Smt M.S. Bharathi

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:NELLORE

PRESENT : Smt. M.S.BHARATHI, III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 24 th day of March, 2021.

O.S. No.689 of 2019

Between:

Ponnala Srujan Kumar. … Plaintif

Vs.

1. Gadi Prasanthi.

2. Gadi Kishore Reddy.

3. Kavalreddy Narendranath Reddy.

4. Mungara Vikram Kumar Reddy. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on 19.03.2021 in the presence of Sri S.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for plaintif-bank and the defendant was set exparte, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintif for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and others from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintif over plaint schedule property and for costs.

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

a) The plaint schedule property which is an extent of 42 ankanams of site ie., an extent of northern side 8 ankanams out of 50 ankanams in Plot No.16 and an extent of southern side 34 ankanams out of 44 ankanams 53 sq.ft., in Plot No.15 in S.Nos.806 & 807 of Nellore Bit-2 belonged to one Yanamala Ramana Reddy and Badi Sudhakar

Reddy and they sold the same to Sanikommu Vijayaranga Rajeswaru under Registered

Sale Deed dated 17.4.2003 vide Doc.No.3673/2003. Subsequent to the said purchase, in the year 2017 she raised a small ACC roofed room surrounded with compound walls on all four sides and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying electricity bills as well as property tax to the said property. Thereafter, the said

Sanikommu Vijayaranga Rajeswari sold the plaint schedule property to plaintif under 2

Registered Sale Deed dated 2.3.2019 vide Doc.No.1083/2019 and since then the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by mutating his name in revenue records. When the plaintif wants to construct a residential building in the said property, he removed western side compound wall along with the existing ACC roofed room to have clear access for tractors and carts for loading and unloading the building material. Except the plaintif none else has any right, title or interest over the plaint schedule property. When the plaintif tried to construct a residential building in the said property, the defendants who have no manner of right tried to trespass into a portion of plaint schedule property wrongly claiming that D1 is the owner of a portion of the plaint schedule property. Then the plaintif obtained certified copies of the Registered Sale Deed standing in the name of D1 and its link documents, which clearly shows that Badi Sudhakar Reddy executed a Registered

General Power of Attorney dated 28.3.2013 vide Doc.No.3234/2013 in favour of

Akkana Nagaraja Rao in respect of an extent of 11 ankanams, which were over written

as 19 ankanams in some places and the said GPA was revoked by way of Registered

Revocation Deed dated 20.4.2013 vide Doc.No.4059/2013. On the same day another

Registered GPA was executed in favour of Kythepalli Vinay Kumar vide

Doc.No.4060/2013 for 27 ankanams. From the said Kythepalli Vinay Kumar, D1 obtained Registered Sale Deed dated 24.5.2013 vide Doc.No.5152/2013. The extent was shown in excess in the said deeds. The said extent is a portion left out by the original layout owners after forming the layout. Though the layout was owned by

Yanamala Ramana Reddy and Badi Sudhakar Reddy, D1 obtained Sale Deed from Badi

Sudhakar Reddy only. As seen from the said documents their southern boundary is plot No.15 ie., a portion of the plaint schedule property. Thus, it is clear that the defendants have no right over the plaint schedule property, but they are giving out that they will trespass into the plaint schedule property at any moment. Hence, the suit.

3

3. Summons was served to D1 to D3, but they did not file their written statements and also no representation on their behalf. Hence, they were set exparte on 28.11.2019. The summons was served to D4 through publication in Prajasakthi

Telugu Daily Newspaper, Nellore District Edition dated 05-01-2020. On 19.3.2021 the learned counsel for plaintif filed memo stating that he is not pressing the suit against

D4. Hence, the suit is dismissed against D4.

4. In support of the case, the plaintif got examined himself as PW.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. Ex.A.1 is certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 17.4.2003 executed by Yanamala Ramana Reddy and Badi Sudhakar Reddy in favour of

Sanikommu Vijayaranga Rajeswari vide Doc.No.3673/2003. Ex.A.2 is certified copy of

Registered Sale Deed dated 02.03.2019 executed by Sanikommu Vijayaranga

Rajeswari in favour of plaintif in respect of plaint schedule property. Ex.A.3 is onlline property tax receipt relating to plaint schedule property. Ex.A.4 is proceedings of the

Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation mutating the name of the plaintif relating to plaint schedule property in the municipal records dated 11.6.2019 obtained from online. Ex.A.5 is the two photographs along with C.D. Ex.A.6 is certified copy of Registered General Power of Attorney executed by Badi Sudhakar

Reddy in favour of A.Nagaraja Rao dated 28.03.2013. Ex.A.7 is certified copy of

Registered Revocation Deed to the G.P.A. executed by Badi Sudhakar Reddy in favour of A.Nagaraja Rao dated 20.4.2013. Ex.A.8 is certified copy of G.P.A. dated 20.4.2013 executed by Badi Sudhakar Reddy in favour of A.Nagaraja Rao vide Doc.No.4060/2013.

Ex.A.9 is certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 24.5.2013 executed by Badi

Sudhakar Reddy represented by his G.P.A. Kythepalli Vinaykumar in favour of 1st defendant. The testimony of PW.1 and the documents remained unchallenged by the defendants. As the evidence remained unchallenged, the Court is of the view that the plaintif is entitled to permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed.

4

5. IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed with costs and the plaintif is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men, agents, servants and others from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24th day of March, 2021.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintif:- Defendants:

PW1: P.Srujan Kumar. (Exparte).

Exhibits marked for plaintif:

Ex.A.1Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 17.4.2003 executed by Yanamala Ramana Reddy and Badi Sudhakar Reddy in favour of Sanikommu Vijayaranga Rajeswari vide Doc.No.3673/2003. Ex.A.2Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 02.03.2019 executed by Sanikommu Vijayaranga Rajeswari in favour of plaintif. Ex.A.3Property tax receipt in respect of plaint schedule property.

Ex.A.4Proceedings of the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation mutating the name of the plaintif relating to plaint schedule property in the municipal records dated 11.6.2019 obtained from online. Ex.A.5Two photographs along with C.D.

Ex.A.6Certified copy of Registered General Power of Attorney executed by Badi Sudhakar Reddy in favour of A.Nagaraja Rao dated 28.03.2013. Ex.A.7Certified copy of Registered Revocation Deed to the G.P.A. executed by Badi Sudhakar Reddy in favour of A.Nagaraja Rao dated 20.4.2013. Ex.A.8Certified copy of G.P.A. dated 20.4.2013 executed by Badi Sudhakar Reddy in favour of A.Nagaraja Rao vide Doc.No.4060/2013. Ex.A.9Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 24.5.2013 executed by Badi Sudhakar Reddy represented by his G.P.A. Kythepalli Vinaykumar in favour of 1st defendant.

Exhibits marked for defendants: -NIL-

III A.J.C.J NLR.

5

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:NELLORE

PRESENT : Smt. M.S.BHARATHI, III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 8 th day of March, 2021.

O.S. No.644 of 2019

Between:

M/s.Navayuga Container Terminal Private Limited (Formerly Krishnapatnam Port Container Terminal Private Limited) Represented by its General Manager and Authorized Signatory Mr. Philip Monis, H.No.8-2- 293/82/A/379 & 379/A, 1st Floor, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana. … Plaintif

Vs.

Mr J.V.Naresh Kumar, D.No.19-41-3, Range Reeju Street, near A.V.N. College, Visakhaptnam, Andhra Pradesh. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on 08.03.2021 in the presence of Sri P.Vijaya Kumara Reddy, learned counsel for plaintif and the defendant was set exparte, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintif company seeking recovery of an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages against the person and property of the defendant and also direct the defendant to return the plaintif’s company assets and to pay the costs of the unauthorized usage for an amount of Rs.17,710-22 Ps., to the plaintif’s company and for costs.

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

a) Plaintif company stated that the company is carrying business of providing

Terminal Operations & Services for handling export, import containers in

Krishnapatnam Port, Muthukur mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The defendant is an Ex- employee of plaintif company and he worked in the capacity of Deputy Manager for

Planning and operations. The defendant joined in the company vide letter of appointment KPCL/HR/APPT/1517 in the role of ‘Planner’ on 6.2.2014. While joining 2 into service, the defendant executed Service bond dated 1.8.2015 to ensure the tenure of his employment for a period of three years ie., from 1.8.2015 to 31.7.2018.

Further the capacity in which the defendant was working is quite crucial for company business operations, which should not be left vacant even for a minute at any cost and hence, the plaintif company along with the defendant has executed a Service Bond

dated 1.8.2015 to ensure the tenure of his employment from 1.8.2015 to 31.7.2018 as

written in Clause 1 of the said Service Bond and in case of any breach to the said

Clause, Clause 3 entitles the plaintif company to recover a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the defendant to which he agreed and undertook the same. On 11.1.2018 the defendant submitted his resignation letter to the plaintif company and worked till 13.3.2018 and left the company without completing the tenure stipulated in service bond. Further the defendant did not return the company assets provided to him at the time of joining his service ie., Mobile handset, Android Moto-C and Sim card, which are used for the official purpose of plaintif company only. The defendant after leaving the plaintif company has used the above company assets for his personal use to a tune of Rs.17,710-22 Ps., for which the company has paid the above bill amount.

In spite of several demands made by the plaintif company, the defendant did not choose to pay the above said amounts. Hence, the defendant is liable to an amount of

Rs.3,17,710-22 Ps., (Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.17,710-22 Ps.,) to the plaintif company. Hence, this suit.

3. Summons was served to the defendant through publication in Prajasakthi

Telugu Daily Newspaper, Nellore District Edition dated 6.3.2020, but there was no representation on its behalf. Hence, the defendant was set exparte on 18.3.2020.

4. In support of its case, the plaintif company got examined its Officer Human

Resources Department as PW.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6. Ex.A.1 is office copy of letter of appointment KPCL/HR/APPT/1517 dated 6.2.2014. Ex.A.2 is original Service

Bond dated 1.8.2015. Ex.A.3 is office copy of legal notice dated 21.7.2018. Ex.A.4 is 3 office copy of mobile bill from 17.3.2018 to 16.4.2018 for an amount of Rs.17,710-22 ps., dated 30.5.2018, which was used by the defendant. Ex.A.5 is authorization dated 16.2.2021 issued by the plaintif company authorizing D.Bala Chandra working as

Executive Human Resources Department, M/s.Navayuga Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., to file the suit, give evidence and to represent on behalf of plaintif company before the Court. Ex.A.6 is postal receipt. The testimony of PW.1 and the documents remained unchallenged by the defendant. The unchallenged evidence of PW1 proved that the defendant has to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages and pay

Rs.17,710-22 Ps., towards costs of its unauthorized usage to the plaintif’s company.

As the evidence remained unchallenged, the court is of the view that the plaintif company has proved its claim and is therefore, entitled for a decree.

5.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,17,710-22 Ps., (Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.17,710-22 Ps.,) to the plaintif company together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of decree till the date of realization on

Rs.3,17,710-22 Ps. (Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.17,710-22 Ps.,).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 8th day of March, 2021

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintif:- Defendant:

PW1: D.Balachandra, Officer H.R. Department, Navayuga Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., (Exparte).

4

Exhibits marked for plaintif:

Ex.A.1Office copy of letter of appointment KPCL/HR/APPT/1517 dated 6.2.2014.

Ex.A.2Original Service Bond dated 1.8.2015.

Ex.A.3 Office copy of legal notice dated 21.7.2018.

Ex.A.4Office copy of mobile bill for the month from 17.3.2018 to 16.4.2018. Phone bill amount of Rs.17,710-22 ps., dated 30.5.2018, which was used by the defendant. Ex.A.5Authorization dated 16.2.2021 issued by the plaintif company authorizing D.Bala Chandra working as Executive Human Resources Department, M/s.Navayuga Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., to file the suit, give evidence and to represent on behalf of plaintif company before the Court. Ex.A.6Postal receipt.

Exhibits marked for defendant: -NIL-

III A.J.C.J, NLR.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:NELLORE

PRESENT : Smt. M.S.BHARATHI, III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 8 th day of March, 2021.

O.S. No.638 of 2019

Between:

M/s.Corporation Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of undertakings Act, 1980 having its Head office at Mangalore, Karnataka and Branch office amongst other places at Magunta Layout Branch, rep., by its Branch Manager, Sri Mekala Srinivasulu Reddy S/o. late M.Venkateswarlu Reddy, residing at Nellore. SPSR Nellore District. … Plaintif

Vs.

Lodi Padma Priya W/o.A.Sunil Kumar, aged 41 years, Flat No.304, Dwaraka Sai Residency, Shikari Road, Kondayapalem, Nellore city. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on 08.03.2021 in the presence of Sri D.Subhashini, learned counsel for plaintif-bank and the defendant was set exparte, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintif-bank seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.14,77,071.77

Ps., being the principal and interest due under Agreement for Term Loans dated 14.12.2017 for Rs.13,50,000/- from defendant and for costs.

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

a) Plaintif Bank stated that the defendant approached the plaintif-bank for obtaining loan to construct a shed and also to purchase machinery for establishing laundry and dry cleaning unit. Then the plaintif-bank sanctioned loan of Rs.13,50,000/- on 14.12.2017 to the defendant under loan account No.560821000196233 and the defendant agreed to repay the same with interest at 10.40% per annum being 1.75% over and above the applicable MCLR, which is 8.65% per annum and also executed Agreement for Term Loans and other documents on the same day in favour of plaintif-bank. The rate of interest is subjected to variation of

R.B.I. Rules. The defendant has not paid some of the instalments of the above said loan amount in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif-bank. The defendant has paid the last instalment on 31.1.2019 in respect of the suit debt. As per the statement of account, the defendant fell due a sum of Rs.14,77,071.77 Ps., as on 14.4.2019. The defendant did not 2 choose to pay the amount due as agreed under the above referred loan transaction in spite of several requests made by the officials of plaintif-bank, through its messengers and that the defendant is liable to repay the suit amount to the plaintif-bank. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons was served to the defendant through publication in Prajasakthi Telugu

Daily Newspaper, Nellore District Edition dated 9.2.2020, but there was no representation on his behalf. Hence, the defendant was set exparte dt:10.3.2020.

4. In support of its case, the plaintif bank got examined its Branch Manager as

PW.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8. Ex.A.1 is the loan application dated 14.12.2017 submitted by the defendant to the plaintif-bank for construction of a shed and also to purchase machinery for establishing laundry and dry cleaning unit. Ex.A.2 is credit sanction intimation

dated 14.12.2017. Ex.A.3 is Agreement for Term Loans dated 14.12.2017 executed by

defendant in favour of plaintif-bank. Ex.A.4 is letter of undertaking declaration from the borrower dated 14.12.2017. Ex.A.5 is Common Deed of Hypothecation of

Movables/Assets/Debts dated 14.12.2017 executed by defendant in favour of plaintif-bank.

Ex.A.6 is statement of account pertaining to suit transaction. Ex.A.7 is Due Diligence Report

dated 14.12.2017. Ex.A.8 is attested copy of Power of Attorney executed by plaintif-bank in

favour of Branch Manager, Mekala Srinivasulu Reddy S/o.late Venkateswarlu Reddy, Nellore.

The testimony of PW.1 and the documents remained unchallenged by the defendant. It is to be mentioned that having obtaining the loan amount and having executed Agreement for

Term Loans and other relevant documents, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due to the plaintif bank. As the evidence remained unchallenged, the Court is of the view that the plaintif bank has proved its claim and is therefore, entitled for a decree.

5.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.14,77,071.77 Ps., to the plaintif-bank together with subsequent interest at the rate of 10.80% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.13,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 8th day of March, 2021.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

3

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintif:- Defendant:

PW1: M.Srinivasulu Reddy, Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Nellore. (Exparte).

Exhibits marked for plaintif:

Ex.A.1Loan application dated 14.12.2017 submitted by the defendant to the plaintif- bank Ex.A.2Credit sanction intimation dated 14.12.2017.

Ex.A.3Agreement for term loans dated 14.12.2017 executed by defendant in favour of plaintif-bank. Ex.A.4Letter of undertaking declaration from the borrower dated 14.12.2017.

Ex.A.5Common Deed of Hypothecation of Movables/Assets/Debts dated 14.12.2017 executed by defendant in favour of plaintif-bank. Ex.A.6Statement of account pertaining to suit transaction.

Ex.A.7Due Diligence Report dated 14.12.2017.

Ex.A.8Attested copy of Power of Attorney executed by plaintif-bank in favour of Branch Manager, Mekala Srinivasulu Reddy S/o.late Venkateswarlu Reddy, Nellore.

Exhibits marked for defendant: -NIL-

III A.J.C.J NLR.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:NELLORE

PRESENT : Smt. M.S.BHARATHI, III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 9 th day of March, 2021.

O.S. No.704 of 2019

Between:

M/s.Syndicate Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of undertakings Act, 1980 having its Head office at Manipal, Karnataka and Branch Office amongst other places at SME Branch, Vedayapalem, Nellore rep., by its Chief Manager, Sri Abdul Udood S/o.Abdul Hack. … Plaintif

Vs.

1. Duvvuru Sai Sravya.

2. Duvvuru Surendra Babu. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on 09.03.2021 in the presence of Sri D.Subhashini, learned counsel for plaintif-bank and the defendants were set exparte, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintif-bank seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,82,579/- being the principal and interest due under Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 5.5.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/- from defendants and for costs.

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

a) Plaintif Bank stated that the D1 approached the plaintif-bank for obtaining SME loan to improve existing Hotel business. Then the plaintif-bank sanctioned loan of

Rs.2,00,000/- on 5.5.2016 to the defendants under loan account No.35039910000023. D2 stood as obligant/surety/guarantor to D1 towards above said loan transaction agreeing to repay the same with interest at 10.75% per annum and executed guarantee agreement on the same day in favour of plaintif-bank. 1st defendant executed Composite Hypothecaton

Agreement and other necessary documents on 5.5.2016 in favour of plaintif-bank in respect of above said loan amount. The rate of interest is subjected to variation of R.B.I. Rules. D1 has not paid some of the instalments of the above said loan amount in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif-bank. D1 has paid the last instalment on 17.5.2018 in respect of the suit debt. As per the statement of account, the defendants fell due a sum of

Rs.1,82,579/- as on 28.2.2019. The defendants did not choose to pay the amount due as 2 agreed under the above referred loan transaction in spite of several requests made by the officials of plaintif-bank, through its messengers and that the plaintif-bank issued legal notice to the defendants on 19.3.2019, but they failed to comply it. Thus, the defendants are jointly liable to repay the suit amount to the plaintif-bank. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons was served to the defendants through publication in Prajasakthi

Telugu Daily Newspaper, Nellore District Edition dated 9.2.2020, but there was no representation on their behalf. Hence, the defendants were set exparte dt:10.3.2020.

4. In support of its case, the plaintif bank got examined its Branch Manager as

PW.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6. Ex.A.1 is the loan application dated 5.5.2016 submitted by the 1st defendant to the plaintif-bank for SME loan to improve the existing hotel business.

Ex.A.2 is Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 5.5.2016 executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintif-bank. Ex.A.3 is Guarantee Agreement dated 5.5.2016 executed by D2 in favour of plaintif-bank. Ex.A.4 is statement of account pertaining to above suit transaction.

Ex.A.5 is legal notice dated 19.3.2019 issued by the plaintif-bank to the defendants and demanded them to repay the loan amount. Ex.A.6 is attested copy of power of attorney executed by the Directors, M/s.Syndicate Bank in favour of Abdul Udood S/o.Abdul Hack. The testimony of PW.1 and the documents remained unchallenged by the defendants. It is to be mentioned that having obtaining the loan amount and having executed composite hypothecation agreement and other relevant documents, the defendants did not choose to repay the amount due to the plaintif bank. As the evidence remained unchallenged, the

Court is of the view that the plaintif bank has proved its claim and is therefore, entitled for a decree.

5.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,82,579/- to the plaintif-bank together with subsequent interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of decree till the date of realization on

Rs.1,82,579/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 9th day of March, 2021.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

3

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintif:- Defendants:

PW1: P.Venkataratnam, Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, SME Branch, Nellore. (Exparte).

Exhibits marked for plaintif:

Ex.A.1Loan Application for advance-fresh/Renewal, dated 5.5.2016.

Ex.A.2Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 5.5.2016 executed by defendants in favour of plaintif bank.

Ex.A.3Guarantee Agreement executed by the defendants in favour of plaintif bank

dated 5.5.2016.

Ex.A.4Statement of account pertaining to suit transaction.

Ex.A.5 Legal notice issued to the defendants on 19.3.2019.

Ex.A.6 Attested copy of power of attorney executed by the Directors, M/s.Syndicate Bank in favour of Abdul Udood, Chief Manager in Syndicate Bank, SME Branch, Vedayapalem, Nellore.

Exhibits marked for defendants: -NIL-

III A.J.C.J NLR.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:NELLORE

PRESENT : Smt. M.S.BHARATHI, III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 26 th day of February, 2021.

O.S. No.608 of 2019

Between:

Indian Bank, Nellore Branch, Trunk Road, Nellore represented by its Manager. … Plaintif

Vs.

Sd.Muneer Begum. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day in the presence of Sri Sk.Yasdani, learned counsel for plaintif-bank and the defendant was set exparte, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintif-bank seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.53,297/- being the principal and interest due under promissory note dated 5.8.2010 for Rs.30,000/- and for costs.

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

a) Plaintif Bank stated that on 5.8.2010 the defendant approached plaintif-bank for grant of Indiramma Housing Loan amount of Rs.30,000/- and executed an loan agreement

No.IHL No.900025998 dated 5.8.2010 in favour of plaintif-bank. As per the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement, the defendant has to repay the loan amount with interest at 9.25% compoundable monthly rests and the rate of interest is subjected to variation as per the guidelines of R.B.I. Further the defendant executed all the documents in favour of plaintif-bank and also executed consent letter dated 5.8.2010, declaration by the borrower dated 5.8.2010 and registered tripartite agreement dated 6.4.2010 vide

Doc.No.4635/2010 in favour of plaintif-bank on the even date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 9.25% by creating first charge over the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, the defendant executed an acknowledgement of debt-cum-security dated 31.5.2016. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif-bank, the defendant had not paid any amount to the plaintif-bank. Hence, the suit.

2

3. Summons was served to the defendant through publication in Prajasakthi Telugu

Daily Newspaper, Nellore District Edition dated 10.1.2020, but there was no representation on his behalf. Hence, the defendant was set exparte dt:19.2.2020.

4. In support of its case, the plaintif bank got examined its Branch Manager as

PW.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8. Ex.A.1 is the loan application dated 5.8.2010 submitted by the defendant to the plaintif-bank for grant of Indiramma Housing Loan amount of

Rs.30,000/-, Ex.A.2 is demand promissory note dated 5.8.2010 executed by defendant in favour of plaintif-bank, Ex.A.3 is Term loan agreement dated 5.8.2010 executed by defendant in favour of plaintif-bank, Ex.A.4 is Registered Tripartite agreement dated 6.4.2010, Ex.A.5 is consent letter dated 5.9.2010 from the borrower for discloser of information, Ex.A.6 is the declaration by the borrower dated 5.9.2010, Ex.A.7 is the acknowledgement of debt-cum-security dated 13.6.2013 & 31.5.2016 and Ex.A.8 is statement of account. The testimony of PW.1 and the documents remained unchallenged by the defendant. It is to be mentioned that having borrowed the amount and having executed demand promissory note and other relevant documents, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount to the plaintif bank. As the evidence remained unchallenged, the court is of the view that the plaintif bank has proved its claim and is therefore, entitled for a decree.

5.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs by passing a preliminary decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.53,297/- to the plaintif-bank with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on Rs.30,000/-.

Time for redemption is fixed for two months from the date of this judgment.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the Open Court, this the 26th day of February, 2021.

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

3

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintif:- Defendant:

PW1: E.V.Shivarama Krishna. Branch Manager, Indian Bank, (Exparte). Nellore.

Exhibits marked for plaintif:

Ex.A.1Loan application dated 5.8.2010.

Ex.A.2Demand promissory note dated 5.8.2010.

Ex.A.3Term loan agreement dated 5.8.2010.

Ex.A.4Registered Tripartite agreement dated 6.4.2010.

Ex.A.5Consent letter from the borrower for discloser of information dated 5.9.2010.

Ex.A.6Declaration by the borrower dated 5.9.2010.

Ex.A.7Acknowledgment of debt-cum-security dated 13.6.2013 & 31.5.2016.

Ex.A.8Statement of account.

Exhibits marked for defendant: -NIL-

III A.J.C.J NLR.