Smt M. Meena Devi

1

In the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada

Present: - Smt. M. Meena Devi,

Principal Senior Civil Judge

Thursday, this the 22nd day of June, 2017

O.S. No. 159 of 2011

Between

1. Sri Krishnaveni Poultry Needs, Door No.64-9-2, Near N.T.R.Circle, Patamata, Vijayawada rep.by its Proprietor, Kolli Butchi Kotaiah, S/o Venkata Padmanabham, Hindu, aged 48 years, resident of Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2. Kolli Butchi Kotaiah, S/o Venkata Padmanabham, Hindu, aged 48 years, Business, Proprietor, Sri Krishnaveni Poultry Needs, Benz Circle, Vijayawada, resident of Door No.64-9-14, S.B.I.Colony-1, Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … Plaintiffs A n d

1. Kolli Panduranga Rao, S/o Venkata Padmanabham, Hindu, aged about 56 years, resident of Kishkhindapalem(v), Repalle Mandal, Guntru District.

2. Kolli Rama Devi, W/o Gopala Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 years, resident of Kishkhindapalem(v), Repalle Mandal, Guntru District.

3. Kolli Gopala Rao, S/o Venkata Padmanabham, Hindu, aged about 55 years, resident of Kishkhindapalem(v), Repalle Mandal, Guntru District.

4. Guttikonda Ranga Rao, S/o late Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 75 years, Pedapuliparru (post), Battiprolu Mandal, Guntur District.

5. Venigalla Siva Prasad, S/o late Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 53 years, resident of Donepudi (post), Olluru Mandal, Guntur District. (Defendants 4 & 5 are added as per the orders of the Hon'ble Court in I.A.No.580/2011, dt.30.08.2011). … Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 19.06.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ravi Rama Mohan Rao & Sri Chanumolu 2

Jagadeesh, Advocates for the Plaintiffs and Sri Kilaru Jayaram, Advocate for 1st defendant, Sri T.L.S.Reddy, Advocate for Defendants 2 & 3, Sri D.Anil Kumar, Advocate for 4th Defendant and 5th defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day and the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property and for costs.

2.The suit was filed initially against defendants 1 to 3. During pendency of the suit, defendants 4 and 5 were added as per orders in I.A.580/2011 dt.30.08.2011.

3.The averments of the neat copy of the plaint in brief, are as follows: -

The 1st and 3rd defendants are brothers of 2nd plaintiff. 2nd defendant is wife of 3rd defendant. 2nd plaintiff, his father Kolli

Venkata Padmanabham, defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 formed as a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s Krishna Veni

Poultry Needs, Vijayawada. Subsequently, Kolli Venkata

Padmanabham, defendants 1 and 2 received their amounts towards their share after settling accounts and retired from the partnership. The retirement changes were duly recorded on 14.10.2009 by the Registrar of Firms. Later the said firm was closed. Subsequently, 2nd Plaintiff started an individual business concern as a sole proprietor under the name and style of Sri 3

Krishna Veni Poultry Needs with effect from 30.11.2010 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as a sole proprietor.

4.It was further averred that the operation of Krishnaveni

Poultry Needs was stopped in the month of November, 2010. The defendants 1 and 2 have no right or interest in the 1st plaintiff's business. The defendants who became jealous on account of prosperity of 2nd plaintiff tried to interfere with the business activities of the plaintiffs on 03.02.2011 at 10 a.m. and also on 15.02.2011 at 11.30 a.m., when they came to the shop and house of the 2nd plaintiff respectively and threatened him with dire consequences. On the interference of neighbours, defendants left the place. Subsequent to filing of the suit on 18.03.2011, defendants 4 and 5 came to the shop premises of the plaintiffs with five other persons and threatened to close the business. The 2nd plaintiff apprehends that the defendants are bent upon interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of his business. Hence, this suit.

5.1st defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint except admitting the relationship between the parties. Adoption memo was filed by defendants 2 and 3. It was interalia contended that originally the firm M/s Krishnaveni

Poultry Needs, Vijayawada was registered vide registration

No.1527/1989 and a Partnership Deed was executed by the partners i.e. 2nd plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2, Guttikonda 4

Satyanarayana prasad and Kolli Satyanarayana. Subsequently,

Guttikonda Satyanarayana prasad and Kolli Satyanarayana retired from the partnership firm and Kolli Venkata Padmanabham and

Guttikonda Ranga Rao joined as partners in the said firm. Kolli

Venkata Padmanabham died on 05.06.1994. There was a specific understanding between 2nd plaintiff, defendants 1 and 3 that all properties are joint family properties though they stood in the name of individuals and that they are having equal share in the properties. To that effect a letter dt. 04.08.1995 was also reduced into writing. So all the immovable properties and the firm

Krishnaveni Poultry Needs are the joint family properties and all of them are they having equal rights in the same.

6.It was further averred that 2nd plaintiff did not render proper accounts of the firm since three years prior to filing of the suit. On enquiry, defendants came to know that he submitted fake and forged affidavits stating that Kolli Venkata Padmanabham, defendants 1 and 2 retired from the partnership firm and also secured amendments to that effect in the records. Thereafter, on a petition filed by defendants 1 and 2, the Registrar of Firms enquired into the matter and all the fraudulent amendments taken into records on the basis of fabricated material were expunged and a case in crime No. 30/2011 under Section 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. was also registered in Chikkadapalli Police Station against 2nd plaintiff. Another case in crime No.530/2010 was also registered against the 2nd plaintiff in Patamata Police Station 5 under Sections 420, 406, 408, 463, 468, 323, 506 of I.P.C. R/w 153(3) Cr.P.C.

7.It was further averred that Kolli Venkata Padmanabham died on 05.06.1994 but 2nd plaintiff filed documents before Registrar of Firms as if he retired from the firm on 01.04.1995 and also filed a forged affidavit of said Padmanabham on 11.02.2009. As a matter of fact, defendants 1 and 2 never had the intention to retire from the partnership and the alleged documents were created by 2nd plaintiff to grab the joint family properties. Further, in view of the disputes, cases and counter cases between plaintiffs and defendants on the strength of the report given by the Police, the Executive Magistrate issued proceedings under

Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. in pursuance of which the said firm was under lock and key of the Executive Magistrate by the date of filing of the suit. So, the plaintiff falsely claimed possession over the firm by 15.02.2011 and by the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff approached this Court by misrepresenting the facts. So, they are not entitled for the relief of injunction, which is equitable and discretionary in nature. Hence, the suit may be dismissed.

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

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

6

9.Subsequent to filing of neat copy of the plaint, additional written statement was filed by 3rd defendant and adoption memo was filed by defendants 1 and 2 contending that defendants 4 and 5 were added as parties without any cause of action and that they are no way concerned with the affairs of the firm. It was further averred that plaintiffs themselves colluded with defendants 4 and 5 and added them as parties to cover up the latches. Hence, suit may be dismissed.

10.4th defendant filed the written statement denying the allegations against him in the neat copy of the plaint. It is his contention that he retired from the partnership firm M/s

Krishnaveni Poultry Needs long back after settling his accounts and he has nothing to do with the business activities of the plaintiff and he never interfered or had any reason to interfere with the business of plaintiffs. It was averred that he is not necessary party to the suit. Hence, sought to dismiss the suit.

11.Basing on the above pleadings, the following additional issue has been framed:

1)Whether the defendants 4 and 5 are not necessary parties to the suit?

12.On behalf of plaintiffs, 2nd plaintiff was examined as P.W.1.

Exs. A1 to A8 were got marked through him. Exs.A9 to A11 were got marked during the cross-examination of DW.3 on his admission. A third party Kota Sankaram was examined as PW.2.

7

On behalf of defendants, defendants 1 and 2 were examined as

Dws. 1 and 2 respectively. A third party Manne Chalapathi Rao was examined as DW.3. The ACTO, Vijayawada was summoned and examined as DW.4. Exs.B1 to B11 were got marked through

DW.1. Exs.X1 to X3 were got marked through DW.4.

ISSUE No.1 :-

13.The relationship between parties is admitted i.e. 2nd plaintiff is brother of 1st and 3rd defendants. 2nd defendant is wife of 3rd defendant. It is also admitted that 2nd plaintiff, defendants 1 and 3 are sons of late Kolli Venkata Padmanabham. It is also not in dispute that 2nd plaintiff, defendants 1, 2, 4, 5 and Kolli Venkata

Padmanabham were partners of Krishnaveni Poultry Needs,

Vijayawada, which was registered vide registration No. 1527/1989.

14.It is the case of PW.1 that subsequently, Kolli Venkata

Padmanabham, defendants 1 and 2 settled their accounts and retired from partnership firm and the changes were duly recorded on 14.10.2009 in Registrar of Firms and thereafter he started a new business concern as a sole proprietor under the name and style of Sri Krishnaveni Poultry Needs i.e. 1st plaintiff and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same as a sole proprietor. The plaintiff did not choose to file the retirement deeds of the above said partners. However, during his cross- examination, the true copies of the retirement deeds of Kolli

Venkata Padmanabham, defendants 1 and 2 issued by Registrar of 8

Firms were got marked as Exs.B1 and B2 respectively. Regarding the said retirement deeds, it is the specific evidence of Dws. 1 and 2 that they never had the intention to retire from the partnership firm and they never executed Ex.B2 document. It was specifically deposed by them that the said documents were forged and fabricated by 2nd plaintiff in order to grab the joint family properties. In respect of Ex.B1 retirement deed of Kolli Venkata

Padmanabham, it was specifically deposed that he died on 05.06.1994 as can be seen from Ex.B7 death certificate, but PW.1 forged Ex.B1 retirement deed as if it was executed by Kolli

Venkata Padmanabham on 01.04.1995. Even in respect of Ex.B2 retirement deed, the learned counsel for defendants brought to the notice of this Court that the stamps for the execution of Ex.B2 were purchased on 05.02.2009 but the retirement deed was executed on 31.01.2009 itself and the last page of the said document states that the executants affixed their signatures on 31.01.2009, which is absurd.

15.It is the further evidence of Dws. 1 and 2 that on coming to know regarding the forged documents filed by 2nd plaintiff before the Registrar of Firms, they filed a petition regarding the fraudulent acts of 2nd plaintiff. Basing on the said petition, the

Registrar of Firms enquired into the matter and passed an order under Ex.B4 on 18.01.2011 expuging all the amendments made in the records on the basis of fabricated material presented by 2nd plaintiff. Further a case was also registered by Registrar of Firms 9 against the 2nd plaintiff as in Ex.B8, which is certified copy of

F.I.R. In Crime No.30/2011 of Chikkadapalli Police Station,

Hyderabad. PW.1 did not disclose the said facts in his chief- examination but during his cross-examination, he admitted that the Registrar of Firms passed the orders under Ex.B4 and also regarding the registration of F.I.R. under Ex.B8. He also admitted that he filed a Writ Petition challenging the order dt.18.01.2011 passed by the Registrar of Firms and also regarding the disposal of the said Writ Petition. Ex.B10 reveals that the 2nd plaintiff preferred a Writ Petition 2660/2011 against the Registrar of Firms, defendants 1 and 2 herein against the orders passed by the

Registrar of Firms and the said petition was dismissed. When questioned regarding the said dismissal, PW.1 categorically stated that he did not prefer any appeal aggrieved by the order in the said Writ Petition. Therefore, as rightly submitted by learned

Counsel for defendants, since all the amendments taken into records regarding the retirement of partners in the firm were expunged and status quo ante is restored as per orders in Ex.B4, it has to be considered that the defendants 1 and 2 are also partners of the firm. The same was also admitted by PW.1 in his cross-examination.

16.The next point is to be considered is regarding the alleged settlement of accounts as pleaded by plaintiff. PW.1 categorically deposed in his chief-examination that his father, defendants 1 and 2 received their amounts towards the share after settling their 10 accounts and retired from the partnership firm. During cross- examination, he deposed that he paid money to the retired partners during their tenure according to the shares and the amounts might have been about Rs.10 lakhs or 13 lakhs each. He specifically deposed that the payments were made only by way of cheques. Nevertheless, PW.1 did not choose to file any document or the statement of account to prove that he has paid any amount to the partners by way of chequees. Hence, the evidence of PW.1 in this regard cannot be believed.

17.The learned counsel for plaintiffs relied upon the cross- examination of DW.1 wherein he admitted that in the year 1981 or so his eldest brother Satyanarayana relinquished his right in the joint family property by taking away the land to an extent of 8 acres, a portion in a house and thereafter, running poultry business in Vijayawada and also that himself and his brothers are having separate pattadar passbooks and title deed books in respect of their lands and they used to sell the properties individually and that they also purchased some properties in their individual names. Relying upon the said evidence of DW.1 the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that there are no joint family properties of the 2nd plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and that the properties were partitioned long back and each of them have been enjoying their respective shares. The learned counsel further relied upon Ex.A9 to A11, which are the certified copies of the documents executed by 1st and 3rd defendants along with 11 their children in favour of DW.3 and strenuously argued that each of the brothers enjoyed their properties individually and also sold their properties basing on their needs and necessities.

18.The above evidence of DW.1 and Exs.A9 to A11 reveal that the brothers of 2nd plaintiff have been dealing with some of the properties individually. However, it is pertinent to know that DW.1 was not cross-examined specifically regarding the 1st plaintiff firm and no mention was made regarding 1st plaintiff firm in Exs. A9 to

A11. Ex.A9 to A11 do not reveal that all the joint family properties have been partitioned on any particular date or that no other properties have been left for partition between them. At this juncture, it is also necessary to look into Ex.A4, which is the certified copy of the plaint filed by 3rd defendant in O.S.112/2011 and ExA5, which is certified copy of the plaint filed by 2nd plaintiff's brother Kolli Satyanarayana. The averments in the said plaints reveal that there are disputes regarding the brothers in respect of several properties owned by their joint family.

Therefore, since no specific mention has been made regarding the 1st plaintiff firm in Ex.A9 to A11, no inference can be drawn regarding the 1st plaintiff firm basing on the said documents.

Moreover, 2nd plaintiff herein along with defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement in O.S.76/2004, which was filed by their brother

Kolli Satyanarayana for partition, stating that only Kolli

Satyanarayana separated from their joint family and thereafter all three of them along with their father were having common mess 12 and jointly enjoying the property till the death of their father. So, it is clear that there are several disputes, suits and criminal cases between the parties in respect of their properties. However, since we are concerned only with the 1st plaintiff firm in the present case the only point to be noted is that as per Ex.B4 order passed by the registration of firms the amendments made regarding the retirement of the partners were expunged and the firm has to continue with the earlier partners.

19.That apart the main point that arises for consideration in the suit is whether the plaintiff has able to prove that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property by the date of filing of the suit. Regarding the possession, it was deposed by PW.1 that he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the 1st plaintiff's business with effect from 30.11.2010. But during his cross-examination he admitted that as on the date of suit

Krishnaveni Poultry Needs is under the lock of M.R.O. Since PW.1 himself admitted that the property is under lock by the M.R.O. by the date of filing of the suit, possession of the business by 2nd plaintiff does not arise. Therefore, it can be held that plaintiff failed to prove his possession and enjoyment over the schedule property by the date of filing of the suit.

20.In respect of cause of action for filing of the suit PW.1 stated that defendants and their men came to the shop and made galata on 03.02.2011 and subsequently, they came to his house on 13 15.02.2011 and threatened him with dire consequences. During his cross-examination, he deposed that defendants came to the premises in the second week of February, 2011 and caused obstruction, but PW.2, who is the accountant of the 1st plaintiff firm deposed in his cross-examination that a quarrel took place in the 1st week of February, 2011 but he cannot say the names of persons, who came and quarreled on that day. It was specifically mentioned in the chief-examination of PW.2 that he has acquaintance with 2nd plaintiff and defendants since 1986. In such a case, if the defendants came to the premises and created a galata, PW.2 will definitely be in a position to identify them. But he simply stated in his cross-examination he cannot say the names of persons, who came and quarreled on that. So, it is clear that the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 does not corroborate each other regarding the date of occurrence of the alleged quarrel and the persons who came and created a galata. Therefore, it can be said that plaintiff failed to prove that there is cause of action for filing the suit.

21.In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, this

Court finds that plaintiff suppressed several facts for filing this suit and also failed to prove his possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit and thereby he is not entitled for the equitable relief of permanent injunction. Hence, issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs.

Additional Issue No.1 :-

14

22.The suit was initially filed only against defendants 1 to 3.

Subsequently, defendants 4 and 5 were also added as parties to the suit, on the petition filed by plaintiffs, on the ground that defendants 4 and 5 came to the shop on 18.03.2011 at about 3 p.m. and threatened him to close the business or to face serious consequences. The said averments were only mentioned in the neat copy of the plaint. The said averments were not reiterated by

PW.1 in his chief-examination. Since PW.1 himself never made any whisper regarding any obstruction or interference caused by defendants 4 and 5 to his business in his evidence, this Court finds that there is no cause of action against defendants 4 and 5 and as such there is no necessity to add them as parties to the suit. Furthermore, they are no way concerned with the 1st plaintiff's business even according to the evidence of PW.1. Hence, this issue is also answered against the plaintiff.

23.ISSUE No.2 :-

In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of June, 2017.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs:-

P.W.1: Kolli Butchi Kotaiah. P.W.2: Kota Sankaram.

For Defendants: - 15

D.W.1: Kolli Pandu Ranga Rao. D.W.2: Kolli Rama Devi. D.W.3: Manne Chalapathi Rao. D.W.4: D.Dasru.

Documents Marked

For Plaintiffs: - Ex.A1:Notarized copy of Notification of VAT Registration dt.26.11.2010.

Ex.A2:Notarized copy of VAT Registration Certificate dt.30.11.2010.

Ex.A3:Notarized copy of Drug Control License dt.24.11.2013.

Ex.A4:Certified copy of plaint in O.S.112/2011 on the file of II Addl.District Judge, Krishna, Vijayawada.

Ex.A5:Certified copy of plaint in O.S.1033/2011 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Ex.A6:Notification of VAT Registration dt.26.11.2010.

Ex.A7:Response to application to cancel VAT registration dt.02.12.2010.

Ex.A8:Notice to cancellation of VAT Registration dt.02.12.2010.

Ex.A9:True copy of registered sale deed dt.17.01.2011 document No.61/2011

Ex.A10True copy of registered sale deed dt.17.01.2011 :document No.62/2011

Ex.A11True copy of registered sale deed dt.17.01.2011 :document No.63/2011

For Defendants: -

Ex.B1:True copy of Retirement Deed dt.01.04.1995.

Ex.B2:True copy of Retirement Deed dt.31.01.2009.

Ex.B3:True copy of affidavit of K.Butchi Kotaiah.

Ex.B4:True copy of proceedings of Registrar of Firms dt.18.01.2011.

Ex.B5:Certified copy of F.I.R. In Crime No.530/2010 dt.08.08.2010

Ex.B6:Certified copy of written statement in O.S.76/2004 on the file of Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Ex.B7:Death Certificate of Kolli Venkata Padmanabham.

Ex.B8:Certified copy of F.I.R. In Crime No.30/2011 dt.24.01.2011.

16

Ex.B9:Letter issued by C.T.O., Vijayawada.

Ex.B10: Certified copy of Writ Petition No.2660/2011 on the file of

Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradeesh,

Hyderabad.

Ex.B11: Acknowledgment of rights in the properties.

Ex.X1:Letter addressed to Sales Tax Officer by Plaintiff dt.25.11.2010

Ex.X2:Application to cancel VAT Registration dt.30.11.2010.

Ex.X3:Final return to cancellation of VAT Registration dt.01.12.2011.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada.

1

In the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada

Present: ­ Smt. M. Meena Devi,

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2020

O.S. No. 754 of 2017

Between:

K.K. Shobha DeviPlaintiff a n d

Rakesh OstavalDefendant

This suit is coming before me on 10.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Pilla Ravi, advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. K. Mani Kumar, advocate for defendant and the same having stood over for consideration till this day and the Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment of defendant from the plaint schedule property and to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff and for damages at Rs.64,000/­ from 01.05.2017 till delivery of possession of the property to the plaintiff and for costs. 

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

(a). Plaintiff is the landlady of the property bearing door No:

11­42­105 situated at I town, Vijayawada. Defendant is a tenant in a shop in the ground floor of the said building on a monthly rent of

Rs.32,000/­ from August, 2015. Defendant was inducted into the said premises on 01.04.2011 on a monthly rent of Rs.18,000/­ and he also paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/­ towards security deposit which is refundable without interest at the time of vacating the

2

premises by the defendant. The plaintiff used to issue rent receipts whenever the defendant paid rent. The defendant also agreed to pay interest at Rs.1/­ per hundred per month on the arrears of rent in case of default in payment of rents.

(b). It was further averred that in the month of August 2015, rent was enhanced to Rs.32,000/­ per month. The building required repairs caused due to seepage and leakage as it is 60 years old building. So, in the month of December 2016, plaintiff requested all the tenants in the building to vacate their respective portions to carry out the repairs. All the tenants in the building, except the defendant, vacated their respective premises. The defendant with a malafide intention did not pay rents for the months of January and February 2017 and committed default. 

©. It was further averred that on 18.3.2017, plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the arrears of rent for the months of

January 2017 and February 2017 and to vacate the premises but defendant refused and threatened with dire consequences.

Thereupon, plaintiff gave a report to the police basing on which the defendant was admonished by the police. Thereafter, the defendant got issued a registered legal notice dt.26.03.2017 with false and untenable allegations. Subsequently, plaintiff got issued a registered legal demand notice dt.01.04.2017 U/sec. 106 of

Transfer of Property Act and a legal quit notice on 05.07.2017 terminating the tenancy of defendant and demanded him to pay the arrears of rent and to pay damages at Rs.64,000/­ per month. The defendant got issued a reply notice with false allegations and also

3

sent a pay order towards rent for the months of March 2017 to May 2017. The plaintiff got issued a rejoinder notice on 18.07.2017 denying the allegations made by the defendant and also returned the pay order demanding the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and damages at Rs.64,000/­ per month till the defendant vacates the tenanted premises. The defendant filed a suit OS 240/2017 on the file of VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada with untrue and untenable allegations. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. 

3.(a). The defendant filed his written statement admitting the land lord tenant relationship, deposit of Rs.3,00,000/­ towards security, monthly rent of Rs.32,000/­ from August 2015 and also filing of OS 240/2017 on the file of VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada. He contended that he used to pay the rent regularly without any default and plaintiff is in the habit of issuing receipts for the rents paid by him. He contended that he agreed to pay enhanced rent at 20% for every two years and has been paying the same to the plaintiff. He paid the rent for the months of January 2017 and February, 2017 to the plaintiff in the first week of March 2017 but plaintiff did not issue the receipts stating that new receipt books were not yet received by her. While so, on 20.03.2017 plaintiff along with her henchmen came to the shop and demanded to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/­ as enhanced rent from March 2017 onwards. As defendant objected for her illegal demand, she threatened to vacate the premises forcibly. So, defendant gave a

4

report to the police and counseling was given by the police but plaintiff did not change her attitude. 

(b). It was further contended that defendant is a respectable business man in the society and he is paying rents to the plaintiff without any default. So, he has a right to stay in the premises and to continue the business as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the lease confirmation letter executed by the plaintiff at the time of commencement of lease. But plaintiff is trying to create troubles to the defendant and threatening him with dire consequences. The defendant got issued a registered notice to the plaintiff on 26.03.2017 demanding to issue receipts for the payments made by him for the months of January 2017 and

February 2017. The plaintiff received the same and kept quiet. So, he had to file the suit OS 240/2017 on the file of VII Addl. Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada. The defendant approached the

plaintiff and tried to pay the rents several times but plaintiff intentionally escaped from receiving the same. So, on 18.7.2017 defendant obtained a demand draft for an amount of Rs.96,000/­ in favour of plaintiff but she refused the same and returned it along with reply notice dt. 4.8.2017. The plaintiff has no right to issue quit notice as defendant never committed default to pay the rent amounts. The defendant is not liable to pay damages at

Rs.64,000/­ per month. The defendant is ready to pay the total rent amount but the intention of plaintiff is only to vacate him from the tenanted premises. If the defendant is vacated from the

5

premises, he will suffer huge loss. Hence, the suit may be dismissed. 

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

1). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from the plaint schedule property and for possession of the same?

2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages at Rs.64,000/­ from 1.5.2018 till the date of eviction of the defendant from the property?

3). To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, she got herself examined as P.W.1.

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 were got marked.

6.On behalf of defendant, he got himself examined as D.W.1.

Ex.B.1 was got marked on behalf of defendant.

7.Written arguments were filed by the plaintiff counsel. Heard the defendant counsel. 

Discussion:

Issue No.1

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from the plaint schedule property and for possession of the same?

8.The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:­

6

Plaintiff is the landlord of a building named as Shobha Mahal situated at Ramgopal Street, I town, Vijayawada and defendant took lease of one shop in the ground floor in August 2009 for a rent of Rs.18,000/­ per month. At the time of induction as a tenant, defendant paid Rs.3,00,000/­ towards security deposit. The monthly rent by the date of filing of suit is Rs.32,000/­ per month.

Plaintiff is in the habit of issuing receipts whenever rents are paid.

It is also not in dispute regarding exchange of notices between the parties prior to filing of suit ie., Ex.A.2, Ex.A.3, Ex.A.5, Ex.A.7 to

Ex.A.9 notices and also filing of OS 240/2017 on the file of VII

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

9.The evidence of P.W.1/plaintiff is that the building is aged about 60 years and it needs repairs. So she requested all the tenants, including the defendant, in December 2016 to vacate their respective portions and in pursuance thereof, all the tenants except the defendant vacated their respective premises. She further deposed that thereafter defendant bore grudge against her and did not pay the rents for the months of January 2017 and February, 2017 and committed willful default. She also deposed that she got issued Ex.A.5 notice dt.01.04.2017 and Ex.A.7 notice dt.

05.07.2017 terminating the tenancy and demanding the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and also damages at Rs.64,000/­ per month in case of failure to vacate the premises. 

7

10.It is the evidence of D.W.1 that he never committed default in paying the rents and that he paid the rents for the months of

January, 2017 and February 2017 also but plaintiff did not issue receipts. He further deposed that he was always ready to pay the rents to the plaintiff but she avoided to receive the same. 

11.It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that defendant did not pay the rents for the months of January 2017 and February, 2017. The defendant pleaded that he paid rents for the said months but except his oral evidence, he did not file any document to prove the same. He deposed that he got issued Ex.A.2 notice dt.

26.03.2017 demanding the defendant to issue receipts in respect of the rents paid by him towards months of January 2017 and

February 2017. However, P.W.1 got filed Ex.A.3 reply notice dt.

01.04.2017 wherein she has denied the payment of rents by the defendant for the months of January, 2017 and February 2017.

But even then defendant did not choose to adduce any evidence to prove that he paid the rents for the said months. In respect of the rents for the months of March 2017 to May 2017, D.W.1 deposed that he sent the said rent to the defendant by way of a demand draft along with Ex.A.8 notice dt. 18.07.2017, but plaintiff returned the same. Ex.A.9 rejoinder notice dt. 03.08.2017 was got filed by the plaintiff wherein it was specifically mentioned that the demand draft sent by the defendant is being returned along with the said notice as he committed default in paying the rents for the months of January 2017 and February 2017. It is pertinent to note that it

8

is admitted by both parties that plaintiff is in the habit of issuing receipts whenever rents are paid. Therefore, in the absence of receipts, it is for the defendant to prove that he paid rents for the months of January 2017 and February 2017. But no cogent and convincing evidence has been adduced by the defendant to prove the same. 

12.At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to IA 93/2019 which was filed by the plaintiff seeking this court to direct the defendant to deposit the rents at Rs.32,000/­ from the months of January 2017 to July 2017 and damages at Rs.64,000/­ from 01.08.2017 till disposal of the suit. The defendant herein ie., the respondent in the said petition did not choose to file his counter in the said petition. Instead, he filed a memo on 03.07.2019 reporting no objection which by itself means that he did not pay the rents for the months of January 2017 and February 2017. Thereafter, this court passed an order directing the defendant to deposit the rents at Rs.32,000/­ per month from January 2017 to July 2017 and to continue to deposit the same by the 5th of every succeeding month.

The said order passed by this court on 20.08.2019. But the defendant paid the rents in the last week of November 2019 ie., to be more specific an amount of Rs.10,88,000/­ towards rents from

January 2017 to October 2019 (34 months). The present suit was filed on 17.08.2017. Though the defendant contested the matter, he did not choose to make any effort atleast to deposit the amount into the court or to deposit the amount in the bank account of the

9

plaintiff but paid the rents for a period of 34 months only in

November, 2019. Therefore, there is no doubt that the defendant committed willful default in paying the rents to the plaintiff. 

13.The plaintiff got issued Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.7 notices to the defendant terminating his tenancy and demanding him to pay the arrears of rents and damages at Rs.64,000/­ per month. There is no dispute regarding the receipt of the said notices by the defendant. D.W.1 also categorically deposed in his cross­ examination that the plaintiff came to him and asked him to vacate the plaint schedule property. He admitted that plaintiff gave sufficient time to him by way of issuing Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.7 quit notices. He categorically deposed in his cross­examination that an unregistered lease deed was executed between himself and P.W.1 and as per the said lease deed the lease was terminated by 30.07.2011 and subsequently the lease was not renewed by way of any document. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff when the lease itself is not extended by way of any document, the defendant is only a tenant at sufferance and he is not entitled to continue in the schedule property. 

14.The learned counsel for the defendant relied upon the following decisions in respect of validity and issuance of notice

Under S. 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 

(1). 2019 (4) ALD 175 (SC) between Sevoke

Properties Ltd. V. West Bengal State Electricity

10

Distribution Co. Ltd. 

(2). 2019 (3) ALD 432 between Ammatul Syeda

Azra V. Arif Mohaiuddin 

(3). 2019 (5) ALD 565 between Ashok Kumar Gupta

V. Mamidi Prakash Manchala Prakash. 

15.In the present suit, defendant admitted that plaintiff got issued Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.7 quit notices and the same were received by him. He never disputed the issuance of the said notices or challenged the validity of the notices. Therefore, with due respect this court finds that the above mentioned decisions are not relevant in the present suit and do not help the plaintiff in any manner. 

16.In view of the above discussion, this court finds that defendant is not entitled to continue in the plaint schedule property and that he is liable to be evicted from the same and plaintiff is entitled for possession of the same. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff. 

Issue No.2

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages at Rs.64,000/­ from 1.5.2018 till the date of eviction of the defendant from the property?

17. The plaintiff claimed damages at Rs.64,000/­ per month from 01.05.2018 till the date of eviction of defendant from the plaint schedule property. However, in her chief examination she categorically deposed that the defendant is liable to pay damages at Rs.64,000/­ per month from 01.05.2017 but she is claiming damages from 01.07.2017 onwards. In her additional chief

11

examination at para No.4, she again deposed that the defendant is liable to pay damages at Rs.64,000/­ from 01.08.2017.

18.D.W.1 categorically deposed in his cross­examination that the plaint schedule property is situated in Ramgopal street which is a busy and commercial area. When he was cross­examined regarding the rents at present as per the prevailing market value, he deposed that he does not know whether the plaint schedule property will fetch a rent of Rs.70,000/­ to Rs.1,00,000/­ per month as per the prevailing market value. What is necessary to be noted is that D.W.1 never denied the said suggestion. Since the tenancy has been terminated and admittedly as the rent was

Rs.32,000/­ even by the date of filing of the suit, this court finds that the plaintiff is entitled for damages at Rs.64,000/­ per month.

Since the plaintiff herself has claimed damages only from 01.08.2017 as per her evidence, this court finds that she is entitled for damages from 01.08.2017 till the date of eviction of the property by the defendant. However, since the defendant paid the rents at Rs.32,000/­ per month for some period from 01.08.2017, he is directed to pay the balance amount for that period and to continue to pay the damages at Rs.64,000/­ per month for the remaining period till he vacates the property. 

Issue No.3

To what relief?

19Result: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs; (a) directing the defendant to evict from the plaint schedule property

12

and hand over possession of the same to the plaintiff within four months from the date of this judgment; failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get it done under due process of law; (b). the defendant is directed to pay damages at Rs.64,000/­ per month from 01.08.2017 after deduction of the amounts already paid by him, till he vacates the property, (on payment of court fees by the plaintiff).

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me on this the 17th day of April, 2020. 

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff. Defendant

P.W.1: K.K. Shobha Devi. D.W.1: Rakesh Ostaval

Documents marked on behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Certified copy of registered will dt. 12.02.2001

Ex.A.2: Served copy of registered notice issued by defendant to the plaintiff dt. 26.03.2017

Ex.A.3: Office copy of reply notice got issued by plaintiff dt.

01.04.2017

Ex.A.4: Postal acknowledgement dated 04.04.2017

Ex.A.5: Office copy of registered legal demand notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 01.04.2016

Ex.A.6: Postal acknowledgement dt. 06.07.2017

Ex.A.7: Office copy of registered legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 05.07.2017.

Ex.A.8: Reply notice got issued by the defendant dated 18.07.2017

Ex.A.9: Office copy of rejoinder got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 03.08.2017

13

Documents marked on behalf of defendant: 

Ex.B.1: Office copy of the notice dated 18.07.2017 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt. M. Meena Devi, 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge.

Friday, the 06th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No: 508 of 2018

Between:

Pusuluri Rama RaoPlaintiff

Vs.

Kontham Suri BabuDefendant

This suit is coming on 26.02.2020 finally for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. M.V. Rama Rao, advocate for plaintiff and Sri.

Ch. Subba Rao, advocate for defendant and the same having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,13,000/­ being the principal and interest due under a promissory note, dt.15.10.2015 for Rs.5,50,000/­ and for costs of the suit.

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,50,000/­ on 15.10.2015 from the plaintiff for his family expenses, business purpose and executed a promissory note on even date in favour of plaintiff at his house, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a, either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, defendant did not pay the promissory note debt inspite of repeated

2

demands made by plaintiff and postponed the same on some pretext or other. Thereafter, plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt. 30.06.2018 demanding to discharge the debt. The same was received on 03.07.2018 but defendant neither gave any reply nor complied the demand of plaintiff. Hence, the suit. 

3.(a). Defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of plaint and inter alia contended that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in his favour. The suit promissory note is forged and fabricated.

The plaintiff is a stranger to the defendant.

(b). It was further contended that the close relative of defendant was addicted to vices and is indebted to several persons at Kakinada.

In that connection, the debtors of close relative of defendant approached the defendant and threatened him with dire consequences if he does not discharge the debts of his close relative. Having no other option, in March 2013 the defendant subscribed his signatures on four blank promissory notes on the demand of creditors of his close relative by name Akkireddy Gangadhara Rao and Marri Ashok, who are residents of East Godavari District, as security to the amount borrowed by his close relative. The said creditors also obtained the signatures of his close relative and promised that they will return the promissory notes after discharge of the debts. Thereafter, ie., from

April 2013 the relation between the defendant and his close relative

3

severed and close relative sent his wife to the house of defendant to seek for more financial assistance. But the defendant was reluctant as he already discharged the debts of his close relative.

(c). It was further contended that in June 2015, the defendant discharged the entire amount to the above said two creditors of his close relative and they returned the promissory notes to his close relative but his close relative did not return the promissory notes and retained them with him. The defendant kept quiet as it may ruin the life of wife of his close relative. Subsequently, in the month of March 2018, his neartest relative demanded the share in the properties of this defendant but he refused for the same. After receipt of the call for security notice, on enquiry this defendant came to know that plaintiff herein is the kith and kin of the friend of his close relative and he is the person behind the screen in filing false suit with the help of plaintiff. The nearest relative, plaintiff and his son who is friend of his close relative foisted the fictitious person and filled the signed promissory notes with the help of scribe and attestors. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount and defendant has no necessity to borrow such huge amount. Hence, the suit may be dismissed. 

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

1). Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated?

4

2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from defendant?

3). To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, he got himself examined as P.W.1. The attestors N. Ramesh and N. Suresh were examined as P.W.2 and

P.W.3 respectively. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 were got marked.

6.The defendant did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf inspite of several opportunities and as such his evidence was closed. 

7.Heard the plaintiff counsel and defendant counsel. 

Discussion:

Issue No.1 

Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated?

8.The evidence of P.W.1/Plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,50,000/­ from him on 15.12.2015 for his family expenses and business purpose under Ex.A.1, but thereafter failed to repay the amount inspite of repeated demands made by him. So, he got issued a legal notice dt. 30.06.2018 which was received under

Ex.A.3 acknowledgement but there was no response from the defendant. P.W.2 and P.W.3 also deposed in their chief examination that the defendant borrowed Rs.5,50,000/­ under Ex.A.1 promissory

5

note from P.W.1 in their presence and both of them attested Ex.A.1 promissory note which was scribed by one Nelluri Kutumba Rao in the house of plaintiff.

9.The learned counsel for the defendant cross­examined P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and in fact grilled them. One of the plea taken by the defendant is that plaintiff was a stranger to him. Regarding the acquaintance with defendant, P.W.1 deposed that he got acquainted with the defendant through his elder son­in­law Krishna Rao who was an accountant in Apollo Hospitals, Kakinada. He further deposed that the defendant who is a resident of Annavaram, East Godavari District came to his house along with his son­in­law and used to borrow amounts varying from Rs.50,000/­ to Rs.1,00,000/­ as hand loan since the year 2013 and that he borrowed amounts for about ten times and also used to repay the same without any interest in less than one month through his son­in­law. He also categorically stated that his son­in­law got acquainted with the defendant when he went to Annavaram along with the officials of Apollo Hospitals for

Darshanam of Lord Satyanarayana Swamy. He also deposed that the defendant is a contractor in respect of canteen, tollgate etc., in

Annavaram Devasthanam. It is pertinent to note that it was never suggested to P.W.1 denying the said evidence, inspite of the plea that plaintiff is a stranger to him. 

6

10. In respect of the source of income of P.W.1, he deposed that agriculture is his main source of income and he gets Rs.7,00,000/­ to

Rs.8,00,000/­ per year by doing cultivation. He also deposed that he had quarry lorries till the year 2016­2017. He further deposed that he sold his land in the year 2013 and kept an amount of Rs.20,00,000/­ out of the sale proceeds in his house and the consideration given under Ex.A.1 is out of the said amount. During the course of his further cross­examination, he deposed that the attestors are known to him since 10 to 12 years but he does not know their surnames or their father’s names and he also does not know the scribe. With regard to the transaction under Ex.A.1, P.W.1 deposed that the defendant came to his house at about 09.00 AM or 09.30 AM and sent word to the attestors and scribe through another person. He further deposed that the attestors and scribe came to his house about 1 1/2 hour thereafter, separately. He also stated that the defendant himself brought the promissory note. He categorically deposed that the consideration was passed in denominations of Rs.1,000/­ and

Rs.500/­ which was counted by him and also the defendant in the presence of all of them. He further stated that the transaction was completed by 12.00 noon. P.W.1 also deposed that he went to

Annavaram in the year 2016 regarding the amount borrowed by him and on enquiry he was told that defendant does not repay the amounts promptly. He further stated that he went to Annavaram in the year 2017 also. In the year 2019, he came to know that the

7

defendant is trying to sell the property and as such he got filed the suit. He denied the suggestion that the suit was got filed by him at the instance of his son­in­law who is a friend of defendant’s son­in­law

Nageswara Rao, who was not in talking terms with the defendant. 

11.P.W.2 also deposed that he attends painting work in the shop of

P.W.3 and one unknown person came to the shop at 09.00 AM on 15.10.2015 when both of them were present in the shop and stated that the plaintiff asked him to come to his house. Thereupon, he along with P.W.2 went to the house of P.W.1 and by that time the defendant and plaintiff were present and plaintiff told him that the defendant came to borrow amount and he asked them to sign on the promissory note. He categorically stated that the scribe came there at 10.00 am and plaintiff brought the amount which was counted by plaintiff and given to the defendant. He also stated that Ex.A.1 transaction took place in the verandah in the ground floor of P.W.1’s house and the transaction was completed by 11.30 am. P.W.3 also deposed that an unknown person came to his shop and asked him to come to the house of P.W.1 and he along with P.W.2 reached the house of plaintiff in fifteen minutes and by that time the plaintiff and defendant were present. Within the next fifteen minutes the scribe came there and all of them sat in the verandah in the ground floor of plaintiff's house. He deposed that the scribe filled up the promissory note as per the instructions of defendant and the plaintiff and that he attested the

8

promissory note after P.W.2. He categorically deposed that the defendant received the consideration and signed on the promissory note and the transaction was completed by 12.00 noon to 12.15 pm.

12.The elaborate cross­examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3 reveals that the learned counsel for the defendant failed to elicit anything from them in respect of material aspects which would cause the court to disbelieve their evidence. The learned counsel highlighted that part of the evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses wherein they have deposed the manner in which they reached the plaintiff’s house, the distance between their houses etc, but this court finds that they are not so important as to disbelieve the case of plaintiff and as such are not of much importance.

13.The learned counsel also submitted that Ex.A.1 has been materially altered as P.W.1 himself deposed that some corrections have been made in the office of advocate. However, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, defendant never took the plea of material alteration in his written statement and also never elicited anything from P.W.1 regarding what has been materially altered in Ex.A.1 promissory note. Therefore, the said argument put forth by the learned counsel for the defendant is untenable. 

9

14.The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 clearly goes to show that plaintiff has discharged the initial burden of proving the execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 promissory note to the defendant. It is the plea of defendant that the blank signed promissory notes obtained from him were filled up for filing this suit. So, the question of forgery does not arise. Further, It is clear that the signature of the defendant is not disputed. Therefore, the presumption under section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act can be drawn in favour of plaintiff and it is for the defendant to rebut the said presumption.

15.The defendant can rebut the presumption under section 118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act by bringing about the circumstances which improbablize the passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 either by eliciting the same from the cross­examination of plaintiff’s witnesses or by adducing his evidence. During the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, it was held by this court that the learned counsel for the defendant failed to elicit anything material from P.W.1 to P.W.3. Further, the defendant filed his written statement pleading that there were strained relations between himself and his son­in­law and that the creditors of his son­in­law Nageswara Rao obtained blank signed promissory notes from him towards security for discharge of the debts contracted by his son­in­law and thereafter ie., after discharge of the entire debt to the creditors of his son­in­law, they

10

handed over the blank signed promissory notes to his son­in­law who got filled up the same and filed this suit through the plaintiff who is the father­in­law of defendant’s son­in­law’s friend. However, he did not choose to enter into the witness box or to adduce any other oral or documentary evidence to prove his contentions. Hence, this court finds that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption that has arisen in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff. 

Issue No.2

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from defendant?

16.While answering issue No.1, this court held that the plaintiff has been able to prove the execution and passing of consideration under

Ex.A.1 promissory note to the defendant. Therefore, obviously the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount, as prayed for. 

Issue No. 3

To what relief?

17.Result: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.9,13,000/­ together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the prl., amount of Rs.5,50,000/­

11

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 06th day of March, 2020). 

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff. Defendant P.W.1: P. Rama Rao

P.W.2: N. RameshNone

P.W.3: N. Suresh

Documents marked on behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Promissory note dt. 15.10.2015

Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dt. 30.06.2018

Ex.A.3: Acknowledgment of the tracking consignment on line copy dt.7.7.2018. 

Documents marked on behalf of defendants ­NIL­

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

12

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt. M. Meena Devi, 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge.

Friday, the 06th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No: 505 of 2018

Between:

Pusuluri Rama Rao, S/o. Subbarayudu, Hindu, 52 years, R/o. Door No: 3/15, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. Plaintiff

Vs.

Kontham Suri Babu, S/o. Late Atcharao, Hindu, 54 years, Door No: 6­ 149, Eranki Vari Street, A. Annavaram village, Sankavaram Mandal, E.G. District. Defendant

Claim: Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,13,000/­ being the principal and interest due under a promissory note, dt.15.10.2015 for Rs.5,50,000/­ and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on: 11.07.2018 Plaint numbered on: 11.07.2018

Particulars of suit claim: Prl. Amount of suit pronote dt. 15.10.2015Rs.550000.00 Interest from 15.10.15 to 10.07.18 @ 24%Rs.363000.00 TotalRs.913000.00

On which a court fee of Rs.11626/­ is paid herewith under section 20 (1) of APCF and SV Act.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is the value at Rs.9,13,000/­ under section 50 of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 15.10.2015 when the defendant borrowed and executed a pronote of Rs.5,50,00/­ in favour of plaintiff at Ibrahimpatnam when the plaintiff made demand on the defendant to repay the pronote amount with interest, when the defendant avoid and postponing the same on some pretext or other, on 30.06.2018 when the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the

13

defendant for demanding of pronote debt with interest due, when the defendants are same was received on 03.07.2018 but the defendant neither gave any reply nor comply with the defendant, where the plaintiff residing and where the suit pronote was executed at

Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal, Krishna District within the jurisdiction of this court. 

This suit is coming on 26.02.2020 finally for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. M.V. Rama Rao, advocate for plaintiff and Sri.

Ch. Subba Rao, advocate for defendant and the same having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court doth order and decree:

(i). that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

(ii). that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.9,13,000/­ together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the prl., amount of Rs.5,50,000/­ 

(iii). that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.41,293/­ towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs. NIL.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 06th day of March, 2020.

1 st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

14

M e m o o f C o s t s

Sl. Particulars Plaintiff Defendant No. 

1.Vakalat2­00–

2.Plaint Fee11626­00–

3.Process fee475­00– .Stamps on petition5­00–

5.Advocate Fee (Sr.)29090­00–

6.Advocate Fee (Jr.)––

7.Publication charges50­00–

8.Typing & Writing50­00– Charges

Total: 41293­00– 1 st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt. M. Meena Devi, 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge.

Friday, the 06th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No: 525 of 2018

Between:

Pusuluri Rama RaoPlaintiff

Vs.

Kontham Suri BabuDefendant

This suit is coming on 26.02.2020 finally for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. M.V. Rama Rao, advocate for plaintiff and

Sri.Ch. Subba Rao, advocate for defendant and the same having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,66,000/­ being the principal and interest due under a promissory note, dt.25.12.2015 for Rs.6,00,000/­ and for costs of the suit.

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/­ on 25.12.2015 from the plaintiff for his family expenses, business purpose and executed a promissory note on even date in favour of plaintiff at his house, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a, either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, defendant did not pay the promissory note debt inspite of repeated

2

demands made by plaintiff and postponed the same on some pretext or other. Thereafter, plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt. 30.06.2018 demanding to discharge the debt but the same was returned on 03.07.2018 but defendant neither gave any reply nor complied the demand of plaintiff. Hence, the suit. 

3.(a). Defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of plaint and inter alia contended that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in his favour. The suit promissory note is forged and fabricated.

The plaintiff is a stranger to the defendant.

(b). It was further contended that the defendant’s son­in­law

Nageswara Rao was addicted to vices and is indebted to several persons at Kakinada. In that connection, the debtors of defendant’s son­in­law approached the defendant and threatened him with dire consequences if he does not discharge the debts of his son­in­law.

Having no other option, in March 2013, the defendant subscribed his signatures on four blank promissory notes on the demand of creditors of his son­in­law by name Akkireddy Gangadhara Rao and Marri

Ashok, who are residents of East Godavari District, as security to the amount borrowed by his son­in­law. The said creditors also obtained the signatures of his son­in­law and promised that they will return the promissory notes after discharge of the debts. Thereafter, ie., from

April 2013 the relation between the defendant’s son­in­law and the

3

defendant was severed and defendant’s son­in­law sent his wife to the house of defendant to seek for more financial assistance. But the defendant was reluctant as he already discharged the debts of his son­ in­law.

(c). It was further contended that in June 2015, the defendant discharged the entire amount to the above said two creditors of his son­in­law and they returned the promissory notes to his son­in­law but his son­in­law did not return the promissory notes and retained them with him. The defendant kept quiet as it may ruin the life of his daughter. Subsequently, in the month of March 2018, his son­in­law demanded the share in the properties of this defendant but he refused for the same. After receipt of the call for security notice, on enquiry this defendant came to know that plaintiff herein is the kith and kin of the friend of his son­in­law Nageswara Rao’s father and he is the person behind the screen in filing false suit with the help of plaintiff.

The son­in­law Nageswara Rao, plaintiff and his son who is friend of defendant’s son­in­law foisted the fictitious person and filled the signed promissory notes with the help of scribe and attestors. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount and defendant has no necessity to borrow such huge amount. Hence, the suit may be dismissed. 

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

1). Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, genuine and binding on the defendant?

4

2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from defendant?

3). To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, he got himself examined as P.W.1. The attestors N. Ramesh and N. Suresh were examined as P.W.2 and

P.W.3 respectively. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 were got marked. 

6.The defendant did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf inspite of several opportunities and as such his evidence was closed. 

7.Heard the plaintiff counsel and defendant counsel. 

Discussion:

Issue No.1 

Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, genuine and binding on the defendant?

8.The evidence of P.W.1/Plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/­ from him on 25.12.2015 for his family expenses and business purpose under Ex.A.1, but thereafter failed to repay the amount inspite of repeated demands made by him. So, he got issued a legal notice dt. 30.06.2018 which was returned under

Ex.A.3 returned cover. P.W.2 and P.W.3 also deposed in their chief examination that the defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/­ under Ex.A.1 promissory note from P.W.1 in their presence and both of them attested Ex.A.1 promissory note which was scribed by one Nelluri

Kutumba Rao in the house of plaintiff.

5

9.The learned counsel for the defendant cross­examined P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and in fact grilled them. One of the plea taken by the defendant is that plaintiff was a stranger to him. Regarding the acquaintance with defendant, P.W.1 deposed that he got acquainted with the defendant through his elder son­in­law Krishna Rao who was an accountant in Apollo Hospitals, Kakinada. He further deposed that the defendant who is a resident of Annavaram, East Godavari District came to his house along with his son­in­law and used to borrow amounts varying from Rs.50,000/­ to Rs.1,00,000/­ as hand loan since the year 2013 and that he borrowed amounts for about ten times and also used to repay the same without any interest in less than one month through his son­in­law. He also categorically stated that his son­in­law got acquainted with the defendant when he went to Annavaram along with the officials of Apollo Hospitals for

Darshanam of Lord Satyanarayana Swamy. He also deposed that the defendant is a contractor in respect of canteen, tollgate etc., in

Annavaram Devasthanam. It is also pertinent to note that it was never suggested to P.W.1 denying the said evidence, inspite of the plea that plaintiff is a stranger to him. 

10. In respect of the source of income of P.W.1, he deposed that agriculture is his main source of income and he gets Rs.7,00,000/­ to

Rs.8,00,000/­ per year by doing cultivation. He also deposed that he had quarry lorries till the year 2016­2017. He further deposed that he

6

sold his land in the year 2013 and kept an amount of Rs.20,00,000/­ out of the sale proceeds in his house and the consideration given under Ex.A.1 is out of the said amount. During the course of his further cross­examination, he deposed that the attestors are known to him since 10 to 12 years but he does not know their surnames or their father’s names. Regarding the scribe, he specifically deposed that he does not know the scribe and that the scribe has got acquaintance with the defendant. With regard to the transaction under Ex.A.1,

P.W.1 deposed that the defendant only came to his house at about 03.00 PM and he went and brought the attestors and scribe along with him. He categorically deposed that the consideration was passed in denominations of Rs.1,000/­ and Rs.500/­ which was counted by him and also the defendant in the presence of all of them. He further stated that the transaction was completed by 05.00 PM. P.W.1 also deposed that he went to Annavaram in the year 2016 regarding the amount borrowed by him and on enquiry he was told that defendant does not repay the amounts promptly. He further stated that he went to Annavaram in the year 2017 also. In the year 2019, he came to know that the defendant is trying to sell the property and as such he got filed the suit. He denied the suggestion that the suit was got filed by him at the instance of his son­in­law who is a friend of defendant’s son­in­law Nageswara Rao, who was not in talking terms with the defendant. 

7

11.P.W.2 also deposed that the defendant and scribe came to the work shop ie., shop of P.W.3 at 3.30 pm., and all of them went to the house of P.W.1 and defendant informed them that he is borrowing amount from the plaintiff and asked them to attest the promissory note. He categorically stated that plaintiff brought the amount which was counted by plaintiff and the defendant. He also stated that Ex.A.1 transaction took place in the verandah in the ground floor of P.W.1’s house and that the defendant himself brought the promissory note which was attested by himself and P.W.3 and the transaction was completed by 05.00 pm. P.W.3 also deposed that the defendant came to his shop and asked him to come to the house of P.W.1 and all of them reached the house of plaintiff at the same time but by different modes. He deposed that the defendant himself brought the promissory note and the defendant signed in the promissory note followed by

P.W.2, himself and N. Kutumba Rao and then handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant. 

12.The elaborate cross­examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3 reveals that the learned counsel for the defendant failed to elicit anything from them in respect of material aspects which would cause the court to disbelieve their evidence. The learned counsel highlighted that part of the evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses wherein they have deposed the manner in which they reached the plaintiff’s house, the distance between their houses etc, but this court finds that they are not so

8

important as to disbelieve the case of plaintiff and as such does not need any consideration.

13.The learned counsel also submitted that Ex.A.1 has been materially altered as P.W.1 himself deposed that some corrections have been made in the office of advocate. However, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, defendant never took the plea of material alteration in his written statement and also never elicited anything from P.W.1 regarding what has been materially altered in Ex.A.1 promissory note. Therefore, the said argument put forth by the learned counsel for the defendant is untenable. 

14.The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 clearly goes to show that plaintiff has discharged the initial burden of proving the execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 promissory note to the defendant. Since it is the plea of defendant that the blank signed promissory notes obtained from him were filled up for filing this suit, it is clear that the signature of the defendant is not disputed.

Therefore, the presumption under section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act can be drawn in favour of plaintiff and it is for the defendant to rebut the said presumption.

9

15.The defendant can rebut the presumption under section 118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act by bringing about the circumstances which improbablize the passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 either by eliciting the same from the cross­examination of plaintiff’s witnesses or by adducing his evidence. During the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, it was held by this court that the learned counsel for the defendant failed to elicit anything material from P.W.1 to P.W.3. Further, the defendant filed his written statement pleading that there were a strained relations between himself and his son­in­ law and that the creditors of his son­in­law Nageswara Rao obtained blank signed promissory notes from him towards security for discharge of the debts contracted by his son­in­law and thereafter ie., after discharge of the entire debt to the creditors of his son­in­law, they handed over the blank signed promissory notes to his son­in­law who got filled up the same and filed this suit through the plaintiff who is the father­in­law of defendant’s son­in­law’s friend. However, he did not choose to enter into the witness box or to adduce any other oral or documentary evidence to prove his contentions. Hence, this court finds that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption that has arisen in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff.

Issue No.2

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from defendant?

10

16.While answering issue No.1, this court held that the plaintiff has been able to prove the execution and passing of consideration under

Ex.A.1 promissory note to the defendant. Therefore, obviously the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount, as prayed for. 

Issue No. 3

To what relief? 

17.Result: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.9,66,000/­ together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the prl., amount of Rs.6,00,000/­ (Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 06th day of March, 2020). 

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff. Defendant P.W.1: P. Rama Rao

P.W.2: N. RameshNone

P.W.3: N. Suresh

Documents marked on behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Promissory note dt. 25.12.2015

Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dt. 30.06.2018

Ex.A.3: Returned cover. 

Documents marked on behalf of defendants ­NIL­ I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

11

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt. M. Meena Devi, 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge.

Friday, the 06th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No: 525 of 2018

Between:

Pusuluri Rama Rao, S/o. Subbarayudu, Hindu, 52 years, R/o. Door No: 3/15, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. Plaintiff

Vs.

Kontham Suri Babu, S/o. Late Atcharao, Hindu, 54 years, Door No: 6­ 149, Eranki Vari Street, A. Annavaram village, Sankavaram Mandal, E.G. District. Defendant

Claim: Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,66,000/­ being the principal and interest due under a promissory note, dt.25.12.2015 for Rs.6,00,000/­ and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on: 16.07.2018 Plaint numbered on: 16.07.2018

Particulars of suit claim: Prl. Amount of suit pronote dt. 25.12.2015Rs.600000.00 Interest from 25.12.15 to 11.07.18 @ 24%Rs.366000.00 TotalRs.966000.00

On which a court fee of Rs.12126/­ is paid herewith under section 20 (1) of APCF and SV Act.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is the value at Rs.9,66,000/­ under section 50 of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 25.12.2015 when the defendant borrowed and executed a pronote of Rs.6,00,00/­ in favour of plaintiff at Ibrahimpatnam when the plaintiff made demand on the defendant to repay the pronote amount with interest, when the defendant avoid and postponing the same on some pretext or other, on 30.06.2015 when the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the

12

defendant for demanding of pronote debt with interest due, when the defendants are same was received on 03.07.2018 but the defendant neither gave any reply nor comply with the defendant, where the plaintiff residing and where the suit pronote was executed at

Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal, Krishna District within the jurisdiction of this court. 

This suit is coming on 26.02.2020 finally for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. M.V. Rama Rao, advocate for plaintiff and

Sri.Ch. Subba Rao, advocate for defendant and the same having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court doth order and decree:

(i). that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

(ii). that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.9,66,000/­ together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the prl., amount of Rs.6,00,000/­ 

(iii). that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.43,383/­ towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs. NIL.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 06th day of March, 2020.

1 st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

13

M e m o o f C o s t s

Sl. Particulars Plaintiff Defendant No. 

1.Vakalat2­00–

2.Plaint Fee12126­00–

3.Process fee470­00– .Stamps on petition5­00–

5.Advocate Fee (Sr.)36680­00–

6.Advocate Fee (Jr.)––

7.Publication charges50­00–

8.Typing & Writing50­00– Charges

Total: 43383­00– 1 st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

1

In the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada

Present: ­ Smt. M. Meena Devi,

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2020

O.S. No. 906 of 2017

Between:

Vuyyuru PushpalathaPlaintiff

A n d

Kurakula SeethambaramDefendant

This suit is coming before me on 06.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. B. Koti Reddy, advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. Narra Nageswara Rao, advocate for defendant and the same having stood over for consideration till this day and the Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking declaration that plaintiff has joint right in the plaint schedule passage shown as A B C D in the plaint plan, along with the defendant, to have ingress and egress to reach Annevari Street abutting points “B” and “C” as per the plaint plan on its southern side and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the obstacles placed across the points shown as “B” and “C” as per the plaint plan and for costs. 

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

(a). Plaintiff purchased house site in an extent of 193.89 sq.

yards in R.S.No: 129/6A of Kanuru village under registered sale deed dated 26.02.2005 from Ummadi Rama Swamy, Ummadi

2

Ramachandra Rao and Nakka Eswaramma who are children of Late

Subba Rao for a consideration of Rs.1,21,000/­ and possession was also delivered to her. Plaintiff’s vendors conferred joint right in the passage (shown as ABCD in the plaint plan) abutting the said house site on the east to her for ingress and egress to reach the road situated on the southern side (Annevari Street). The house belonging to late Pamidipati Srimannarayana was purchased by him under a registered sale deed dated 23.08.2008 from

Saramekala Aruna Kumari, who purchased the same from Ummadi

Rama Swamy and others.

(b). It was further averred that defendant purchased her house site under registered sale deed dt. 30.08.1986 from Ummadi

Subba Rao wherein only the joint right in the plaint schedule joint passage was conferred to the defendant to have ingress and egress to reach Annevari Street. As there is an irrigation canal towards east of the plaint schedule property and no road was formed towards east of the irrigation canal, Ummadi Subba Rao left the joint passage for the purchasers whoever comes forward to purchase his site at present and in future. The said Ummadi Subba

Rao never conferred exclusive rights to the defendant to use the plaint schedule joint passage for herself. Ever since 2005, plaintiff has been using the joint passage to reach Annevari Street and that is the only way for the plaintiff to have ingress and egress to

Annevari Street. 

©. It was further averred that recently the plaintiff put her site for sale and defendant bargained with the plaintiff but the deal

3

could not settled. So, the plaintiff began searching for prospective purchasers. Having had an eye over the plaintiff’s house site, the defendant began placing hurdles across the joint passage and started proclaiming that plaintiff has no right to use the passage, with a view to pressurize the plaintiff. In pursuance of the same, defendant closed the southern end of the plaint schedule property on 11.08.2017, without any right, at points “B” and “C” by arranging fencing highhandedly. Defendant did not remove the same inspite of the demands made by the plaintiff and the panchayat conducted in the village. 

(d). It was further averred that defendant’s vendor did not convey any title in the joint passage to the defendant. She was only given a right to use the joint passage to reach the southern side street. She does not have any exclusive right over the passage. So, plaintiff got issued legal notices twice but there was no response from the defendant. Hence, the suit.

3.(a). The defendant filed her written statement denying the averments of plaint and inter alia contended that she purchased an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of vacant house site from Ummadi Subba

Rao on 30.08.1986 for a valuable consideration of Rs.16,000/­. On the southern side of Ac.0.05 cents the vendor of defendant has got property. On the eastern side of the said property of the vendor, an extent of 18 links width passage was given exclusively to the defendant, as per her sale deed. Since 30.08.1986 the defendant has been using the passage for ingress and egress to the main road

4

exclusively and the same was not used by anybody. The said passage was sold away to the defendant in the year 1986 itself along with Ac.0.05 cents of land. When the plaintiff’s vendor himself has no right over the passage, he has no right to alienate the same to anybody. The defendant is not a party to the plaintiff’s document and as such the recitals in her document will not bind the defendant. 

(b). It was further contended that A B C D passage was exclusively being used by the defendant and plaintiff never used the same at any point of time. The defendant never intended to sell her property. There is no necessity for the defendant to create any obstruction in the A B C D passage as it is her exclusive property.

The plaintiff created false stories and filed this suit for wrongful gain. There is no cause of action for filing the suit. Hence, the suit may be dismissed. 

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

1). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration, as prayed for?

2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential mandatory injunction, as prayed for?

3). To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, she got herself examined as P.W.1.

Third parties ie., Simhadri Rama Krishna and Anne Radha Krishna

5

were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were got marked.

6.On behalf of defendant, she got herself examined as D.W.1.

Ex.B.1 was got marked on behalf of defendant.

7.Heard both counsels. 

Discussion:

Issue No.1

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration, as prayed for?

8.The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:­

Originally, the entire property ie., the defendant’s property, plaintiff’s father, property of Pamidipati Srimannarayana and the

ABCD passage belonged to one Ummadi Subba Rao (the said properties were referred with reference to the plaint plain, for the sake of clarity, as D.W.1 admitted in her cross­examination that the plaint plan is correct). The defendant purchased the property on 30.08.1986 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.

3309/1986 from Ummadi Subba Rao for a valuable consideration of Rs.16,000/­ under Ex.B.1 sale deed. The plaintiff purchased her property on 26.02.2005 from Ummadi Rama Swamy, Ummadi

Rama Chandra Rao and Nakka Eswaramma ie., the children of

Ummadi Subba Rao under the original of Ex.A.1 sale deed. The purchase of the property by Pamidipati Srimannarayana from

6

Saramekala Aruna Kumari under the original of Ex.A.6 sale deed is also not in dispute.

9.The assertion of the plaintiff who examined herself as P.W.1 is that as per Ex.A.1 sale deed, her vendor conferred joint rights over the passage ie., the disputed A B C D passage to her, husband of defendant Kurakula Sambasiva Rao and Saramekala Aruna

Kumari for ingress and egress to reach the panchayat road (Annevari Street) situated on the southern side of the disputed passage and since the date of purchase of property by her, she has been using that passage jointly. She further deposed that the disputed passage is the only passage for her to reach the panchayat road. She also got examined her brother, who is having property, to the west of her property as P.W.2 and the attestor of

Ex.A.1 sale deed as P.W.3. P.W.2 supported the version of plaintiff in all aspects. P.W.3 also categorically stated in his chief examination that he was present at the time of execution of Ex.A.1 sale deed and attested the same along with one Koya Anil. He further deposed that Ummadi Subba Rao arranged a joint passage in the eastern half of the site while selling his site to the defendant as there was no other access to reach Annevari Street except the joint passage. 

10.On the other hand, D.W.1/defendant deposed that as per

Ex.B.1 sale deed her vendor conferred exclusive rights in the disputed passage to her and she has been using the same for

7

ingress and egress exclusively since 1986. She further deposed that the recitals in Ex.A.1 sale deed are not binding upon her as she is not a party to the same and that her vendor has no right to alienate the property ie., the right over the passage as the vendor himself has no right over the same. 

11.In view of the rival contentions of both parties, it is necessary to look into the recitals of Ex.A.1 and Ex.B.1 sale deeds as the parties are entirely depending upon their respective sale deeds for claiming their rights. As per Ex.A.1 sale deed at page 6, it was mentioned that the plaintiff was given joint right over the disputed passage on the east of her property, along with Kurakula

Seethambaram (husband of defendant) and Saramekala Aruna

Kumari. As per Ex.B.1 sale deed at page 5, it was recited that an extent of 242 sq. yards within the boundaries mentioned therein was sold and possession thereof was delivered to the defendant. It was further mentioned that defendant is provided ingress and egress into her property through the 18 links width passage on the eastern side of the remaining property of the vendor ie on the southern side of the property sold to the defendant. 

12.It was never mentioned in Ex.B.1 sale deed that the defendant was conferred exclusive right over the disputed passage as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

Further, the boundaries mentioned at page 5 of Ex.B.1 reveals that the southern boundary was mentioned as remaining property of the vendor. While mentioning the recital in respect of the disputed

8

passage, it was specifically and clearly mentioned that the passage for ingress and egress was being provided from out of the remaining land of the vendor situated to the south of the property sold to the defendant. The leaned counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant purchased the disputed passage also under

Ex.B.1 and the consideration paid is inclusive of the passage and therefore she alone has got exclusive right over the same and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim joint right over the passage. D.W.1 also deposed in her cross­examination that she purchased the property along with the passage and the consideration was also paid by her for the same. It is not in dispute that the defendant purchased an extent of 242 sq. yards as per Ex.B.1 sale deed for a consideration of Rs.16,000/­. As per Ex.B.1, at page 5 it was particularly mentioned that an extent of 242 sq. yards within the boundaries mentioned therein was sold to the defendant. In the said description of the boundaries, the boundaries to the disputed passage were not mentioned or included and only the boundaries to the defendant’s property were mentioned. The same was not denied by defendant. According to Ex.B.1, at page 6 it was mentioned that the price per square yard is Rs.66/­ and in such a case the consideration for 242 sq. yards comes to Rs.15,972/­, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. So, the contention of defendant that she purchased the disputed passage also as per Ex.B.1 is untenable. Therefore, the plaintiff’s vendor has got every right to confer joint right in ABCD passage to the

9

plaintiff and the recitals of Ex.A.1 sale deed in respect of the passage are binding on the defendant. 

13.At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the cross­ examination of D.W.1 wherein she categorically deposed that subsequent to the sale of the property to Saramekala Aruna

Kumari and prior to sale of the property to the plaintiff, the legal heirs of Ummadi Subba Rao did not have any pathway for the property sold to the plaintiff. She volunteered that the legal heirs of

Ummadi Subba Rao sold away the property as they did not have a pathway. Therefore, it is clear that plaintiff has no other pathway except the disputed passage to reach the southern side panchayat road or Annevari Street. 

14.In view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, it is manifest that plaintiff was provided a joint passage in the disputed

A B C D passage as per Ex.A.1 sale deed and defendant was never conferred exclusive rights over the said passage as per Ex.B.1 sale deed and also that plaintiff has no other passage except the disputed passage for ingress and egress. Hence, this court finds that plaintiff is entitled for declaration as claimed by her. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff. 

Issue No.2

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential mandatory injunction, as prayed for?

10

15. The plaintiff also sought for the relief of consequential mandatory injunction alleging that defendant intended to purchase the plaint schedule property for a lesser price and as the plaintiff refused for the same, the defendant started creating hurdles in the joint passage to prevent other prospective purchasers from purchasing the property and to force the plaintiff to sell the property to the defendant for the price quoted by her.

She further deposed that defendant closed the southern end of the joint passage at points B and C shown in the plaint plan by arranging a fencing to obstruct her from using the passage. When cross­examined regarding the obstruction, D.W.1 categorically admitted that she obstructed the plaintiff from moving through the passage at B and C points on 11.08.2017. She further added that she obstructed the plaintiff as she is having exclusive right over the A B C D passage. Therefore, there is no doubt that defendant obstructed the plaintiff from using A B C D joint passage, without having any right. Since the defendant has no exclusive right over the A B C D passage, she has no right to obstruct the plaintiff from using the said passage, over which the plaintiff is also having a joint right. So, it is clear that plaintiff is entitled for the consequential relief of mandatory injunction also. Hence, issue

No.2 is answered in favour of plaintiff. 

Issue No.3

To what relief?

16Result: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring that plaintiff has joint right along with defendant over A B C D

11

passage as per the plaint plan, for ingress and egress to reach

Annevari Street and also granting consequential mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the obstacles placed at points B and C as per the plaint plan, within three months from the date of this judgment, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to get the same done under due process of law. 

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me on this the 17th day of April, 2020. 

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff. Defendant

P.W.1: Vuyyuru Pushpa LathaD.W.1: K. Seethambaram

P.W.2: Simhadri Rama Krishna 

P.W.3: Anne Radha Krishna 

Documents marked on behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: True copy of sale deed dt. 26.02.2005

Ex.A.2: Office copy of registered notice dt. 14.08.2017

Ex.A.3: Returned cover addressed to the defendant

Ex.A.4: Office copy of registered notice dt. 12.09.2007

Ex.A.5: Postal acknowledgement dated 12.09.2017

Ex.A.6: True copy of sale deed dt. 23.08.2008

Documents marked on behalf of defendant: 

Ex.B.1: Registered sale deed bearing document No: 3309/1986 

dated 30.08.1986 on the file of SRO, Vijayawada (Original). 

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.