manufacturing purposes, in the absence of written agreement shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by 15 days notice which will commence from the date of receipt of the notice by the lessee.

14.Admittedly, in the present case on hand, there is no written lease agreement between the parties and the lease is only oral. Since the lease is for business purpose, it shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month. Issuance of Ex.A1-legal notice dated 12.6.2015 by plaintiffs and also issuance of Ex.A2-reply notice dated 5.7.2015 is not in dispute. The 11 plaintiffs did not choose to file the postal receipts or acknowledgments to prove the date of service of Ex.A1-notice on the defendant. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for plaintiffs what has been contemplated

U/Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act is that the period of 15 days under

Sub-Section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt of the notice.

Admittedly, Ex.A2-reply notice was issued on 5.7.2015. So, for argument sake, even if it is presumed that the notice has been served on the defendant on 4.7.2015, the period of 15 days would expire by 19.7.2015. In the present case, the suit has been filed on 7.8.2015 i.e. after expiry of contemplated period of 15 days. Hence, viewed from any angle, the objection raised by the learned defendant counsel is not tenable.

15.The learned counsel for defendant also submitted in his written arguments that the evidence of P.W.1 alone is not sustainable and the suit is bad for mis-joinder as life interest has been created to the 1st plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and P.W.1 has vested interest in the schedule property but the 1st plaintiff was not examined on behalf of plaintiffs. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for plaintiffs, the ownership and title of plaintiffs to the schedule property was never denied or disputed by defendant in the written statement. More over, the written statement, the chief-examination of D.W.1 and also the cross-examination of P.W.1 reveals that defendant has been dealing with P.W.1 in respect of any issue relating to the plaint schedule property and not with the 1st plaintiff. It is not the case of defendant that there are certain facts which are within the exclusive knowledge of 1st plaintiff or that P.W.1 does not have any knowledge regarding the present plaint schedule property or the facts of this case or that he is no way connected to the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the 12 objections raised by the learned defendant counsel do not have force.

16.It was also argued on behalf of defendant that the plaint schedule shop is the only source of income to the defendant and that his family is dependent on the income derived from the schedule shop only.

However, D.W.1 categorically deposed in his cross-examination that his brother is having a own shop near the schedule property i.e. near Palnadu

Bus Stop but he stated that the tax for the said shop is being issued in his name and in the name of his brother. But no document has been filed to show that the said building is in the name of his brother. So, the argument put-forth by the learned counsel is not tenable.

17.In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court finds that plaintiffs have followed the procedure as contemplated under law to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule property and as such, they are entitled to evict the defendant from the schedule property and for vacant possession of the same. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO.2:

18.The plaintiffs also sought for the relief of damages at

Rs.10,000/- per month for use and occupation of the plaint schedule shop.

P.W.1 only stated a single line in his chief-examination that he is entitled for recovery of damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule shop till the date of eviction. No other oral or documentary evidence has been adduced to show that he is entitled for damages at Rs.10,000/- per month.

The learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted that the defendant did not choose to cross-examine P.W.1 regarding the damages claimed and as 13 such, plaintiffs are entitled for damages at Rs.10,000/- per month. Perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1 shows that that the learned counsel for defendant did not choose to cross-examine P.W.1 regarding the damages claimed. However, it is needless to say that it is for the plaintiffs to prove that they are entitled for damages claimed by them, irrespective of the fact that there is no cross-examination on the said aspect by defendant. More over, it is also necessary to mention that it was suggested during cross- examination of P.W.1 that defendant is paying rents as per the market value in that area and that he is not paying excess rents. So, if the rents are being paid as per the market value prevailing in that area, damages at

Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be granted. Further more, plaintiffs paid the

Court fees only for the damages claimed for one month i.e. for July, 2015.

Hence, this Court finds that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of damages as prayed for. Hence, issue No.2 is answered against plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO.3:

19.In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs, directing the defendant to vacate from the plaint schedule shop and deliver vacant possession of the same to plaintiffs within three months from the date of judgment, failing which, plaintiffs are at liberty to get it done through due process of law. The relief claimed by plaintiffs with regard to damages is hereby dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 18th day of August, 2016.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: P.W.1: Perumalla Kiran Kumar.

For Defendant: D.W.1: Kalisetty Sankara Rao.

Documents marked For Plaintiffs: Ex.A1/-- : Office copy of notice dated 12.6.2015 got issued by plaintiffs to defendant. Ex.A2/--: Reply legal notice dated 5.7.2015 got issued by defendant.

For Defendant: Ex.B1/-- : Photographs (5 in number) along with CD.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

OS/580/2015 Compromised

Perumalla Jayalakshmi and another vs Kalisetty Sankara Rao

18 Aug 2016

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. M.Meena Devi, B.Sc., M.L., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, the 18th day of AUGUST, 2016.

Original Suit No.580 of 2015.

Between:

1. Perumalla Jayalakshmi.

2. Perumalla Kiran Kumar.… Plaintiffs.

- And -

Kalisetty Sankara Rao.… Defendant.

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for eviction of defendant from the plaint schedule property and for Rs.10,000/- towards damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule property i.e. shop.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule shop and the same was leased out to defendant for doing general stores business about 20 years back on monthly rental basis and the present monthly rent being paid by defendant is Rs.4,950/-. It was further averred that plaintiffs intended to alter the structure of the building in which the plaint schedule shop is situated as some portion of the building requires immediate repairs and alteration work. The plaintiffs also require the same for their own use. So they have been demanding the defendant for the last 2 several months to vacate from the plaint schedule shop and deliver vacant possession of the same but defendant has been postponing the same and continuing in the property unwarrantedly and illegally. Therefore, plaintiffs issued a notice dated 12.6.2015 terminating the tenancy ending by 30.6.2015. Inspite of service of the notice, defendant did not vacate the plaint schedule shop but on the other hand, got issued a reply legal notice on 5.7.2015 with false averments. Hence, the suit.

3.Defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint but admitted the ownership of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule shop and issuance of notice on 12.6.2015 by plaintiffs.

It is his contention that since few months plaintiffs have been demanding him to enhance the monthly rents exorbitantly against the terms and conditions of the lease agreement in respect of the plaint schedule shop. After receiving the notice from plaintiffs, defendant approached the plaintiffs and questioned them about the same but they failed to give a proper reply. Subsequently, on 8.7.2015 defendant met the plaintiffs personally and requested them to receive the rent amount and to issue a proper receipt but they paid a deaf ear. Having no other go, defendant obtained a demand draft for the rent to be paid for the month of June, 2015 and sent the same to plaintiffs along with a notice dated 11.7.2015 and requested the plaintiffs to acknowledge the same and also requested the plaintiffs to inform their account number, name of the bank and its branch etc., to enable the defendant to deposit the rent for the future months if necessary. Plaintiffs received the said D.D and also informed the bank account number and other details. So, defendant has been depositing the rental amount from July, 2015 into the bank account of plaintiffs.

Post office to small go-downs or shops by the plaintiffs. Further, plaintiffs have been running a lodge under the name and style of “Balaji Lodge” and a

It was further contended that earlier also when the plaintiffs tried to disturb the defendant and other tenants by demanding abnormal rents, they approached the II Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur and stay orders were passed in favour of defendant and he was also permitted to deposit the rent amounts into the Court. During pendency of the said suit, the matter was compromised and defendant and other tenants enhanced the rents. Having knowledge of demolition of municipal vegetable market, Guntur situated near the plaint schedule property, plaintiffs filed this 4 suit with an evil intention to lease out the plaint schedule property to new tenants, expecting higher rents and advances by evicting the present tenants. The suit was filed by suppressing the above facts and mentioning frivolous reasons for eviction. Defendant and other tenants have been paying the more rents than that of the prevailing rents in and around the plaint schedule property. Defendant has no other avocation except the business in the schedule property. Plaintiffs have no reasonable and bonafide requirement for carrying out the repairs or alterations or additions which cannot be carried out without the plaint schedule property being vacated. So, plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the relief of eviction.

Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiffs, 2nd plaintiff Perumalla Kiran Kumar was examined as P.W.1. Exs.A1 and A2 were got marked. On behalf of defendant, he got himself examined as D.W.1. Ex.B1 was got marked.

6.Heard both sides.

ISSUE NO.1:

7.The case of plaintiffs as can be seen from the evidence of

P.W.1-Perumalla Kiran Kumar is that the 1st plaintiff is his paternal grand 5 mother and they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule shop, which was leased out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.4,950/-. His further evidence is that the plaintiffs intended to alter the structure of the building as some portion requires immediate repairs and alteration work and the same is also needed for their personal use and as such, they have been demanding the defendant since several months to vacate from the plaint schedule property but defendant has been postponing the same and continuing in the property. So, they got issued Ex.A1-legal notice dated 12.6.2015 terminating the tenancy by 30.6.2015 but inspite of receiving the said notice, defendant did not vacate the plaint schedule shop. Instead he got issued Ex.A2-reply notice dated 5.7.2015 with false averments. So, plaintiffs had to file the suit.

U/Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the same has been complied with as plaintiffs got issued Ex.A1-notice prior to filing of the suit.

9.The ownership of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule shop is not denied by defendant. There is also no dispute relating to the quantum of rent or payment of rent between the parties. However, the case of defendant as can be seen from the evidence of D.W.1 is that the first floor of 6 the building was repaired and modified recently from hotel to small go- downs or shops by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs have been running a dormitory under the name and style of “Balaji Lodge”. Further there is an agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant that in case of any repairs in the ground floor of the building in which the schedule shop is situated, the defendant has to get the repairs done by intimating the same to the plaintiffs and accordingly, defendant and other tenants in the ground floor used to make the repairs whenever required and as such, no repairs are required to the building in which the schedule shop is situated right now or in the near future. The further case of defendant is that plaintiffs filed the suit with an evil intention to evict the defendant and other tenants from the building and to give the schedule shop and other shops to third parties at higher rents, due to demolition of PVK Naidu Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur which is situated nearby the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs have no reasonable and bonafide requirements and as such, the defendant cannot be evicted from the plaint schedule property.

2005 (5) ALD 483 between 7

B.Suresh Babu vs. T.Ramakrishnaiah

11.In this context, it is necessary to note that P.W.1 categorically stated in his cross-examination that he did not apply to Municipal

Guntur Municipal Corporation for approval of the plan as himself and other tenants did not vacate the property inspite of repeated requests. So, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for plaintiffs, trying to obtain the necessary permissions or approvals from the Guntur Municipal Corporation without keeping the premises available for making the necessary alterations or constructions would only be a pre-mature step by the plaintiffs. Hence, the contention of the learned defendant counsel is not tenable. Hence, with due respect, this Court finds that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

More over, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel was filed for eviction U/Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control Act, 1960 but the present suit was filed invoking Section 106 of

Transfer of Property Act.

Vegetable Market Complex, Guntur. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that D.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that one Ghanta

P.W.1, it was suggested to him that the rooms in the first floor were kept vacant and they were remodeled for the purpose of using as shops. The above said evidence of D.W.1 and suggestion put to P.W.1 manifests that the first floor has been kept vacant since 3 years. If the version of defendant that the plaintiffs filed the suit to lease out the same to others at higher rents is true, then the plaintiffs should have leased out the first floor to third parties in October, 2015 itself i.e. after demolition of PVK Naidu 9

13.Now it is time to consider the most important point i.e. regarding

Ex.A1-notice dated 12.6.2015 which was issued U/Sec.106 of Transfer of

Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act reads as follows:

"106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage :- (1)In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' 10 notice.

(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub- sec.(1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice.

14.Admittedly, in the present case on hand, there is no written lease agreement between the parties and the lease is only oral. Since the lease is for business purpose, it shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month. Issuance of Ex.A1-legal notice dated 12.6.2015 by plaintiffs and also issuance of Ex.A2-reply notice dated 5.7.2015 is not in dispute. The plaintiffs did not choose to file the postal receipts or acknowledgments to prove the date of service of Ex.A1-notice on the defendant. As rightly 11 submitted by the learned counsel for plaintiffs what has been contemplated

U/Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act is that the period of 15 days under

Sub-Section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt of the notice.

15.The learned counsel for defendant also submitted in his written arguments that the evidence of P.W.1 alone is not sustainable and the suit is bad for mis-joinder as life interest has been created to the 1st plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and P.W.1 has vested interest in the schedule property but the 1st plaintiff was not examined on behalf of plaintiffs. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for plaintiffs, the ownership and title of plaintiffs to the schedule property was never denied or disputed by defendant in the written statement. More over, the written statement, the chief-examination of D.W.1 and also the cross-examination of P.W.1 reveals that defendant has been dealing with P.W.1 in respect of any issue relating to the plaint schedule property and not with the 1st plaintiff. It is not the case of defendant that there are certain facts which are within the exclusive knowledge of 1st plaintiff or that P.W.1 does not have any knowledge regarding the present plaint schedule property or the facts of this case or that he is no way connected to the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the objections raised by the learned defendant counsel do not have force.

16.It was also argued on behalf of defendant that the plaint 12 schedule shop is the only source of income to the defendant and that his family is dependent on the income derived from the schedule shop only.

However, D.W.1 categorically deposed in his cross-examination that his brother is having a own shop near the schedule property i.e. near Palnadu

ISSUE NO.2:

18.The plaintiffs also sought for the relief of damages at

Rs.10,000/- per month for use and occupation of the plaint schedule shop.

The learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted that the defendant did not choose to cross-examine P.W.1 regarding the damages claimed and as such, plaintiffs are entitled for damages at Rs.10,000/- per month. Perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1 shows that that the learned counsel for 13 defendant did not choose to cross-examine P.W.1 regarding the damages claimed. However, it is needless to say that it is for the plaintiffs to prove that they are entitled for damages claimed by them, irrespective of the fact that there is no cross-examination on the said aspect by defendant. More over, it is also necessary to mention that it was suggested during cross- examination of P.W.1 that defendant is paying rents as per the market value in that area and that he is not paying excess rents. So, if the rents are being paid as per the market value prevailing in that area, damages at

Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be granted. Further more, plaintiffs paid the

Court fees only for the damages claimed for one month i.e. for July, 2015.

Hence, this Court finds that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of damages as prayed for. Hence, issue No.2 is answered against plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO.3:

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 18th day of August, 2016.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiffs: P.W.1: Perumalla Kiran Kumar.

For Defendant: D.W.1: Kalisetty Sankara Rao.

Documents marked For Plaintiffs: Ex.A1/-- : Office copy of notice dated 12.6.2015 got issued by plaintiffs to defendant. Ex.A2/--: Reply legal notice dated 5.7.2015 got issued by defendant.

For Defendant: Ex.B1/-- : Photographs (5 in number) along with CD.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Order Record 1,334 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/18/2017	Shaik Mastan Bi and another vs Shaik Baba Vali	27 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/325/2015	Bolagani Venkata Sivarao vs Chava Vinatha rep by her fahter	27 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/454/2015	Jetty Subba Rao vs Popuri Bhanu prasad	23 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/518/2013	Nimmakayala Suresh Babu vs Kotturi Venkata Vara Prasada Rao and 3 others	23 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/748/2016	Thota Rama Rao vs Shaik Baji Babu	23 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/87/2016	Vuyyuru Rama Devi vs Achanta Siva Prasad	21 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/762/2016	Udayagiri Nagadhara Rao vs Kopuri Lakshmi	21 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/426/2015	Shaik Asha Bi vs Lanka Rachaiah	20 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/198/2012	Darsnapu Adilakshmi and another vs Gunji Das.	17 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/594/2016	Pavanagundla Koteswaramma vs Kathi Ravi	17 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
EP/260/2015	Ande Bhaskara Rao vs Ponnugupati Koteswara Rao	15 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/647/2016	Gaddam Adi reddy vs Nallagatla Lakshmaiah	13 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/652/2016	Munagala Ramanamma vs Chevuri Padmavathi	13 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/808/2015	Pendli Srinivasa Rao vs Kakarla Ravamma	13 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
RCC/15/2012	Konakandla Venkateswarlu vs Padavala Venkateswarlu another	13 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
RCC/16/2012	Konakandla Srinivasa Rao vs Padavala Venkateswarlu another	13 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
RCC/17/2012	Madala Lavanya vs Padavala Venkateswarlu another	13 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
RCC/32/2012	Padavala Venkateswarlu vs Konakandla Srinivasa Rao	13 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
RCC/33/2012	Padavala Venkateswarlu vs Konakandla Venkateswarlu	13 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
RCC/34/2012	Padavala Venkateswarlu vs Madala Lavanya	13 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/1003/2014	Garlapati Kantha Rao vs Thota Lakshmana Rao	11 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/365/2016	Karumanchi Deva Vara Prasada Rao vs Officers Club	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
OS/366/2016	Vesepogu Diwakar vs Officers Club	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
OS/643/2016	Shaik Khaleel vs Jangili Venkayamma and another	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
OS/422/2015	Chennupati Srilakshmi vs Papineni Surendra Babu	08 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/86/2010	shriram chits pvt ltd guntur- vs K.Bala Krishna and another	07 Feb 2017	Order	—
RCC/18/2012	Nune Ranganayakulu vs Royal Cool Drinks Guntur Rep. by Prop. Sarojini	07 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/173/2016	Komatigunta Ankamma vs Dasari Suseela	06 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
CC/100067/2015	Polepalli Naveen Kumar vs Lingala Siva Sankar	06 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/145/2016	T. V. Kameswara Rao vs Gantasala Sekhar and 3 others	03 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/149/2016	T.V. Kameswara Rao vs Gantasala Venakta Poorna Sekhar	03 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/150/2016	T.V. Kameswara Rao vs Gantasala Venkata Gurunadha Rao and another	03 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/113/2016	Annem Konda Reddy vs Gurram Srinivasa Rao and another	31 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/189/2016	State Bank of India vs Gera Sarada Devi	31 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/246/2016	Shaik Shehzadi vs Shaik Mahaboob Subhani	31 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/405/2016	Pamudurthi Koteswara Rao vs Uppumaguluri Rama Rao	31 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
RCC/15/2014	Jorige Yedukondala Rao vs Myneni Subbulu	31 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100009/2016	Balanagu Raja Sulochana vs Koralla Vijaya Kumar	27 Jan 2017	Order	—
OS/523/2016	Chivukula Seeta Annapurna vs Shaik Mohammad Rahimuddin	27 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
EP/261/2015	Sivarathri Sambrajyam vs SkNasarabhi	25 Jan 2017	Order	—
OS/638/2015	Chittepu Siva Koti Reddy vs Pilli Anand	24 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100094/2015	Nagam Purna Chandra Rao vs Sukavasi Srinivasa Rao	24 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/697/2014	Singireddy Srinivasa Reddy vs Gadde Dhana Lakshmi	23 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/55/2016	Sri Sitha Rama Swamy Temple Endowment vs Bethapudi Kotaiah	20 Jan 2017	Order	—
OS/117/2013	Chennupalli Naga Malleswari vs Rameswaram Vajram	18 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/221/2012	Polineni Suseela vs Chintha Chakrapani	18 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/439/2014	Tiriveedhi Srinivasa Rao vs Oddi Srinivasa Rao	18 Jan 2017	Order	—
CC/127/2015	Sub Inspector of Police vs Annapureddy Padma and 2 others	18 Jan 2017	Order	—
OS/118/2016	Reddy Veeraswamy @ Babu vs Manchala Babu Rao	17 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/461/2014	Mallampati Rama Krishna vs Kusam Venkata Ratnamma	17 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/479/2014	Varada venkata Hymavathi vs Kusam Venkata Ratnamma	17 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/541/2014	Yarrabothu Seeitharamaiah vs Kusam Venkata Ratnamma	17 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/115/2015	Sub Inspector of police vs Pamulapati Rama Krishna	10 Jan 2017	Order	—
CC/118/2015	Simhadri Bangaru Babu vs Simhadri Vasanthi and 5 others	10 Jan 2017	Order	—
CC/123/2015	The State SHo Kotha Pet. p.S vs Chinta Leela Kumar	10 Jan 2017	Order	—
CC/151/2015	Sub Inspector of Police vs Batchu Murali and another	10 Jan 2017	Order	—
OS/263/2016	Komatagunta Venkateswarlu vs Dasari Suseela	06 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/772/2011	Bandreddi Siva Parvathi vs Pandragi Rama Mohan Rao	06 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/665/2016	Maddi Venkateswara Rao vs Amarthala Sambaiah	05 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/869/2015	Shaik Munni vs Kota Anjaneyulu	05 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/476/2015	Shaik Gouse Peer vs Shaik Shakeera	04 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/860/2015	Andhra Bank vs Popuri Ramesh Babu and another	03 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
CC/100088/2015	M.D Akbal vs Shaik Riyaz Basha	03 Jan 2017	Order	—
EP/98/2016	Kosuri Satish vs Moparthy Babu Deva Vijay Kumar	29 Dec 2016	Order	—
EP/100005/2016	Anna Venkata Rama Devi vs Madan	29 Dec 2016	Order	—
RCC/29/2014	Nandi Pushpavathi vs Poludasu Bangaramma	29 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
RCC/30/2014	nandi Pushpavathi vs Gali Nageswara Rao	29 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
RCC/31/2014	Nandi Pushpavathi vs Kambam Appayya	29 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100037/2015	KVPSR Appa Rao vs Ponneganti Koteswara rao	29 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
A.T.C./3/2015	Kamdepu Rajrshi alias Raju vs Peddi Basavamma	28 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
OS/841/2015	Thimmisetty Venkata Rao vs Shaik Chinna Mahaboob Subhani	28 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
EP/63/2016	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT. LTD., GUNTUR vs Dumpa Karuna Sree and 5 others	27 Dec 2016	Order	—
EP/74/2016	Pilli Pothu Raju vs Kurapati Vara Prasad	23 Dec 2016	Order	—
OS/418/2015	Nethagani Arogyam vs NethaganiSyam Prasad and 2 others.	23 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
OS/778/2015	Kondamuru Naga Lakshmi vs Gudupudi Srinivasa Rao	23 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
CC/100063/2015	Kurapati Venkata Lakshmi vs Shaik Ahmed Sharif	23 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
CC/100063/2015	Kurapati Venkata Lakshmi vs Shaik Ahmed Sharif	23 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/58/2016	Kothuri Venkata Rao vs Kothuri Naveen	19 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/696/2015	Kasireddy Rajeswari vs Koti Prasada Rao	19 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/75/2016	Palem Venkateswarlu vs Govindu Innayya	15 Dec 2016	Order	—
OS/605/2015	Cheeli Narayana vs Cheeli Chinthaiah	15 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/845/2015	Cheeli Narayana vs Cheeli Venkateswarlu	15 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/500/2016	Chandu Sobhanadri vs Kattumalli Raja Sekhar Babu	13 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
EP/156/2016	Tadiboyina Sambasiva Rao vs Chintagunta Veera Siva Rama Krishna	07 Dec 2016	Order	—
OS/238/2016	Shaik Khajabi vs Shaik Mastan Bi	07 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
OS/661/2014	Thummuru vyshnavi Reddy vs Sanaka Sivaiah	06 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
OS/489/2015	Perikala Venkaiah vs Borugadda Rajesh	05 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/851/2015	Galabha Veera Basavaiah vs Bokkisam Pullaiah	05 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
OS/357/2016	Annaparthi Ankamma Rao vs Imadabathula Koteswara Rao	02 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
OS/521/2016	Beeram Ramana Reddy vs Pesala Gurava Reddy	02 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
OS/22/2016	Ponduri Srinivasa Rao vs Talapaneni Madan Mohan	01 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
OS/492/2014	Metu Vani Kumari vs Gadde Sobha	01 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/522/2016	Beeram Ramana Reddy vs Pesala Adi Narayana Reddy	01 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
OS/586/2013	Abdul Kareem vs Mahammad Khaleel	01 Dec 2016	Order	—
OS/831/2015	Sriman Ramesh Babu vs Srimanthula Vijaya Durga	01 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
EP/65/2016	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT. LTD., GUNTUR vs Bommanaboina Naga Raju and 4 others	30 Nov 2016	Order	—
RCC/13/2016	Shaik Faaruq vs Shaik Althaaf	30 Nov 2016	Judgement	—
RCC/36/2009	Jonnalagadda Marthamma vs Jonnalagadda vara prasada Rao	30 Nov 2016	Judgement	—
CC/100012/2015	Uppu Krishna vs Shaik John Saidulu	30 Nov 2016	Order	—
CC/100074/2015	Medikonduru Sridhar vs Muvvla Murali Krishna Gupta	30 Nov 2016	Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,334 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Feb 2017		34
Jan 2017		32
Dec 2016		32
Nov 2016		90
Oct 2016		43
Sep 2016		52
Aug 2016		42
Jul 2016		37
Jun 2016		45
May 2016		17
Apr 2016		39
Mar 2016		39

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. M. Meena Devi handled?

Smt. M. Meena Devi has handled 1375 court orders since 2014 at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur. The average disposal rate is 40 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. M. Meena Devi hear?

Based on available records, Smt. M. Meena Devi primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur.

Where is Smt. M. Meena Devi currently posted?

Smt. M. Meena Devi is posted as Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt. M. Meena Devi available online?

Yes. 19 judgments by Smt. M. Meena Devi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. M. Meena Devi dispose cases?

Smt. M. Meena Devi disposes approximately 40 cases per month, based on 1375 orders handled over their tenure at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur.

Since when is Smt. M. Meena Devi serving?

Smt. M. Meena Devi has been serving at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur since 2014.

Case Types

OS 48%

EP 28%

CC 20%

RCC 3%

A 0%

Posting History

Oct 2016 — Mar 2017

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur · 223 orders
Nov 2015 — Oct 2016

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur · 248 orders
May 2015 — Oct 2016

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur · 110 orders
May 2015 — Jun 2015

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur
Apr 2014 — Oct 2016

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur · 794 orders

Outcomes on Record

Compromised 5

Acquitted 4

Convicted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri B Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi

Prl. District and Sessions Judge

866 orders

Smt. V.A.L. Sathyavathi

I Addl. District and Sessions Juge

2,279 orders

Sri Y.Nagaraja

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge

721 orders

Chilam Venkata Naga Srinivasa Rao

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge

396 orders

Vusa Srinivasa Rao

IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge

3 orders

Smt. K. Neelima

V Addl. District and Sessions Judge

1,452 orders

Sri K. Seetharama Krishna Rao

VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge

1 orders

Smt. B. Manjari

VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge

0 orders

Sri K. Jayakumar

X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala

2 orders

Sri M. Vengaiah

XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tenali

0 orders

Sk Sikinder Basha

XII Addl. Dist Judge cum Judge Family Court

0 orders

D Ramulu

Chairman, Industrial Tribunal

0 orders

Smt. K. Radha Ratnam

Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Bapatla

0 orders

Sri. M. Gurunath

Asst., Sessions Judge, Gurazala

0 orders

Sri. O.V. Nageswar Rao

Prl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Guntur

0 orders

Smt. M.V. Ramana Kumari

I Addl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Guntur

0 orders

Smt. G. Anandi

II Addl. Asst., Sessions Judge FTC, Guntur

0 orders

Smt. Nagamani

Addl Asst. Sessions Court, Bapatla formerly III AS...

0 orders

Smt. P. Kamala Devi

IV Addl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Guntur

0 orders

Sri K. Chiranjeevulu

Asst., Sessions Judge, Mangalagiri

0 orders

Sri. Ch. Madhava rao

Prl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet

0 orders

Smt. A. lakshmi

Addl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet

0 orders

Sri. K. Satya Naga Bala Prasad

Asst., Sessions Judge, Repalle

0 orders

High Court

High Court of A.P.

0 orders

A.Solomon

Asst., Sessions Judge, Sattenapalli

0 orders

Shmmi Parvin Sultana Begum

Pocso Court, Guntur

441 orders

Sri D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju

Addl. Family Court Guntur

0 orders

Sri T.V.Rajesh Kumar

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

Smt. A. Sunitha Rani

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

Mohd. Ishrath Fathima

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge FTC, Guntur

68 orders

Post kept vacant

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge FTC, Guntur

0 orders

C. Ramana Reddy

IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

K. Chidananda

VI Additional District Judge FTC

0 orders

Sri Rajasekhar Pallagani

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur

0 orders

Ms. M.jagadeeswari

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

408 orders

Dhanaraju Dammalapati

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

275 orders

V.raghunath

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

K.V.Mahalakshmi

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

2 orders

Post Vacant

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

A. Satyanand

IV Addl. Senior civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

N. Solomon

V Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

0 orders

M. Sobha Rani

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

273 orders

Smt. Kolar Latha

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

626 orders

Mohammad Gouse

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

203 orders

Smt. B Mary Sara Danamma

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class for Excise, Guntur

397 orders

Miss. V.deepthi

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Mobile, Guntu

0 orders

K.Kiran kumar

Judicial Magistrate of I class for Railways

0 orders

← View all judges at PDJ Court Complex, Guntur