Smt M.sobha Rani

1

FAIR

I N THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GAJUWAKA

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

Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka,

Thursday, this the 25 th day of April, 2013

O.S. NO.30/2011

Between:

1. Akunuru Sridhar, Son of Raja Gopala Rao, Hindu, Aged 37 years,

House No.111, 1st floor, 1st Main, II Cross, 4th block, St.Bed,

Koramangala, Bangalore-34. Represented by his GPA Holder

Sri Muramalla Narayana Rao, Son of (I) Krishnamma, Hindu, Aged 60 years, Resident of Flat No.301 # 31-45-11/9, II Floor, Akshitha

Foundations, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-46.

2. Muramalla Mehar Manimala, Wife of Akunuru Sridhar, Hindu, Aged 30 years, House No.111, 1st floor, 1st Main, II Cross, 4th block, St.Bed,

Koramangala, Bangalore-34. Represented by his GPA Holder

Sri Muramalla Narayana Rao, Son of (I) Krishnamma, Hindu, Aged 60 years, Resident of Flat No.301 # 31-45-11/9, II Floor, Akshitha

Foundations, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-49.

...Plaintiffs

And:

1. Akshitha Foundations, Represented by its sole proprietor, Sri Pattapu

Ananda Arun Kumar, Son of Ananda Rao, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, MIG-28, Vuda Phase-VII, Dwarakapuri, Kurmannapalem,

Visakhapatnam-530 046.

2. Pabbisetti Gopalakrishna, Son of Laxamanaswamy, Hindu, Aged about 45 years, Door No.11-6-13, Kailash Nagar, Kanithi Road,

Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-530 046.

3. Dunna Chandra Sekhar, Son of Suryanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 36 years, Flat No.S4, Kondaiah Residency, Gopalapatnam,

Visakhapatnam-530 027.

4. Janga Aruna Kumari, wife of (I) Karri Rambabu, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, Door No.4-163, Devi Nagar Street, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalli,

Visakhapatnam District.

5. Palla Pradeep, Son of Prakash, Hindu, Aged about 25 years, Door

No.38-30-172, Hussain Nagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

2

6. State Bank of Hyderabad, Gajuwaka Branch, Represented but its

Branch Manager, Main Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-26.

7. State Bank of Hyderabad, Duvvada Branch, Represented but its

Branch Manager, Duvvada Station Road, Kurmannapalem,

Visakhapatnam-26.

8. IDBI, Siripuram Branch, Represented by its Branch Manager,

Siripuram Branch, Visakhapatnam.

9. Andhra Bank, Retail Credit Branch, Represented by its Branch

Manager, Sampath Vinayakaswamy Temple Road, Visakhapatnam.

... Defendants

This suit coming on 03-04-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt B.Yasodhara Vedamani, Advocate for plaintiffs and

Sri Chavali Shyam Sundar, Advocate for Defendant No.8 and Smt Sunkara

Padmaja, Advocate for Defendant No.9 and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGEMENT

This is a suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, and followers from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint A and B schedule properties by the plaintiff.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the husband and wife and they are purchased plaint A and B schedule properties under two registered sale deeds dtd.10-3-2008 from the 1st defendant and on the same day the possession of the properties were delivered to them and since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment for the properties without let or hindrance and there is an agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant to complete the construction of suit schedule flats and to meet the costs and expenses they have obtained loan of Rs.24,00,000/- from LIC Housing Finance Limited by 3 hypothecating plaint A & B schedule properties and the loan was disbursed from time to time to the 1st defendant and that the said flats are assessed to tax and they have paid the taxes to GVMC and at present plaint A schedule flat their GPA agent is resided and plaint B schedule property was let out to third party and while so the officials of the defendants 6 to 9 are visiting a schedule properties since last 15 days and when questioned about their visits they have informed that the defendants 2 to 5 hypothecated plaint A & B schedule properties and taken loans and they have committed default and as they are going to take steps against them for realization of the amounts and the plaintiffs disclosed their title and requested defendants 6 to 9 to furnish information about the loan transactions and they have refused to give information stating that it is confidential and part of business activity/trade secret and that they came to know that the defendants 1 to 9 have played fraud and seems to be obtained loans from defendants 6 to 9 to grab the plaint schedule properties and apprehending danger that the defendants 6 to 9 may neck out them from the properties they have filed the suit for permanent injunction.

3)The defendants 1 to 7 are set exparte and the defendants 8 and 9 were only contested by filing their written statements separately. In the written statement of 8th defendant it was stated that the plaintiff is not having any right or title to the suit schedule property and the same was originally purchased by the 4th defendant and availed the housing loan from the 8th defendant by depositing the original title deeds as security and the 4th defendant validly acquired the right, title and possession over the schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed and creating equitable mortgage by depositing the original documents to the 8th defendant and further submitted that 4th defendant availed the housing loan by 17-2-2011 4 and at present the 8th defendant has no claim against the suit schedule property or against the 4th defendant and prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)The 9th defendant in his written statement having denied the allegations in the plaint and contended that it is an unnecessary party and that it is the one of the leading national bank and it finances to genuine customers for housing loans and the 9th defendant has sanctioned housing loan to different flats and not to the plaint schedule properties and so it seeks to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5)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. Whether plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as on date of filing the suit?

3. Whether the suit is maintainable or not?

4. Whether the documents filed along with the suit are not valid?

5. Whether the plaint has no cause of action?

6. To what relief?

6)During the course of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff the

Power of Attorney agent of the plaintiffs was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9, A.12 and 13 and on his behalf P.W.2 was examined and marked Exs.A.10 and A.11.

7)As the 8th defendant in its written statement contended that the 4th defendant has obtained loan by hypothecating the original title deeds relating to the plaint schedule properties and subsequently she discharged the loan amount availed by her by 17-2-2011 and at present it 5 has no claim against the suit schedule properties or against the 4th defendant and the 9th defendant in its written statement contented that no loan was sanctioned to any one against the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs filed IA.No.968/2012 after closure of all most all evidence of Pws.1 & 2 seeking permission for withdrawal of their claim against the defendants 8 & 9 with a liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the suit schedule properties at a later point of time in the event of making any claim by the defendants 8 & 9 and the said petition was allowed by an order dtd.1-3-2013 .

8)Heard the oral arguments of the counsel for plaintiff.

9)Since the issues 1 to 5 are inter related to each other I intend to decide all the five issues together at once to avoid repetition of the averments while deciding each issue separately.

10)It is settled principle of law that a person who seeks an equitable relief of permanent injunction has to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience and also irreparable injury that may be caused to him incase the court is not inclined to grant an equitable relief of injunction in his favour. It is also an established principle of law that the said person has to establish his physical possession in the property for which he is seeking injunction. Now it has to be seen to the what extent the plaintiff has established the above settled principle including his possession in the suit schedule property on the date of filing the suit.

11) ISSUE Nos.1 TO 5: Pw.1 having denied the contents the written statements of defendants 8 & 9 reiterated all the plaint averments in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief evidence. During the course of his cross examination by the 8th defendant he deposed that there are several registrations against the suit schedule property in the month of December 2010 and obtained encumbrance certificate with regard to suit schedule 6 property but he had not filed before the court and subsequently on his recalling he filed the encumbrance certificate under Ex.A.2 for the period 31-3-1991 to 20-8-2012 and he further deposed that he had not filed the suit for declaration but only for permanent injunction.

12)Ex.A.1 is the original Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs infavour of PW.1, Exs.A.2 and A.3 are the registration extract of the sale deeds inrespect of plaint A & B schedule properties infavour of both the plaintiffs, Ex.A.4 and A.5 are the tax pass books, Ex.A.6 is the letter written by plaintiffs under RTI Act to the 7th defendant requesting to furnish the attested copies, Ex.A.7 is the reply dtd.22-1-2011, Ex.A.8 is the certificate for loan account inrespect of plaint A & B schedule flats sanctioned in the name of 1st plaintiff issued by LIC Housing Finance

Limited, Ex.A.9 are the photographs with negatives showing Akshita

Heights as well as flat NO.301 and 303 properties. Ex.A.12 is the encumbrance certificate inrespect of plaint schedule properties for the period from 31-3-1991 to 20-8-2012 and Ex.A.13 is the FIR in Crime

No.602/2011 lodged by 2nd plaintiff against defendants 1 to 5. All the above referred exhibits A.1 to A.9 and A.12 and A.13 are clearly reveals that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit schedule flats from the 1st defendant under Ex.A.2 and A.3 and they have paid property tax as born out from

Ex.A.4 and A.5 and Pws.1 & 2 are in possession and enjoyment of plaint A & B schedule flats.

13)As seen from Exs.A.2 & 3 and serial No.63 to 66 shown in

Ex.A.12 encumbrance certificate it reveals the flat Nos.301 and 303 i.e plaint A & B schedule properties were sold infavour of the plaintiffs by the 1st defendant and two others under registered sale deeds dtd.10-3-2008.

But as seen from serial No.34 in Ex.A.12 it reveals that the 1st defendant and the two others who executed sale deeds under Exs.A.2 and A.3 7 infavour of plaintiffs have also sold B schedule flat No.303 infavour of the 2nd defendant under registered sale deeds dtd.3-3-2010 which was registered on 12-3-2010 bearing document No.854/2010. Thus, the 1st defendant and two others who are the vendors of the plaintiff have again sold and registered plaint B schedule flat No.303 to the 2nd defendant under registered sale deeds bearing document NO.854/2010 suppressing the sale of the property infavour of the plaintiffs under Ex.A.3 dtd.29-2-2008 which was registered on 10-3-2008 as document

NO.574/2008. Similarly, plaint A schedule flat No.301 was again sold to the 4th defendant under registered sale deed bearing document No.376/2010 dtd.4-2-2010 to the 4th defendant and the same flat was again sold to 3rd defendant under registered sale deed bearing document NO.3228/2010 dtd.16-8-2010 suppressing the execution of the registered sale deed under

Ex.A.2 infavour of the the plaintiffs on 3-2-2008 which was the registered as document NO.575/2008 on 10-3-2008. Thus, the 1st defendant and two others who are the vendors of the plaintiffs under Ex.A.2 and A.3 have committed cheating while execution of the registered sale deeds infavour of the defendants 2 to 4.

14)As already stated by me, the sales infavour of D.2 to D.4 are subsequent to the sale of the plaint A & B schedule properties infavour of the plaintiffs under Ex.A.2 and A.3 which was born out from the entries in

Ex.A.12, those sales cannot prevail over the earlier sales under Ex.A.2 and

A.3 infavour of the plaintiffs.

15)PW.2 is a tenant in A schedule plot NO.301 and in his chief affidavit she has stated that in other flat 303 is under the occupation of

Pw.1 who is the father of the 2nd plaintiff and she is staying along with family on obtaining lease on 12-5-2011 and the rent payable by her is

Rs.2,400/- per month. During her cross examination she deposed that the 8 plaintiffs are residing in the suit schedule property and she again says that

GPA holder is residing and both plaintiffs are residing at Bangalore and she has staying in the plaint B schedule property by paying rent of Rs.2,400/- per month and a question posed to her she deposed that she did not file any document to show that she had staying in plaint B schedule property and she adds that she is having a documents with her and she is intended to file the same before the court and she is residing in plaint B schedule property from May 2011 and on her recalling Exs.A.10 & 11 were marked.

Ex.A.10 is the HP gas consumer which stands in the name of her husband

Jagadeeswar Rao and it is dtd.2-7-2011 and the memo is dtd.5-7-2011 and

Ex.A.11 is the motor driving registration certificate stands in her name and date of its registration 23-6-2012. Thus, Exs.A.1 and A.2 clearly reveals that she and her husband are the residence of plot No.301 of Akshita

Heights which is plaint A schedule property.

16)So, I have no hesitation in holding that the plaintiffs has cause of action to file the suit and they were in possession of the properties through PW.1 and Pw.2 on the date of filing the suit as born out from

Ex.A.9 photographs and as such they are entitle to seek for equitable relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 7 and hence all the five issues are held infavour of plaintiffs.

17)ISSUE NO.6: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7, their men, agents and followers from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the plaint A and B schedule properties.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by in the open court, this the 25 th day of April, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs:For Defendants:

P.W.1: M.Narayana RaoNone

P.W.2: V.Jagadamba

NO. OF DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1/NilOriginal Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs infavour of PW.1

Exs.A.2 & 3/NilRegistration extract of the sale deeds inrespect of plaint A & B schedule properties infavour of both the plaintiffs.

Exs.A.4 & 5/NilOriginal tax pass books.

Ex.A.6/NilOffice copy of letter written by plaintiffs under RTI Act to the 7th defendant requesting to furnish the attested copies.

Ex.A.7/22-01-2011 Original reply of the defendants 6 & 7.

Ex.A.8/NilCertificate for loan account inrespect of plaint A & B schedule flats sanctioned in the name of 1st plaintiff issued by LIC Housing Finance Limited.

Ex.A.9/NilPhotographs with negatives showing Akshita Heights as well as flat NO.301 and 303 properties.

Ex.A.10/NilXerox copy of domestic gas consumer card with consumer NO.620172.

Ex.A.11/NilXerox copy of C.Book.

Ex.A.12/20-08-2012Certified copy of encumbrance certificate eight in number pertaining to years 31-3-1991 to 20-8-2012.

Ex.A.13/NilCertified copy of FIR along with complaint copy.

For Defendants:- NIL -

JCJ/GWK.

10

Date of Presentation: 08-02-2011 Date of Filing: 08-02-2011

I N THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GAJUWAKA

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

Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka,

Thursday, this the 25 th day of April, 2013

O.S. NO.30/2011

Between:

1. Akunuru Sridhar, Son of Raja Gopala Rao, Hindu, Aged 37 years,

House No.111, 1st floor, 1st Main, II Cross, 4th block, St.Bed,

Koramangala, Bangalore-34. Represented by his GPA Holder

Sri Muramalla Narayana Rao, Son of (I) Krishnamma, Hindu, Aged 60 years, Resident of Flat No.301 # 31-45-11/9, II Floor, Akshitha

Foundations, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-46.

2. Muramalla Mehar Manimala, Wife of Akunuru Sridhar, Hindu, Aged 30 years, House No.111, 1st floor, 1st Main, II Cross, 4th block, St.Bed,

Koramangala, Bangalore-34. Represented by his GPA Holder

Sri Muramalla Narayana Rao, Son of (I) Krishnamma, Hindu, Aged 60 years, Resident of Flat No.301 # 31-45-11/9, II Floor, Akshitha

Foundations, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-49.

...Plaintiffs

And:

1. Akshitha Foundations, Represented by its sole proprietor, Sri Pattapu

Ananda Arun Kumar, Son of Ananda Rao, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, MIG-28, Vuda Phase-VII, Dwarakapuri, Kurmannapalem,

Visakhapatnam-530 046.

2. Pabbisetti Gopalakrishna, Son of Laxamanaswamy, Hindu, Aged about 45 years, Door No.11-6-13, Kailash Nagar, Kanithi Road,

Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-530 046.

3. Dunna Chandra Sekhar, Son of Suryanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 36 years, Flat No.S4, Kondaiah Residency, Gopalapatnam,

Visakhapatnam-530 027.

4. Janga Aruna Kumari, wife of (I) Karri Rambabu, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, Door No.4-163, Devi Nagar Street, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalli,

Visakhapatnam District.

5. Palla Pradeep, Son of Prakash, Hindu, Aged about 25 years, Door

No.38-30-172, Hussain Nagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

11

6. State Bank of Hyderabad, Gajuwaka Branch, Represented but its

Branch Manager, Main Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-26.

7. State Bank of Hyderabad, Duvvada Branch, Represented but its

Branch Manager, Duvvada Station Road, Kurmannapalem,

Visakhapatnam-26.

8. IDBI, Siripuram Branch, Represented by its Branch Manager,

Siripuram Branch, Visakhapatnam.

9. Andhra Bank, Retail Credit Branch, Represented by its Branch

Manager, Sampath Vinayakaswamy Temple Road, Visakhapatnam.

... Defendants

This is a suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, and followers from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint A and B schedule properties by the plaintiff.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is notionally valued for A Schedule property is Rs.10,000-00 and B Schedule property is for Rs.10,000/- and a court fee of Rs.786-00 + Rs.786-00 total comes to Rs.1,572-00 is paid thereon under Section 26, Article-I, of

Schedule-I, (b) & © of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This suit coming on 03-04-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt B.Yasodhara Vedamani, Advocate for plaintiffs and

Sri Chavali Shyam Sundar, Advocate for Defendant No.8 and Smt Sunkara

Padmaja, Advocate for Defendant No.9 and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth the order;

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is here by is decreed for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7, their men, agents and followers from ever interfering 12 with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the plaint A and B schedule properties; and

2. that the defendants 1 to 7 do pay the plaintiffs a sum of

Rs.1,898-00 (Rupees One thousand eight hundred and ninety eight only) towards costs of the suit.

(A copy of plaint schedule is hereto attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 25th day of April, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

Stamp on vakalat :Rs. 2-00No costs memo is filed

Stamp on plaint :Rs. 786-00

Process charges :Rs. 500-00

Stamp on petitions :Rs. 10-00

Advocate fee :Rs. 1,000-00

Publication charges :Rs. 500-00

Clerical charges :Rs. 100-00 ------------------

Costs allowed :Rs.1,898-00 ------------------

JCJ/GWK.

1

FAIR

I N THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GAJUWAKA

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

Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka,

Thursday, this the 25 th day of April, 2013

O.S. NO.65/2011

Between:

Maila Koteswara Reddy, Son of Koti Reddy, Hindu, Aged 40 years, Residing at Door No.10-3, Peda Madaka, Aganampudi, Visakhapatnam.

...Plaintiff And:

1. M/s.Kapil Chit Fund Private Limited, Gajuwaka Branch, Represented by its Forman and Assistant Accounts Officer, Situated at Main Road,

Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2. The Zonal Manager (Visakhapatnam Recovery Cell), M/s.Kapil Chit

Fund Private Limited, Situated at Door No.50-50-41/1, Balayya Sastri

Layout, Jasmi Villa Apartment, Visakhapatnam.

....Defendants

This suit coming on 24-04-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Y.N.Srinivas and Sri D.V.Rama Rao, Advocates for plaintiff and Sri U.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Defendants and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit for declaration that the letter dtd.09-11-2009 issued by the defendants is illegal, arbitrary and the same is un-enforcibly under law and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to continue the chit bearing No.GWTO 1H/10 by law No.304/2006-07 in the name of plaintiff till its completion.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are that the 1st defendant is chit fund company and the 2nd defendant is its recovery cell and the plaintiff was a chits subscriber bearing No.GWTO 1H/10 for a value of

Rs.3,00,000/- which was commenced on 28-4-2007 and the plaintiff has 2 paid 35 chit installments in the said chit and he is also a subscriber in another chit bearing NO.GWTO 1F1/23 for a chit value of Rs.1,50,000/- with the1st defendant and he had participated in the bidding and declared as a successful bidder and accordingly an amount of Rs.90,000/- is paid to him and the said chit was subscribed in Gajuwaka branch and later the same was transferred to Dondaparthi branch without his knowledge and many time he tried to know about the fate of the said chit and having no other alternative he discontinued the said chit for very few months and in meanwhile the 1st defendant filed OS.NO.268/2008 for recovery of the chit amount.

3)His further case is that inspite of filing the suit one of the agent of the 1st defendant came to him and collected chit amount inrespect of chit bearing NO.GWTO 1F1/23 and after two months or so the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant filed the suit without any cause of action and from then onwards he stopped to pay the chit amount inrespect of the said chit and he contested the said suit by engaging an

Advocate and during the pendency of the said suit, 2nd defendant issued a letter dtd.9-11-2009 alleging that the chit bearing No.GWTO 1H/10 is intended to remove from the NPS account and the same shall be transferred to chit bearing NO.GWTO 1F1/23 and sought for objection if any within seven days and accordingly he got issued legal notice, dtd.17- 11-2009 to the 2nd defendant stating that it had no right whatsoever to make such chit adjustment and the defendants have also issued a reply notice dtd.11-2-2010 to him stating chit bearing No.GWTO 1H/10 is being adjusted with chit bearing NO.GWTO 1F1/23 by invoking clause 15 and 17 of the chit agreement.

3

4)The further case of the plaintiff that the acts of the defendant constitute arbitrary and illegal and it has no right to make adjustments and hence the suit for declaration and for mandatory injunction.

5)The 1st defendant filed its written statement which was adopted by the 2nd defendant and the defendants having denied the plaint allegations contended that the plaintiff is not only filed this suit but also filed CC No.130/2011 on the file of District Consumer Forum II,

Visakhapatnam for the same reliefs asked in this suit and the said CC was partly allowed to an order dtd.30-06-2011 directing the 1st defendant to pay the eligible amount together with interest at 12% per annum from the date on which it appropriated the amount subscribed in chit bearing

NO.GWTO 1H/10 together with an authenticated copy of the account pertaining to the said chit besides to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and an additional sum of Rs.1500/- towards cost of the complaint within a month from the date of the said order and that order has become final and the plaintiff instead of withdrawing or not pressing the suit continue the proceedings for the reliefs sought for in this suit which were already decided by the Forum and as such the present suit is infructous and seeking to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

6)Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:

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

2. Whether the letter dtd.19-11-2009 issued by the defendant is illegal and arbitrary?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit?

4

5. To what relief?

7)During the course of the trial the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 (A.4 and A.5 are marked subject to production of certified copies) and during his cross examination on behalf of the defendant Ex.B.1 is marked on confrontation. On behalf of the defendants the Assistant Divisional Manager of 1st defendant was examined as DW.1 and no such documents was marked during his evidence.

8)Heard the oral arguments.

9)Since the issues 1 to 4 are inter related to each other and as such I intend to decide the said issues together at once.

10)ISSUE Nos.1 TO 4: PW.1 having denied the contents of the written statement of the defendants, reiterated all the plaint averments in his chief affidavit. During his cross examination he admitted that he is subscriber in both the chits and their value is Rs.3,00,000/- and 1,50,000/- and he is the successful bidder in the auction for the chit bearing

No.DWTO 1F1/23 for Rs.1,50,000/- and the prize amount of Rs.90,000/- is paid to him on production of sureties and later he paid 11 installments continuously and thereafter from the month of October 2007 he did not pay the installments and committed default and further admitted that the 1st defendant issued notice dtd.12-4-2008 demanding him to pay the balance amount of Rs.92,200/- and subsequently filed OS.258/2008 for recovery of the said amount against him and the sureties. He further admitted a company sent a letter on 09-11-2009 that the amount paid in chit NO.GWTO 1H/10 after deduction the commission of that chit the amount which he had paid will be adjusted in the default chit bearing

No.GWTO 1F1/23 and they are intended to transfer the amount for the default chit and submit his objections within seven days under Ex.A.1 and 5 he gave a reply under Ex.A.2 dtd.17-11-2009 stating that the company has no right to adjust the amount from one chit to another chit and for which the company gave a legal notice under Ex.A.3 dtd.11-02-2009 and later not press the suit OS.268/08. He further admitted that he had filed

CC No.130/2011 before the District Consumers Forum, Visakhapatnam and

the facts of that case and facts in the suit are one and similar and he filed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to continue the chit bearing NO.GWTO 1H/10 and the Forum gave a finding that he has a defaulter in chit NO.GWTO 1F1/23 and as the Clause 15 and sub clause © of clause 17 the company has every right to adjust the amount from one chit to another chit and also gave a finding that he is entitled for claiming eligible amount besides compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards costs of litigation and further admitted that he had subsequently the company had sent a DD for Rs.46,693/- on 26-09-2009 and the same was received by him and also encashed the same.

11)The present suit was filed 25-3-2011 for declaration that the letter dtd.9-11-2009 issued by the defendants illegal, arbitrary and the same is un-enforcible under law and for a mandatory injunction to continue the chit bearing NO.GWTO 1H/10 till its completion. According to the admission of the PW.1 he filed CC.130/2011 before the Forum and as seen from Ex.B.1 the complaint was registered on 18-4-2011 that means he filed the said complaint nearly 24 days after filing the present suit. So the plaintiff chosen parallel jurisdiction for the same relief in the present suit as well as the CC.130/2011. Any how, the Forum has decided

CC.130/2011 by order dtd.30-06-2011 wherein it was held that he has

committed default in payment of subscriptions payable under chit bearing

NO.GWTO 1F/23 and according to clause NO.15 and 17 of Ex.A.4 chit agreement the company is entitle to adjust the amount from one chit to 6 another chit belonging to the same subscriber and accordingly the non prized subscription amount in the chit bearing NO.GWTO 1H/10 was adjusted towards the amount lying in the chit bearing NO.GWTO 1F/23 which was covered by the suit in OS.268/2008 and directed the opposite party therein who is the 1st defendant in the suit to pay the eligible amount together with interest with 12% p.a accrues thereon for the period commencing from the date on which it appropriated the amount of the plaintiff subscribed in chit NO.GWTO 1H-10 together with an authenticated copy of account pertaining to that chit.

12)During the course of cross examination of Pw.1 he admitted that subsequent to the order dtd.30-6-2011 passed under Ex.B.1 the 1st defendant as send a DD for Rs.46,693/- on 26-09-2011 and the same was received by him and also encashed the same. But the plaintiff has not stated this crucial aspect in his chief affidavit filed on 10-12-2012. So he suppressed the receipt of the amount through DD on 26-09-2011. This court is not aware that he received the said draft without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the present suit or not. On the other hand since the Forum has decided that the letter dtd.9-11-2009 issued by the 2nd defendant is true, valid and the 1st defendant is entitled to adjust the amount from one chit to another chit and accordingly the company rightly appropriated the subscriptions of the plaintiff made in chit No.GWTO 1H/10 towards the arrears in chit group bearing NO.GWTO 1H/23. Since the Forum has decided the validity of Ex.A.1 letter dtd.9-11-2009 and also up hold the adjustment made by the 1st defendant company from the chit

No.GWTO 1H/10 to chit No.GWTO 1F1/23, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek for declaration as well as the mandatory injunction.

13)As already discussed by me the plaintiff has received DD sent by the 1st defendant on 26-09-2011 and encashed the same and as such 7 he has no right to continue the suit proceedings. So, I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek for the reliefs sought for in the suit and accordingly all the four issues are held against him.

14)ISSUE NO.5: In the result, the suit is dismissed. NO costs.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 25 th day of April, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

P.W.1: M.Koteswara ReddyD.W.1: D.Sanjay Kumar

NO. OF DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1/09-11-2009Certified copy of letter issued by 2nd defendant to the plaintiff.

Ex.A.2/17-11-2009Certified copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant.

Ex.A.3/11-02-2010Certified copy of legal notice issued by defendants to the plaintiff.

Ex.A.4/26-09-2006Xerox copy of chit agreement.

Ex.A.5/NilXerox copy of plaint copy in OS.268/2008 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Gajuwaka.

For Defendants:

Ex.B.1/30-06-2011Order in CC.130/2011 on the file of District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam.

JCJ/GWK 8

Date of Presentation: 25-03-2011 Date of Filing: 25-03-2011

I N THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GAJUWAKA

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

Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka,

Thursday, this the 25 th day of April, 2013

O.S. NO.65/2011

Between:

Maila Koteswara Reddy, Son of Koti Reddy, Hindu, Aged 40 years, Residing at Door No.10-3, Peda Madaka, Aganampudi, Visakhapatnam.

...Plaintiff And:

1. M/s.Kapil Chit Fund Private Limited, Gajuwaka Branch, Represented by its Forman and Assistant Accounts Officer, Situated at Main Road,

Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2. The Zonal Manager (Visakhapatnam Recovery Cell), M/s.Kapil Chit

Fund Private Limited, Situated at Door No.50-50-41/1, Balayya Sastri

Layout, Jasmi Villa Apartment, Visakhapatnam.

....Defendants

This is a suit for declaration that the letter dtd.09-11-2009 issued by the defendants is illegal, arbitrary and the same is un-enforcibly under law and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to continue the chit bearing No.GWTO 1H/10 by law No.304/2006-07 in the name of plaintiff till its completion.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction is for Rs.20,000-00 and a Court Fee of Rs.1,572/- is paid herein under

Sections 26(c) of A.P.court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

This suit coming on 24-04-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Y.N.Srinivas and Sri D.V.Rama Rao, Advocates for plaintiff and Sri U.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Defendants and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth the order; 9

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby is dismissed; and

2. that there be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 25th day of April, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff:For Defendants:

Stamp on vakalat:Rs. 3-00 No costs memo is filed

Stamp on plaint:Rs. 1,572-00

C.F.on documents :Rs. 2-00

C.F on petitions:Rs. 5-00

C.F on process:Rs. 48-00 -------------------

Costs certified :Rs. 1,630-00 -------------------

JCJ/GWK.

1

FAIR

I N THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GAJUWAKA

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

Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka,

Thursday, this the 25 th day of April, 2013

O.S. NO.99/2008

Between:

Kalavagunta Prabhakar, Son of late K.Govinda Pillai, Hindu, Aged about 59 years, Residing at Door NO.199/4, Sree Vidya Building, Sector No.4,

M.v.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam-530 017.

...Plaintiff

And:

1. Sardar Project Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director,

Yarlagadda Venkanna Chowdhary, Son of Krishnamurthy, Hindu,

Aged about 43 years, Residing at Door No.7-5-64, Plot NO.48,

Panduragapuram, Visakhapatnam.

2. Sardar Project Private Limited, Represented by its General Manager,

Jonnalagadda Venkata Giri, Son of Rama Rao, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, Residing at Door NO.7-5-64, Plot No.48, Panduragapuram,

Visakhapatnam.

... Defendants

This suit coming on 04-04-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Eswara Rao, Sri G.Appa Rao and Smt M.Santhi,

Advocates for plaintiff and Sri B.A.Raja Rao and Smt M.Jayasree, Advocates for Defendants and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGEMENT

This is a suit filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants from ever entering and interfering or altering the plaint schedule appended to this plaint with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2

2)The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff has purchased the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed, dtd.11-8-1988 and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interruption and on 19-3-2008 the defendants are illegally tried to encroached the plaint schedule property and trying to level the suit schedule property with the help of bulldozer without any authority and with great difficulty he obstructed the defendant and inspite of his personal request not to encroach the property and construct any structures in the schedule property the defendants paid deaf ear and trying to encroach the plaint schedule property illegally and highhandedly and since the defendants are very influential person and they are not caring the words of the plaintiff and trying to encroach the property illegally without having any right or interest over the property, he being a law abiding citizen having no option filed this suit for permanent injunction.

3)The defendants filed a common written statement wherein they have denied all the plaint allegations and on the other hand contended that the plaint schedule property is a part of there property purchased under two registered sale deeds, dtd.2-7-2007 and 8-10-2007 and after the purchase the defendants company got constructed a pacca compound wall on its Northern, Eastern and Southern side and a compound walls and the barbed wire fencing with RCC poles erected around by the defendant company for their extent of Acre 0.79 cents and to show that the compound walls and barbed wire fencing were already in existence they have filed photographs and other documents along with memo dtd.31-3-2008 before this Hon'ble court and since the plaintiff has not been in possession of the plaint schedule property at any point of time is not entitled to seek for permanent injunction and ultimately seeking to dismiss 3 the suit with exemplary costs and since the plaintiff has fraudulently and dishonestly making made claims which he knew to be false and abused the process of this Hon'ble court and as such he is punishable under Section 209 of IPC and therefore it is a fit case to invoke Section 340 CR.P.C r/w

Section 195 and initiate the proceedings against the plaintiff accordingly.

4)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. Whether there is any cause of action to file the suit?

3. Whether the suit is maintainable or not?

4. To what relief?

5)During the course of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff he himself was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and on his behalf

P.Ws.2 and 3 were also examined. On the other hand on behalf of the defendants it Managing Director was examined as DW.1 and marked

Exs..B.1 to B.3.

6)Heard the oral arguments of both the counsels.

7)Since the issues 1 to 3 are inter related to each other I intend to decide all the three issues together at once to avoid repetition of the averments while deciding each issue separately.

8)It is settled principle of law that a person who seeks an equitable relief of permanent injunction has to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience and also irreparable injury that may be caused to him incase the court is not inclined to grant an equitable relief of injunction in his favour. It is also an established principle of law that the said person has to establish his physical possession in the property for which he is seeking injunction. Now it has to be seen to the what extent the 4 plaintiff has established the above settled principle including his possession in the suit schedule property on the date of filing the suit.

9) ISSUE Nos.1 TO 3: PW.1 having denied the averments in the written statement reiterated all the averments in the plaint in his affidavit filed in lie of the chief evidence. During the course of the cross examination he deposed that the total extent of survey No.280/3 is Acres 4.38 cents and on 19-03-2003 he came to know that the defendants were in the process of occupying the suit plot he rushed from MVP Colony where he is residing to the suit schedule property and found that one foot walls in the four corners of the plots was already destroyed and they were levelling the ground and grab the suit plot. He also admitted the filing of photographs and FMB on behalf of the defendants with memo dtd.31-3-2008 before this court and two photographs under Exs.B.2 and B.3 shows the compound wall and a barbed wire fencing. Curiously during the course of the further cross examination recorded on 16-8-2012 he admitted that in the defendants encroachment 508 square yards of his site and corresponding extent of plot No.769 which is on the South of his plot were taken away and on leaving the remaining extent of 100 square yards the defendants having included the encroached extent of 508 square yards constructed compound walls and barbed wire fencing having merged the said extent into their property. On 19-03-2008 when the process is going on in the plaint schedule property by the defendant when he questioned them they made false claim to the affect the survey No.280/3 was not located at that spot and the same would be some where near to the railway line and he could not do any thing as he is alone was present at the plaint schedule property on 19-3-2008. But Pws.2 and 3 examined on behalf of Pw.1 clearly deposed that they were present in the plaint schedule property on 19-3-2008 when the incident took place and they did not went to the 5

Gajuwaka Police Station along with the PW.1 to lodge a report. Thus, according to the admission of Pw.1 an extent of 508 square yards from out of 608 square yards of site was encroached by the defendants and they have constructed compound walls and barbed wire fencing to around the said extent this admission clearly reveals that Pw.1 is not in possession of 508 square yards from out of 608 square yards on the date filing the suit and this fact clearly born out from Exs.B.2 and B.3 photographs also which was filed on 31-03-2008, wherein and where under it was found the existence of compound walls and barbed wire fencing Acre 0.79 cents in survey No.280/3 said to have been belonging to the defendants company.

Relying on Exs.B.1 to B.3 the defendants vehemently contended that the suit schedule property is included in their property shown in red colour in

Ex.B.1 and they have already constructed compound walls and barbed wire fencing prior to the filing of the suit itself which was born out from Exs.B.2 and B.3 photographs and as such the plaintiff being not in possession of the plaint schedule property is not entitled to seek for an equitable relief of permanent injunction.

10)Though the plaintiff filed and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 they have not established the possession of the plaintiffs on the date of filing the suit since all the documents are much prior to the year 2006 and those documents have not proved the possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property on the date of filing the suit. If really the defendants have encroached the property subsequent to 19-3-2008 and constructed compound walls and barbed wire fencing as contended by the plaintiff, what prevented him to take photographs for the suit schedule property and file the same before the court to show that the suit schedule property is vacant except levelling the same, but he did not adopted the said process for the reasons best known to him. On the other hand the defendants 6 through Exs.B.1 to B.3 have established that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and they claimed that the plaint schedule property is part and parcel of their total extent of Acre 0.79 cents in Rs.No.280/3 which was marked in red colour in Ex.B.1 sketch. More over Pw.1 himself categorically deposed that from out of 608 square yards the defendants encroached an extent of 508 square yards and constructed compound walls and barbed wire fencing around the said extent. This admission itself clearly goes to show that he is not in possession in property on the date of filing the suit and without having possession he is not entitled to seek for injunction against the defendant. So, I hold all the three issues against the plaintiff.

11)ISSUE NO.4: In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by in the open court, this the 25 th day of April, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For Defendants:

P.W.1: Kalavagunta PrabhakarD.W.1: Y. Venkanna Chowdary

P.W.2: Moganti Vara Prasad

P.W.3: Yeluri Damodar Rao

NO. OF DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1/11-08-1988Certified copy of sale deed in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2/13-05-1986Certified copy of GPA.

Ex.A.3/11-05-2006Original encumbrance certificate.

Ex.A.4/03-07-2006Original loan sanction letter issued by Andhra Bank, Visakhapatnam.

Ex.A.5/Nil Blue print copy of Balaji Nagar Layout.

Ex.A.6/NilFMB sketch relating for the survey No.280.

7

For Defendants:

Ex.B.1/NilFMB sketch.

Ex.B.2/NilOne photograph is facing towards North.

Ex.B.3/NilOne photograph.

JCJ/GWK.

8

Date of Presentation: 25-03-2008 Date of Filing: 25-03-2008

I N THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GAJUWAKA

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

Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka,

Thursday, this the 25 th day of April, 2013

O.S. NO.99/2008

Between:

Kalavagunta Prabhakar, Son of late K.Govinda Pillai, Hindu, Aged about 59 years, Residing at Door NO.199/4, Sree Vidya Building, Sector No.4,

M.v.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam-530 017.

...Plaintiff

And:

1. Sardar Project Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director,

Yarlagadda Venkanna Chowdhary, Son of Krishnamurthy, Hindu,

Aged about 43 years, Residing at Door No.7-5-64, Plot NO.48,

Panduragapuram, Visakhapatnam.

2. Sardar Project Private Limited, Represented by its General Manager,

Jonnalagadda Venkata Giri, Son of Rama Rao, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, Residing at Door NO.7-5-64, Plot No.48, Panduragapuram,

Visakhapatnam.

... Defendants

This is a suit filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants from ever entering and interfering or altering the plaint schedule appended to this plaint with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is

Rs.10,000-00 and a court fee of Rs.786-00 is paid thereon under

Section 26(c) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This suit coming on 04-04-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Eswara Rao, Sri G.Appa Rao and Smt M.Santhi,

Advocates for plaintiff and Sri B.A.Raja Rao and Smt M.Jayasree, Advocates 9 for Defendants and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth the order;

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby is dismissed;

2. that there be no costs.

(A copy of plaint schedule is hereto attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 25th day of April, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

Stamp on vakalat :Rs. 2-00No costs memo is filed

Stamp on plaint :Rs. 786-00

Process charges :Rs. 86-00

C.F on petitions :Rs. 4-00 ------------------

Costs certified :Rs. 878-00 ------------------

JCJ/GWK.

1

FAIR

I N THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GAJUWAKA

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

Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka,

Monday, this the 29 th day of April, 2013

O.S. NO.61/2013

Between:

1. Metta Rama Devi, Wife of late Metta Rama Brahma Sarma, Hindu,

Aged 38 years, Residing at Door No.32-10-18/3, Venkateswara Rao

Colony, Sheela Nagar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Metta Riddhisri, D/o.late Metta Rama Brahma Sarma, Hindu, Aged 12 years, Residing at Door No.32-10-18/3, Venkateswara Rao

Colony, Sheela Nagar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Metta Akhil, Son of late Metta Rama Brahma Sarma, Hindu, Aged 10 years, Residing at Door No.32-10-18/3, Venkateswara Rao Colony,

Sheela Nagar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

4. Metta Gopala Krishna Murthy, Son of late Metta Rama Brahma

Sarma, Hindu, Aged 72 years, Residing at Door No.32-10-18/3,

Venkateswara Rao Colony, Sheela Nagar, Gajuwaka Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District.

(Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 being minors are represented by their mother the 1st plaintiff).

...Plaintiffs And:

1. The State Represented by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam.

2. The Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

....Defendants

This suit coming on 26-04-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.S.Naidu and Smt R.(S).Jaishree, Advocates for plaintiffs and Smt P.Rama Lakshmi, Assistant Government Pleader for

Defendants and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

2

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 4 to declare them that they are class-I legal heirs of deceased late Metta Rama Brahma Sarma who died on 13-02-2013.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are the 1st plaintiff is the wife and the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are the children, the 4th plaintiff is the father of the deceased Metta Rama Brahma Sarma who died on 13-02-2013. The plaintiffs submits that prior to the death of the deceased Metta Rama

Brahma Sarma has owned several properties (I) site to an extent of 922 square yards in survey No.77 Mindi village which is plot NO.B1, IDA block,

B-Autonagar, Visakhapatnam (ii) site to an extent of 547 square yards in survey No.115/14 at Sheela Nagar, Natttayyapalem H/o.Tunglam village,

Visakhapatnam, (iii) site to an extent of 790 square yards 221.11 square yards in survey No.115/12 at Sheela Nagar, Natttayyapalem H/o.Tunglam village, Visakhapatnam (iv) land to an extent of 252 square yards, 262 square yards, 262 square yards in plot Nos.3,4,5 in survey No.84/2 at

Jaggarajupeta village, Visakhapatnam (v) site to an extent of 322 square yards in survey No.48-A/1, 48-A/2 plot No.28 Masannapalle village,

Maheswaram taluk, Rangareddy District and also land at Vizianagaram.

The deceased is also having bank lockers at Gandhigram Branch of

Central Bank of India, Gajuwaka and also a car, Scooter, Air conditioner,

Generator, Television, Computers and office furnitures are in the name of the deceased Metta Rama Brahma Sarma after the death they had approached defendants 1 and 2 for issuance of legal heir certificates, but they have stated they have no power nor authority for issuance of legal heir certificates. Hence, the plaintiffs had approached this court for the declaring as the legal heirs of the deceased and to issue a legal heir certificate.

3

3)On the other hand the defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement through the AGP and in that it was mentioned that as per the memo No.313465/SER-II-2/2010, dtd.25-10-2010 is issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh and also as per the CCLA reference No.X2/827/86, dtd.2-4-1986 issued a circular instructing all the Mandal Revenue Officers not to issue legal heir certificate/succession certificate and it is left to the parties to get such certificates by approaching the competent courts and the District Collector also communicated the same in the

Dis.No.2744/2010/CF, dtd.3-11-2010 for taking necessary action and prays to dismiss the suit against the defendants.

4)Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are entitled for declaration as prayed for?

2. Whether there is any cause of action to file this suit?

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable under law?

4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to file this suit?

5. To what relief?

5)During the course of the trial the 1st plaintiff herself was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 are marked. A memo was filed by the defendants that there is no evidence on behalf of the defendants.

6)Heard the oral arguments.

7)ISSUE Nos.1 TO 4: It is the case of the plaintiffs to declare them as the legal heirs of the deceased Metta Rama Brahma Sarma. The

Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked through PW.1 and Ex.A.1 is the photostat copy of death certificate, dtd.23-02-2013, Ex.A.2 is the photostat copy of family member certificate, dtd.26-02-2013 and Ex.A.3 is the photostat copy of household card.

4

8)As the production of the above documents by the 1st plaintiff it is evident that the 1st plaintiff is the wife and the 2 and 3 are the children and 4th defendant is the father of the of the said deceased Metta Rama

Brahma Sarma and in the cross examination made by the AGP nothing against the plaintiff is elicited. The plaintiffs had proved their prima facie case and no claim was sought against the defendants. Hence, I am inclined to pass a decree declaring plaintiffs 1 to 4 as the legal heirs of the deceased Metta Rama Brahma Sarma.

10)ISSUE NO.5: In the result, the suit is decreed declaring that that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Metta Rama

Brahma Sarma who died on 13-2-2013. No costs.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29 th day of April, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

P.W.1: M.Rama DeviNone

NO. OF DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1/23-02-2013Photostat copy of death certificate.

Ex.A.2/26-02-2013Photostat copy of family member certificate.

Ex.A.3/NilPhotostat copy of household card.

For Defendants: - NIL -

JCJ/GWK 5

Date of Presentation: 14-03-2013 Date of Filing: 26-03-2013

I N THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GAJUWAKA

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

Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka,

Monday, this the 29 th day of April, 2013

O.S. NO.61/2013

Between:

1. Metta Rama Devi, Wife of late Metta Rama Brahma Sarma,

Hindu, Aged 38 years, Residing at Door No.32-10-18/3,

Venkateswara Rao Colony, Sheela Nagar, Gajuwaka Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District.

2. Metta Riddhisri, D/o.late Metta Rama Brahma Sarma, Hindu, Aged 12 years, Residing at Door No.32-10-18/3, Venkateswara Rao

Colony, Sheela Nagar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Metta Akhil, Son of late Metta Rama Brahma Sarma, Hindu, Aged 10 years, Residing at Door No.32-10-18/3, Venkateswara Rao

Colony, Sheela Nagar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

4. Metta Gopala Krishna Murthy, Son of late Metta Rama Brahma

Sarma, Hindu, Aged 72 years, Residing at Door No.32-10-18/3,

Venkateswara Rao Colony, Sheela Nagar, Gajuwaka Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District.

(Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 being minors are represented by their mother the 1st plaintiff).

...Plaintiffs And:

1. The State Represented by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam.

2. The Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

....Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 4 to declare them that they are class-I legal heirs of deceased late Metta Rama Brahma Sarma who died on 13-02-2013.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction is for Rs.10,000-00 and a Court Fee of Rs.786/- is paid herein under 6

Sections 24(d) r/w Schedule-I of Article-1 (b) of A.P.court Fee and Suits

Valuation Act.

This suit coming on 26-04-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.S.Naidu and Smt R.(S).Jaishree, Advocates for plaintiffs and Smt P.Rama Lakshmi, Assistant Government Pleader for

Defendants and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth the order;

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby is decreed declaring that that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Metta

Rama Brahma Sarma who died on 13-2-2013; and

2. that there be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 29th day of April, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No costs memo is filed on either side

JCJ/GWK.

1

FAIR

I N THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GAJUWAKA

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

Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka,

Monday, this the 29 th day of April, 2013

O.S. NO.295/2012

Between:

1. Kadiri Manga, Wife of late Kadiri Bhooloka, Aged 34 years, Residing atDoorNO.15-2-76,Jalaripallipalem,Gangavaram,

Visakhapatnam-44.

2. K.Dhanalakshmi, D/o.late K.Bhooloka, Aged 16 years, rest do.

3. K.Maheswari, D/o.late K.Bhooloka, Aged 14 years, rest do.

4. K.Menaka, D/o.Bhooloka, Aged 8 years, rest do.

5. K.Vasu, Son of late K.Bhooloka, Aged 7 years, rest do.

(Plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 being minors are represented by their mother and natural guardian plaintiff No.1).

...Plaintiffs And:

1. The District Collector, Collectorate, Visakhapatnam-2.

2. The Tahsildar, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam-44.

....Defendants

This suit coming on 26-04-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Balakrishna, Sri T.Srinivas and Sri G.siva Rama

Krishan Reddy, Advocates for plaintiffs and Smt P.Rama Lakshmi,

Assistant Government Pleader for Defendants and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 5 to declare them that they are the legal heirs of deceased Kadiri Bhooloka died who died on 18-04-2011.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are that the 1st plaintiff is the wife of the deceased Kadiri Bhooloka and the plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the children of the 1st plaintiff and the deceased Kadiri Bhooloka. The 1st 2 plaintiff is a house wife and the Kadiri Bhooloka died on 18-04-2011 due to sickness caused by tuberculosis (TB) leaving behind the plaintiffs as the legal heirs. The parents of the deceased Kadiri Bhooloka are died long back and there are no legal heirs to the deceased except the plaintiffs. At the time of his death the Kadiri Bhooloka is working as a contract labour under M/s.Lakshmi and Company a contractor of Visakhapatnam Steel

Plant and at that time he was a contributory to employees provident fund and his account NO is AP/30617/460 and his ESI No is 5304495. He has worked as a contract labour more than eighteen years and he resided at

Gangavaram in the scheme house with his family. The plaintiffs submit that after the demise of Kadiri Bhooloka they have become helpless and without a legal heir certificate declaring their status they cannot apply for job nor receive death benefits if any. The 1st plaintiff would be deprived of any opportunity to get a temporary employment on compassionate grounds, the 1st plaintiff had approached the District Collector,

Visakhapatnam and the Tahsildar, Pedagantyada and applied for the legal heir certificate, but they refused for issuing the same and ask us to approach the Hon'ble court for declaring them as legal heirs of Kadiri

Bhooloka. Hence, plaintiff 1 to 5 prays to pass a decree declaring them as the legal heirs of the deceased Kadiri Bhooloka who died on 18-04-2011.

3)On the other hand the Assistant Government Pleader filed the written statement stating that as per the memo No.313465/SER-II-2/2010, dtd.25-10-2010 is issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh and also the

CCLA reference No.X2/827/86, dtd.2-4-1986 issued a circular instructing all the Mandal Revenue Officers not to issue legal heir certificate/succession certificate and it is left to the parties to get such certificates by approaching the competent courts and the District Collectr also communicated the same in the Dis.No.2744/2010/CF, dtd.3-11-2010 3 for taking necessary action and prays to dismiss the suit against the defendants.

4)Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 to 5 are entitled for declaration as prayed for?

2. Whether there is any cause of action to file this suit?

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable under law?

4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to file this suit?

5. To what relief?

5)During the course of the trial the 1st plaintiff herself was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 are marked. A memo was filed by the defendants that there is no evidence on behalf of the defendants.

6)Heard the oral arguments.

7)ISSUE Nos.1 TO 4: It is the case of the plaintiffs to declare them as the legal heirs of the deceased Kadiri Bhooloka. The Exs.A.1 to

A.3 were marked through PW.1 and Ex.A.1 is the photostat copy of ration card pertaining to plaintiff, Ex.A.2 is the photostat copy of death certificate issued by GVMC, Visakhapatnam, dtd.18-04-2011 and Ex.A.3 is the photostat copy of voter election ID card (which are verified with the originals).

8)As per the production of the above documents by the 1st plaintiff it is evident that the 1st plaintiff is the wife and the 2 to 5 are the children of the said deceased Kadiri Bhooloka and in the cross examination made by the AGP nothing against the plaintiff is elicited. The plaintiffs had proved their prima facie case and no claim was sought against the defendants. Hence, I am inclined to pass a decree declaring plaintiffs 1 to 5 as the legal heirs of the deceased Kadiri Bhooloka.

4

10)ISSUE NO.5: In the result, the suit is decreed declaring that that the plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased Kadiri

Bhooloka who died on 18-4-2011. No costs.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29 th day of April, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

P.W.1: K.MangaNone

NO. OF DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1/NilPhotostat copy of ration card pertaining to plaintiff.

Ex.A.2/18-04-2011Photostat copy of death certificate issued by GVMC, Visakhapatnam.

Ex.A.3/NilPhotostat copy of voter election ID card.

For Defendants: - NIL -

JCJ/GWK 5

Date of Presentation: 21-11-2012 Date of Filing: 03-12-2012

I N THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GAJUWAKA

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

Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka,

Monday, this the 29 th day of April, 2013

O.S. NO.295/2012

Between:

1. Kadiri Manga, Wife of late Kadiri Bhooloka, Aged 34 years, Residing atDoorNO.15-2-76,Jalaripallipalem,Gangavaram,

Visakhapatnam-44.

2. K.Dhanalakshmi, D/o.late K.Bhooloka, Aged 16 years, rest do.

3. K.Maheswari, D/o.late K.Bhooloka, Aged 14 years, rest do.

4. K.Menaka, D/o.Bhooloka, Aged 8 years, rest do.

5. K.Vasu, Son of late K.Bhooloka, Aged 7 years, rest do.

(Plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 being minors are represented by their mother and natural guardian plaintiff No.1).

...Plaintiffs And:

1. The District Collector, Collectorate, Visakhapatnam-2.

2. The Tahsildar, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam-44.

....Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 5 to declare them that they are the legal heirs of deceased Kadiri Bhooloka died who died on 18-04-2011.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction is for Rs.10,000-00 and a Court Fee of Rs.786/- is paid herein under

Sections 24(d) of Article-1 ( b & c) of A.P.court Fee and Suits Valuation

Act.

This suit coming on 26-04-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Balakrishna, Sri T.Srinivas and Sri G.siva Rama

Krishan Reddy, Advocates for plaintiffs and Smt P.Rama Lakshmi, 6

Assistant Government Pleader for Defendants and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth the order;

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby is decreed declaring that that the plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased Kadiri Bhooloka who died on 18-4-2011; and

2. that there be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 29th day of April, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No costs memo is filed on either side

JCJ/GWK.