N.roja Ramani

1OS.No.104/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt N. Roja Ramani,

Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

Dated this the 10th day of April, 2019

O.S.No.104 of 2014

M. Nara Goud, S/o: Saya Goud, Aged 38 years, Caste: Hindu, Occu: RTC Employee, R/o: Thanakhurd Village, Nizamabad Mandal … Plaintiff

Vs.

Mahesh, S/o: Rajeshwar Rao, Age: 45 years, Caste: Hindu, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: Siranpally Village, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District

 ... Defendant

This suit coming before me on 09th day of April, 2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri J. Venkateshwar, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:­ :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of contract with a prayer to direct the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute a registered sale deed or in the alternate the registered sale deed may be executed through the Court or to grant any other relief or reliefs deemed to be proper.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the resident of Thanakhurd village and an agriculturist. M. Bhuma Goud is the brother of the plaintiff. The defendant is the resident of Siranpally

Village and he is an agriculturist. The defendant and Kiran Kumar are own brothers and known to each other. The defendant offered to sell his agricultural land in Sy.No.80 admeasuring Ac.1.10 guntas situated at Shekapur village for his family and personal necessities. On his 2OS.No.104/2014 repeated requests, the plaintiff intended to purchase the land @

Rs.2,20,000/­ per acre and the total sale consideration is Rs.2,75,000/­.

On 07­08­2012 they entered into an agreement of sale and as per the terms and conditions the defendant received an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/­ as earnest money. The defendant hand over the original pass book and title deed to the plaintiff and delivered vacant possession. The plaintiff spent huge amount to level the land for the purpose of cultivation. Prior to 25­12­2012, he requested the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to get the land registered in his favour. The defendant postponed the registration on one pretext or another pretext. The defendant also agreed if he fails to register, he will register another agricultural land to an extent of

Ac.2.00 guntas in favour of the plaintiff. Finally he got issued a legal notice on 08­05­2014. The defendant received the legal notice on 09­ 05­2014 inspite of that the defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract. Hence the suit.

3.After receiving the summons the defendant appeared before the

Court and filed a detailed written statement by denying all the averments in the plaint pleadings and he admitted that the relationship between him and the plaintiff and also admitted the execution of agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and also receiving an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ as earnest money on 07­08­2012. He further submitted that the plaintiff as per the agreement to pay the balance sale consideration on or before 25­12­2012, but the plaintiff never ready to pay the balance sale consideration within the time and he was 3OS.No.104/2014 never willing to perform his part of contract. He never delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and cultivate the land since past several years. The defendant several years requested the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration, but the plaintiff did not consider the request of the defendant. The defendant entered into an agreement of sale as he was in need of money for his family necessities and he intended to get admission to his son in B. Tech at

Hyderabad as the plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time as such his son did not get admission in

Gopu Ranga Reddy Engineering College, Hyderabad and joined in

Engineering college at Nizamabad. The plaintiff filed the present suit as the value of the property is increased with all false allegations and claims. He received the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff and immediately approached the plaintiff and questioned in issuing the legal notice. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the suit. 

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been framed for trial. 

1. Whether the plaintiff was not ready willing to perform his part of contract as alleged by the defendant in his written statement?

2. Whether time was made essence of contract?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the specific performance of agreement dated 07­08­2012 as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

5.During the trial, the plaintiff got filed the chief evidence affidavit as Pw.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A6 and got filed the chief evidence 4OS.No.104/2014 affidavit of K. Srinivas Goud as Pw.2. After closure of plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant got filed the chief evidence affidavit as Dw.1 and got filed the chief evidence affidavit of A. Naveen Kumar as Dw.2 and Dyaga Dhawal as Dw.3. 

6.Heard both sides. 

7.Issue Nos.1 to 3:­

8.Perused the entire record. 

It is the case of the plaintiff that out of acquaintance the defendant approached him to sell the suit schedule property.

Accordingly, he paid earnest money and the defendant executed an agreement of sale in his favour. Thereafter, the defendant did not come forward to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. As such he got issued the legal notice even after that the defendant did not perform his part of contract and forfeit the amount paid by the plaintiff at the time of agreement under Ex.A1.

9.It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract as such he did not pay the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated under the agreement of sale as such the plaintiff is not entitled for any specific performance of contract.

10.In support of his contention the plaintiff got filed his chief evidence affidavit as Pw.1 and deposed in the same lines as averred in his plaint pleadings. To support and to substantiate his contention he exhibited Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the agreement of sale along with receipt dated 07­08­2012, Ex.A2 is the pattedar pass book, Ex.A3 is the 5OS.No.104/2014 title deed, Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice dated 08­05­2014,

Ex.A5 is the postal receipt dated 08­05­2014, Ex.A6 is the postal acknowledgment card. There is no dispute with regard to the contents in Exs.A1 to A6.

11.It is an undisputed fact that the defendant executed Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff by receiving an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ and also issued a receipt and also handed over the Exs.A2 and A3 i.e. pattedar pass book and title deed. It is also an undisputed fact that the plaintiff got issued the legal notice under Ex.A4 and the same was received by the defendant under Exs.A5 and A6. It is also an undisputed fact that the plaintiff is resident of Thanakurd. Bhuma Goud is the brother of the plaintiff. The defendant is the resident of Siranpally Village. The plaintiff and the defendants are the agriculturists. The defendant and

Kiran Kumar are the own brothers. It is also an undisputed fact that the defendant for his family necessities intended to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.2,75,000/­ and received

Rs.1,50,000/­on the date of Ex.A1. The Pw.2 is the friend of the Pw.1 and witness to Ex.A1.

12.Now the only point fro consideration is whether the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

13..It is evident from the evidence of the Pw.1, he did not got issued any legal notice to the defendant from 25­12­2012 to 08­05­2014 till the date of Ex.A4. Admittedly, as per conditions stipulated under

Ex.A1 the defendant has to register the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on or before 25­12­2012 after payment of balance sale 6OS.No.104/2014 consideration. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration or or before 25­12­2012. The Pw.1 further deposed that he personally approached the defendant and made oral representations, but his evidence did not disclose that when he approached the defendant and when he made oral representations by demanding to receive the balance sale consideration to perform his part of contract.

14.On the other hand, the Pw.2 deposed that he along with the plaintiff went to the house of the defendant in the month of November, 2012. There is no whisper in the evidence of the Pw.1 that the Pw.2 accompanied him to the house of the defendant in the month of

November, 2012. Neither the plaint pleadings nor the testimony of the

Pw.1 did not disclose that in the month of November, 2012 he along with Pw.2 approached the defendant by demanding him to receive balance sale consideration to get a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

15.In the case of Ganuga Ranganath and another Vs. Hotel

Garudadri (Private) Limited, represented by its Managing Director,

Hindupur, Anantapur District reported in 2018 (2) ALT 473 (D.B.) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that In Mrs. Saradamani

Kandappan v. Mrs. S. Rajyalakshmi , the Supreme Court reiterated in

Paragraph 17 that normally in regard to contracts relating to sale of immovable properties, time is not considered to be the essence of the contract unless such an intention can be gathered either from the 7OS.No.104/2014 express terms of the contract or impliedly from the intention of the parties as expressed by the terms of the contract.

16.Here in this case it is crystal clear from Ex.A1 that time is essence of the contract. As per Ex.A1 the plaintiff has to pay the balance sale consideration on before 25­12­2012.

17.Therefore, the time is the essence of the contract relating to immovable property under Ex.A1.

Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 makes it mandatory for the plaintiff to aver and prove that he was always ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. Therefore, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness.

18.The original claim of the plaintiffs was that the obligations imposed upon the defendant, under Ex.A.1­agreement to provide another land, if sale deed not executed by the defendant, in respect of suit property so as to enable the plaintiff to perform his part of obligations. But unfortunately, the plaintiff did not even make a demand in writing until the issue of legal notice under Ex.A.4. Though

Ex.A.4 is dated 08­05­2014, it was sent by registered post on 08­05­2014. There is nothing on record to show the steps taken by the plaintifs from 25­12­2012 to 08­05­2014.

19.In this regard it is relevant to take note of one of the three principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saradamani’s case in Para 28 (iii), which reads as follows:­ “Every suit for specific performance need not be decreed merely because it is filed within the period of limitation by ignoring the time­ 8OS.No.104/2014 limits stipulated in the agreement. Courts will also `frown' upon suits which are not filed immediately after the breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three years does not mean a purchaser can wait for 1 or 2 years to file a suit and obtain specific performance.”

20.Here in this case, there is no indication either in the plaint or in the evidence as to what the plaintiff was doing from 25­12­2012 to 08­ 05­2014. If the plaintiff had actually kept the cash with him or in his bank account he could not have kept quite for more than two years.

Especially when even according to Pws.1 and 2 there was not even a written acknowledgement about keeping cash ready. Even the plaintiff did not choose to produce his bank statement in proof of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and obligation.

21.It is the contention of the defendant that the son of defendant i.e. Dw.3 intend to pursue engineering course in the year 2012 for which the Dw.1 who is the father of Dw.3 intended to sell suit land and entered into an agreement of sale under Ex.A1 and the Dw.3 pursued engineering course in Nizamabad instead of his place of choice i.e.

Gopu Ranga Reddy Engineering College, Hyderabad due to financial problems.

22.In support of his contention he filed chief evidence affidavit as

Dw.1 and deposed in the same lines as he averred in his written statement. During the cross­examination it was elicited that he handed over the original pass book and title deed under Ex.A2 and A3 to the plaintiff. He further admitted he borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/­ 9OS.No.104/2014 from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note for the studies of his son to pursue B.Tech and the said transaction is a separate transaction.

23.The Dw.2 who is known person to the Dw.1 deposed that he did not mention the date, month of his visit to the house of the plaintiff.

The evidence of Dw.2 is not at all helpful to the defendant to establish that he suffered loss and injury for non payment of balance sale consideration by the plaintiff. 

24.The Dw.3 who is the son of Dw.1 also deposed in the same lines as deposed by the Dw.1 in his chief evidence affidavit. During the cross­examination he admitted that he did not witness the agreement of sale. He studied in Nizamabad since his childhood and completed

Intermediate from Kakatiya College, Nizamabad and B.,Tech from

Vijaya College, Nizamabad. He further admitted that he did not submit to show that he got admission in Goka Raju Ganga Raju

Engineering College, Hyderabad.

25.Admittedly, the defendant did not choose to produce any evidence to show that the Dw.3 got admission in Goka Ganga Raju

Engineering College, Hyderabad and did not join in the said college as he could not pay the fee. Except the self serving testimonies of Dws.1 and Dw.2 there is no documentary evidence in proof of the loss suffered by the defendant for not getting admission in the said college.

Admittedly, the Dw.3 pursued engineering course and completed in

Nizamabad.

10OS.No.104/2014

26.There was no evidence to show that the defendant suffered any loss due to the failure of the plaintiff to pay the balance of sale consideration.

27.A clause relating to forfeiture of advance money paid under the agreement, should be traced to the hardship or damage caused to one of the parties on account of the failure of the other to comply with the terms of the agreement. 

28.In M/s. Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority , the Apex Court noted the scope of Section 74 of the Contract Act. After pointing out that Section 74 is sandwiched between Sections 73 and 75, which deal with compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract and compensation for damage which a party may sustain through non­ fulfilment of a contract after such party rightfully rescinds such contract, the Apex Court pointed out that compensation is payable under Section 74 only where damage or loss is caused by such breach.

29.The Apex Court held in Kailash Nath’s case that Section 74 of the contract Act will apply to cases of forfeiture of earnest money under a contract. In the case on hand, the sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ was not even an earnest money. It was only an advance money, supposed to be a part of the sale consideration. The defendant could not prove any loss on account of the failure of the plaintiff to perform his part of the obligation.

Section 22(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 enables a person suing for specific performance of a contract for the transfer of property, to ask for any other relief including the refund of any earnest money or 11OS.No.104/2014 deposit paid, in case, the claim for specific performance is refused. The power to grant the relief under Section 22(1)(b), viz., to order refund of earnest money, is without prejudice to the power of the Court even to award compensation in lieu of specific performance.

30.In view of the foregoing discussion and circumstances this Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not established that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the evidence on the record established that the time is essence of the contract as such the plaintiff is not entitled to grant of relief of specific performance of agreement dated 07­08­2012. Accordingly, the issue

Nos.1 to 3 are answered.

31.Issue No.4:­

In lieu of findings in issue Nos.1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. However, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount paid by him under Ex.A1 to the defendant on 07­08­2012 i.e.

an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of realization with costs.

32.In the result, (i) the suit of the plaintiff is partly dismissed.

(ii) the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ from the defendant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of realization with costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 10th day of April, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad 12OS.No.104/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1: M. Nara Goud Dw.1: Mahesh PW2: K. Srinivas GoudDw.2: A. Naveen Kumar Dw.3: Dyaga Dhawal

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of the)

FOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.A1 is the agreement of sale along with receipt dated 07­08­2012 Ex.A2 is the pattedar pass book Ex.A3 is the title deed Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice dated 08­05­2014 Ex.A5 is the postal receipt dated 08­05­2014 Ex.A6 is the postal acknowledgment card

Senior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad

1 of 12 RCA.No.1 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BODHAN.

Present: Smt. N. Roja Ramani,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2018.

R.C.A.No.1 of 2017

Between :-

Syed Ahmed Uddin S/o Syed Rashid Uddin, Caste: Muslim, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1-1-532, Rakasipet, Bodhan Town & Mandal, District Nizamabad.

.. Appellant/Respondent.

A N D

Mohammed Niyamutullah Khan, S/o. Late Mohammed Ibrahim Khan, Caste: Muslim, Age: 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o First Floor, Old Syndicate Bank, Bodhan Town & Mandal, District Nizamabad.

.. Respondent/Petitioner.

in

This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/respondent against the Judgment and decree passed in RC.3/2017, dtd.25.2.2017 on the file of Rent Controller-Cum- Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

R.C.No.3 of 2017

Between :-

Mohammed Niyamutullah Khan, S/o. Late Mohammed Ibrahim Khan, Caste: Muslim, Age: 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o First Floor, Old Syndicate Bank, Bodhan Town & Mandal, District Nizamabad.

.. Petitioner.

A N D

Syed Ahmed Uddin S/o Syed Rashid Uddin, Caste: Muslim, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1-1-532, Rakasipet, Bodhan Town & Mandal, District Nizamabad.

.. Respondent.

This Appeal is coming on 15.11.2018 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Md. Faheemuddin, Advocate for the

Appellant/Respondent and of Sri Md. Rahmathullah Khan, Advocate for 2 of 12 RCA.No.1 of 2017

Respondent/Petitioner, and having stood for over consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The unsuccessful respondent/tenant is the appellant, who 1.

preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Decree,

Dtd.25.2.2017 passed in R.C.No.3/2007 on the file of Prl. Junior

Civil Judge-Cum-Rent Controller, Bodhan and whereunder the

learned Rent Controller-Cum- Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan allowed the petition by directing the Appellant/respondent to vacate the petition schedule property and deliver the vacant possession to the petitioner/landlord within 3 months from the date of the order.

The averments of the petition filed U/sec.10 (2) (i) (VI) 3 (b) and 2.

Sec.12(i) (a) of A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control

Act, 1960 in brief as follows:

The respondent/petitioner is the landlord and owner of demised malgi No.1-4-238/5 situated at Main road, Bodhan. On 1.7.1997 the appellant approached the respondent for lease on monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- per month for a period of 11 months i.e.

1.7.1997 to 31.5.1998 under unregistered lease deed. The appellant established his business in the name of “Classic Watch

Company” and paid Rs.1800/- per month and the same was enhanced from time to time to December, 2006. The appellant failed to pay the rents from January, 2007 and has been in illegal possession of demised malgi as such liable for damages @

Rs.5000/- per month. Respondent in need of demised malgi for 3 of 12 RCA.No.1 of 2017 his bonafide personal requirements as he intended to construct a hotel, lodging and boarding and obtained permission from the concerned authorities from the proposed hotel Shanbaag and 4 malgies belonging to the respondents are required for the purpose of passage to the proposed construction. The appellant stopped paying rents from January, 2007 in the Bank account of the respondent as such he is willful defaulter for Rs.1,000/- towards agreed enhanced rent from January, 2007 to May, 2007 and liable for damages @ Rs.5,000/- per month. The respondent got issued legal notice on 15.2.2007 and the appellants gave a reply and the admitted rent of Rs.2500/- from January 2007 and refused to vacate the premises.

The appellant filed a counter by admitting the jural relationship 3.

between him and the Landlord and denied about the default to pay rents from January, 2007 to May 2007, admitted the issuance of legal notice and giving reply notice and agreed that the rate of rent is @ Rs.2000/- per month. He further contended that he deposited an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards advance and paid rents regularly up to April, 2007. There was no agreement between parties to vacate the demised malgi on any condition and the respondent is not constructing any hotel it is only a concocted story.

4. Basing on the pleadings, the Rent Controller-Cum- Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, Bodhan settled the following point for consideration:

1. Whether the respondent is willful defaulter?

2. Whether the petitioner is bonafide personal requirements of petition schedule property?

4 of 12 RCA.No.1 of 2017

3. To what relief?

5. The respondent/petitioner got examined as PW.1 and exhibited

Ex.A1 to A6 and got examined his son as PW.2. On the other hand, the appellant got examined himself as RW.1 and his brother-in-law as RW.2 and exhibited Ex.B1 to B97. After the closure of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller by considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, in oral and documentary, allowed the petition by directing the appellant to vacate the demised premises within a period of 3 months from the date of Judgment.

6. Aggrieved by the orders of Rent Controller, the appellant filed the present appeal on following grounds:

(i) that the findings of learned Rent Controller are contrary to the law and the oral and documentary evidence was not properly appreciated.

(ii) The appellant is not a willful defaulter U/sec.7(2) (a) (i)

(iii) the fair rent of a building has not been so fixed,

(a) The landlord shall not, after the commencement of this Act, claim, receive or stipulate for the payment of any premium or other like sum in addition to the agreed rent:

Provided that the landlord may receive, or stipulate for the payment of an amount not exceeding one month’s rent by way of advance;

(b) save as provided in clause (a), any sum paid in excess of the agreed rent whether before or after the commencement of this act, in consideration of the grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy of the building after such commencement, shall be 5 of 12 RCA.No.1 of 2017 refunded by the landlord to the person by whom it was paid or, at the option of such person, shall be otherwise adjusted by the landlord.

(3) Any stipulation in contravention of sub section (1) or sub section (2), shall be null and void.

(iv) The appellant paid Rs.1,28,981/- as in advance under Ex.B1,

B2, B3 and B28 and also paid property tax under Ex.B18, B27 and B29, but the learned Rent Controller did not deduct the due amount of Rs.10,800/- out of advance amount of Rs.1,28,981/- which is contrary to Section 7 of the Act. Rs.1,28,981/- would have adjusted the advance amount towards the arrears of rent.

(v) The landlord executed a Registered Gift Deed on 22.1.2001 in favour of his son i.e. PW.2 under Ex.A6 during the pendency of the petition which is nothing but a fraud played by the landlord.

(vi) The sanction has been issued by the Municipality, Bodhan under Ex.A5 stands in the name of PW.2. But the landlord period in his petition that Ex.A5 stands in his name.

(vii) The landlord himself applied for loan before the Minority

Corporation for the purpose of construction, but he did not produce any proof of document and no explanation in that regard.

(viii) The open land behind the demised premises does not constitute part and parcel of demised premises and the owners of both properties are different. There is 30 feet wide road on the southern side of open land and another road 30 feet towards eastern side of open land where proposed hotel alleged to be 6 of 12 RCA.No.1 of 2017 constructed by the landlord. Therefore, prayed to set aside the

Judgment and Decree.

7. Heard both sides. The counsel for the appellant and the counsel

for the respondent submitted written arguments and same are

made as part of the record.

8. On considering the respective contention of the both the parties to the appeal, the points that emerged for consideration are

1) Whether the appellant/tenant committed willful default in payment of rents?

2) Whether the requirement of the demised premises by the landlord is genuine and bonafide?

3) Whether the order of learned Rent Controller-Cum- Prl. Junior

Civil Judge, Bodhan requires interference and the same is liable

to be set aside?

POINT No.1:

9. It is not in dispute in respect of ownership of demised malgi. It is an undisputed fact that respondent landlord is the original owner of said malgi and there is no dispute with regard to jural relationship between appellant and respondent. Admittedly, the appellant took the demised malgies on rent from the respondent/ landlord on monthly rent basis and paid rents for certain period.

It is also undisputed fact that appellant/tenant stopped paying the rents subsequently. It is evident from the record that the

PW.2 is the son of PW.1 and the PW.1 executed a Gift deed in favour of PW.2 in respect of open site which is situated adjacent to the demised premises and which is not part and parcel of suit malgi. It is also undisputed fact that the appellant/respondent deposited an amount of Rs.1,28,981/- towards advance and he 7 of 12 RCA.No.1 of 2017 did not pay the rents as such, he prayed the Court to adjust the advance amount towards arrears of rent. This itself established that the appellant/respondent is a willful defaulter and he did not pay the rents regularly and stopped paying the rents.

10.The counsel for appellant vehemently argued that Rent

Controller would have adjusted the advance amount paid by him towards the arrears of rent and placed reliance on the provisions

U/sec.7(2) (a) (i) of the Act which reads as follows:

U/sec.7(2) (a) (i)

(iii) the fair rent of a building has not been so fixed,

(a) The landlord shall not, after the commencement of this Act, claim, receive or stipulate for the payment of any premium or other like sum in addition to the agreed rent:

Provided that the landlord may receive, or stipulate for the payment of an amount not exceeding one month’s rent by way of advance;

(b) save as provided in clause (a), any sum paid in excess of the agreed rent whether before or after the commencement of this act, in consideration of the grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy of the building after such commencement, shall be refunded by the landlord to the person by whom it was paid or, at the option of such person, shall be otherwise adjusted by the landlord.

(3) Any stipulation in contravention of sub section (1) or sub section (2), shall be null and void.

It is crystal and clear from the above said provision that

Where the fair rent of a building has not been so fixed under the 8 of 12 RCA.No.1 of 2017 said circumstances the said provision come into an application.

Here in the case in hand, it is evident from the record that initially the rate of rent was fixed @ Rs.1000/- per month.

Subsequently, they both agreed the rate of rent as Rs.2000/- per month. This also undisputed fact that lease was extended time to time and it was oral lease and there was no lease deed executed by the parties to the proceedings at any point of time.

Therefore, the said provision is not applicable to the case in hand. On the other hand, the RW.1 himself admitted that he never paid rent of 2nd of every month as agreed by them and the receipts filed by the appellant/respondent disclosed that he did not pay the rents regularly and the payment of rents were very irregular. The appellant further contended that he paid total amount of Rs.1,28,981/- as in advance under Ex.B1, B2, B3 and B28. Ex.B1 is the receipt, dtd.18.2.2004 disclosed that an amount of Rs.75,000/- were received towards advance deposit of malgi No.1-4-216/4 and the landlord promised to return

Rs.75,000/- on the date of vacating malgi without any interest and the receipt further disclosed that the tenant is paying rents regularly till date. Ex.B1 further disclosed that Rs.12,000/- was paid towards advance on 20.12.1984 and Rs.3000/- on 15.7.1990, Rs.5000/- on 1.8.1991, Rs.5000/- on 15.3.1993,

Rs.3000/- on 20.7.1995, Rs.7000/- on 20.7.1995 and Rs.4000/- towards Municipal Tax for the years 1996-97, Rs.11,000/- on 17.8.1997, Rs.5000/- on 14.1.2004, again Rs.5000/- on 16.1.2004 and again Rs.5000/- o n31.1.2004 and Rs.10,000/- in the month of February, 2004 and total amount is Rs.75,000/-. Ex.B2 is the 9 of 12 RCA.No.1 of 2017 acknowledgment card. Ex.B3 is the postal receipt. Ex.B28 is the receipt dtd.3.7.2010 disclosed that the appellant paid

Rs.18,000/- towards the shop bearing No.1-4-238 in

RC.No.1/2007 and it was received by the Landlord under protest.

None of the above said documents supported and corroborated the contention of the appellant that he paid total amount of

Rs.1,28,981/- as advance under Ex.B1, B2, B3 and B28. As such, the question of deduction of arrears out of advance does not arise.

11.The counsel for the appellant further contended that during the pendency of RC, PW.1 executed Gift deed in favour of his son/PW.2, on 22.1.2001 under Ex.A6 which is nothing but fraud played by the landlord. It is undisputed fact that PW.1 executed a Gift Deed in favour of PW.2 on 22.1.2001 under Ex.A6 and the property mentioned under the Gift Deed is not the demised malgi. Therefore, the question of fraud does not arise. On the other hand, PW.1 being the owner of the said open place executed a Gift deed in favour of his own son under a Registered document as such, the execution of Ex.A6 cannot be questioned on point of genuineness.

12.It is the contention of the appellant that the pleadings are different from the evidence adduced by the landlord/respondent

before the Court, as such the evidence of landlord cannot be

considered. It is evident from the record that the landlord pleaded in his petition that he obtained sanction from the concerned authorities and applied for loan for construction of a hotel in the open place. But during the course of cross 10 of 12 RCA.No.1 of 2017 examination, PW.1 and 2 themselves admitted that the PW.2 obtained sanction from the concerned authorities for construction of hotel in the open place, by virtue of Gift Deed executed by PW.1 in favour of PW.2. Mere on the ground that the pleadings are different from the evidence adduced by the petition the case of the petitioner cannot be discarded and cannot be thrown out, as it does not go to the root of the case.

Moreover, pleadings are bundle of facts, these facts are to be proved by adducing cogent and consistent evidence. Here, evidence on record i.e. oral and documentary evidence established that the PW.1 executed a Registered Gift Deed in favour of PW.2 under Ex.A6 accordingly PW.2 applied for sanction of construction of a hotel in the open place and the same was sanctioned by the concerned authorities. Therefore, point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the Landlord/ respondent as against appellant/petitioner.

POINT No.2:

13.It is the further contention of the appellant that the landlord has not in need of bonafide requirement of demised malgi, as there is open place towards southern side and northern side for the purpose of ingress and outgress. Therefore, the vacant possession of demised malgi does not arise.

14.It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent that as there is no passage between the demised malgi and the open place where his son going to construct a hotel, as such he is in need of demised malgi.

11 of 12 RCA.No.1 of 2017

15.Under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act:- Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

16.As the respondent/appellant contended that there is a road towards both sides of open site the burden lies on respondent to adduce evidence in proof of his contention. He did not chose to produce oral or documentary evidence in support of his contention to show that there is road towards both sides of open place by enabling them to ingress and outgress into the hotel going to be constructed in the open place. On the other hand, during the cross examination, RW.2 admitted that there is no road immediately after open land on the southern side.

17.The respondent/Landlord successfully proved that the demised malgi is required for ingress and outgress purpose to the open place where the son of landlord is going to construct a hotel.

18.In view of the above discussion circumstances, this Court came to conclusion that the petitioner/tenant failed to establish that he is not a willful defaulter and there is an open land towards south and northern side of open place and the landlord is not in need of demised malgi for the purpose of construction of a hotel in the open place which is adjacent to demised malgi.

Therefore, this point is also answered accordingly.

POINT No.3:

19.The learned Rent Controller-Cum- Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Bodhan after having considered the respective contention of 12 of 12 RCA.No.1 of 2017 both parties and the evidence let in by them in proper perspective, decreed the petition rightly. Therefore, interference with the findings of learned Rent Controller-Cum- Prl. Junior Civil

Judge is unwarranted. The appeal is devoid of merits and

deserves to be dismissed.

20.In the result, the appeal is dismissed and Judgment and order, Dtd.25.2.2017 passed in R.C.No.3/2007 on the file of Prl.

Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Rent Controller, Bodhan is confirmed.

However, the parties should bear their own costs.

Dictated to Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of November, 2018.

Sd/-

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT :

- N I L -

Exhibits marked

On behalf of

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT : - N I L -

Sd/-

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

1 of 10 OS.No.41 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BODHAN.

Present: Smt. N. Roja Ramani,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2018.

O.S.No. 41 of 2014.

Between :- Rahul Automobiles, a business proprietary concerned, Represented by Its proprietor Sri N. Gopinath, S/o. N. Balarajaiah, Aged: 42 years, Occ: Proprietor of M/s. Rahul Automobiles, R/o Banswada (v) and Mandal, District Nizamabad.

.. Plaintiff.

And

1. M/s. Ali Rice Mill, Represented by its Proprietor Sri Ali Hussain, S/ o. Abdul Rahman, Aged: 55 years, Occ: Business, Prop.M/s. Ali Rice Mill, R/o H.No.6-103, Durki (v) within the limits of Gram Panchayat of Birkur Mandal, District Nizamabad.

2. Ali Hussain, S/o. Abdul Rahman, Aged: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.NO.6-103, Durki (v) within the limits of Gram Panchayat Durki of Birkur Mandal, District Nizamabad.

.. Defendants.

This Suit is coming on 22-11-2018 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri C. Gopal Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri M.A. Faheemuddin, Advocate for defendant, and having stood over for consideration, till this day the court delivered the following.

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of ₹5,00,000/- from the defendant basing on promissory note.

The brief averments in the plaint are that the plaintiff is Rahul 2.

Automobiles, represented by its proprietor N. Gopinath. The 1st defendant is M/s. Ali Rice Mill, represented by the 2nd defendant by name Ali Hussain. The plaintiff and the defendants are known to each other. On 3.3.2011, the 2nd defendant approached the 2 of 10 OS.No.41 of 2014 plaintiff and borrowed ₹5,00,000/- for his necessities to improve his business by executing a promissory note by agreeing to repay the same. Thereafter, the defendant did not repay the promissory note amount. Finally, on 9.4.2011 on repeated requests, the defendant NO.2 issued cheque bearing No.385787, dtd. 15.4.2011 for an amount of ₹5,00,000/- drawn on State

Bank of Hyderabad, Banswada branch. The same was returned by the bank for the reasons exceeds arrangements. Then he got issued legal notice on 23.6.2011. The defendant did not give any reply as such he filed a complaint U/sec.138 of N.I. Act and the same was registered vide CC.No.261/2011 and the same is pending. Hence, he filed suit for recovery of ₹5,00,000/- on the basis of promissory note and cheque.

3. After receiving the summons, the defendants appeared before the Court through counsel and filed a detailed written statement by denying all the averments in the plaint pleadings, submitting that the defendant is having 2 tractors and he used to purchase spare parts from plaintiff on credit basis, during the year 2008 on the demand of the plaintiff, he gave the suit promissory note and a blank cheque towards security. Thereafter, he cleared all the credits. Due to financial crisis the defendant sold away his two vehicles and stopped purchasing spare parts from the plaintiff. But the plaintiff did not return the blank promissory note and the blank cheque. As he refused to sell the land in

Sy.No.138/3/A admeasuring Ac.0-09 guntas, situated at Durki sivar. The plaintiff bore grudge against him and filed the present suit with the help of blank promissory note and blank cheque.

3 of 10 OS.No.41 of 2014

He is not liable to pay the suit amount and the cheque amount.

Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1. Whether the suit documents are true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount ?

3. To what relief?

5. During trial, the plaintiff got filed his chief evidence affidavit as

PW.1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to A8 and got examined K. Digamber as PW.2, who is one of the attestor of Ex.A1.

6. After closure of plaintiff side evidence, the defendant got filed his chief evidence affidavit as DW.1 and exhibited Ex.B1 to B3 and got filed chief evidence affidavits of Chief Manager, SBI,

Banswada as DW.2.

7. Heard.

ISSUE NO.1:

8. Perused the entire record. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed amount under Ex.A1 from him on the date of Ex.A1 in the presence of PW.2, thereafter failed to repay the amount. In support of his contention, he examined

PW.1 an PW.2 and exhibited Ex.A1 to A8.

9. The PW.1, who is the plaintiff deposed in the same lines as he averred in his plaint pleadings. To support and substantiate his contention, he exhibited Ex.A1 to A8. During the cross examination, it was elicited that he gave ₹5,00,000/- to the 4 of 10 OS.No.41 of 2014 defendant for purchase of items from Rahul Automobiles. He has withdrawn ₹5,00,000/- from the account of his firm and obtained cheque under Ex.A2 in the name of his firm. He is doing business for sale of automobile spare parts.

10.PW.2, who is one of the attestors of Ex.A1. He attested

Ex.A1 on 3.3.2011 and PW.1 is his friend.

11.It is an undisputed fact that Ex.A1 is dated 3.3.2011 and the suit was filed on 1.5.2014. It is evident from the evidence of

PW.1 and 2 and Ex.A1 that the suit pronote is barred by limitation.

12.It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant issued cheque on 15.4.2011 and thereafter he presented the cheque before the bank and the same was returned for the reasons “exceeds arrangements” as such he got issued legal notice on 23.6.2011 as such the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation.

13.It is the contention of the defendant that he used to purchase spare parts from the plaintiff as he was having 2 tractors. In that regard, the plaintiff obtained blank promissory note and blank cheque from him towards security in the year 2008. Thereafter, he repaid entire amount, even after that the plaintiff filed the present suit with the help of those blank promissory note and blank cheque.

14.To support and substantiate his contention, defendant exhibited Ex.B1 to B5. Ex.B1 is the Certified copy of Registration certificate of vehicle bearing No.AP-25-U-4672 disclosed that 5 of 10 OS.No.41 of 2014

Krishna Reddy is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP-25-U- 4672 and it was purchased by Shaik Ali Hussain and on 25.3.2010 the same was purchased by Nagnath Shankar from

Shaik Ali Hussain i.e. the defendant herein. Ex.B2 is the Certified copy of Registration certificate of vehicle bearing No.AP-16-U- 0124 disclosed that the defendant purchased the same on 13.10.2000 thereafter he sold away the same to one Md.

Mohammed on 5.10.2012. Ex.B3 is the Certified copy of

Registration certificate of vehicle bearing No.AP-J-5773 disclosed that the defendant sold away his vehicle on 5.3.2014. The contents in Ex.B1 to B3 clearly and clinchingly established that the defendant sold away his vehicles as such, he was not in need of purchase of spare parts from the plaintiff.

Ex.B4 is the Certified copy of deposition of N. Gopinath i.e. PW.1 in CC.No.261/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Banswada disclosed that the plaintiff filed the criminal case

U/sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act basing on the suit pronote i.e. Ex.A1 and the suit cheque i.e. Ex.A2.

Ex.B5 is the Certified copy of statement of account pertains to the plaintiff company disclosed that there is no entry in respect of ₹5,00,000/- during the period i.e. from 1st February 2011 to 5th

March, 2011 in respect of the account of plaintiff’s automobiles.

15.The evidence of DW.1, DW.2 coupled with Ex.B5 clearly and clinchingly establish that the plaintiff did not withdraw cash of ₹5,00,000/- from the account of plaintiff’s firm as deposed by him in his evidence. Therefore question of obtaining Ex.A2 cheque in the name of the plaintiff’s firm does not arise. The 6 of 10 OS.No.41 of 2014 defendant by adducing oral and documentary evidence, successfully created a doubt on the plea of plaintiff that the defendant executed Ex.A1 and A2 in the year 2011 in favour of

PW.1 towards the alleged money transaction.

16.Moreover, Ex.A1 disclosed that it was executed in favour of

Rahul Automobiles and Ex.A2 was issued in the name of Rahul

Automobiles. The plaintiff did not chose to produce any document to show that he is the proprietor of Rahul Automobiles and authorised to represent on behalf of Rahul Automobiles and having authority to depose on behalf of Rahul Automobiles.

17.It is well settled law that once the defendant shows either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or by use of other presumptions of law or fact that the promissory note is not supported by consideration, in the manner stated in the promissory note or in the manner stated in the suit notice or in the pleading, the evidentiary burden shifts to the plaintiff and the legal burden of the plaintiff is revived, i.e. to prove that the promissory note is supported by consideration and at that stage, the presumption of law covered by S. 118 'disappears' and no longer subsists.

18.In a suit on a promissory note, the case of the defendant as to the circumstances under which the promissory note was executed is not accepted, it is open to the defendant to prove that the case set up by the plaintiff on the basis of the recitals in the promissory note, or the case set up in suit notice or in the plaint is not true and rebut the presumption under S. 118 by showing a preponderance of probabilities in his favour and 7 of 10 OS.No.41 of 2014 against the plaintiff. He need not lead evidence on all conceivable modes of consideration for establishing that the promissory note is not supported by any consideration whatsoever. The words 'until the contrary is proved' in S. 118 do not mean that the defendant must necessarily show that the document is not supported by any form of consideration but the defendant has the option to ask the Court to consider the non- existence of consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the case, to act upon the supposition that consideration did not exist. Though the evidential burden is initially placed on the defendant by virtue of

S. 118 it can be rebutted by the defendant by showing a preponderance of probabilities that such consideration as stated in the pronote, or in the suit notice or in the plaint does not exist and once the presumption is so rebutted, the said presumption 'disappears'. For the purpose of rebutting the initial evidential burden, the defendant can rely on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or on presumptions of law or fact. Once such convincing rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the plaintiff who has also the legal burden. Thereafter, the presumption under S. 118 does not again come to the plaintiff's rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the

Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance.

8 of 10 OS.No.41 of 2014

19.Here in this case the defendant adduced evidence to show that there is no consideration in the manner pleaded in the plaint or suit notice or the plaintiff's evidence, the burden shifted on the plaintiff and the presumption 'disappeared', as such does not haunt the defendant any longer. The defendant successfully rebutted the presumption under section 118 of Negotiable

Instrument Act by exhibiting Ex.B1 to B5.

20.In “G Pankajakshiamma Vs. Mathai Mathew” reported in 2004 Law Suit (SC) 384 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any consideration had flown under those transactions – respondent failed to produce books of accounts as those transactions were unaccounted same were illegal no decree can be passed in favour of respondent. No court can come to aid of partly in an illegal transaction.

21.Here in this case the plaintiff did not produce his income tax statement, book of accounts in proof of his source of income.

It is evident from the record that the transaction is unaccounted transaction, as such they are illegal transactions. No Court can come to the aid of the party in an illegal transaction. It is settled law that in such cases the loss must be allowed to lie where it falls. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought by him.

22.In the light of the above judgments, this Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish that he advanced an amount of ₹5,00,000/- to the defendant towards hand loan and the defendant executed a promissory note dated 3.3.2011 promising to repay the said amount and issued cheque on 9 of 10 OS.No.41 of 2014 15.4.2011. Therefore, issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3:

23.In lieu of findings in issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

24.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.

However, the parties should bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of November, 2018.

Sd/-

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: : WITNESSES EXAMINED :

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW.1N. Gopinath DW.1Shaik Ali Hussain PW.2Kandare DigamberDW.2K.V.L.N.Murthi : EXHIBITS MARKED :

ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note, Dtd.03.03.2011 Ex.A2 : Original Cheque dtd.15.4.2011 Ex.A3 : Office copy of legal notice dtd.23.6.2011 Ex.A4 : Letter, dtd.31.5.2011 issued by State Bank of Hyderabad Br. Banswada Ex.A5 : Memo dtd.31.5.2011 issued by State Bank of Hyderabad Br. Banswada Ex.A6 : Postal receipt Ex.A7 : Acknowledgment of defendant No.1 Ex.A8 : Acknowledgment of defendant No.2 10 of 10 OS.No.41 of 2014

DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1 : Certified copy of Registration Certificate of vehicle bearing No.AP-25-U-4672 Ex.B2 :Certified copy of Registration Certificate of vehicle bearing No.AP-16-U-0124 Ex.B3 : Certified copy of Registration Certificate of vehicle bearing No.AP-J-5773 Ex.B4 :Certified copy of deposition of plaintiff (N.Gopinath) in

CC.No.261/2011

Ex.B5 : Statement of Account of M/s. Rahul Automobiles

Sd/-

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

1

OS.No.226/2013

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

NIZAMABAD 

Present: Smt. N. Roja Ramani, , 

Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

Dated this the 10th day of April, 2019

O.S.No.226 of 2013

Between:­

1. Smt. Jadhav Mira Bai, W/o: Late Jadhav Laxman, Age: 30 years, Occu: Labour, R/o: H.No.10­1­1081/3, 80 Quarters, Nagaram, Nizamabad

2. Jadhav Sandeep, S/o: Late Jadhav Laxman, Aged 13 years, Minor, Occu: Student, R/o: H.No.10­1­1081/3, 80 Quarters, Nagaram, Nizamabad

3. Jadhav Archana, D/o: Late Jadhav Laxman, Aged 12 years, Minor Occu: Student, R/o: H.No.10­1­1081/3, 80 Quarters, Nagaram, Nizamabad

4. Jadhav Soniya, D/o: Late Jadhav Laxman, Aged 10 years, Minor, Occu: Student, R/o: H.No.10­1­1081/3, 80 Quarters, Nagaram, Nizamabad

5. Jadhav Sachin, S/o: Late Jadhav Laxman, Aged 7 years, Minor, Occu: Student, R/o: H.No.10­1­1081/3, 80 Quarters, Nagaram, Nizamabad

The plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are minors and represented the case under guardianship of their natural mother, next friend and guardian Smt. Jadhav Mira Bai; i.e. plaintiff No.1 herein 

 .. Plaintiffs

And

1) The A.P. Transco represented by its Asst. Engineer, Operation, Sub Station, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad 

2) The Suprintendent Engineer Operation, A.P. Transco, Power House, Nizamabad 

3) The Chief Managing Director, A.P. Transco, Warangal 

 .. Defendants

This suit coming before me on 09­04­2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Rajkumar Subedar, Advocate for plaintiffs, and of Sri Neelkant Rao, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivers the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs who are the wife and minor children of deceased Jadav Laxman for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/­ towards damages for the 2

OS.No.226/2013

death of said Jadvan Laxman, due to electric shock, with interest @ 24% per annum and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that on 25­09­2011, the deceased died due to electrocution situated at bore well situated at Bondam cheruvu at about 8.15 a.m. while passing from the fencing of the bore well. Immediately, he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad and the doctors declared that he died due to electrocution,. ;the deceased was working as a cattle keeper and labour by profession and used to earn Rs.10,000/­ per month. The SHO P.S. IV­Town,

Nizamabad registered a case in Cr.No.214/2011 on 25­09­2011 u/sec 174

Cr.P.C. The defendants came to the spot and promised that they will pay the compensation to the deceased family. Thereafter, they did not pay the compensation. Hence the suit.

3.After receiving the summons, the defendants appeared before the Court and filed a detailed written statement. The 1st defendant filed written statement, the 2nd and 3rd defendants filed a memo by adopting the written statement of 1st defendant. The defendants submitted that as per the plaint pleadings the deceased died while passing through the bore well fencing due to electrocution with the wire which was fallen on the ground near the fencing. The deceased died due to the negligence owner of the agricultural land who fenced his bore well and the defendants are no way concerned with the said negligence and there was no negligence on the part of the defendants. The defendants did not visit the spot and they never promised to pay the compensation. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the suit. 

4.Basing on the above pleadings, this Court framed the following issues for trial. 

3

OS.No.226/2013

1.Whether the deceased Jadav Laxman died due to the negligence of the 1st to 3rd defendants?

2.Whether the plantiffs are entitled to receover for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ towards the damages for the death of the deceased Jadav Laxman with costs and interest as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

5.during the trial, the plaintiff got filed chief evidence affidavit as Pw.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A4 and got examined Pw.2. after the closure of the plaintiff’s side evidence, the defendants got filed the chief evidence affidavit of Dw.1 and no documents are exhibited.

6.Heard both sides.

7.ISSUE NO.1:­

8. Perused the entire record. 

9.To support and to substantiate their contention, the 1st plaintiff got filed chief evidence affidavits s Pw.1 and deposed in the same lines as she averred in her plaint pleadings. IN support of her contention she also examined the Pw.2 who is the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Town.V, Nizamabad. The Pw.2 deposed that he registered a case in Cr.No.214/2011 u/sec 17j4 of Cr.P.C. Ex,.A1 is the attested copy of the same. Ex.A2 is the attested copy of inquest panchanama,

Ex.A3 is the attested copy of PME report and Ex.A4 is the attested copy of final report. After careful scrutiny of Ex.A1 found that the deceased died due to electrocution with a wire which was near the fencing of a bore well. Ex.A2 is the inquest panchanama disclosed that the deceased died due to electrocution while passing through a bore well where a service wire was on the ground. Ex.A3 is the PME report disclosed that the deceased died due to electrocution. Ex.A4 is the final report disclosed that burn injuries were found on the hands, knees of 4

OS.No.226/2013

the deceased and died due to electric shock. The oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 clearly and clinchingly established that the deceased died due to electrocution and he came into contact with service wire which was fell down on the ground near to the bore well and the bore well was fenced.

10.In MOTUKURI BHEEMAVVA AND OTHERS V/s. APSEB THROUGH ITS

CHAIRMAN, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER, 1998 (1) ALT 67, our own High

Court having considered the decisions of Apex Court, Kerala, Orissa, Madhya

Pradesh and Delhhi High Courts held that,Rule of Res­Ipsa Loquitur applies to facts and circumstances of such cases and consequently held that the burden in such cases lies on the defendants to prove that, they had taken every care to maintain the electric lines properly to prevent the occurrence of such accidents.

In M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD V/s. SHAIL KUMAR AND OTHERS, AIR 2002,

SUPREME COURT 551, wherein it was held as follows:­ “The responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality is statutorily conferred on the Electricity Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril”.

11.It was further held that:­ “The Board is also liable under the strict liability rule. The basis of such liability is the forceable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. Act of stranger is one exception to the rule of strict 5

OS.No.226/2013

liability. The said exception is not available to the Board as the act attributed to the stranger should reasonably have been anticipated or at any rate its consequences should have been prevented by the appellant Board”.

12.In view of the cited decisions, the defendants 1 to 3 are burdened to establish that there was no negligence on their part and that they took every care to maintain the electric lines properly to prevent the occurrence of such incident.

The defendants 1 to 3 to discharge their burden, placed reliance on the solitary evidence of the Addl. Asst. Engineer (DW1).

13.It is the contention of the defendants that there was no negligence on their part and they are not responsible for the said electrocution. The evidence of

Dw.1 is only a hearsay evidence and he was not present at the time of the incident and he has no knowledge about the suit proceedings. It is also an undisputed fact that the Dw.1 was ;not working with the dependents department during the period of said incident. Therefore, the evidence of Dw.1 is not at all helpful to prove the defence contention and their pleadings in the written statement.

14.In view of the admitted fact that the deceased died due to electric shock and in view of the fact that the defendants 1 to 3 are the custodians of the electric energy, it has to be held that the deceased somewhere came into contact with a live electric wire and died. The maintenance of electric lines is the duty of defendants 1 to 3. When the defendants 1 to 3 choose to supply electricity by naked wire on the poles, they should take every precaution to prevent the fall of wire by the usual wind or gale. The evidence of DW1 does not establish the degree of care required to be taken by the defendants 1 to 3 regarding proper 6

OS.No.226/2013

maintenance of the electric lines, or the precautions required to be taken by them for prevention of such accidents. In the circumstances of the case and in view of my foregoing discussion and findings, I am inclined to hold that the defendants 1 to 3 failed to discharge their burden and consequently hold that the death of the deceased occurred due to the negligence on the part of the defendants 1 to 3.

Hence, the defendants 1 to 3 are liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs for the death of the deceased. The issue is accordingly held in favour of the plaintiffs.

15.ISSUE NO.2:­It is settled law that in assessing the quantum of damages in such cases, the principle adopted by the Courts for determination of compensation to be awarded in fatal accident cases under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, can be adopted. Therefore, I am inclined to apply the said method for assessing the compensation of the present case. The plaintiffs in paragraph No.1 of their plaint, stated that the deceased was aged about 41 years at the time of his death. A perusal of Ex.A3 attested copy of panchanama and Ex.A4 attested copy of PME report indicates the age of the deceased as 38 years. Regarding the income of the deceased, it is contended by the plaintiffs that, he used to earn an amount of Rs.10,000/­ per month. The plaintiffs did not choose to file any documentary evidence to prove the alleged income of the deceased. The plaintiffs also did not examine any material witness to substantiate the income of the deceased. To sum up, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the said income of the deceased. In these circumstances, it would be just and proper to take the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/­ per annum, which is the income set out in the second schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a non earning person. In view of my foregoing discussion and findings by granting of an 7

OS.No.226/2013

amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ as compensation will meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

16.ISSUE NO.3:­

In lieu of findings in issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is deserves to be decreed. 

17.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed for an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/­ with costs and pendentilite interest is granted @ 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ i.e. from the date of the filing of the suit to till the date of the judgment and thereafter 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ from the date of the judgment till the realization.

 Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 10th day of April, 2019

Senior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF(S)FOR DEFENDANT(S)

PW1: Jadav Meera Bai DW1: B.Laxman PW2: A. Jan Reddy, SI of Police 

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of the)

FOR PLAINTIFF(S)

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR Ex.A2: Attested copy of inquest panchanama Ex.A3: Attested copy of PME report Ex.A4: Attested copy of final report 

FOR DEFENDANT(S):

­­Nil­­

Senior Civil Judge,

NIZAMABAD

1 of 8 OS.25-2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT BODHAN.

Present: Smt. N. Roja Ramani,

Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2018.

O.S.No. 25 of 2017

Between :- Smt. Pallavi Deshmukh W/o Chandra Shekar Desai, age 53 years, Occu: Household, R/o Jukkal village of Jukkal mandal, Dist. Kamareddy.

…Plaintiff. A n d

Sri Raju S/o Gangaram, age 38 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Jukkal village of Jukkal mandal, Dist. Kamareddy. …Defendant.

This Suit is coming before me on 22.11.2018 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Md. Fajeemuddin, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of defendant set ex parte, and having stood for over consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This is a suit filed under Order 7 Rule 1 R/w Section 26 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for declaration of title of the plaintiff and recovery of possession in respect of land in

Sy.No.118/1 to an extent of 83 square yards situated at Jukkal village and to declare the Registered Sale Deed doc.No.172/2011 dtd.2.2.2011 as illegal, void and sham document and not binding on the plaintiff and also grant mandatory injunction by directing the defendant to dismantle and remove the structures raised in the suit land and also grant perpetual injunction.

2. The brief averments in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of land in Sy.No.118/1 to an extent of Ac.1-33 guntas at

2 of 8 OS.25-2017

Jukkal village. Her husband gifted the said land vide Registered

Gift Deed doc.No.1780/1993, dtd.13.12.1993 out of love and affection. Her husband acquired the property by way of partition from the properties of his father Madhav Rao Desai to an extent of Ac.8-04 guntas in Sy.No.118/1. She left the village along with her husband for the purpose of the treatment of her husband. In the year 2012, the defendant and one Narayana interfered into the possession of the plaintiff as such she filed suit vide

OS.NO.35/2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Bichkunda

seeking perpetual injunction and obtained temporary injunction in IA.No.125/2012. The suit was dismissed for default on 15.1.2015 as she was at Hyderabad with her husband.

Thereafter, the defendants illegally occupied the suit land i.e. 83 square yards out of Ac.1-33 guntas in Sy.No.118/1 and raised construction without permission from the Gram Panchayat

Jukkal. On 10.12.2016, she came to know about the illegal occupation and immediately, proceeded to the suit land and the defendant refused to vacate the land and produced Registered

Sale Deed vide document No.172/2011 executed by Yellavva

W/o Shivalingam. Hence, the suit.

3. After receiving the summons, defendants did not appear before the Court and they remained exparte.

4. During trial, the plaintiff got filed her chief evidence affidavit as

PW.1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to A10.

5. The counsel for the plaintiff did not chose to submit his arguments even after the conditional orders and this matter is

3 of 8 OS.25-2017

pending for arguments since 12.7.2018. Therefore, the arguments of the plaintiff are treated as heard.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title of the plaintiff and recovery of possession in respect of land in Sy.No.118/1 to an extent of 83 square yards situated at Jukkal village and to declare the Registered Sale

Deed doc.No.172/2011 dtd.4.2.2011 as illegal, void and sham document and not binding on the plaintiff and also grant mandatory injunction by directing the defendant to dismantle and remove the structures raised in the suit land and also grant perpetual injunction?

POINT:-

7. Perused the entire record. The PW.1 deposed in her chief evidence affidavit in the same lines as she averred in her plaint pleadings. To support and substantiate her contention, PW.1 exhibited Ex.A1 to A10.

8. Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of Registered Gift Deed bearing

No.1780/1993, dtd.13.12.1993 that the husband of plaintiff executed Gift deed in favour of PW.1 in respect of land in

Sy.No.118 with the following boundaries:

East: Sy.No.119

West: Road

North : Sy.No.115, 117

9. Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of sale deed doc.No.172/2011 dtd.2.2.2011 disclosed that the open place near to house bearing No.11-83 with the following boundaries:

4 of 8 OS.25-2017

East: Road, West: Open place of Gangoji, North: House of

Pochaboi, South: House of Yerkala Nagavva to an extent of 83 square yards was sold away by Yellavva W/o Shivalingam to Raju

S/o Gangaram.

10.Ex.A3 is the Pahani for the year 2010-11 disclosed that the plaintiff is the pattadar of land in Sy.No.118 to an extent of Ac.1- 33 guntas. Ex.A4 and A5 are the Certified copies of pahanies disclosed that the plaintiff is the owner of land in SY.No.118/1 to an extent of Ac.1-33 guntas. Ex.A6 and A7 are the photographs showing the structures i.e. the pillars. Ex.A8 is the Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.35/2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

Bichkunda. Ex.A9 is the Certified copy of counter filed by the respondent in OS.No.35/2012. Ex.A10 is the Certified copy of docket order dtd.15.1.2015 in OS.NO.35/2012 disclosed that the suit was dismissed for default.

11.It is crystal clear fromt eh evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A1 to

A10 that the husband of plaintiff executed a Registered Gift

Deed in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A1. The plaintiff filed suit vide OS.No.35/2012 against the defendant and another person and the suit was dismissed for default vide orders under Ex.A10.

The unchallenged testimony of PW.1 established that she is the owner of the property mentioned in Ex.A1 i.e. gift settlement deed executed by her husband in her favour.

12.Now the only point for consideration is whether the property mentioned under Ex.A1 and the suit property are one and the same.

5 of 8 OS.25-2017

13.After meticulously scanning Ex.A1 found that the property i.e. the land in Sy.NO.118/1 to an extent of Ac.1-33 guntas was transferred in favour of the PW.1 by her husband through a Gift

Settlement deed. Ex.A1 did not disclose the boundaries of suit schedule property. Even Ex.A3 to A5 also did not disclose the boundaries of suit schedule property. Ex.A6 and A7 are the photographs are showing the structures raised, but those photographs did not disclose whether those structures raised int eh suit schedule property and those structures were raised by the defendant and also the date, month and year of the raising of those structures. The Ex.A6 and A7 failed to establish that the structures were raised in the suit land.

14.Ex.A8 is the Certified copy of plaint disclosed that the suit schedule property is land in Sy.No.118/1 to an extent of Ac.1-33 guntas with the following boundaries:

East : land of Bothkur Babu, West: Village houses, North:

Sy.No.117, South: Road.

15.Whereas the suit schedule property mentioned by the

PW.1 in her plaint that the land in Sy.No.118/1, to an extent of 83 square yards with the following boundaries:

North : House of Pochaboi, South : House of Alkara Nagavva

East: Road, West: Open land of Gangaji which is a part of Sy.No.118/1 as contended by the plaintiff. But none of the boundaries mentioned by the plaintiff in the suit schedule property as showing her remaining property in

Sy.No.118. Even the suit schedule property mentioned in Ex.A8

6 of 8 OS.25-2017

are not tallying with the boundaries mentioned in the present suit.

16.The evidence on the record failed to establish that the suit land is the part and parcel of the property mentioned under

Ex.A1 and Ex.A8. The plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence to show that the suit schedule property is a part and parcel of lands mentioned in Ex.A3 to A5 and A8 to A10.

17.Under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act:- Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

18. In suit for injunction, the grant of injunction is discretionary relief prima facie the plaintiff has to prove his possession by establishing that he is in possession of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the question of nature of interference by the defendants and the type of preventive relief would become significant.

19. Under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act:- Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

20.In suit for permanent injunction as the plaintiff approaches the Court, the burden lies on the plaintiff, he has to show that he got a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour and he will suffer irreparable injury if injunction is not granted.

7 of 8 OS.25-2017

Therefore, the plaintiff has to prove his own case by adducing consistent and cogent evidence.

21. The Apex Court in several Judgements, reiterated that the person who is in possession cannot be dispossessed forcibly without following due process of law. Even though the possession is not a permissive possession or illegal possession.

22. It is well settled law that whenever a person claims right to continue in possession of property, it takes necessary for him to plead with specificity about who was the owner on what date did he entered into possession in what capacity and in what manner did he conduct his relationship when the owner over the suit property.

23. Here in this case, the plaintiff failed to establish the boundaries of suit schedule property and the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 to A8 are not tallying with the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property. Moreover, there is no evidence on the record to show that structures are raised in the property mentioned in

Ex.A1 in order to pass orders by way of granting mandatory injunction for removal of structures. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly against the plaintiff.

24.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.

However, the parties should bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of November, 2018.

Sd/-

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

8 of 8 OS.25-2017

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

: WITNESSES EXAMINED :

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW.1Smt. Pallavi DeshmukhEx parte

: EXHIBITS MARKED :

ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Certitude copy of the Registered Gift Deed bearing No. 1780 of 1993, dtd.13.12.1993 Ex.A2 :Certitude copy of sale deed No. 172/2011 dtd.4.2.2011 Ex.A3 :Certitude copy of Pahani for 2010-11 Ex.A4 :Certitude copy of Pahani for 2012 Ex.A5 :Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2017 Ex.A6 :Photographs Ex.A7 :Photographs Ex.A8 :Certified copy of plaint in OS.35/2012 Ex.A9 :Certified copy of the counter in OS.35/2012 Ex.A10 :Certitude copy of Docket order in OS.35/ 2012

DEFENDANTS:

- Nil -

Sd/-

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.