1
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-
CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
MANGALAGIRI.
Present: Sri Mohd. Nazeer-Ul–Ain,
Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Mangalagiri.
Thursday, the 19 th day of March, 2020.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO:110 OF 2016.
Between: Gaddam Radha.… Plaintiff.
- And -
1. Jammula Nagamalleswara Rao.
2. Jammula Naveen.
3. Jammula Chandrika.… Defendants.
This suit was placed before me for final hearing on 16.03.2020 in the presence of Smt. G.Sudha Maduri, Sri
M.Sravan Kumar, M.V.Subba Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri Battula Adinarayana, Advocate for the the defendants and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The plaintiff got filed the present suit, with a prayer to pass a decree in her favour and against the defendants directing the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property on the foot of sale agreement dated 30.07.2003 executed by the 1st defendant and if the defendants fails to execute the same, the Court may be pleased to execute the same in favour of the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.
2
2.The case of the plaintiff is that, she purchased an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in D.No.410 of Thulluru Village, more fully described in the plaint schedule property (here-in-after referred to as plaint schedule property) for Rs.62,000/- and paid
Rs.60,000/- to the 1st defendant and obtained a sale agreement
dated 30.07.2003. The plaintiff promised to pay the balance sale
consideration of Rs.2,000/- before April, 2004. The 1st defendant has agreed to receive the balance consideration and to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. The 1st defendant has undertaken to clear the crop loan over the schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid balance sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- to the 1st defendant in the month of
April 2004 as the 1st defendant promised to come to the Office of
Sub-Registrar, Tadikonda for registration. But the 1st defendant failed to keep up his promise. On that the plaintiff placed the matter before elders. The issue was compromised and as per the advice of the elders, the 1st defendant delivered possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and has agreed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff, after clearing the debts over the property. Since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. She started cultivating the land by drawing water from Thullur Lift
Irrigation Scheme Farmers Welfare Society and by paying charges to the society. Inspite of several requests made by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant did not come forward to execute a sale deed, stating that the plaintiff need not worry about registration since he has already delivered possession of the schedule 3 property. After announcing of new capital to Andhra Pradesh in
Thulluru area, the Government started acquiring lands in that area. On that, the plaintiff demanded the 1st defendant to execute a sale deed. The 1st defendant allowed the plaintiff to deliver the land to CRDA under land pooling and promised not to object the same. Accordingly, the plaintiff gave the suit property in land pooling to CRDA authorities and obtained an acknowledgment. Later, plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant also gave the same land in pooling to CRDA authorities and demanded to issue cheques in the name of his children (defendants 2, 3). Thus, the plaintiff learnt that the 1st defendant has cheated and played fraud upon the plaintiff.
However, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit property since the agreement dated 30.07.2003 and so, her name was mutated by the revenue department in the revenue records. In these circumstances, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 20.03.2015, calling the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in her favour. The 1st defendant refused to take the notice. Surprisingly, the 1st defendant got issued a notice through his children (defendants 2, 3) with false allegations, as if, the 1st defendant has bequeathed the suit property to defendants 2, 3 under a gift deed dated 22.05.2007.
In these circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for specific performance of contract dated 30.07.2003 against defendants 1 to 3.
3.On the other hand, the 2nd defendant submitted a written statement and the defendants 1, 3 adopted the same.
4
The defendants denied all the allegations in the plaint and contended that the suit agreement dated 30.07.2003 is a created and fake document. The plaintiff was never ready and willing her part of contract as there was no such agreement with her up to the year 2015. The suit is barred by limitation. The
Government value of the plaint schedule property is Rs.4 lakhs per acre in the past 20 years and in the year 2016 its value is around Rs.70 lakhs per acre. The plaintiff created the suit agreement dated 30.07.2003 to grab away the plaint schedule property. The suit agreement is hit by stamp duty and penalty.
Unless the agreement is impounded, it cannot be considered as a valid document. In fact, in the year 2007, the 1st defendant borrowed Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note, agreeing to discharge the debt with interest at 24% p.a. Later, he discharged the debt. But the plaintiff having malafide intention, created the agreement to grab away the schedule property. Basing on that agreement, the plaintiff, VRO of their village and Tahsildar of Thulluru Mandal colluded and mutated the name of plaintiff in revenue records. Those revenue records do not create any right in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants 2, 3 also got issued a legal notice on 07.09.2015 to the District Collector, inferior revenue authorities informing the true facts. The plaintiff got issued a reply notice and the revenue authorities kept quiet. The plaint schedule property is an ancestral property of the defendants but not self-acquired property of 1st defendant. The defendants 2, 3 have got share in the plaint schedule property. Hence, the 1st defendant had no 5 exclusive right to sell the same to plaintiff. The suit property was already settled by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2, 3 under a gift deed dated 22.05.2007. The defendants 2, 3 accepted the gift and took possession of the schedule property on 22.05.2007 itself. Since then, defendants 2 and 3 have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The 2nd defendant handed over the suit property to CRDA authorities under a bond.
Since then, the defendant has been receiving Maktha from the
CRDA authorities. In that way, the plaintiff cannot seek any relief against the defendants. The defendants finally sought for dismissal of the suit.
4.Basing on the rival pleadings, my learned predecessor framed the following issues for trial :
(1) Whether the suit agreement of sale dated
30.07.2003 is true, valid and binding of the defendant?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific
performance for contract of sale dated dated 30.07.2003?
(3) To what relief?
5.The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.A1 to A10. She has examined one
Thulluru Govinda Swamy and Puvvada Subba Rao as P.Ws.2 and 3 to support her case.
6.On the other hand, the 1st defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.B1 to B13. He 6 has examined one Bogineno Prabhakar Rao and Shaik Nagul
Meeravali as D.Ws.2, 3 to support his version.
7.Before embarking upon the evidences available on record, it is pertinent to note that the issue Nos.1 and 2 are intertwined. Hence, the Court would like to discuss both the issues simultaneously to arrive just conclusion of the case.
ISSUE NOs.1 and 2:
(1) Whether the suit agreement of sale dated
30.07.2003 is true, valid and binding of the defendant?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific
performance for contract of sale dated dated 30.07.2003?
8.The learned counsel for plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court through the admissions of the 1st defendant (D.W.1) and his witnesses (D.Ws.2, 3) and argued that the admissions of D.Ws.1 to 3 are sufficient to decree the suit.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants has drawn the attention of the Court through the admissions of the plaintiff (P.W.1) and vehemently argued that the categorical admissions of P.W.1 are sufficient to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. The counsels are depending upon the admissions of the parties to the suit. At this juncture a reliance can preferably be made to Yeluri Rama Krishna vs. Yeluru
Venkateswarlu, 2018(1) ALT 432. In this judgment, the
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has referred to Nagindas
Ramdas vs. Dalpathram Locharam @ Brijramand, AIR 1974 SC 7 471. In Nagindas Ramdas’s case (supra) at Para No.26, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the admissions in
pleadings and the admissions in evidence and held as herein:
“Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admission. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. Thereby themselves can be made to foundation of rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves,
not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.”
9.The law of admissions in civil disputes is clearly explained by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment.
Hence, the Court is of the opinion that the oral admissions of the parties to the suit have to be considered after appreciating the pleadings and the documentary evidences of the parties to the suit.
10.The plaintiff approached the Court seeking the discretionary and equitable relief of performance of contract
dated 30.07.2003. Hence, the burden is upon the shoulders of
the plaintiff to establish her case. The law is settled that there is distinction between burden of proof which is a legal burden and the onus of the proof which is the burden to introduce evidence.
It is well settled that the legal burden never shifts; but, the onus of proof i.e. the burden to introduce evidence, shifts from side to side during the course of trial. My learned predecessor also 8 framed the issues 1 to 3 by placing burden on the shoulders of plaintiff only.
11.In order to discharge the burden, the plaintiff has examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 documents. She has also examined two other witnesses as
P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively.
12.The law is settled beyond cavil of doubt that pleadings of the parties are basis for the Court to decide the case and not subsequent points and issues raised subsequently, unless such subsequent issues touch the fact-in-issue.
13.The plaintiff specifically mentioned in the plaint that the agreement to sell the plaint schedule property concluded on 30.07.2003 under Ex.A1 for Rs.62,000/-. On the date of agreement itself, the plaintiff paid Rs.60,000/- to the 1st defendant and has undertaken to pay the balance of Rs.2,000/-
before April, 2004. The defendant has undertaken to execute a
regular registered sale deed on such receipt of balance of
Rs.2,000/-. In order to establish the initial contract dated 30.07.2003, the plaintiff got marked agreement dated 30.07.2003 as Ex.A1. A plain reading of Ex.A1 indicates that the plaintiff has paid Rs.60,000/- to the 1st defendant on 30.07.2003.
The parties to the contract have agreed to pay and receive the balance consideration within 9 months from the date of agreement. The plaint is silent as to which date the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- was paid to the 1st defendant. It is simply mentioned that in the month of April, 2004 itself the 9 plaintiff paid Rs.2,000/- to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff did not get such payment endorsement either on Ex.A1-agreement or on other paper. The plaintiff also did not adduce any evidence, either documentary or oral to establish the factum of payment of balance consideration of Rs.2,000/-.
14.The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that after paying balance of Rs.2,000/-, he demanded the 1st defendant to come and execute a regular sale deed and as he postponed the same, the plaintiff placed the matter before elders. The elders reprimanded the 1st defendant and 1st defendant delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff undertaking to execute regular sale deed after discharging the crop loan. The plaintiff neither examined those elders in whose presence the 1st defendant has undertaken to execute regular registered sale deed nor examined the witnesses in whose presence she paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,000/-.
15.The recitals in Ex.A1 indicates that it is an unpossessory agreement of sale. But the plaintiff has been claiming that by virtue of oral understanding with the 1st defendant, she came into possession of the plaint schedule property. In such event, Ex.A1 looses its character of unpossessory agreement of sale. If the plaintiff has come into possession of the suit schedule property, she ought to have established the factum of her coming into possession of the suit schedule property by convincing and cogent evidence. The plaintiff failed to establish the same.
10
16.The Court perused the manuscript in two pages of
Ex.A1 and it indicates that, it was adjusted to bring all the recitals in two pages. The scribe has used all the space available in two pages of Ex.A1 to bring the recitals in the available space.
If really there was an agreement between plaintiff and 1st defendant, the scribe ought to have prepared the draft on available stamp papers and if the space is not available, he ought to have attached a white paper to the stamp papers. But the scribe did not choose to do so. The manner in which Ex.A1 was scribed, creates any amount of doubt in the mind of the Court about its genuinity.
17.The plaintiff specifically averred in her pleadings that only Rs.60,000/- was paid to the 1st defendant under Ex.A1 and the remaining balance of Rs.2,000/- has to be paid within 9 months i.e. by the end of April, 2004. However, the plaintiff candidly admitted in the cross-examination that she has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.62,000/- to the 1st defendant on 30.07.2003 itself. In the same cross-examination, the counsel for defendant suggested the plaintiff that she did not pay the entire consideration of Ex.A1. The plaintiff denied such suggestion and was firm by deposing that she paid the entire consideration on the date of Ex.A1 itself. In fact that is not at all the case of the plaintiff.
18.The plaintiff averred in the plaint that the property was delivered to her subsequent to April, 2004 when the matter was placed before the elders as the 1st defendant was shelve to 11 execute the registered sale deed. Per contra, the plaintiff specifically admitted in the cross-examination that the suit property was delivered to her on the date of execution i.e. on 30.07.2003. This evidence is contrary to the pleadings of plaintiff.
19.The plaintiff specifically averred in the plaint that subsequent to April, 2004, she demanded the 1st defendant to execute regular registered sale deed. But the plaintiff specifically admitted in the cross-examination that within one month i.e. on 30.08.2003 itself she demanded the 1st plaintiff to execute a regular registered sale deed. If the allegation in the plaint that the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- was paid in April 2004, the plaintiff had no right to demand the 1st defendant to execute regular sale deed on 30.08.2003 i.e.
within one month from the date of agreement. The above admissions of the plaintiff makes it abundantly clear that her evidence is inconsistent to her plaint. If the plaint allegations are taken into consideration, the evidence of P.W.1 has to be thrown out. Vice-versa is also true.
20.On one hand where the evidence of plaintiff is suffering with serious infirmity, the counsel for plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court through the admission of 1st defendant/D.W.1 which is hereunder:
“It is true to suggest that the plaintiff has paid subscription to Lift Irrigation Scheme for the schedule property. I know that the name of plaintiff was mutated in Adangal in the year 2015.” 12
Basing on the above admissions, the learned counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued that the plaintiff got marked original receipt issued by Thulluru Lift Irrigation Scheme, Adangal pahani dated 01.09.2015 and 1-B Namoona dated 01.09.2015 as Exs.A2 to A4 respectively and the above admissions of D.W.1 establishes that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and so the suit has to be decreed.
21.Time and again the Constitutional Courts have been reiterating that revenue records do not establish the title or possession of a party to the suit over the disputed property. The right or possession of a party has to be established independently but not basing on the entries made in revenue records. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that the admissions of 1st defendant, while deposing as D.W.1 or the Exs.A2 to A4 are not sufficient to establish that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property since April, 2004. Moreover, the plaintiff herself admitted in the cross-examination that Adangal
Pahani dated 01.09.2015, 1-B Namuna dated 01.09.2015 /
Exs.A3, A4 respectively are of the year 2015 only and she do not have any documents to prove that she was in possession of the suit property since April, 2004. A careful reading of receipt
dated 05.02.2015 issued by CRDA, Unit-II, Thulluru got marked
as Ex.A5, indicates that after the plaintiff submitted an application to CRDA authorities to take the schedule property under land pooling, she got mutated her name in Adangal
Pahani/Ex.A3 and 1-B Namuna/Ex.A4. On careful and close 13 reading of Exs.A3 to A5 indicates that the revenue records are subsequent to the plaintiff offering the land under land pooling to CRDA authorities. Except the above referred documents, the plaintiff did not substantiate her claim by documentary evidences to establish her claim that she is in possession of the suit schedule property since April, 2004.
22.On the other hand, the 1st defendant got marked a registered gift deed dated 22.05.2007 executed by him in favour of the 2nd defendant gifting the suit property to the 2nd defendant. The pattadar passbook/Ex.B8 standing in the name of 1st defendant, the bank account statement in the name of defendants 2, 3 / Exs.B9, B10, Adangal copy of Pahani 1423 (of the year 2013) / Ex.B12 and adangal of the year 2009-2010 /
Ex.B13 indicates that the defendants are in possession of revenue documents which are more superior than the revenue records got marked by the plaintiff.
23.The law is settled beyond the cavil of doubt, that the plaintiff must raise or fall on his own legs and he cannot take the weaknesses of the defendant. The pleadings and admissions of the plaintiff indicates that the case of the plaintiff itself has no legs to stand, since, the oral evidence of plaintiff is inconsistent to her pleadings. At this juncture, the weaknesses in the case of defendants cannot taken as a ground to decree the suit in favour of plaintiff.
24.The learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court through Goparaju Venkata Bharata Rao 14
and another vs. Nagula Ramakotayya and others, AIR 2001
AP 425. The Court perused the said judgment. Three aspects were specifically discussed in the said judgment. The first aspect is about execution of agreement of sale after payment of entire sale consideration by the plaintiff and plaintiff being inducted into the possession of the suit schedule property. The death of the original owner and her legatees under Will dispossessing the plaintiff was discussed. The same is not issue in the case on hand. The second point is about the non-joinder of necessary parties to the suit. This aspect is also not applicable to the case on hand. The aspect of law of limitation was raised in that suit and the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh has held that such aspect is not applicable. In our case, though the defendants claimed the aspect of limitation, there is no much stress on that point. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that the particular facts and circumstances in the case on hand are dissimilar to the case on hand.
25.At this juncture, a difference can profitably be made in the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Chennadi
Jalapathin Reddy vs. Baddam Pratapa Reddy, 2019 (5) ALT
206 (SC). In this judgment at Para No.17, the Apex Court has held hereunder:
“The filing of a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale is governed by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Article 54 of the schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. In addition to this, Form 47 and 48 of Appendix A of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribe the format of the plaint for such a suit. Thus, a plaint which seeks the relief of specific performance 15 of an agreement/contract must comply with all these requirements.”
A reference can also be made to the requirements of specific performance suits denotes by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Kamal Kumar vs. Premlatha Joshi, AIR 2019 SC 459 at Page No.461 in Para Nos. 10, 11 as hereunder:
“10. It is a settled principle of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief. The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance, are First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property; Second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether her is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract;
Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money etc. and, if so, on what grounds.
11. In our opinion, the aforementioned questions are part of the statutory requirements (See Sections 16(c), 20, 21, 22, 23 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the forms 47/48 of Appendix A to C of the Code of Civil Procedure). These requirements have to be properly pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings and proved with the aid of evidence in accordance with law. It is only then the Court is entitled to exercise its discretion and accordingly grant or refuse the relief of specific performance depending upon the case made out by the parties on facts.” 16
26.When the Court has scrutinized the case of the plaintiff in the light of the settled preposition in Kamal Kumar’s case (Supra) what emerges is, there was no valid and concluded contract existing between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant for sale/purchase of suit property. The plaintiff failed to establish that she has been ready and willing to perform her part of contract by paying the balance consideration of Rs.2,000/- before
April, 2004 to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff failed to establish that, infact she performed her part of contract by paying the balance consideration of Rs.2,000/- to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff and her witnesses have specifically admitted that the suit is worth around Rs.1 crore as of now and though the plaintiff is claiming that the agreement is of the year 2003, she slept for more than 13 years and approached the Court with long delay. Said long delay instigates the Court to note that, the equitable relief of specific performance cannot be given in favour of the plaintiff. Even if the Court wanted to grant alternative relief of direction to refund the earnest money to the plaintiff, there is a bar under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act unless and until such prayer is made, the relief of refund of earnest money cannot be granted. In our suit, the plaintiff did not plead for refund of earnest money. Hence, such relief also cannot be granted.
27.In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to establish her case at least on preponderance of probabilities and so, the plaintiff is not 17 entitled for any relief as prayed for. Hence, issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
ISSUE NO.3:
“To what relief?”
28.In view of the discussion and conclusion in issue
Nos.1 and 2, the Court is of the opinion that the suit on hand is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
29.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19 th day of March, 2020.
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
MANGALAGIRI.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Plaintif :- P.W.1 : Gaddam Radha. P.W.2 : Thulluru Govindu Swamy. P.W.3 : Puvvada Subba Rao.
For Defendants :- D.W.1 : Jammula Naga Malleswara Rao. D.W.2 : Bogineni Prabhakar Rao. D.W.3 : Shaik Nagul Meeravali.
Documents marked
For Plaintif :- Ex.A1 : Original unpossessory agreement of sale executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 30.07.2003. (marked subject to objection of the defendant counsel) Ex.A2 : Original receipts issued by Thulluru Lift Irrigation Scheme (2 in number).
18
Ex.A3 : Adangal Pahan dated 01.09.2015. Ex.A4 : 1-B Namuna dated 01.09.2015. Ex.A5 : Receipt issued by CRDA, Unit-II, Thulluru dt: 05.02.2015. Ex.A6 : Office copy of legal notice dated 20.03.2015. Ex.A7 : Refused notice of defendant dated 29.04.2015. Ex.A8 : Legal notice dated 07.09.2015. Ex.A9 : Reply notice dated 12.09.2015. Ex.A10 : Postal acknowledgment dated 15.09.2015.
For Defendants :- Ex.B1 : Registered gift deed dated 22.05.2007 executed by D1 in favour of 2nd defendant (Mee Seva Copy). Ex.B2 : Registered notice dated 07.09.2015 issued by D2 and D3 to plaintiff and others. Ex.B3 : Acknowledgment dated 08.09.2015 from the plaintiff. Ex.B4 : Acknowledgment dated 08.09.2015 of Tahsildar, Thulluru. Ex.B5 : Acknowledgment dated 08.09.2015 of RDO, Guntur. Ex.B6 : Acknowledgment dated 08.09.2015 of District Collector, Guntur. Ex.B7 : Returned unserved cover sent to VRO, Thulluru. Ex.B8 : Pattadar Passbook in the name of Jammula Naga Malleswara Rao i.e. 1st defendant. Ex.B9 : Account statement of Bank account of Jammula Naveen with Indian Overseas Bank. Ex.B10 : Account statement of Bank account of Jammula Chandrika with Indian Overseas Bank. Ex.B11 : Reply notice dated 12.09.2015 issued by plaintiff. Ex.B12 : Adangal copy for fasli 1423. Ex.B13 : Adangal for the year 2009-2010.
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
MANGALAGIRI.