Sri N.Srinivas

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present:-Sri N.SRINIVAS,

Senior Civil Judge.

Tuesday, the 31st day of July, 2018

:: A.S.No.29 of 2015 ::

Between:-

Chirla Satyanarayanareddy, S/o late Venkatareddy, 63 years, Cultivation, Pera Ramachandrapuram. H/o Duppalapudi. Anaparthi

Mandal and JCJC... Appellant/Plaintiff.

And

1.Nallamilli Venkatareddy, S/o Veerreddy, 44 years, Cultivation, 3-124, Koppavaram. Anaparthi Mandal and JCJC. 2.Nallamilli Sattireddy, S/o Veerreddy, 44 years, Cultivation, 3-124, Koppavaram. Anaparthi Mandal and JCJC. 3.Sabbella Bangaramma, W/o Satyanarayanareddy, D/o N.Veerreddy, 44 years, Near Durgamma Temple, Rayavaram road, Near school, Mahendrawada. Anaparthi Mandal and JCJC. 4.Nallamilli Sujata, W/o Venkatareddy, 41 years, 3-124, Cultivation, Koppavaram. Anaparthi Mandal and JCJC. 5.Nallamilli Varalakshmi, W/o Sathireddy, 39 years, Cultivation, 3-124, Koppavaram.

Anaparthi Mandal and JCJC...Respondents/Defendants.

On appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru dt.09-06-2015 in

O.S.No.118/2010.

O.S.No.118 of 2010

Between:- Chirla Satyanarayanareddy, S/o late Venkatareddy, 58 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Pera Ramachandrapuram.

2

H/o Duppalapudi Village. Anaparthi Mandal.... Plaintiff.

And

1.Nallamilli Venkatareddy, S/o Veerreddy, 39 years, Hindu, Cultivation, D.No.3-124, Koppavaram. Village. Anaparthi Mandal. 2.Nallamilli Sathireddy, S/o Veerreddy, 39 years, Hindu, Cultivation, D.No.3-124, Koppavaram. Village. Anaparthi Mandal. 3.Sabbella Bangaramma, W/o Satyanarayanareddy, D/o Veerreddy, Hindu, 40 years, Near Durgamma Temple, Rayavaram road, Near School, Mahendrawada Village. Anaparthi Mandal. 4.Nallamilli Sujatha, W/o Venkatareddy, 36 years, Hindu, D.No.3-124, Cultivation, Koppavaram. Village. Anaparthi Mandal. 5.Nallamilli Varalakshmi, W/o Sathireddy, 34 years, Hindu, Cultivation, D.No.3-124, Koppavaram.

Village. Anaparthi Mandal....Defendants.

This appeal is coming on 09-07-2018 for arguments upon perusing the grounds of appeal, judgment and decree of the trial court and other connected papers on record and of Sri B.Suryanarayana, Advocate for appellant and of Sri K.M.M.Srinivasareddy, Advocate for respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment passed by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru dated 09-06-2015 in O.S.118/2010.

2.The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants in O.S.118/2010 on the file of trial court.

For sake of convenience and for better appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial court, to avoid unnecessary repetition and confusion, the parties in this appeal, 3 hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the trial court i.e. plaintiff and defendants.

3.The averments mentioned in the plaint in brief are as follows:-

The plaint schedule property is an ancestral property of defendants 1 and 2 and their father by name Veerreddy. The plaint schedule property total extent is Ac.3-50 cents in R.S.No.14/2. The father of D1 to D3 offered the said land for sale during minority of defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff asked the said land and the bargain was struck of Rs.3,000/- for the schedule land. An agreement of sale executed by the father of D1 to D3 on 08-04-1989, at the time of agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs.2,500/- towards advance and the balance sale consideration should be at the time of registration without stipulated time limit. In the month of January, 2009 the plaintiff demanded D1 to D3 and their father for registration of sale by taking balance of sale consideration, but, the defendants failed to do so. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants 1 to 3 and their father on 01-02-2009 and they acknowledged the same and made a promise that they will execute the sale deed within 15 days. While being so, unfortunately the father of defendants died in a rail accident on 25-04-2009. Thereafter, the plaintiff has been pressing the defendants to execute the sale deed in his favour, but, the defendants did not respond positively. The plaintiff came to know the fact that the defendants to avoid the registration sale deed to the plaintiff and transferred the said plaint schedule property in favour of their wives who are 4th and 5th defendants respectively under registered gift deeds 4

dated 28-06-2010 for 29 cents each. So, the plaintiff was advised to

file the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. Hence, the suit.

4.The defendants filed their written statement and denying most of the averments of the plaint and averred that the present market value of the said land is more than Rs.20,00,000/- per acre.

The plaintiff got an evil on the plaint schedule property, taking advantage of the innocence and absence of the defendants 1 to 3 in the village, he wants to grab the plaint schedule property somehow or other. Out of the full extent of Ac.3-50 cents, an extent of Ac.0-58 cents is the ancestral property of Nallamilli Veerreddy i.e., father of defendants. Either Nallamilli Veerreddy or the defendants never let out the plaint schedule property to anybody. The plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property either as a tenant or otherwise at any point of time. The plaint schedule property was under possession and enjoyment of the defendants and their father. The sale agreement dated 08-04-1989 alleged to have been executed by Nallamilli Veerreddy for himself and on behalf of his minor children i.e., defendants is also a forged document. The thumb mark existing on the sale agreement dated 08-04-1989 do not belongs to

Veerreddy and attestors and scribe of sale agreement dated 08-04-1989 are henchmen of the plaintiff. Taking advantage of the ignorance of the defendants, the plaintiff wants to grab the valuable plaint schedule property by hook or crook. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit. Hence, the defendants prays the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.

5

5. Basing on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 08-04-1989 or not?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief of return of earnest money with subsequent interest or not?

3)Whether the suit document i.e., agreement of sale dated 08-04-1989 is binding on the defendants or not?

4)Whether the sale agreement dated 08-04-1989 is forged one and fabricated one?

5)Whether the sale agreement dated 08-04-1989 is time barred or not?

6)To what relief?

6.In the trial court, on behalf of plaintiff, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A6 were got marked. On behalf of defendants, two witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.B1 to B6 were got marked.

7.On appreciation of the above referred oral and documentary evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the above said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred the present appeal questioning the correctness, legality, validity and maintainability on the following grounds:-

The decree and judgment of the lower court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and against the probabilities of the case. The lower court ought to have decreed the suit instead of dismissed the suit. The lower court failed to understand the scope of Or.14 Rule 2

CPC. The lower court failed to see that an agreement of sale is not a 6 compulsory attestable document. But, the lower court straight away opined that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement of sale by examining any one of the attestors. Non examination of attestor is not fatal to the case. The scribe was examined to prove execution of sale agreement, but, lower court failed to see the same. The lower court erred in commenting that the plaintiff failed to prove Ex.A1 by adducing documentary proof with regard to agreement of sale apart from Ex.A1, this comment is sufficient to hold that lower court with a pre-concluded mind decided the case. Hence, the appeal is to be allowed and decree and judgment in O.S.118/2010 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Alamuru dated 09-06-2015 is to be

set aside with costs.

8. Perused the pleadings, issues, oral and documentary evidence adduced and the case law.

9.Upon hearing the both learned counsels and on re- appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial court, in the light of the grounds of appeal, findings of the trial court and the law governing the subject, the points that fall for determination are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled specific performance of contract as prayed for?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled any alternative relief as prayed for?

3)To what relief?

7

POINT Nos.1 AND 2 :

10.Both parties afforded trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A1 to A6 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and got examined D.W.2 and

Exs.B1 to B6 are marked.

11.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract.

12.As per contentions of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property of defendants 1 and 2 and their father.

The plaint schedule property is quarry pits land and not fit for any agricultural purpose and it is only fit for raised dry crops like cashewnuts and Palmyra leaves. This plaintiff managed the said land as tenant of the defendants and all other shares including his father’s land. In fact the plaint schedule property total extent is Ac.3-50 cents in R.S.No.14/2, so, 1st and 2nd defendants father by name Nallamilli

Veerreddy offered the said land for sale during the minority of 1 to 3 defendants for the purpose of to purchase another land to said consideration as there is no income derived from the said land. Then he asked said land as he is neighbouring owner to his land and bargain was struck off at Rs.3,000/- for plaint schedule land, accordingly an agreement of sale was executed by 1st and 2nd defendants father for himself and on behalf of 1 to 3 defendants as guardian to them in his favour on 08-04-1989, at the time of agreement, this plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards advance and a per terms of the said 8 agreement balance sale consideration should be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. Thereafter, he demanded to execute sale deed, but, the defendants with one pretext or other dragon the matter as the plaint schedule property exempted to land tax and he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. But, the defendants never came forward to execute regular sale deed. On that he got issued legal notice to the defendants on 01-02-2009, but, in vain.

13.To prove the above said contentions, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the plaint averments in his chief affidavit and also filed Exs.A1 to A6 and also got examined P.Ws.2 and

3. Ex.A1 is sale agreement.

14.As per chief affidavit contents of P.W.2, he is scribe of Ex.A1 sale agreement. At the time of sale transaction, the plaintiff paid

Rs.2,500/- towards earnest amount under Ex.A1 sale agreement and he scribed Ex.A1 sale agreement and it was duly attested by attestors.

15.As per chief affidavit contents of P.W.3, his land is situated on north-east corner of the plaint schedule property intervened by puntha. The plaint schedule property was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff since last 20 years. The defendants are never in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Since their land is dry land, the Government not collected any taxes.

16.But, the contentions of the defendants is that the total extent of land in S.No.14/2 of Vemulapalli Village of Mandapeta

Mandal is Ac.3-50 cents and said land is unfit for cultivation till the year 2009. As a borewell is installed in the adjacent land belonging to 9

Kovvuri Srinivasareddy, the land in S.No.14/2 became fit for cultivation now. The present market value of the land is more than

Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. The plaintiff got an evil on the plaint schedule property, taking advantage of their innocence and absence in the village, he wants to grab the plaint schedule property. Out of full extent of Ac.3-50 cents, an extent of Ac.0-58 cents is ancestral property of Nallamilli Veerreddy, father of 1 to 3 of them. As the said land is not fit for cultivation, said Nallamilli Veerreddy left the land vacant. Even today the land is barren and no cultivation being done in plaint schedule property. Nallamilli Veerreddy never let out the plaint schedule property to anybody. The plaint schedule property was always been under possession and enjoyment of 1 and 2 defendants and now it is in possession and enjoyment of 4 and 5 defendants herein. The sister of the defendants Sabbella Bangaramma has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. The said Nallamilli Veerreddy never offered to sell the plaint schedule property and sale agreement is false one. He never received an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards earnest amount under sale agreement. The balance of sale agreement amount of Rs.500/- should be paid at the time of registration of sale agreement as and when the plaintiff demanded the defendants for registration of sale deed in his favour without any stipulation of time limit is false one. The plaintiff never demanded either Nallamilli

Veerreddy during his lifetime or 1 to 3 defendants for execution of sale deed. The plaintiff never issued registered legal notice to the 1 to 3 defendants on 01-02-2009. The thumb impression existing on the acknowledgment card does not belong to Nallamilli Veerreddy. On 18-10-2010 an application was sent to the Public Information Officer, 10

Sub Post Office, Koppavaram for furnishing information with respect to the legal notice dated 01-02-2009 and it’s service. The Branch Post

Master, Koppavaram gave reply stating that no registered letter was received by their office from 01-02-2009 in the name of Nallamilli

Veerreddy and no registered post was served on Nallamilli Veerreddy since 01-02-2009 and he further stated that the acknowledgment card alleged to have been served on Nallamilli Veerreddy does not contain the date and seal of their post office. Generally, the post office which served the registered letter used to put the date of service along with stamp on the acknowledgment card. In the present case, no such date and seal of the post office is appearing on the postal acknowledgment card. Moreover, postal acknowledgment card does not contain the date of registration and the postal registration receipt number on it. The branch post master also made it clear that there is no person by name

Sathi Chandrareddy in Koppavaram Village, who put his thumb impression as a witness to the service of registered notice on Nallamilli

Veerreddy. Hence, the acknowledgment card alleged to have been received by Nallamilli Veerreddy is also a fabricated document. In fact no notice was issued on 01-02-2009 to 1 to 3 defendants and

Nallamilli Veerreddy. The sale agreement dated 08-04-1989 alleged to have been executed by Nallamilli Veerreddy for himself and on behalf of his minor children i.e., 1 to 3 defendants is also a forged document.

The thumb mark existing on the sale agreement dated 08-04-1989 do not belong to Nallamilli Veerreddy. An application was sent to Public

Information Officer, District Registrar’s Office, Rajahmundry to furnish information with respect to the stamp dated 06-04-1989 alleged to have been sold by stamp vendor V.Nageswararao of Rajahmundry to 11 plaintiff and its genuinity. The Joint Sub Registrar No.1, Rajahmundry informed that the application was forwarded to District Registrar’s

Office, Kakinada for furnishing required information. So far no information is furnished by District Registrar’s Office, Kakinada with respect to stamp dated 06-04-1989. So, sale agreement dated 08-04-1989 is a forged document and the plaintiff will not get any rights under the said forged document.

17.To prove the above said contentions, the 1st defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and he reiterated the contentions of the written statement in his chief affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B6 and also got examined D.W.2.

18.As per chief affidavit contents of D.W.2, he personally cultivating an extent of Ac.1-00 cents of land situated in R.S.No.44/4 of Vemulapalli Village apart from other lands. The value of the lands in and around Vemulapalli Village is more than Rs.20,00,000/- per acre.

The property covered in full extent of Ac.3-50 cents covered by

R.S.No.14/2 of Vemulapalli Village belongs to six sharers. Out of which

Ac.0-58 cents belongs to the family of Nallamilli Veerreddy. The said land was in possession and enjoyment of Nallamilli Veerreddy and his family even today. The land was never in possession and enjoyment of

Chirla Satyanarayanareddy either as tenant or otherwise. Nallamilli

Surareddy and Chirla Venkatareddy, who informed to him personally that they have not put their signatures on the alleged agreement of sale dated 08-04-1989 and said sale agreement is forged one.

19.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract. To prove the said contentions, the plaintiff himself examined 12 as P.W.1 and he filed original sale agreement and it is marked as Ex.A1 and also filed served copy of notice marked as Ex.A2 and postal acknowledgment marked as Ex.A3, Ex.A4 is tax receipt.

20.The main contention of the defendants is that Ex.A1 sale agreement is forgery one and learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that sale agreement dated 08-04-1989 do not contain any vendor stamp and also admittedly, the plaint schedule property is ancestral property, so, Nallamilli Veerreddy executed said sale agreement on behalf of minors, but, Nallamilli Veerreddy put only one thumb impression on sale agreement.

21.It is pertinent to note that on perusal of Ex.A1 sale agreement, stamp vendor signature is contained. For that, this defendants with regard to said stamp, the defendants made an application under Right to Information Act to the District Registrar,

Rajahmundry. For that, Sub Registrar gave reply that the registers pertaining to the stamps submitted to District Registrar’s Office,

Kakinada but, no response given by the District Registrar that itself shows that if really stamp is sold by stamp vendor, it should be recorded in the register and same was submitted to the Sub

Registrar’s Office.

22.Not only that as per contentions of the plaintiff that plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying

Rs.500/- balance sale consideration and got regular sale deed and he got issued legal notice for that, it is marked as Ex.A2 and also acknowledgment marked as Ex.A3.

13

23.To prove the fact that whether plaintiff send Ex.A2 registered legal notice to the defendants herein or not, they made an application to Sub Post Office, Koppavaram and said Sub Post Office gave reply and it is marked as Ex.B3 and information furnished by

Branch Post Master, Sub Post Office stating that no notice is registered on 01-02-2009 in his post office. Further acknowledgment which is marked as Ex.A3 is not issued by them.

24.It is pertinent to note that Ex.A3 acknowledgment not contained seal and signature of the post office that itself shows that acknowledgment is forged one.

25.Not only that as per Ex.B3 reply by Sub Post Office that no registered notice was sent on 01-02-2009 that itself shows that Ex.A2 is not sent to the defendants that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Those documents Exs.A2 and A3 are created by the plaintiff herein to file this suit.

26.The price of the plaint schedule property shown as

Rs.3,000/- is very lesser amount shown in the sale agreement for an extent of Ac.0-58 cents. In the year 1989 itself price of the land per acre is Rs.3 to 4 lakhs, so, Ac.0-58 cents of land is atleast

Rs.1,50,000/-, but, it was mentioned as Rs.3,000/- that itself shows that Ex.A1 sale agreement was created by the plaintiff.

27.Not only that he paid Rs.2,500/- and remaining balance is only Rs.500/-, why he is kept silent all these years till 2010.

Admittedly, the Ex.A1 sale agreement was executed in the year 1989.

Nearly after lapse of 21 years, the suit is filed for specific performance 14 of contract that itself shows that the plaintiff never ready and willing to perform his part of contract just merely paying of Rs.500/-. As such,

Ex.A1 sale agreement is totally false one and created by the plaintiff to grab the plaint schedule property.

28.Not only that the relief of specific performance of contract is discretionary relief and Ex.A1 sale agreement itself is suspicious document, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed and that the Lower

Court decree and judgment is to be confirmed. Accordingly, these points are settled.

POINT NO.3 :-

29.In the result, appeal is dismissed without costs. The

Judgment and decree of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Alamuru in O.S.118/2010 dated 09-06-2015 is confirmed.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, correct and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 31st day of July, 2018.

Senior Civil Judge,

Ramachandrapuram.

Appendix of Evidence

No additional oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present:-SRI N.SRINIVAS, Senior Civil Judge.

Tuesday, the 31st day of July, 2018

O.S.NO.78/2017

Between:-

State Bank of India (A Public Corporation constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955) with its branch at Pandalapaka,

rep.by its Branch Manager. ….. Plaintiff.

And

Nekkanti Veerabhadravathi, W/o N.V.V.S.S.P.Bhaskararao, 51 years, Resident of D.No.2-62, Main Road, Lolla Vilage of Rayavaram Mandal of East

Godavari District. …..Defendant.

This suit is coming on 20-07-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Bh.Padmanabharaju, Sri S.Gangadharam, Advocates for plaintiff and Sri N.Nagababu, Sri A.S.Raghavendra, Advocates for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff to pass preliminary decree for

Rs.8,85,965-92/- with subsequent interest directing the defendant to pay the said amount within specified time as fixed by Hon’ble Court, if the defendant failed to do so, the Hon’ble Court to pass final decree to sell the mortgaged property and redeem the suit amount and costs.

2. The averments mentioned in the plaint in brief are as follows:-

The defendant submitted an application dated 14-12-2005 to the plaintiff bank for sanction of agricultural term of loan of Rs.4,50,000/- under

Kisan gold card scheme for the purpose of Land Development. Accordingly, 2 the plaintiff-bank sanctioned the said loan under A/c.No.ATL 11516284407 was opened in the name of the defendant and the defendant fully utilized the said loan amount and agreed to repay the said loan in 14 half yearly installments of Rs.32,150/- each falling with a minimum of 10.25% per annum. The defendant with an intent to give security for the said loan created equitable mortgage over her agricultural land of Ac.5-51 cents of land more clearly described in the plaint schedule. On 14-12-2005 the plaintiff bank prepared a memorandum for recording creation of mortgage by deposit of title deed. Inspite of the demands of the plaintiff’s bank officials, the defendant has not paid any amount except last credit on 15-11-2014. On that the plaintiff-bank got issued a registered legal notice to this defendant to pay the said loan amount due by together with costs and other charges. The defendant is avoided to receive notice and returned to the plaintiff-bank and failed to pay the amount. The defendant is not agriculturist and hence, she is not entitled to the benefits under Act 4/1938 or any other Debt Relief Acts. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement. The contentions mentioned in the written statement of defendant in brief are as follows:-

The defendant denied the said plaint averments. Apart from that the defendants contended that the defendant contended that it is true that this defendant applied for agricultural term loan of Rs.4,50,000/- under

Kisan Gold scheme for the purpose of land development and the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan amount to this defendant and this defendant executed all necessary documents in favour of plaintiff-bank. It is true that this defendant with an intent to give security for the said loan created equitable mortgage over her agricultural land of Ac.5-51 cents of land towards collateral security by depositing her title deeds relating to the plaint schedule 3 property under memorandum for creating of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The account copy is not true and correct. This loan is write off by

State Government but it was not implemented by the plaintiff. This defendant paid installment amounts without any default, she is very regular in payment of installments. Somehow, or other, some amounts are not deducted from the account. Therefore, the account copy filed by the plaintiff in support of the suit is not correct and the amounts paid by the defendant are to be deducted from the suit amount the rest of balance will be meagre amount and the amount shown as Rs.8,85,965-92 is exhorted and without deducting actual payments made by this defendant. This defendant is not liable to pay any amount much less the suit amount to the plaintiff. The calculation of interest is not correct. The interest claimed in the suit is highly speculative and exorbitant. There is no cause of action to file this suit and that the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree as prayed for?

2. Whether the suit mortgage deed is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

3. To what relief?

5. On behalf of plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were got marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and no witnesses are examined and no documents were got marked on behalf of the defendant.

4

6. ISSUE NOs.1 AND 2:-

These issues are inter related each other, therefore, they are discussed conjointly. Both parties afforded trial. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the manager of plaintiff bank S.V.K.Nageswararao examined as

P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A18 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, the husband of defendant Nekkanti Bhaskararao examined as D.W.1 and no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked.

7. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of loan amount from the defendant.

8. As per contentions of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff bank is a corporation doing banking business having its Head Office at Mumbai with several branches through the State of Andhra Pradesh. The defendant approached the plaintiff bank on 14-12-2005 to the plaintiff bank for sanction of agricultural term loan of Rs.4,50,000/- under Kisan Gold card scheme for the purpose of Land Development. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank sanctioned the said loan under account No.ATL 11516284407 was opened in the name of the defendant. The defendant executed an arrangement letter on 14-12-2005 in favour of plaintiff bank mentioning the terms and conditions of the loan and agreed to repay the said loan in 14 half yearly installments of Rs.32,150/- each. The first installment commencing after the initial disbursement of the loan with interest over with a minimum of 10.25% per annum. The defendant also executed consent clause and hypothecation agreement hypothecating the standing and future crop in the schedule property. The primary security for the said loan is hypothecation of standing and future crops in schedule land. The defendant with an intent to give security for the said loan created equitable mortgage over her agricultural land of Ac.5-51 cents of land more clearly described in the plaint 5 schedule of Lolla Village as collateral security by depositing her title deeds relating to the plaint schedule property on 14-12-2005 under memorandum for recording creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. On 15-12-2005 the defendant sent a confirmation letter under SME 6 by registered post confirming the deposit of the above title deeds deposited on 14-12-2005 with the plaintiff bank. The date of last credit was on 15-11-2014 by the defendant is Rs.10,000/- and the said loan amount is Rs.6,89,025-63 ps. by 30-11-2014 as interest was applied up to 30-11-2014. Inspite of the demands of the plaintiff’s bank officials, the defendant has not paid any amount except last credit on 15-11-2014.

9. To prove the above said contentions, the manager of plaintiff bank himself examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the plaint averments in his chief affidavit and he also filed Exs.A1 to A18.

10. But, the contentions of the defendant is that both the defendant and her husband went to the plaintiff bank and obtained loan of

Rs.4,50,000/- under Kisan Gold scheme for the purpose of development of their land. By the time of sanction of loan, the defendant signed all the documents and also give security her landed property to an extent of

Ac.5-51 cents and availed loan facility in the year 2005. Subsequently, husband of defendant also obtained another loan for agricultural after obtaining loan the crop in the mortgaged schedule property was damaged and said fact was also intimated to the bank authorities and the present loan also write off by A.P. Government. The bank officials also collected

Rs.1,00,000/- from the account on 29-01-2007 and credited that amount to this loan account, but, the same was not shown properly. The present loan also totally write off by the A.P. Government. Even though the bank officials 6 claiming loan amount against them illegally and unlawfully. They have no obligation to discharge the loan.

11. To prove the above said contentions, the husband of defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and he reiterated the written statement contentions in his chief affidavit and no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked.

12. It is an admitted fact that this defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,50,000/- towards agricultural loan. The said fact was also admitted by the defendant in her written statement.

13. In the cross examination of P.W.1, who is manager of State

Bank of India deposed that they paid loan amount to the defendant at once on 14-12-2012. But, in the plaint it was averred that they paid loan amount on 14-12-2005. As per P.W.1 in the cross examination loan amount was paid on 14-12-2012, but, whereas as per plaint the defendant applied for loan on 14-12-2005, after lapse of seven years loan amount was paid, it is totally contradicting to the plaint averments and admission in the cross examination of P.W.1. Further he admitted that it is true the transaction in between 2005 to 2008 are not reflected in Ex.A16 statement of account. It is further strengthen the case of the defendant that loan amount was took by them in the year 2012 not in the year 2005. Further it was admitted by P.W.1 that it is true that total amount was due by the defendant to their bank was transferred to N.P.A. account from 27-06-2016 till filing of this suit. With regard to the amount due in N.P.A.account it was not averred in the plaint pleadings. Admittedly, the suit is filed on the balance of N.P.A. but, not on

Ex.A16 statement of account. On perusal of Ex.A16 statement of account it was ‘NIL’, the said fact was also admitted by P.W.1. It is true that on the 7 date i.e., on 27-06-2016 the outstanding balance due by the defendant is ‘NIL’.

14. As per Ex.A16 which was relied by the plaintiff bank amount due is Rs.3,74,588-29 ps. and it was transferred to N.P.A. account. But, in the plaint there is no pleadings about the N.P.A. account, but, the plaintiff filed

additional chief affidavit and filed Ex.A18 statement of account pertaining to

N.P.A.account. With regard to Ex.A18 statement, there is no whisper either in the plaint or in the chief affidavit of P.W.1. Without pleadings statement of

N.P.A. account i.e., Ex.A18, it is not valid one and said statement cannot be looked into by this Court. So, the plaintiff bank mainly relied on Ex.A16. As per Ex.A16 outstanding is ‘NIL’. Therefore, there is no amount due by the defendant on the said date. Without pleadings the plaintiff filed Ex.A18 to show that due amount from the account of the defendant was transferred to

N.P.A. account. So, N.P.A. account cannot be taken into consideration. As such, the plaintiff bank miserably failed to prove that the defendant is due of

Rs.8,85,965-92 ps. But, whereas, in Ex.A18 is Rs.5,96,623-63/-. So, there is variance with regard to the due amount as per Ex.A18, if it is taken into consideration by this Court. As such, the amount mentioned in the plaint as well as Ex.A18 statement of N.P.A. account is also not tallied. Therefore, the plaintiff-bank is not entitled suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, these issues are settled.

15. ISSUE NO.3:-

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 31st day of July, 2018.

Senior Civil Judge,

Ramachandrapuram.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:- P.W.1:S.V.K.Nageswararao FOR DEFENDANT:- D.W.1:Nekkanti Bhaskararao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:- Ex.A1 :Registered settlement deed dated 29-04-1985. Ex.A2 :Registered settlement deed dated 13-03-1985. Ex.A3 :Registered settlement deed dated 12-12-1961. Ex.A4 :Title deed passbook. Ex.A5 :Certificate dt.08-11-2005 issued by Secretary, Someswaram Gram Panchayat. Ex.A6 :Registered sale deed dated 18-03-1998. Ex.A7 :Registered exchange deed dated 24-03-1995. Ex.A8 :Certificate dt.08-11-2005 issued by Panchayat Secretary, S.T.Rajapuram. Ex.A9 :Title deed passbook. Ex.A10 :Application form dt.14-12-2005 for SBI kisan gold card scheme. Ex.A11 :Arrangement letter dated 14-12-2005 executed by defendant. Ex.A12 :Consent clause dated 14-12-2005 executed by borrower. Ex.A13 :Hypothecation agreement dt.14-12-2005. Ex.A14 :Memorandum for recording creation of mortgage by deposit of title deed dated 14-12-2005. Ex.A15 :Letter of confirmation dated 15-12-2005 for creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Ex.A16 :Statement of account of term loan account of defendant. Ex.A17 :Certified copy of Circular No.PBBU/OPS/NPA/7 issued by Corporate Center, Mumbai, dated 05-03-2014. Ex.A18 :Certified copy of statement of N.P.A. account of defendant

dated 26-06-2018.

FOR DEFENDANT:-NIL.

S.C.J. RCPM.

9

Date of Presentation:16-11-2016 Date of Filing:14-03-2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present:-SRI N.SRINIVAS, Senior Civil Judge.

Tuesday, the 31st day of July, 2018

O.S.NO.78/2017

Between:-

State Bank of India (A Public Corporation constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955) with its branch at Pandalapaka,

rep.by its Branch Manager. ….. Plaintiff.

And

Nekkanti Veerabhadravathi, W/o N.V.V.S.S.P.Bhaskararao, 51 years, Resident of D.No.2-62, Main Road, Lolla Vilage of Rayavaram Mandal of East

Godavari District. …..Defendant.

The suit is filed by the plaintiff to pass preliminary decree for

Rs.8,85,965-92/- with subsequent interest directing the defendant to pay the said amount within specified time as fixed by Hon’ble Court, if the defendant failed to do so, the Hon’ble Court to pass final decree to sell the mortgaged property and redeem the suit amount and costs.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 14-12-2005 when the defendant approached the plaintiff bank and obtained sanction of agriculture term of loan of Rs.4,50,000/- and when defendant fully utilized the said loan amount and when the defendant executed all relevant documents in favour of bank agreeing to repay the same and when the defendant with an intent to give security for the loan created equitable mortgage over the plaint schedule property by way of equitable mortgage on 14-12-2005 with the plaintiff bank for due and effective repayment of the said loan amount with interest and other charges and when on 15-12-2005 when the defendant sent a confirmation letter by registered post confirming the deposit of the above title deeds deposited on 14-12-2005 with the plaintiff bank and when the plaintiff bank got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding the defendant to pay amount and on all subsequent dates when the defendant failed to comply with the demands of the plaintiff to pay the balance amount till today and where the plaint schedule property is situated at Lolla Village of Rayavaram Mandal, which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

10 : 2 :

Valuation of the suit:

1) Amount due as per loan account No.ATL 11516284407 is …. Rs.3,74,588-29

ADD: Back unrealized interest reversed entries … Rs.3,14,437-34 Total: … Rs.6,89,025-63 ADD: Interest from 01-12-2014 to 31-05-2015 @ 13.250% … Rs. 45,647-95 Total: … Rs.7,34,673-58 ADD: Interest from 01-06-2015 to 30-11-2015 @ 13.250% … Rs. 48,672-12 Total: … Rs.7,83,345-70 ADD: Interest from 01-12-2015 to 31-05-2016 @ 13.250% … Rs. 51,896-65 Total: … Rs.8,35,242-35 ADD: Interest from 01-06-2016 to 15-11-2016 @ 13.250% … Rs. 50,723-57 Total: … Rs.8,85,965-92

A Court fee of Rs.11,326/- is paid U/s.31(1) Sch.I Art I (b & c) of

A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act,1956.

This suit is coming on 20-07-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Bh.Padmanabharaju, Sri S.Gangadharam, Advocates for plaintiff and Sri N.Nagababu, Sri A.S.Raghavendra, Advocates for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND:

:O.S.78/2017: :: PRELIMINARY DECREE :: AFT DOJ:31-07-2018

:: PRELIMINARY DECREE ::

1)That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed without costs.

Copy of the plaint schedule property is hereto attached.

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 31st day of July, 2018.

Senior Civil Judge,

Ramachandrapuram.

Particulars of costs

No costs memo is filed.

S.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE) FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R ACT-CUM- VI

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA.

The 4th day of November, 2015

C.C.55/2015

Between:

Akella Veerabhadra Kumar Address - 41 yrs, LIC Agent,H.No.50-6-1, Vishnalayam street, Jagannaickpur, Kakinada

...Complainant

And

1) A.1-Sri Sai Spandana Dairy Pvt. Ltd,Kakinada Address - rep. by its Managing Directors- Sri Tirumalasetti Venkata Ramana and Sri Palivela Lakshmi Sudhakar, D.No.2-185, Madhura Nagar, Kakinada.

2) A.2-Tirumalasetti Venkata Ramana Managing Director, Sri Sai Spandana Dairy Pvt. Ltd., H.No.64-9-151, Treasury colony, Pratapnagar, Kakinada.

3) A.3- Palivela Lakshmi Sudhakar 42 yrs, Managing Director, Sri Sai Spandana Dairy Pvt. Ltd., H.No.2- 185, Madhuranagar, Kakinada.

... Accused

O R D E R

In view of the Negotiable instruments- Amendment Ordinance, 2015 No.7/2015, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. Hence, this complaint is herewith returned to the complainant to file the same in proper court.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th day of

November, 2015.

Sd/-

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) For Trial of Cases Under P.C.R Act-

cum- VI Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Kakinada.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE) FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R ACT-CUM- VI

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA.

The 4th day of November, 2015

C.C.18/2015

Between:

Mudunuri Kasi Viswanadha Raju

...Complainant

And

Kosuri China Apparao Reddy

... Accused

O R D E R

In view of the Negotiable instruments- Amendment Ordinance, 2015 No.7/2015, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. Hence, this complaint is herewith returned to the complainant to file the same in proper court.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th day of November,

2015.

Sd/-

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) For Trial of Cases Under P.C.R Act-

cum- VI Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Kakinada.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE) FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R ACT-CUM- VI

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA.

The 5th day of November, 2015

C.C.17/2015

Between:

Velaga Bapireddy ...Complainant

And

Anaparthi Veeranna Chowdary

... Accused

O R D E R

In view of the Negotiable instruments- Amendment Ordinance, 2015 No.7/2015, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. Hence, this complaint is herewith returned to the complainant to file the same in proper court.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 5thday of

November, 2015

Sd/-

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) For Trial of Cases Under P.C.R Act-

cum- VI Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Kakinada.