Ms.p.haneesha

::IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : Miss P.Haneesha, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Thursday, the 27th day of June, 2019

O.S.No.599/2017

Between:

Maicherla Nageswara Rao, S/o.Ganga Rao, Hindu, Aged 42 years, R/o.D.No.1-43, Gangampalem village, Gokavaram mandal, East Godavari District.…Plaintiff

And

Ramoju Siva, S/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged 29 years, R/o.D.No.8-134, Gokavaram mandal, East Godavari District. …Defendant

This suit having come on 26.06.2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.A.Basha, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.Malleswari, Advocate for the defendant, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,77,800/- along with subsequent interest on the foot of registered mortgage deed dt.26.02.2014.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.02.2014 for the purpose of meeting his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts by executing the registered mortgage deed dt.26.02.2014 by depositing his title deeds regarding the plaint schedule property. The defendant agreed that the debt amount will be discharged within two years i.e., on or before 25.2.2016. The defendant further stated that the plaint schedule property was acquired by him from Ramoju

Eeswaramma and other under Regd.Gift Settlement deed dt.25.10.2012 vide

Doc.No.4996 of 2012 of the office of Sub-Registrar, Korukonda. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay the monthly interest as per the averments of registered mortgage deed dt.26.02.2014 and so, the plaintiff is constrained to issue notice dt.25.03.2017 to the defendant calling him to repay the debt but, the defendant having received the said notice, kept quiet. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

3. Case of the Defendant:

The defendant filed written statement denying all the plaint averments and further submitted that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed mortgage deed in respect of plaint schedule property and in fact, the defendant borrowed Rs.30,000/- in the month of

February 2014 and at that time, the plaintiff took the xerox copy of defendant’s Gift settlement deed dt.25.10.2012 and obtained the signature of the defendant on blank papers towards security and subsequently, the defendant discharged the said amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest but, the plaintiff did not return the signed blank papers and xerox copy of title deed of the defendant stating that they were misplaced in his house and believing the same, the defendant did not insist for those papers. Taking advantage of those signed blank papers of the defendant, the plaintiff got fabricated the same as mortgage deed and filed the present suit in order to gain unlawfully. The alleged mortgage deed is a forged and fabricated document and was not supported by any consideration. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Issues Settled for Trial:

Basing on the pleadings of both parties and on hearing both sides, the following issues were settled before this court for trial :

1) Whether the mortgage deed dt.26.02.2014 is true, valied and legally binding on the defendant ?

2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get the suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for ?

3) To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, P.W.1 and 2 are examined on behalf of plaintiff and Ex.A.1 to A.3 are marked. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of respondent.

6.The arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant are treated as heard. Perused the material on record.

7. Issues No.1 and 2 :

(i)To prove the averments of plaint, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 who reiterated the averments of plaint in his chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.3. Ex.A.1 is the Registered mortgage deed executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff vide

Doc.No.2351/2012 dt.26.02.2014, Ex.A.2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.25.03.2017 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant and Ex.A.3 is the

Postal receipt for Doc.No.2 dt.25.03.2017. The chief examination evidence of P.W.1 shows that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from him on 26.02.2014 and executed registered mortgage deed in his favour by depositing his title deeds and the defendant has to pay the amount within two years i.e., on or before 25.02.2016, that one Ramoju Vasu and Smt Maicharla Bhavani were also present at the time of execution of mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff on 26.02.2014 and the said mortgage deed was prepared by Kota Venkata Sai Chakradhar and that in spite of repeated demands made by him, the defendant failed to discharge the debt with interest and so, he got issued notice dt.25.03.2017 to the defendant but, the defendant having received the same, kept quiet.

(ii)One Maicherla Bhavani who is a 3rd party to the suit proceedings is examined as P.W.2 and his chief examination evidence are in the lines of plaint. The witness further deposed that himself and one Ramoju Vasu were present at the time of lending amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant and at the time of execution of mortgage deed, he acted as witness to the suit transaction and that the suit mortgage deed was prepared by Sri Kota

Venkata Sai Chakradhar of Gokavaram and that the plaintiff lent the amount to the defendant in their presence.

(iii)In spite of conditional orders are passed, the learned counsel for the defendant did not choose to cross examine P.W.1 and 2 and hence, the cross examination of P.W.1 and 2 are treated as heard.

8.It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from him on 26.2.2014 and executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff by depositing title deeds and also agreeing to discharge the amount within two years i.e., on or before 25.02.2016 but, the defendant failed to discharge the debt and so, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.25.03.2017 and the defendant having received the notice, kept quiet. The plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and also examined one Maicherla Bhavani as P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 to A.3 are filed in support of his contention. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.3 show sufficient evidence that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and executed Ex.A.1 mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on 26.02.2014 agreeing to repay the same within two years but, the defendant failed to repay the same in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff and even after receipt of Ex.A.2 legal notice. On the other hand, it is mainly contended by the defendant that he never borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and never executed any mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and he borrowed only Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff and at that time, the plaintiff has obtained blank papers towards security but the plaintiff did not return the same even though the defendant discharged the said amount with interest and taking advantage of those signed blank papers of the defendant, the plaintiff got fabricated the same as mortgage deed and filed the present suit to gain wrongfully and the alleged mortgage deed is fabricated one. But, the defendant has not placed any iota of evidence in support of such pleading and contention. For arguments sake, even if we believe the version of defendant as true, the defendant did not issue any legal notice requesting the plaintiff to return the blank papers along with xerox copy of his title deeds and did not take any legal action against the plaintiff, for the best reasons known to him. Hence, such contentions of defendant are not taken into consideration by this

Hon’ble Court. It is well settled principle that every pleading must be

supported by cogent evidence. In the present case, the defendant contended that the mortgage deed is fabricated and forged document and it is not supported by any consideration but, the defendant failed to adduce any iota of evidence in support of such pleading and contention. Hence, such pleading and contentions of defendant are not tenable. Therefore, this

Court holds that the mortgage deed is true, valid and legally binding on the defendant and so, the plaintiff is entitled to get the suit amount with subsequent interest. Accordingly, issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9. Issue No.3:

Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.2,77,800/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12%per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on the principal amount of

Rs.1,50,000/-. Three months time is granted for redemption.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the, 27 th day of June, 2019.

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :

P.W.1:Maicherla Nageswara rao

P.W.2:Maicherla Bhavani

For Defendant: NIL

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Registered mortgage deed executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff vide Doc.No.2351/2012 dt.26.02.2014.

Ex.A.2 :Office copy of legal notice dt.25.03.2017 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.A.3:Postal receipt for Doc.No.2 dt.25.03.2017.

For Defendant: NIL

IV A.J.C.J.

1 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.172/2018

::IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : Miss P.Haneesha, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Thursday, the 27th day of June, 2019.

O.S.No.172/2018

Between:

Sri Nanduri Nooka raju, S/o.Chintaiah, Aged 66 years, D.No.1-9-5, Meraka Street, Retd.Employee, R/o.Kovvur, K.P.J.C.J.C., W.G.District.…Plaintif

AND

Bakka Nageswara Rao, S/o.Aravulu, Hindu, Aged 46 years, D.No.3-124, R/o.Gadarada Village, Korukonda Mandal, R.P.J.C.J.F.C., East Godavari District. …Defendant

This suit having come on 27.06.2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.N.N.Taghore, Advocate for the plaintif and of

Sri P.Jaya Rama Krishna, Advocate for the defendant and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,43,787-00 with subsequent interest on the foot of simple registered mortgage deed.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintif on 25.07.2011 for the purpose of his family expenses and executed a simple mortgage deed on 25.07.2011 in favour of the plaintif, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 30% p.a., and mortgaged the plaint schedule property as colleteral security for the amount borrowed and as per the terms of mortgage deed, the defendant agreed to repay entire debt together with interest within two years and the interest is to be paid in every six months and in case of default of the same, the plaintif is at liberty to recover the entire debt with interest by enforcing the mortgage. Subsequently, in spite of 2 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.172/2018 repeated demands made by the plaintif for repayment of mortgage debt, the defendant did not choose to repay the same and so, the plaintif got issued registered legal notice dt.10.07.2017 to the defendant demanding him to discharge the mortgage debt but, the defendant having received the said notice kept quiet. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the present suit.

3. Case of the Defendant :

Written statement is filed by the defendant denying all the plaint averments and further submitted that the defendant discharged the amount borrowed by him together with interest to the plaintif and after discharging the same, the defendant requested the plaintif to cancel the registered mortgage deed dt.25.07.2011 but, the plaintif postponed the same on one pretext or other and subsequently the plaintif demanded higher rate of interest and informed that unless and until his illegal demand is satisfied, he will not cancel the registered mortgage deed dt.25.07.2011.

Then, the defendant placed the matter before the elders who admonished the plaintif but, the plaintif did not listen to their words and openly proclaimed that he would not cancel the registered mortgage deed until his demand of higher rate of interest on the principal amount is satisfied. It is further submitted that there are no due amounts payable by the defendant to the plaintif. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.ISSUES SETTLED FOR TRAIL:

Basing on the above pleadings, the court settled the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of

Rs.1,43,787/- from the defendant with subsequent interest,

as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

3 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.172/2018

5.PROCEEDINGS AT THE STAGE OF TRIAL:

During course of trial, P.W.1 and 2 are examined and Ex.A.1 and

A.2 are marked on behalf of plaintif. On the other hand, the defendant counsel reported no evidence.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif. The arguments of counsel for defendant are treated as heard. Perused the material on record.

7.Issues No.1 :

(i)To prove the averments of plaint, the plaintif himself got examined as P.W.1 who reiterated the averments of plaint in his chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 and A.2. Ex.A.1 is the Registered mortgage deed executed by Bakka Nageswara Rao in favour of plaintif dt.25.07.2011 and Ex.A.2 is the registered legal notice issued by the plaintif to the defendant along with original postal receipt. During cross examination,

P.W.1 deposed that he got acquaintance with the defendant when he went to the registered office to register the document of his brother-in-law, that the defendant asked him to lend Rs.25,000/- and so, he lent the same at registered office and the defendant executed mortgage deed in his favour on the same day and that Appala Narasayya and Subbarao were present at the time of mortgage transaction. P.W.1 further deposed that he lent the amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of cash in the denomination of Rs.100/- and he got issued legal notice to the defendant prior to filing of the present suit.

(ii)One Regani Durga Venkata Subba Rao is examined as P.W.2 who stated in his chief examination affidavit that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintif and executed a simple registered mortgage deed on 25.07.2011 in favour of the plaintif, that the consideration was passed in the presence of SRO., Korukonda and he is one of the attestors to the mortgage deed dt.25.07.2011 and one Appala Narasayya was another 4 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.172/2018 attesting witness and that the defendant has duly put his thumb impression on Ex.A.1 document before him and another attestor and SRO, Korukonda.

All other averments of his chief examination affidavit are in the lines of plaint.

During cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that himself, Rajarao, Sanyasirao,

P.W.1 and defendant were present at the time of mortgage transaction, that the amount of Rs.25,000/- was given to the defendant in the denomination of

Rs.100/- notes and the mortgage transaction was took place in the Korukonda

Sub-Registrar office but, he does not remember whether P.W.1 subscribed his signature or put his thumb impression on Ex.A.1.

8.The defendant counsel reported no evidence.

9.It is the case of the plaintif that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- for his family expenses and executed a simple registered mortgage deed on 25.07.2011 in favour of the plaintif, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 30% and mortgaged the plaint schedule proerty as colleteral security for the amount borrowed and as per the demands of registered mortgage deed, the defendant has to pay the entire debt of Rs.25,000/- along with interest within two years but, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif and even after issuance of legal notice, the defendant failed to repay the debt. The plaintif himself got examined as P.W.1 and also examined one of the attesting witnesses of mortgage deed as P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 and A.2 are filed in support of his contention. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1 and A.2 sufficiently prove that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- and executed registered mortgage deed infavour of the plaintif on 25.07.2011, agreeing to repay the same with interest in two years but the defendant failed to repay the same. On the other hand, the defendant through his pleading admitted the borrowing of an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintif and further admitted the execution of Ex.A.1 mortgage deed in favour of the plaintif. But, it is the main contention of defendant that he 5 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.172/2018 discharged the entire amount borrowed by him together with interest but, the plaintif failed to cancel the said registered mortgage deed for the best reasons known to him. No piece of evidence is filed before this Hon’ble Court to show that he discharged the entire mortgage debt to the plaintif. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by the defendant to prove his pleading and contentions. It is well settled principle that every pleading must be supported by valid and cogent evidence. In the present case, though the defendant pleaded and contended that he discharged the entire mortgage deed but, he failed to file any iota evidence in support of such pleading and contention. Therefore, such contention and pleading of the defendant is not taken into consideration. Therefore, in view of discussion held supra, this

Court opines that the plaintif is entitled to get the suit amount of

Rs.1,43,787/- from the defendant with subsequent interest.

9. Issue No.2 :

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,43,787/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12%per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on the principal amount of Rs.25,000/-.

Three months time is granted for redemption.

Dictated to the directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the, 27 th day of June, 2019.

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined For Plaintiff :

P.W.1 :Nanduri Nookaraju

P.W.2 :Regani Durga Venkata Subba Rao

For Defendant: NIL 6 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.172/2018

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : Registered mortgage deed executed by Bakka Nageswara Rao in favour of plaintif dt.25.07.2011.

Ex.A.2 : Registered legal notice issued by the plaintif to the defendant along with original postal receipt.

For Defendant: NIL

IV A.J.C.J.

Rajamahendravaram.

1 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.752/2016

::IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : Miss P.Haneesha, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Thursday, the 27th day of June, 2019

O.S.No.752/2016

Between:

Bayyapu Kanna Rao, S/o.Narayana Swamy, Hindu, Cultivation, Aged 68 years, R/o.G.Kothapalli village, Gokavaram Mandal, E.G.District.…Plaintiff

And

Mallapureddy Janaki, W/o.Sanyasi rao, Hindu, Housewife, Aged 45 years, R/o.D.No.1-50, Pedda Veedhi, G.Kothapalli Village, Gokavaram mandal, E.G.District. …Defendant

This suit having come on 25.06.2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Bharani Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Bayye Ramu, Advocate for the defendant, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.78,356/- with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2. Case of the Plaintiff :

The defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.49,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.09.2014 for the purpose of meeting his family expenses and executed on demand promissory note on even date in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant simply procrastinated by giving evasive answers.

On that, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dt.04.09.2016 to the defendant and the same was not received by the defendant and the defendant got 2 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.752/2016 managed the postal authorities, made it returned and kept quiet. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

3. Case of the Defendant:

Written statement is filed by the defendant denying all the plaint averments and further submitted that there are some disputes in the defendant’s family and by taking advantage of the relatives of the defendant, the plaintiff forged the signature of the defendant with the help of scribe and attestors, that the defendant does not know who are the attestors and scribe and that the defendant has no relationship as debtor. It is averred that the defendant has no necessity to borrow such amount from the plaintiff and taking advantage of disputes between the defendant and her relatives, the plaintiff got filed the present suit. Hence, sought for dis- missal of the suit.

4. Issues Settled for Trial:

Basing on the pleadings of both parties and on hearing both sides, the following issues were settled before this court for trial :

1) Whether the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.49,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.09.2014 and

executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff ?

2) Whether the signature of the defendant on suit promissory note is forged ?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim of

Rs.78,356/- with subsequent interest, as prayed for ?

4) To what relief ?

5.During the Course of trial, P.W.1 is examined on behalf of plaintiff and the evidence of P.W.2 was closed on 12.03.2019. Ex.A.1 to A.3 marked 3 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.752/2016 on behalf of plaintiff. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of defendant.

6.Heard the plaintiff counsel arguments. The arguments of learned counsel for defendant are treated as heard.

7. Issue No.1 to 3 :

(i)In order to prove the averments of plaint, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 who reiterated the averments of plaint in his chief examination affidavit that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.49,000/- from him on 06.09.2014 and got executed Ex.A.1 demand promissory note in his favour, that the said transaction was took place at his residence and that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay any amount either towards principal or interest to the plaintiff and so the plaintiff got issued legal notice dt.04.09.2016 under Ex.A.2 and the defendant did not receive the same and failed to repay the debt. In spite of sufficient time is given and the conditional orders are passed, the counsel for defendant did not turn up to cross examine P.W.1 and hence, cross examination of P.W.1 is treated as nil.

(ii)No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of defendant.

8.It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.49,000/- from him on 06.09.2014 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of him but in spite of repeated demands made by him, the defendant procrastinated by giving evasive answers and so, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 04.09.2016 demanding her to repay amount but the defendant did not receive the said notice and got managed the postal authorities and kept quiet. The plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to P.3 are filed in support of his contention.

4 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.752/2016

The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.3 sufficiently prove the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note by the defendant after receiving of consideration of Rs.49,000/-. On the other hand, it is mainly contended by the defendant that the plaintiff forged her signature with the help of scribe and attestors but, no legal action was taken by the defendant against the plaintiff and further, the defendant failed to adduce any evidence to show the same. Hence, such contention of the defendant appears to be not tenable. It is further contention of the defendant that there are some disputes in defendant’s family and by taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff got filed the present suit and there was no creditor and debtor relationship between the plaintiff and defendant but, the defendant failed to adduce any piece of evidence before this Hon’ble Court in support of her pleading and contentions. It is well settled principle that mere pleadings without any valid and cogent evidence is of no use. In the present case, the defendant contended that her signature was forged and there is no creditor and debtor relationship between the plaintiff and herself but, no scrap of paper and no oral evidence is adduced before this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the contentions raised by the defendant in her pleading are not taken into consideration. Therefore, this Court opines that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.49,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.09.2014 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the signature of the defendant on Ex.A.1 promissory note is not forged as contended by the defendant. So, the plaintiff is entitled to get the suit claim of Rs.78,356/- with subsequent interest. Accordingly, issue No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant .

9. Issue No.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.78,356/- with 5 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.752/2016 subsequent interest at the rate of 12%per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on the principal amount of

Rs.49,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the, 27 th day of June, 2019.

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined For Plaintiff :

P.W.1:Bayyapu Kanna Rao

For Defendant: NIL

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Promissory note dt.06.09.2014 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.49,000/-.

Ex.A.2 :Regd.Notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dt.04.09.2016.

Ex.A.3:Returned cover with acknowledgment due from the defendant.

For Defendant: NIL

IV A.J.C.J.

6 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.752/2016

1 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.656/2017

::IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : Miss P.Haneesha, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Thursday, the 27th day of June, 2019

O.S.No.656/2017

Between: Pinninti Mahesh, S/o.Panduranga Rao, Hindu, Aged 30 years, Managing Partner, M/s.Mahesh Finance, R/o.D.No.44-9-27/1, Annapurnampeta, Rajamahendravaram.…Plaintiffs

And

1. Sagi Venkatapathi Raju, S/o.Late Gopala Raju, Hindu, Aged 55 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.45-29-37/1, Ambedkar Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, E.G.District.

2. Danthuluri Aruna, W/o.Ramachandra Raju, Hindu, Aged 35 years, Housewife, R/o.D.NO.45-29-37/1, Ambedkar Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, E.G.District.

3. Thirumalaraju Suneetha, W/o.Sivarama Chandra Raju, Hindu, Aged 25 years, Anganwadi Teacher, R/o.D.NO.45-29-37/1, Ambedkar Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, E.G.District.…Defendants

This suit having come on 20.06.2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Bharani Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 were set ex-parte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

The plaintiff is doing business in the plaint schedule property in the name and style of M/s.Mahesh Finance which is registered firm before the

Registrar of Firms, Rajamahendravaram. It is submitted that the plaintiff took 2 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.656/2017 lease of plaint schedule property from defendants previously on 01.04.2012 for a period of 3 years and the plaintiff paid refundable advance of

Rs.15,000/- to the defendant and subsequently, the plaintiffs and defendants

No.1 to 3 got executed lease agreement on 10.10.2015 by making specifications that the lease period which commences from 10.10.2015 to 09.10.2018 i.e., for a period of 3 years and the rent payable for the plaint schedule property was Rs.6,945/- and the plaintiff used to pay the rent to the defendants and obtain receipt from them. It is averred that the plaintiff is do- ing business in the plaint schedule property and is also paying the electricity bills to the APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram but during the pendency of lease agreement, the defendants started insisting the plaintiff to enhance the rent from Rs.6,945/- to Rs.10,000/- upon having an eye shore over the business of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff declined to enhance the rent, the defendants started giving threats to the plaintiff that they will forcibly evict the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property and the 1st defendant along with his henchmen by name Venkateswara Raju,

Krishnam Raju, Venkatapathi Raju, Padmavathi, Rama Krishna raju and other local political leaders made illegal attempts to forcibly evict the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff resisted the same with great difficulty. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

3.The defendants failed to appear before the Court and were set ex-parte on 17.12.2018.

4.P.W.1 was examined on behalf of plaintiff and Exs.A.1 to A.6 are marked.

5.The arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff are treated as heard. Perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?” 3 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.656/2017

7. POINT:-

To prove the averments of plaint, the plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 who reiterated the averments of plaint in his chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.6. Ex.A.1 is the Original lease agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants dt.10.10.2015,

Ex.A.2 is the original previous lease agreement between plaintiff and defendants dt.01.04.2012, Ex.A.3 is the original electricity bills paid by plaintiff to APEPDCL dt.21.8.2017, Ex.A.4 is the original license fee paid by plaintiff to the commissioner municipal corporation, Rajahmundry in the name of plaintiff, Ex.A.5 is the bunch of house rent receipts issued by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A.6 is the original photographs along with

C.D.It is the case of the plaintiff that he took lease of the plaint schedule property from the defendants previously on 01.04.2012 for a period of 3 years and subsequently on 10.10.2015 to 09.10.2018 i.e., for a period of 3 years and the rent for the plaint schedule property was fixed at Rs.6,945/- but the defendants as contrary to the terms and conditions and lease agreement and during pendency of lease agreement period, started insisting the plaintiff to enhance the rent from Rs.6,945/- to Rs.10,000/- and also giving threats to the plaintiff that they will forcibly evict the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and

Ex.A.1 to A.6 are filed in support of his contention. On perusal of facts and evidence on record, this Court deems it fit to dismiss the petition for the following reasons :

i)A perusal of Ex.A.1 and A2 goes to show that two lease agreements do not contain the schedule of the property in respect of which the said lease agreements were executed. There is no mentioning of plaint schedule property either in Ex.A.1 or in Ex.A.2. So, there is no averment in

Ex.A.1 and A.2 regarding the schedule of property in respect of which the lease agreements were executed between the plaintiff and defendants.

4 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.656/2017 ii)Ex.A.3 is not either in the name of plaintiff or the defendants and so, it is no way helpful to prove the case of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff filed Ex.A.4 in respect of the plaint schedule property but the door number of the same is nowhere mentioned in Ex.A.1 averments and so,

Ex.A.4 is also no way supports the case of the plaintiff. Ex.A.5 shows that an amount of Rs.6,945/- is paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant towards rent and Ex.A.5 contains the signatures of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff but, there are no averments in Ex.A.5 house rents as to whether the said house rent receipts were issued in respect of plaint schedule property. In the absence of such averments, it cannot be inferred that Ex.A.5 rents receipts were issued in respect of plaint schedule property.

iii)Mere filing of photos along with C.D under Ex.A.6 does not confer possession of plaint schedule property over the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff failed to produce any valid and cogent evidence to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

8.In view of discussion held in supra, this Court opines that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

9.ISSUE NO.2:

Point No.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court, this the, 27 th day of June, 2019.

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

5 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.656/2017

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined For Plaintiffs:

P.W.1 :Pinninti Mahesh

For Defendant: NIL

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 :Original lease agreement executed between plaintiff and defen- dants dt.10.10.2015.

Ex.A.2 :Original previous lease agreement between plaintiff and defen- dants dt.01.04.2012.

Ex.A.3 :Original electricity bills paid by plaintiff to APEPDCL dt.21.8.2017.

Ex.A.4 :Original license fee paid by plaintiff to the commissioner municipal corporation, Rajahmundry in the name of plaintiff.

Ex.A.5 :Bunch of house rent receipts issued by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.6 :Original photographs along with C.D.

For Defendants: NIL

IV A.J.C.J.

Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : Miss P.Haneesha, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram. Friday, this the 23rd day of July, 2021.

C.C.No.1397/2021

Between: The State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Korukonda Police Station.... Complainant

A N D

Kotla Kasi Babu, S/o.Venkanna babu, Aged 33 years, C/Vysya, Burugupudi village, Korukonda mandal.…Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for Prosecution, and of accused was present in-person and upon hearing, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arose out of Crime No.201/2021 of Korukonda Police Station registered against accused for the offence under Section 269 of IPC.

2.The brief case of prosecution is as follows:

On 22.05.2021 at about 5.45 P.M to 6.00 P.M at mainroad, burugupudi village, Korukonda mandal, the accused opened his kirana shop and selling items to customers and due to which there was a public gathering which shows his negligence towards the Government orders and it leads to public health issues which clearly shows his disobedience to orders duly promulgated by Government of

Andhra Pradesh in connection with prevention of Covid-19. L.W.3 registered the case against accused under section 188 of IPC but later filed charge sheet, altering the section of law from 188 of IPC to 269 of IPC only.

3. On perusal of material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offence under section 269 of IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, relevant copies of documents were furnished to accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., explaining the substance of material available on record 2 against him for the offence punishable under section 269 of IPC, having understood the same for which he pleaded guilty. The accused is warned as to the proposed punishment which is going to be received by this Court. Yet, the accused voluntarily admitted the guilt. Hence, this court is satisfied that the admission of the accused is not due to any threat or coercion.

5.Therefore, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 269 of IPC and he is convicted under section 252 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused is asked as to the quantum of sentence for which he stated that he has to look after his family members and if he is put in jail, his family members would suffer a lot and prayed this Court to take lenient view.

7.Having regard to the nature of the offence proved against the accused and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to invoke the beneficial provisions of Prohibition of Offenders Act in favour of the accused. However, after considering the plea, age and financial condition of the accused, this Court opines that it is a fit case to take lenient view.

8.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 269 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under section 252 of Cr.P.C and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of which sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under section 269 of IPC.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 23 rd day of July, 2021.

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-- NONE –

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

3

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of Cases tried by IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Release on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22.05.2021 22.05.2021 22.05.2021 22.05.2021 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 23.07.2021 23.07.2021 23.07.2021 --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Judgment of Calendar Case No.1397/2021 on the file of IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police. Cr.No.201/2021 of Korukonda P.S., Rajamahendravaram. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion: Calling Village ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kotla Kasi Babu, S/o.Venkanna babu, Aged 33 years, C/Vysya, Burugupudi village, Korukonda mandal. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence: Under Sections 269 of IPC.

Finding: Accused is found guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 269 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under section 252 of Cr.P.C and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of which sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under section 269 of IPC.

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, E.G., Kakinada.