M. Sobha Rani

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

GUNTUR Present: Smt.M. Sobha Rani, M.A., LL,M.,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Monday, the 18 th day of April, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 84/2016.

Between:

Bhimineni Rama Rao S/o Venkata Ramaiah, Hindu, Aged about 48 years, Cultivation, R/o Door No.10-152/A,Sarada Nagar, Hamlet of Patha Reddy palem, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District.

…..Plaintiff.

And

1) Pyneni David Raju S/o Peda Basavaiah, Hindu, Aged about 68 years, Cultivation, R/o Door No. 10-178, Sarada Nagar, Hamlet of Pathareddy palem, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District.

2) Anumolu Sambrajyam W/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, House wife, R/o Sarada Nagar, Hamlet of Pathareddy Palem, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District.

3) Bhimineni Vimala D/o Subba Rao, Hindu, Aged about 44 years, House wife, R/o Sarada Nagar, Hamlet of Pathareddy Palem, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District.

4) Narne Satyavathi W/o Purnachandra Rao, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, House wife, R/o Sarada Nagar, Hamlet of Pathareddy Palem, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District.

…..Defendants.

This suit coming on 16-03-2022 this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Durga Prasad, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri J.Ranga Raju, advocate for the 1st defendant and of Sri V. Srinivasareddy, advocate for the 2nd defendant and the defendants 3 and 4 remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, followers and associates and others from in any way of interfering with the plaintiff's right enjoyment and usage of free flow of sewage drain coming out from his house on its north-west corner and running from east to west on the northern side of his house leading to drainage vagu abutting the house of 1st defendant or on the southern side of the plaintiff adjoining the joint nadava towards panchayat road and abutting the panchayat road when it turns to the west leading to vagu passing through the house of D2 to D4 by preventing the defendants from causing obstruction to make it stagnate on the front portion of the plaintiff's house so as to injure the health of the member's of the plaintiff's house and for costs.

2) The allegations of the plaint in brief are that the plaint schedule property was jointly purchased by the plaintiff and his brother under a registered sale deed dated 14-8-89 document No.1669/1989 and on 25-5 2001, the brother of the plaintiff executed a registered gift deed document

No.848/2001 in favour of his mother pertaining to his half share and in turn the mother of the plaintiff executed a settlement deed on 9-7-2014 under document No. 2629/2014 in favour of the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the schedule property and the plaintiff constructed a building in the schedule property leaving 6' width passage in front of his house for ingress and egress and for the purpose of the free flow of sewage water that was come out from the house of the plaintiff through the houses of defendants and to reach vägu. Subsequently, the defendants are obstructing the free flow of sewage water and as a result, the water has been stagnated, thereby causing ill health to the inmates of the plaintiff.

Hence, the suit.

3) The 1st defendant filed his written statement resisting the suit and contending interalia that the plaintiff has no prima facie case and no cause of action is made out in the plaint against this defendant even though there is only scorching remark which has no relevancy. There is no proof of easement of right in favour of plaintiff through the property of the defendant on the northern side. The joint nadava is on the southern side which leads to panchayat road. This defendant has no objection for the use of this joint nadava. But the plaintiff has no right to send the rain water or sewage water to the vacant site of the defendant towards west from his house as per plan.

There is no custom of sending sewage water towards northern side of the plaintiff’s house and there is no documentary proof as envisaged in the plan.

The plaintiff cannot seek the relief of injunction without seeking the relief of declaration which is not in the document itself the cover of injunction. Sec 38 of Specific Relief Act does not cloth the right of the plaintiff. The right of joint nadava is in between the plaintiff and the defendant is vesting of right under the document is denied by this defendant but consequently basing on it no relief of injunction can be granted. There is no right of easement. There is no provision in the document that there is customary right of sending sewage water. The plaintiff has constructed his house in the year 2015 without obtaining requisite plan from the panchayat, which is mandatory.

The plaintiff has no right to send the sullage water into the site of defendant.

When the plaintiff tried to send the sewage water through the west of the house, this defendant gave a police complaint to the Chebrolu police, who verified the documents and stated that the plaintiff has no right to send the sewage water to the west into the site of the defendant. Hence, this defendant prays that the suit may be dismissed with costs.

4) The 2nd defendant filed his written statement stating that the plaintiff has no right to send the sewage water from north to south abutting the site of the 2nd defendant adjoining the joint nadava towards panchayat road and abutting the panchayat road, when it turns to west leading to vagu passing through the house of 2nd defendant to D4 and the plaintiff has a right to send the rain and sewage water only through the northern side and thereafter to north-west corner and running from east to west leading to drainage vagu abutting the house of 1st defendant. The schedule property in

D.No. 94/1 of Pathareddipalem, Sarada nagar is hamlet of Chebrolu and this defendant and some others donated a donation deed on 22-4-2010 under document No. 1601/2010 in favor of Gram Panchayat to an extent of 290

Sq. yards in D.No, 94/3, 94/4 and 94/5 of Saradanagar, hamlet of

Pathareddipalem village regarding the sending of sewage water from their extents. Except the donors, others have no right to send the sewage water.

The panchayat authorities have to form a road and also street lights. As per the said documents, the plaintiff has no right to send the sewage water as shown in the plaint plan. The plaintiff has no right even to send the sewage water to its northern side abutting the site of 1st defendant as per plaint plan. The plaintiff filed this suit only to gain wrongfully. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

5) The defendants 3 and 4 were called absent and they were set exparte.

6) On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as

Prayed for?

2. To what relief?

7) In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as

P.W.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A4. In support of the claim of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B1 and B2.

8) Issue No.1:

The case of the plaintiff is that he came the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of gift deeds and also purchase by him. The plaintiff for his ingress and egress left 6' feet width in front of his house for ingress and egress and also for the free flow of sewage water. On the western side to the plaintiff's property, the 1st defendant has got his site wherein he constructed a thatched shed. On the Southern side to the plaintiff's site, the 2nd defendant has got his site. The free flow of sewage water has been letting out as such since the time of the construction of the building by the plaintiff. But the defendants who have no right to obstruct the free flow, obstructing the flow of sewage water by constructing a bund at western side and also on the southern side. They have no right to obstruct the same. In the gift deed ExA3, there is clear mention about the free of water from his house and a right was also given the plaintiff. Hence, he prays for injunction.

9) Whereas, the case of the defendant is that he never objected for the free flow of rain water. The document Ex.A3 clearly shows that the rain water coming from the plaintiff's house can be allowed to flow through the western and southern side. But they objected for the now of sewage water, which right, the plaintiff is not having as per his own document. Further the neighbors of the schedule property except the plaintiff have donated the land in an extent of 290 sq. yards for construction of drainage canals for the free of their own drainage water, but not the plaintiff. The defendants have no objection for the free of rain water through the southern and western side of the plaintiff's house.

10) P.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that he never obtained plan for construction of a daba house in the schedule property from the Panchayat officials. The 1" defendant has got a house on the western side of the plaintiff's house. He admitted that he does not know whether he has passage for his ingress and egress at western side. There is provision for his drainage water to flow from the southern side of his house. He admits that on the southern side of panchayat bazaar in between his house and the house of 15 defendant, there is a house of 2 defendant. On a close scrutiny of Ex.A1 and A2, there is no mention about the free flow of sewage water from the plaintiff's house. By the time of purchase of schedule property, the property is vacant site. But in Ex.A3, there is mention that the plaintiff has got right to send the rain water to flow as it is. He admitted that he constructed the house about five years back. By the time of his purchase on the southern side, the house of 1" defendant is existence. At a distance of four feet on the northern side of the property, there is drainage canal. To the western side of his house, there is property of 1" defendant. He admitted that there a custom prevailed for free flow of sewage water from the site of defendants. He deposed that the defendants 1 to 4 are obstructing his free flow of sewage water from his house through the house site of the defendants and then reach the vagu. He further deposed that by that time, the 1" defendant addressed Panchayat authorities who inspected the schedule property and the relevant documents of the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff has no right to send his sewage water through the sites of defendants.

11) D.W.1 admitted that his house is situated on the western side of the plaintiff's house and he has got 6' passage. He admits that previously there is a suage canal on the northern side of his house, which leads vagu. He denied that the suage canal is now in existence. The suage water from the house of Bharathi flows into the vagu from northern side. He deposed that no suage water flows from his house towards northern side to the vaagu. It is true that the suage water of plaintiff does not enter into his property. He stated that there is no way to the suage water on the northern side. Plaintiff dug holes for free flow of drainage water.

12) On close reading of the evidence of both P.W.1 and D.W.1 coupled with the documents filed both sides, in Ex.A3, the plaintiff has given a right to free flow of rain water. In the evidence of DW.1 he admitted that the suage water of the plaintiff never entered into his property. It is clear from the evidence of both sides, there is a suage water vagu at a distance of four feet from the house of Bharathi, which is situated on the back side of the 1st defendant. It is clear that the suage water vagu is situated nearby to the houses of both plaintiff and defendants. The case of plaintiff is that whenever the suage from his house flows, the defendants are obstructing the free flow. The plaintiff never filed any photographs of obstruction or to take an advocate commission that the defendants have obstructed by making bunds for the free flow of suage water while flowing through the sites of defendants. The 1 defendant admitted that the suage water from the house of P.w.1 never enter into his property. If really the defendants obstructed the free flow of suage water, there must be some bund constructed by the defendants by obstructing the free flow. But the plaintiff never take any steps to take an advocate commission or to file photographs.

On the other hand, the defendant deposed that the plaintiff made wholes in the site of the defendants for the free flow of suage water. The plaintiff except in chief examination that the defendants obstructed the free flow of suage water from the plaintiff's house, there is no evidence on record. In the absence of any cogent and documentary evidence, I feel that the defendants never obstructed the free flow of suage water of the plaintiff while flowing from the sites of the defendants to join in drainage vagu. Hence, I hold this issue against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

13) Issue No.2: In the result, the suit is dismissed. But without costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 18th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Smt.M. Sobha Rani,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendant:

PW.1 :- Bheemineni Rama Rao D.W:-Pyneni David Raju.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:- The Registered Sale Deed executed by Ramaiah and others in favour of plaintiff and his brother dated 14-08-1989 vide D.No. 1669/1989.

Ex.A2:- The Registered gift deed executed by Bheemineni Srinivasa Rao infavour of plaintiff’s mother Bheemineni Sambrajyamma dated 25- 05-2001 vide D.No. 848/2001.

Ex.A3:-The Registered gift deed executed by Bheemineni Sambrabrajyamma (Mother of Plaintiff) in favour of plaintiff dated 09-07-2014 vide

D.No. 2629/2014.

Ex.A4:- The House tax receipt one in number dated 16-12-2015.

For Defendants :

Ex.B1:- The Original sale deed executed by korrapati Sambasiva Rao and others in favour of pyneni David Raju bearing Doc No.1667/1989

dated 14-08-1989.

.

Ex.A2:- The Gift document (Dana Patram) executed by Kavuru Krishna

Prasad and others in favour of Chebrolu Grama Panchayat of

Secretary Patibandla Poorna Sankara Rao under Doc. No.

1601/2010 dated 22-04-2010 obtained from Mee Seva.

Sd/- Smt.M. Sobha Rani,

III AJCJ, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

GUNTUR.

Present: Smt.M. Sobha Rani, M.A., LL.M.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, the 13 th day of April, 2022.

O.S NO. 84 OF 2022.

Between:

Canara Bank, Lam Farm Branch, Rep. by it’s Branch Manager, Ganipisetty vari Street, Anjali-1, Road No. 2, Amaravathi Road, Guntur. … Plaintiff -AND-

Thumma Siva Gowri W/o Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, R/o. C/o Putta Radha, Near Government School, Agathavarappadu Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District.

… Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 08-04-2022 for hearing in the presence of Sri A. Prema Sai, advocate for plaintiff, and defendants set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.76,374-92 ps. being the balance amount of principal and interest towards agricultural loan availed by the defendant on 04-04-2018 of Rs. 98,000/- for purchase of buffaloes basing on a hypothecation agreement repayable with interest @ 8.95% p.a for subsequent interest @ 10.95%p.a from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

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

2

The defendant approached the plaintiff bank and applied for loan and at the request of the defendant on 04-04-2018 the plaintiff bank sanctioned an Agriculture Dairy loan for purchase of buffaloes to a tune of Rs. 98,000/-. which was availed by the defendant promising to repay the said debt amount with interest @8.95% p.a. with monthly rests compoundly and it will vary from time to time as per RBI guidelines. The defendant has executed all necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank by hypothecating the buffaloes. The defendant has to repay the loan amount in 48 equal monthly installments as agreed upon Rs.2,800/- per month. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank opened an account vide its Account No. 6285795000019.

As the defendant failed to pay the said debt amount in installments as agreed upon, the defendant has to forego the said facility of paying the debt amount in installments and the defendant has to pay the entire debt amount with interest at a time. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendant has failed to repay the said debt amount with interest, though promising to pay every time, but, postponing the same on one pretext or the other reasons best known to him. On 05-11-2020 the loan account becomes NPA as per the terms of the bank. Than on 25-03-2021 the plaintiff bank got issued a Regd.

Legal notice to the defendant demanding for the due payment of the loan amount along with interest. The defendant received the said notice on 26-03-2021. The defendant neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. The defendant is indebted to the plaintiff bank to a tune of Rs.

76,374-92 Ps. as on 27-12-2021. Hence, this suit.

3

3) Summons ordered against the defendant through Registered post were served. Defendant called absent and none represented on his behalf. Hence he was set exparte on 02-03-2022 and posted the matter for plaintiff’s evidence to 06-04-2022.

4) On behalf of plaintiff bank, Branch Manager got himself examined as P.W1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 marked. Common Loan application cum Appraisal report dated 04-04-2018 was got marked as

Ex.A1, Sanction Memorandum dated 04-04-2018 was got marked as

Ex.A2, Agreement of Hypothecation for agricultural loan dated 04-04- 2018 was got marked as Ex.A3, Office copy of the Regd. Legal notice got issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant along with postal receipt dated 25-03-2021 was got marked as Ex.A4, Acknowledgment of the defendant dated 26-03-2021 was got marked as Ex.A5, Statement of account of the defendant with the plaintiff bank dated 27-12-2021 was got marked as Ex.A6, and General power of Attorney issued by the plaintiff bank was got marked as Ex.A7.

5) Heard arguments on behalf of plaintiff counsel.

6) Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of claim as

prayed for?

7) POINT :

On behalf of plaintiff bank, Branch Manager availed provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 (2) CPC. entered into witness box upon oath and examined himself as P.W1. A plain reading of sworn affidavit filed by 4

P.W1 upon oath reiterates the averments made in his plaint as true and correct. P.W1 in his Sworn affidavit deposed that at the request of the defendant on 04-04-2018 the plaintiff bank sanctioned an

Agriculture Dairy loan for purchase of buffaloes to a tune of Rs.

98,000/-. which was availed by the defendant promising to repay the said debt amount with interest @ 8.95% p.a. with monthly rests compoundly and it will vary from time to time as per RBI guidelines.

The defendant has executed all necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank by hypothecating the buffaloes. The defendant has to repay the loan amount in 48 equal monthly installments as agreed upon Rs.2,800/- per month. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank opened an account vide its Account No. 6285795000019. As the defendant failed to pay the said debt amount in installments as agreed upon, the defendant has to forego the said facility of paying the debt amount in installments and the defendant has to pay the entire debt amount with interest at a time. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendant has failed to repay the said debt amount with interest. On 5-11-2020 the loan account becomes NPA as per the terms of the bank. Than on 25-03-2021 the plaintiff bank got issued a Regd. Legal notice to the defendant demanding for the due payment of the loan amount along with interest. The defendant received the said notice on 26-03-2021. The defendant neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. The defendant is indebted to the plaintiff bank to a tune of Rs. 76,374-92 Ps. as on 27-12-2021.

5

8) A plain reading of Sworn affidavit of P.W1 coupled with documentary proof relied upon by P.W1, reveals that the defendant borrowed the amount from P.W1 and to that effect, P.W1 demonstrated

Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. Even though summons served upon the defendant, he failed to appear before the court. It appears that the defendant has no defence to rebut the evidence of P.W1. The Suit is filed within limitation. Therefore, this court opines that P.W1 is entitled to the suit amount with interest. Hence this point is answered.

9) In the result, Suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.76,374-92/-Ps. with subsequent interest @ 10.95% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization thereon.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-Smt.M. Sobha Rani,

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW.1 : Pulivarthi Phani Kiran - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1:- Common Loan application cum Appraisal report dated 04-04-2018.

Ex.A2:- Sanction Memorandum dated 04-04-2018.

Ex.A3:- Agreement of Hypothecation for agricultural loan dated 04-04-2018.

6

Ex.A4:- Office copy of the Regd. Legal notice got issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant along with postal receipt dated 25-03-21.

Ex.A5:- Acknowledgment of the defendant dated 26-03-2021.

Ex.A6:- Statement of account of the defendant with the plaintiff bank

dated 27-12-2021.

Ex.A7:- General power of Attorney issued by the plaintiff bank.

Defendants : - Nil –

Sd/-Smt.M. Sobha Rani,

III AJCJ, Guntur.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

GUNTUR.

Present: Smt.M. Sobha Rani, M.A., LL.M.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, the 13 th day of April, 2022.

O.S NO. 233 OF 2022.

Between:

Canara Bank, Lam Farm Branch, Rep. by it’s Branch Manager, Ganipisetty vari Street, Anjali-1, Road No. 2, Amaravathi Road, Guntur. … Plaintiff -AND-

Putta Radha, W/o. Rama Chandra Reddy, Hindu, aged about 46 years, R/o. Near Government School, Agathavarappadu Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District. … Defendant

This suit has come before me on 06-04-2022 for hearing in the presence of Sri A. Prema Sai, advocate for plaintiff, and defendants set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This Suit is filed for the recovery of an amount Rs.91,699-92/- ps. being the amount due by the defendant as per the statement of account as on 13-01-2022 with subsequent interest at the @ 11.85% and for costs of the Suit.

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

The defendant approached the plaintiff bank and applied for loan and at the request of the defendant on 16-05-2018 the plaintiff bank sanctioned an Agriculture Dairy loan for purchase of buffaloes to a tune of Rs. 98,000/-. which was availed by the defendant promising to repay the said debt amount with interest @ 9.85% p.a. with monthly rests compoundly and it will vary from time to time as per RBI guidelines. The defendant has executed all necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank by hypothecating the buffaloes. The defendant has to repay the loan amount in 48 equal monthly installments as agreed upon Rs.2,819/- per month. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank opened an account vide its Account No. 6285795000021.

As the defendant failed to pay the said debt amount in installments as agreed upon, the defendant has to forego the said facility of paying the debt amount in installments and the defendant has to pay the entire debt amount with interest at a time. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendant has failed to repay the said debt amount with interest, though promising to pay every time, but, postponing the same on one pretext or the other reasons best known to him. On 15-01-2020 the loan account becomes NPA as per the terms of the bank. Than on 28-12-2021 the plaintiff bank got issued a Regd.

Legal notice to the defendant demanding for the due payment of the loan amount along with interest. The defendant received the said notice on 29-12-2021. The defendant neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. The defendant is indebted to the plaintiff bank to a tune of Rs.

91,699-92 Ps. as on 13-01-2022. Hence, this suit.

3) Summons ordered against the defendant through Registered post were served. Defendant called absent and none represented on his behalf. Hence he was set exparte on 24-03-2022 and posted the matter for plaintiff’s evidence to 06-04-2022.

4) On behalf of plaintiff bank, Branch Manager got himself examined as P.W1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 marked. Common Loan application cum Appraisal report dated 16-05-2018 was got marked as

Ex.A1, Sanction Memorandum dated 16-05-2018 was got marked as

Ex.A2, Agreement of Hypothecation for agricultural loan dated 16-05- 2018 was got marked as Ex.A3, Acknowledgment of debt and security

dated 12-01-2021 was got marked as Ex.A4, Office copy of the Regd.

Legal notice got issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant along with postal receipt dated 28-12-2021 was got marked as Ex.A5,

Acknowledgment of the defendant dated 29-12-2021 was got marked as

Ex.A6, Statement of account of the defendant with the plaintiff bank

dated 13-01-2022 was got marked as Ex.A7, General power of Attorney

issued by the plaintiff bank was got marked as Ex.A8.

5) Heard arguments on behalf of plaintiff counsel.

6) Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of claim as

prayed for?

7) POINT :

On behalf of plaintiff bank, Branch Manager availed provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 (2) CPC. entered into witness box upon oath and examined himself as P.W1. A plain reading of sworn affidavit filed by

P.W1 upon oath reiterates the averments made in his plaint as true and correct. P.W1 in his Sworn affidavit deposed that at the request of the defendant on 16-05-2018 the plaintiff bank sanctioned an

Agriculture Dairy loan for purchase of buffaloes to a tune of Rs.

98,000/-. which was availed by the defendant promising to repay the said debt amount with interest @ 9.85% p.a. with monthly rests compoundly and it will vary from time to time as per RBI guidelines.

The defendant has executed all necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank by hypothecating the buffaloes. The defendant has to repay the loan amount in 48 equal monthly installments as agreed upon Rs.2,819/- per month. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank opened an account vide its Account No. 6285795000021. As the defendant failed to pay the said debt amount in installments as agreed upon, the defendant has to forego the said facility of paying the debt amount in installments and the defendant has to pay the entire debt amount with interest at a time. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendant has failed to repay the said debt amount with interest. On 15-01-2020 the loan account becomes NPA as per the terms of the bank. Than on 28-12-2021 the plaintiff bank got issued a Regd. Legal notice to the defendant demanding for the due payment of the loan amount along with interest. The defendant received the said notice on 29-12-2021. The defendant neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. The defendant is indebted to the plaintiff bank to a tune of Rs. 91,699-92 Ps. as on 13-01-2022.

8) A plain reading of Sworn affidavit of P.W1 coupled with documentary proof relied upon by P.W1, reveals that the defendant borrowed the amount from P.W1 and to that effect, P.W1 demonstrated

Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. Even though summons served upon the defendant, he failed to appear before the court. It appears that the defendant has no defence to rebut the evidence of P.W1. The Suit is filed within limitation. Therefore, this court opines that P.W1 is entitled to the suit amount with interest. Hence this point is answered.

9) In the result, Suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.91,699-92/- Ps. with subsequent interest @ 11.85% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization thereon.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-Smt.M. Sobha Rani,

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW.1 : Pulivarthi Phani Kiran - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1:- Common Loan application cum Appraisal report dated 16-05-2018. Ex.A2:- Sanction Memorandum dated 16-05-2018. Ex.A3:- Agreement of Hypothecation for agricultural loan dated 16-05-2018. Ex.A4:- Acknowledgment of debt and security dated 12-01-2021. Ex.A5:- Office copy of the Regd. Legal notice got issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant along with postal receipt dated 28-12-2021. Ex.A6:- Acknowledgment of the defendant dated 29-12-2021. Ex.A7:- Statement of account of the defendant with the plaintiff bank

dated 13-01-2022.

Ex.A8:- General power of Attorney issued by the plaintiff bank. Defendants : - Nil –

Sd/-Smt.M. Sobha Rani,

III AJCJ, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

GUNTUR.

Present: Smt.M. Sobha Rani, M.A., LL,M.,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Monday, the 18 th day of April, 2022.

O.S.No. 1395/2021.

Between:-

Gollapudi Venkateswara Rao, S/o. late Parameshwara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 59 years, Business, R/o 4-16-426, Srinagar, 1st Lane, Potti Sriramulu Nagar, Guntur. … Plaintiff -AND-

Gollapudi Nageswara Rao, S/o. late Appa Rao, Hindu, Aged about 45 years, Business, R/o 5-6-59/77A, Ambedkar Nagar, VGS Back side, Tamina Krishna Veedhi,

Vijayawada, Krishna District. ... Defendant

This suit has come before me on 08-04-2022 for hearing in the presence of Sri Potturi Vijaya Kumar advocate for plaintiff, and defendant set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This Suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Sum of Rs. 7,41,476/- being the amount principal and interest due under the A, B, C & D marked suit promissory notes dated 08-04-2019 and executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 5,00,000/- and for subsequent for costs.

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the

Plaintiff at Guntur on 08-04-2019 for his business expenses agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 18% per annum either to the

Plaintiff or to his order on demand and executed 'A',’B’,’C’ & ‘D’ marked 2 suit promissory notes in favour of the Plaintiff on the same day in evidence thereof. 'A',’B’,’C’ marked suit promissory notes each one for Rs.

1,00,000/- and ‘D’ marked suit promissory note for Rs. 2,00,000/-. On repeated demands made by the Plaintiff for discharge of the debt amounts due under the A, B, C & D marked suit promissory notes acknowledging his liability by way of part payment the defendant issued Four Cheques i.e.,

dated 09-09-2021 Cheque bearing No.496748 for Rs.1,00,000/-, dated

09-09-2021 Cheque bearing No.496749 for Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 09-09- 2021 Cheque bearing No.496751 for Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 20-09-2021

Cheque bearing No.496750 for Rs.1,00,000/- all Cheques drawn on

Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vijayawada Main Branch, Vijayawada. The cheques issued by the defendant on presentation by the Plaintiff for collection was dishonored for the reason "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS". The Plaintiff on 21-10- 2021 issued statutory notice to the defendant and initiated criminal proceedings against the defendant under the provisions of N.I. Act vide

CFR No.5088/2021 dated 04-12-2021 on the file of Hon'ble V Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The mediations of the Plaintiff personally and through mediators for recovery of the amounts due by the defendant under the suit promissory notes ended in futile. The defendant is liable to pay the entire suit claim amount of Rs.7,41,476/- along with interest and costs. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the present Suit.

3) Defendant was set exparte on 25-03-2022 and posted the matter for plaintiff’s evidence.

4) On behalf of plaintiff he got himself examined as P.W1 and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5 marked. ‘A’ marked Promissory note dated 08-04-2019 for Rs.

1,00,000/- was got marked as Ex.A1, ‘B’ marked Promissory note dated 3 08-04-2019 for Rs. 1,00,000/- was got marked as Ex.A2, ‘C’ marked

Promissory note dated 08-04-2019 for Rs. 1,00,000/- was got marked as

Ex.A3, ‘D’ marked Promissory note dated 08-04-2019 for Rs. 2,00,000/- was got marked as Ex.A4, Office copy of NI Act Legal Notice issued to the defendant dated 21-10-2021 was got marked as Ex.A5.

5) Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount

along with interest as prayed for ?

POINT :

7) The Plaintiff availed provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 (2) CPC. entered into witness box upon oath and examined himself as P.W1. A plain reading of sworn affidavit filed by P.W1 upon oath reiterates the averments made in his plaint as true and correct. P.W1 in his Sworn affidavit deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the Plaintiff at Guntur on 08-04-2019 for his business expenses agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 18% per annum either to the Plaintiff or to his order on demand and executed 'A',’B’,’C’ & ‘D’ marked suit promissory notes in favour of the

Plaintiff on the same day in evidence thereof. 'A',’B’,’C’ marked suit promissory notes each one for Rs. 1,00,000/- and ‘D’ marked suit promissory note for Rs. 2,00,000/-. On repeated demands made by the

Plaintiff for discharge of the debt amounts due under the A, B, C & D marked suit promissory notes acknowledging his liability by way of part payment the defendant issued Four Cheques i.e., dated 09-09-2021

Cheque bearing No.496748 for Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 09-09-2021 4

Cheque bearing No.496749 for Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 09-09-2021

Cheque bearing No.496751 for Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 20-09-2021

Cheque bearing No.496750 for Rs.1,00,000/- all Cheques drawn on

Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vijayawada Main Branch, Vijayawada. The cheques issued by the defendant on presentation by the Plaintiff for collection was dishonored for the reason "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS". The

Plaintiff on 21-10-2021 issued statutory notice to the defendant and initiated criminal proceedings against the defendant under the provisions of N.I. Act vide CFR No.5088/2021 dated 04-12-2021 on the file of Hon'ble V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The defendant is liable to pay the entire suit claim amount of Rs.7,41,476/- along with interest and costs. As the defendant has not paid the amount due under the Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 dated 08-04-2019.

8) A plain reading of Sworn affidavit of P.W1 coupled with documentary poof relied upon by P.W1, reveals that the defendant borrowed the amount from P.W1 and to that effect, P.W1 demonstrated

Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 Suit pronotes which clearly shows all the ingredients as required under section 3 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Even though summons affixed to the door of the defendant, he failed to appear

before the court. It appears that the defendant has no defence to rebut

the evidence of P.W1. The Suit is filed within limitation. Therefore, this court opines that P.W1 is entitled to the suit amount with interest. Hence this point is answered.

9) IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs. 7,41,476/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum form the date of suit till the date of 5 decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Smt.M. Sobha Rani

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1 : Gollapudi Venkateswara Rao - None –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:- A marked Promissory note dated 08-04-2019 for Rs. 1,00,000/-. Ex.A2:- B marked Promissory note dated 08-04-2019 for Rs. 1,00,000/- Ex.A3:- C marked Promissory note dated 08-04-2019 for Rs. 1,00,000/- Ex.A4:- D marked Promissory note dated 08-04-2019 for Rs. 2,00,000/- Ex.A5:- Office copy of NI Act Legal Notice issued to the defendant

dated 21-10-2021.

For Defendant : - Nil –

Sd/- Smt.M. Sobha Rani

II AJCJ, Guntur. FAC III AJCJ, Guntur.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BAPATLA.

Present: Smt M. Sobha Rani, B.Sc., M.L.,

Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Monday, this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

Succession O.P. 114/2017

Between:

1.Govada Aruna

2.Govada Prema Koushik

3.Govada Jaswanthi, being minor, represented by her mother 1st petitioner – Govada Aruna

as natural guardian. ...Petitioners

Versus

NIL ...Respondents.

This petition is coming 20.04.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N. Narasimha Rao, Advocate for petitioners and respondents nil and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Sec.372 of Indian Succession

Act for issuance of a succession certificate in favour of the petitioners, for collection of the amount detailed in the schedule.

2.The brief contention of the petitioners being thus:

The 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife and the petitioners 2 and 3 are son and daughter of late Govada Chitti Babu, son of late Koteswara Rao. Late Govada Chitti Babu used to work as a Kalasi/Luskar in irrigation department at Guntur. Due to heart failure the said Govada Chitti Babu died on 18-4-2017. He died intestate and he did not execute any WILL or document regarding his 2 estate and his service benefits of death or retirement benefits before his death.

b)The petitioners further submitted that the husband of the first petitioner i.e., Govada Chitti Babu who died while in service and hence as legally wedded wife and children they are entitled for all the benefits, assets and also pecuniary benefits as shown in the petition schedule.

c)The petitioners further submitted that except the petitioners, there are no other legal representatives to the deceased

Chitti Babu. The Irrigation Department concerned Engineer at Guntur is insisting for the production of the Succession Certificate and hence, the petitioners are filing the present application and they are alone entitled to claim and have the amounts as shown in the petition schedule. The petitioners are also entitled to get the job of the deceased Chitti Babu as per Law. The petitioner have not filed any similar petition or no such petition for Succession Certificate previously

before any Court of Law. Hence, this petition.

3. After paper publication, none appeared to contest this petition as respondents. Therefore, there are no respondents in this petition and hence, it is proceeded Exparte.

4. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners,

PW.1 is examined and Exs.P1 to P9 are marked.

5. Heard.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for a succession certificate, as prayed for ?

3

7. To prove their contention, the 1st petitioner is examined as

PW.1 and her testimony would reiterate all the material averments in the petition that her husband Govada Chitti Babu, worked as

Kalasi/Luskar in Irrigation Department at Guntur and he died due to failure of heart on 18.4.2017 and that his legal heirs are entitled for all the benefits, assets and also pecuniary benefits of him and that the 1st petitioner is the wife, and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of said Govada Chitti Babu and they are the only Class-I legal heirs of him and therefore, they are entitled to receive the death benefits etc., now lying in the Office of the Divisional Engineer,

Irrigation Department at Guntur. The evidence of P.W.1 is remained unchallenged. As there is no rebuttal evidence to disprove the contention of the petitioners. It is held that the petitioners are entitled to get succession certificate as prayed for. Accordingly, petition is allowed.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed, granting Succession

Certificate in favour of the petitioners to withdraw the death benefits of Govada Chitti Babu, mentioned in the schedule from the Office of the Divisional Engineer, Irrigation Department at Guntur. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Engross

Succession Certificate on N.J. Stamps.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

Sd/- M. Sobha Rani

Senior Civil Judge,

Bapatla 4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

//WITNESSES EXAMINED//

For Petitioners :

PW.1 : Govada Aruna

For respondent : NIL

//DOCUMENTS MARKED//

For Petitioners :

Ex.P1 – Death certificate dt. 18-4-2017

Ex.P2 – Wedding card dt. 30-5-1998

Ex.P3 – Marriage certificate dt. 30-5-1998

Ex.P4 – P.W.1's Aadhar Card

Ex.P5 – Birth Certificate dt. 20-8-1999

Ex.P6 – Aadhar Card of 2nd petitioner

Ex.P7 – Birth Certificate dt. 21-7-2001

Ex.P8 – Aadhar Card of 3rd petitioner

Ex.P9 – Aadhar Card of P.W.1's husband.

For Respondent : NIL

Sd/- M. Sobha Rani

SCJ.,Bapatla.