Sri P.David, M.A., B.L.,

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: TADEPALLIGUDEM:: W.G.

Present : Sri P. David

Senior Civil Judge,

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017.

APPEAL SUIT No.16/2012.

Between:

Smt.Muppidi Saramma @ Sarada W/o. Madhavarao, Hindu, female, aged 65 years, Properties R/o. Koyyalagudem, presently r/o. Tadepalligudem, TPG SCJC -- Appellant/Plaintiff

And

Nekuri Savitri D/o. Venkanna, Hindu, female, aged 62 years, 2nd Ward, Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem, TPG SCJC -- Respondent/Defendant

On appeal preferred against the decree and Judgment dated 2-04-2012 passed in O.S.No.461/2004 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Tadepalligudem and made:

Between:

Smt.Muppidi Saramma @ Sarada -- Plaintiff

And

Nekuri Savitri -- Defendant 2

This appeal coming on 19-04-2017 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.P.Anjaneya Raju,Advocate for the Appellant/Plaintiff and of

Sri.S.Kondala Rao, Advocate for Respondent/Defendant and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment in

O.S.No.461/2004 dt. 02-04-2012 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Tadepalligudem.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are arrayed as that of lower court.

3.The suit was filed seeking decree directing the defendant to evict from the schedule property and to award damages of Rs.800/- for occupation and use and costs and such other reliefs.

4.The plaintiff claimed her absolute title over schedule property and defendant is her tenant. The defendant entered into the schedule house on the monthly rent of Rs.200/- commencing from 01-02-2003. The defendants promised to keep the property in tact without destroying its features. The defendant committed default in payment of rents. At present, plaintiff required the schedule house for her personal occupation. The defendant neither paid the rents nor vacate the schedule house. In fact the site in which the house is existing is in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents which is an assigned land granted under assessment No.16537 in favour of the plaintiff.

The schedule property is exempted from the provisions of A.P.Buildings

Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act. Hence, the suit.

5.The defendant denied their jural relationship between them and came with a plea that one Muppidi Mohana Rao had two wives i.e., plaintiff 3 and defendant. Originally schedule property belongs to their husband

Muppidi Mohana Rao and he had constructed the terraced building with two portions. The defendant along with her children are residing in one portion till today and the plaintiff is residing in another portion. During the course of time, said Muddipi Madhava Rao neglected the defendant and her children and failed to pay maintenance. Therefore, she filed M.C.No.22/2002 before

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem and it was

disposed off with the Lok-Adalat on 24-08-2004 and as per the Award their husband Madhava Rao agreed to pay an amount of Rs.65,000/- towards the building. Therefore, the defendant agreed to vacate the house. If the

Madhava Rao complied award, to vacate, the defendant has no hesitation to say that the house belongs to Muppidi Madhava Rao. The defendant further contended that the Madhava Rao and plaintiff hatched up a plan to see her to vacate the defendant schedule house without paying the agreed amount of Rs.65,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff filed this false suit against her for eviction in order to avoid their obligation. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction as prayed for?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

7.In order to substantiate their respective pleadings, the plaintiff examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and defendant examined

DW1 and DW2 and marked Ex.B1.

8. Considering both oral and documentary evidence, the learned II

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, has dismissed the suit without

4 costs. Against which the appellant has assailed the same with the following grounds of appeal:

(i) The decree and judgment of lower court is contrary to law and weight of evidence and probabilities of the case;

(ii) The Lower Court ought to have seen that the suit filed for eviction only and not to decide the issue of title and the Lower Court has misconceived and held otherwise quite contrary to law;

(iii) The Lower Court ought to have considered that the appellant/plaintiff has absolute title holder basing on Ex.A1 patta which is in her name;

(iv) The Lower Court misunderstood the Ex.B1 –Lokadalat award;

(v) The Lower Court ought to have considered that property of a woman is absolute property and nobody can claim right and ought to have considered the absolute right of the plaintiff/appellant over schedule property;

9. Heard appellant’s counsel. Both counsels filed their memorandum of written arguments.

10.Now the points that have been arisen for determination are:

(i)Whether the findings of the impugned decree and judgment in O.S.No.461/2004 dt. 02-04-2012 on the file of

II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem, is sustainable in eye of law?

(ii)Whether the impugned Judgment in O.S.No.461/2004 dt.02-04-2012 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem is liable to be confirmed or

annulled?

(iii) To what relief?

11.POINT NOs.1 and 2:-The plaintiff claimed her absolute title over schedule property under Ex.A1, the patta issued by the 5

Government of Andhra Pradesh in favour of the plaintiff in R.S.No.195/2 in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of land at Kadakatla. The schedule property and property under Ex.A1 is one and the same. The plaintiff came with a plea that she had constructed the schedule house in the site granted by the

Government under Ex.A1 under the lease allowed the defendant to be tenant in the schedule house. The monthly rent is Rs.200/-. Unfortunately, the defendant committed default. Now, she required the schedule house for her personal occupation and demanded the defendant to vacate and the defendant denied. It is necessary to remember that the defendant came with a plea that in fact the site in which house is situated originally belong to her husband and she constructed two portioned house and herself and her children are living in one portion and during passage of time her husband neglected her and her children and she filed MC and it was settled

before Lok-Adalat and in that Lok-Adalat her husband –Madhava Rao

promised to pay Rs.65,000/- and she agreed to vacate the same.

12.The very pleading itself shows this Madhava Rao is husband of plaintiff and defendant. It is a settled law that the plaintiff has to establish her title when opposite party denied. Ex.A1 is the patta assigned to the plaintiff in Ac.0.03 cents of land in R.S.No. 5195/2 of Kadakatla. Ex.A2 is bunch of two tax receipts stood in the name of plaintiff –Muppidi Saramma.

Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 are the water tax consumption charge receipts. The Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 clearly establishes that the schedule house is in the name of the plaintiff. Even the oral evidence of PW1 to PW4 categorically disclose that the plaintiff had constructed the house and defendant is her tenant.

13.The Lower Court discussed in detail about the jural relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. Even the material on record no document is forthcoming that the defendant is tenant under plaintiff.

6

Therefore, the Lower court has rightly held there is no jural relationship between plaintiff and Defendant, the landlady and tenant.

14.Coming to the right over schedule property the defendant claimed that her husband Madhava Rao constructed the house and in one portion herself and her children are living and in another portion, plaintiff is residing. If defendant denies the very title of the plaintiff, the burden shifts to her to establish her husband’s title over schedule property. Except her evidence and other DW2’s evidence, no other documentary evidence is forthcoming to establish that Madhava Rao is the absolute title holder of the schedule house. Apart from that even Ex.A1 establishes that the plaintiff is absolute title holder of the schedule house. The defendant contention is that herself and plaintiff married the Madhava Rao and during the passage of time, the Madhava Rao neglected the defendant and her children. Then, she filed M.C.No.22/2002 and that MC was ended in Lok-Adalat by award. Ex.B1 is the said Award copy which shows that the respondent-Muppidi Madhava

Rao had agreed to pay Rs.65,000/- towards terraced building. The intention is that she also claimed half share in the schedule house. This MC filed by the defendant and her children against Madhavarao and in that petition, the plaintiff is not a party. If respondent-Madhava Rao in Ex.B1 agreed to pay

Rs.65,000/- towards the house portion, it is an issue between defendant and

Madhava Rao but not between plaintiff and defendant.

15.As observed supra, if really the Madhava Rao is the absolute title holder, the defendant has to establish his title. Merely because the Madhava

Rao is the husband of the plaintiff, he will not have right in the house constructed by the plaintiff, one of the wives of the Madhavarao. The right will be ascended by way of succession, sale etc. The Lower Court dismissed the suit by observing that Ex.B1 clearly establish Madhava Rao is husband of defendant and the suit is filed for eviction and the Lower Court also 7 observed that the plaintiff failed to prove her ownership over the schedule house. In fact it is Muppidi Saramma @ Sarada is the patta holder under

Ex.A1, who is none other the plaintiff and this court held that the plaintiff has absolute right over the schedule house and even the defendant is in possession and if the requirement of plaintiff is for personal occupation, defendant has to vacate and the Lower Court committed error in observing that the plaintiff failed to establish the title over the schedule property.

16.The plaintiff’s sought the relief of damages of Rs.800/-. There is no basis as well documents to award the damages and the Lower Court came to wrong conclusion and dismissed the suit. Both the points are answered accordingly.

17.Point No.iii:

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 461/2004 dt. 02-04-2012 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Tadepalligudem is modified allowing the appeal with regard to relief

of eviction and with regard to relief of damages, the appeal is dismissed. In view of relationship between the parties, each party bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27 th day of April, 2017.

,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

(No additional evidence is adduced on either side in this appeal)

S.C.J.,

TPG.

8 9

Appeal presented on: 02-06-2012

Appeal filed on: 02-06-2012.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: TADEPALLIGUDEM:: W.G.

Present : Sri P. David

Senior Civil Judge,

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017.

APPEAL SUIT No.16/2012.

Between:

Smt.Muppidi Saramma @ Sarada W/o. Madhavarao, Hindu, female, aged 65 years, Properties R/o. Koyyalagudem, presently r/o. Tadepalligudem, TPG SCJC -- Appellant/Plaintiff

And

Nekuri Savitri D/o. Venkanna, Hindu, female, aged 62 years R/o. 2nd Ward, Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem, TPG SCJC -- Respondent/Defendant

On appeal preferred against the decree and Judgment dated 2-04-2012 passed in O.S.No.461/2004 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Tadepalligudem and made:

Between:

Smt.Muppidi Saramma @ Sarada -- Plaintiff

And

Nekuri Savitri -- Defendant 10

This appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment in

O.S.461/2004 dt.02-04-2012 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Tadepalligudem.

2. Value of the Appeal:

As the suit being one for eviction of the tenant :Rs. 2,400-00 is valid at Rs.2,400/- being for 12 months rent under Sec. 40(2) of APCF and SV Act.

Upon which a court fee of rs.216/- is herewith paid U/Sec. 20 r/w Article © of schedule 1, of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act

For the relief of damages for use and : Rs. 800-00 occupation, the amount due to the plaintiff at Rs.200/- from the month February to May, 2004 is at

On which a court fee of Rs.156/- is paid under article 1© Schedule I of APCF and SVAct.

Total Court fee of Rs.216/- + Rs.156/- = Rs.372/- is paid

This appeal coming on 19-04-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Anjaneya Raju, Advocate for the Appellant/Plaintiff and of

Sri.S.Kondala Rao, Advocate for Respondent/Defendant and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH

ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

i) that the appeal be and the same is hereby partly allowed; ii) that the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 461/2004 dt. 02-04-2012 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem be and is hereby modified; iii)that the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed with regard to relief of eviction; iv)that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed with regard to relief of damages; 11

v) that in view of the relationship between the parties, each party be and are hereby directed do bear their own costs;

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 27 th day of April,

2017.

SENIOR CIIVL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No memo of costs filed on either side

S.C.J.,

TPG.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: - SRI P.DAVID, M.A., B.L.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 188 OF 2016.

Between: Smt.Yalla Parvatamma … Plaintiff.

And

Yalla Appa Rao … Defendant

This suit coming on 25-04-2017 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri D.Murali Krishna, Advocate for Plaintiff and of defendant has been remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T:

1.This is the suit filed declaration that the plaintiff is an absolute title holder, salable interest etc., over the plaint schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, successors in interest etc., from interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

2. The particulars of the plaint in brief are:-

The defendant is 3rd son to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is blessed with three male children and one female child and during the life time of her husband, they performed the marriage of daughter only. On 31-12-1981 the husband of the plaintiff lost his breath in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is eking her livelihood on her own without family members assistance and the plaintiff is residing in the plaint schedule property as on today by paying regular taxes to the local Municipality without any deviation.

2

3.Further, the plaintiff is an absolute owner of the plaint schedule property which was purchased from Smt.Kakaraparthi Papamma under registered sale deed dt. 20-04-1970 (D.No.884/1970) for a valuable consideration of Rs. 25,000/- of vacant site with thatched hut therein and later with the assistance of all family members the thatched hut was converted into tiled house. When the plaintiff was in sick, the defendant approached during the period of January, 2009 and demanded to settle the same in his favour being younger son. Later, the same was discussed before all the family members and all are agreed with a condition to look after the welfare of plaintiff till her last breath and in view of the specific reciprocal obligation only the Ex.A1-settlement deed was executed in favour of defendant. But, out of trust and confidence reposed on the defendant, the plaintiff executed the settlement deed as love and affection. Even by that time, the plaintiff is in the possession of the property and no document of title has been handed over and there is no mutation of name of defendant in the municipal register till today and that itself disclosed non-compliance of acceptance on the part of the defendant for the reasons best known and the said settlement deed dt. 11-06-2009 became non-est in the eye of law. The health of the plaintiff became pendulum due to old age ailments and she used to take assistance of defendant to attend for medical treatment etc., with great difficulty regularly. Right from the execution of registered settlement deed, the attitude of the defendant has been changed day by day and most of the time he never provided basic needs of food, shelter etc., in a peaceful manner and neglected to see the welfare of plaintiff. Apart from it is also reliably come to know that the defendant also making his hectic efforts to dispose of the property at any cost ignoring the valuable rights of the plaintiff on the schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dt. 12-09-2016 to the defendant but the defendant did not give any 3 reply notice. Hence, the suit is filed for declaration as the relief of declaration became a comprehensive nature.

4.Defendant was called absent, set exparte.

5.In order to substantiate her case, plaintiff herself examined as

PW1, Yalla Venkata Ramana, son of PW1, Edupalli Satya Vara Prasad, relative of plaintiff and third party as PW3 and exhibited Ex.A1 and Ex.A5.

6. Heard the plaintiff’s Counsel.

7. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as

Prayed for?

8. POINT: - PW1 is none other than the plaintiff. Her chief evidence is nothing but replica of plaint averments. PW2, son of plaintiff and PW3, third party and relative of PW1 also d’accord with P.W.1. Ex.A1 is the copy of registered settlement deed in favour of defendant. Ex.A2 is the Municipal Tax receipt in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice to the defendant. Ex.A5 is the postal receipt.

9.Further the plaintiff’s counsel submitted that there is no necessity to ask for cancellation of settlement deed and for that proposition he relied upon the decision reported in 2011(2) ALT Page No. 501 (D.B.) in between Suraneni Lakshmi Vs. B.Venkata Durga Rao and another and in the above case, the plaintiff came with a plea that his signatures were obtained coercively. Therefore, sought for cancellation of document in question. In that context, His Lordship discussed void and voidable document in para 11 of the judgment held:

before considering the rival contentions of both parties, a plea

was raised before the lower court that the suit one being filed for 4 declaration to title to the property without seeking a relief of cancellation of document is not valid since the challenge on the sale deeds Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 said to have executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant are said to have been obtained under coercion and fraud and thereby they being voidable documents. The learned Senior civil Judge found though the same is one for declaration of title, it is based on the attack of the validity of the sale deeds and therefore, the suit as framed cannot be faulted. The same contention was repeated before the learned Single judge and he also took the same view holding that there is no need to seek cancellation of the documents. The same contention was repeated before the learned single judge and he also took the same view holding that there is no need to seek cancellation of the documents. The same contention was feebly raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, since it is a legal aspect we wish to answer the same. It is needless to say that there is a difference between a void document and a voidable document. The law is well settled that in case of a void document, there is no need to get it set aside as the party can ignore it. So far as the voidable document is concerned, the party to a document if he feels that his rights are threatened he has to seek for a cancellation of the same. In this connection, it is useful to refer to Sec. 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, which reads as under;

Sec.31. When cancellation may be ordered(1) any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable and the court may in its discretion so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.

Therefore, even in case of void document or voidable document as per the above provision, a person may sue for setting aside of the same. In case of void document it is useful to refer the decision reported in Sanjay Kaushish

V.D.C.Kaushish and others (1) AIR 1992 Delhi 118 where under in para 43 of the judgment, it was observed as under;

“Be that as it may, in my view, the well settled principle

of law is that if a particular document or decree is void

5

the person affected by the said document or decree can

very well ignore the same and file a suit seeking

substantive relief which may be available to him without

seeking any declaration that the said decree or

document is void or any consequential relief of

cancellation of the same.”

10.In the above observation, His Lordship held if a document is void there is no necessity to ask for cancellation of document but if it is a voidable, there is necessity to ask for cancellation of document. In the instant suit, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant who is her son obtained Ex.A1 settlement deed by force and coercion. The very recital show out of love and affection, the plaintiff executed Ex.A1-settlement deed in his favour at free of cost. The plaint averments show the defendant failed to adhere to the terms made by him to the plaintiff to look after her welfare in her last days. Therefore, she wanted to ignore the document. If these are the recitals of the document, no doubt the plaintiff can ask for cancellation of said document. Since the document is silent of those riders and further, on the face of the record document is neither void or voidable and unless the plaintiff ask for cancellation of document, he cannot ask for the relief in the suit and the frame of suit itself misconceived.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Smt.Yalla Parvathamma P.W.1 -None - Yella Venkata Ramana P.W.2- Edupalli Satya Vara Prasad P.W.3- 6

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/dt.11-06-2009 : Copy of registered settlement deed in favour of defendant

Ex.A2/dt.23-04-2016 : Municipal Tax Receipt in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A3/dt.20-04-1970 : Certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of

Plaintiff

Ex.A4/dt.12-09-2016 : Office copy of legal notice to defendant

Ex.A5/dt.12-09-2016 : Postal Receipt

FOR DEFENDANT: - Nil -

S.C.J., TPG.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: - SRI P.DAVID, M.A., B.L.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.8 OF 2008.

Between:

Karlapudi Lakshmi @ Dhanalakshmi … Plaintiff.

And

1.Eerpena Subba Rao(died)

2.Smt.Eerpina Chantamma

3.Eerpina Subba Rao

4.Eerpina Nagaraju

5.Bala Narsakumari (D2 to D5 are added as per the orders of this court in

I.A.No.1259/2010 dt. 28-07-2015) … Defendants

This suit coming on 19-04-2017 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri. M.Srinivasa Rao and M.Venkata Ratnam, Advocates for Plaintiff and of D1 died and D2 to D5 have been remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T:

1.This is the suit seeking decree for Rs.1,00,104/- with subsequent interest, costs and such other reliefs.

2. The particulars of the plaint in brief are:-

The querens’ contention is that out of necessity the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-, 26,000/- from the plaintiff on 09-09-2006 for the purpose his family and agricultural expenses and executed demand promissory notes to repay the same with interest @ 24% 2 per annum. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the debt due under the above promissory note. But, the defendant failed to pay any amount and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Finally on 18-09-2007 defendant issued a registered legal notice but the defendant did not pay any amount due under the above promissory note. Hence, the suit.

3. Though D1 appeared through his counsel did not file any written statement and pendente lite of the suit D1 died and his Legal representatives D2 to D5 are brought on record, but they failed appear

before the court, they were called absent and set exparte.

4. The plaintiff herself is examined as PW1 and also examined

Karlapudi Pulleswara Rao, 1st attestor of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 as PW2 and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

5. Heard the plaintiff’s Counsel.

6. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as

Prayed for?

7. POINT: - P.W.1’s evidence is nothing but replica of the plaint averments. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are the promissory notes dt. 09-09-2006 stands in the name of Karlapudi Lakshmi - Plaintiff executed by Eerpena Subba

Rao(D1) for Rs.30,000/-, Rs.30,000/-, Rs.26,000/- respectively, rate of interest is 24% per annum duly attested by PW2-1st attestor also d’accord with the evidence of PW1. On Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 the defendant subscribed his signature across the revenue stamps. As the D1 is an agriculturist the interest is claimed at 12% per annum. The plaintiff’s evidence is unchallenged. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs against the estate of D1 for a sum of Rs.1,00,104/- together with subsequent interest 3 on the principal amount of Rs.86,000-00 at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1 Smt.Karlapudi Lakshmi @ -None - Dhanalakshmi Karlapudi Pulleswara Rao P.W.2

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 to 09-09-2006Three suit promissory notes executed by the Ex.A3 defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A418-09-2007Office copy of legal notice

FOR DEFENDANT: - Nil -

S.C.J., TPG.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Sri P. David, M.A.,B.L.,

Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of April, 2017.

O.S.NO.30/2017

Between:

Ungarala Kasi Vishwanadh .... Plaintiff

And

Raily Phanendhra Syamala Kumari .... Defendant.

This is suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- being the amount of principal and interest due on promissory note dated 17-03-2014 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri A. Vijaya Ratnam, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant not appeared before this court and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff present and represented that he received amount in full. F.S.

Memo is filed. F.S. is recorded. Hence suit is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-P.David

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/-P.D.

S.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE : TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT : Sri.N Sreenivasa Rao

Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

Tuesday, this the 02nd day of May, 2017

S.C.No.21/2004

Between:

Inspector of Police, Ganapavaram PS …. Complainant

And

Dhakari Shankar …. Accused

This case is filed against the accused under sections 341, 365, 395 of IPC in

Cr.No.20/2001 of Ganapavaram Police Station.

This petition coming on this day before me in the presence of

Sri.K.S.Rama Krishna, Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of

Sri.D.V.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for A.1 to A.4 and of Sri.G.Phani Babu, Advocate for

A.5 to A.8 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

DOCKET ORDER

Entire record transferred to Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge

Court, West Godavari, Eluru.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 02nd day of May, 2017

Sd/-N.Sreenivasa Rao

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/-NSR

ASJ, TPG.