Smt. P. LaxmiKumari

1 SCS.6-2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt. P.Lakshmi Kumari, B.A.LL.B., PGD in PM and IR

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 14th day of March, 2013

SCS.No. 06 of 2012 Between:-

Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Nizamabad Branch, having its office at H.No.5-6- 510/6 & 7A, Saraswathi Nagar, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad, Represented by Sri T. Ganga Prasad s/o T.S. Swamy age 45 years, Occ: Legal Officer, R/o Nizamabad. Plaintiff

And

1. K.Naven Kumar, S/o Bhumaiah, age: 36 years, Occ: Head Constable, Andhra Bank Currency Chest, Nizamabad.

2. K.Bala Krishna Goud, S/o Pocha Goud, age: 39 years, Occ: Constable 2303, Andhra Bank Currency Chest, Nizamabad, R/o H.No.3-10-166, Andhra Bank Currency Chest, Bada Bazar, Nizamabad.

3. B.Bala Obulesh, S/o Balanna, age: 34 years, Occ: Constable No.1879, Andhra Bank Currency Chest, Bada Bazar, Nizamabad, R/o H.No. 3-10-166, Andhra Bank Currency Chest, Bada Bazar, Nizamabad.

4. K.Sanjeeva Rao, S/o Prakash Rao, age: 52 years, Occ: Asst. Sub-Inspector: 850, Andhra Bank Currency Chest, Nizamabad, R/o H.No. 3-10-166, Andhra Bank Currency Chest, Bada Bazar, Nizamabad.

5. M. Saroja, W/o Mallesh, age: 28 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No. 1-52/1, Borgam (P), Nizamabad.

6. K.Venkatarao, S/o Rajanrao, age: 34 years, Occ: Branch Manager, C/o Rao Chit Funds Nirmal, Near Natraj Talkies, Nirmal, Adilabad District.

7. P.Rajendra Chary, S/o Mogilia, age: 25 years, Occ: Accounts Officer, C/o Kapil Chit Funds (P) Ltd., Nizamabad.

Defendants This suit coming on before me on 11.3.2014 for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Narayandas advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 7 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

1. The plaintiff company filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,910/- together with agreed rate of interest.

2.The case of the plaintiff company in brief is as follows:-

The defendant No.1 joined the chit fund scheme of the plaintiff company in the chit series and he was allotted Ticket VT03F-18 of chit fund scheme of the plaintiff company and defendant no.1 agreed to subscribe at the rate of

Rs.2,000/- per month payable on or before the 10th of each month for 50 months continuously for total value of Rs.1,00,000/- and he signed agreement of chit on 02.05.2007. That the said chit commenced from 27.05.2007 and termination of the said chit was on 27-8-2011 according to their bylaws no.220/2006-07 dated 18.1.2007. That the defendant no.1 participated in the

2 SCS.6-2012

chit auction conducted on 27-07-2008 in which the defendant no.1 was declared successful bidder and he agreed to forego Rs.37,900/- out of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was confirmed by the plaintiff company. The defendant no.1 in order to receive the bid amount furnished defendant nos.2 to 7 as guarantors to draw the said amount and defendant nos.2 to 7 stood as guarantors for the said chit amount received by the defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 to 7 executed agreement of guarantee on 17.10.2008 in favour of the plaintiff company and agreed to be jointly and severally liable for the repayment of amount due to the plaintiff company by the defendant no.1 and by virtue of the said agreement of guarantee, Defendant Nos.2 to 7 become liable jointly and severally for

Rs.70,000/- and all the Defendants 1 to 7 executed joint promissory note on 17.10.2008 for Rs.70,000/- as collateral security in favour of the plaintiff company. That the plaintiff company paid Rs.60,302/- through cheque

No.79220, dt.17.10.2008, Rs.1,798/- through cheque No.79221, dt.17.10.2008 i.e. total prized amount of Rs.62,100/- was paid to the Defendant No.1 on 17.10.2008. That defendant no.1 paid 48 instalments and committed default in payment from 49th installment from May, 2011. That plaintiff company demanded the due from the defendant no.1 and also intimated the same to defendant nos.2 to 7 to repay the loan amount. But defendants did not comply the same. That plaintiff company at last got issued legal notice on defendant nos.1 to 7 on 31.102.2012, but the defendants did not pay the amount due to the Plaintiff company. Thus, the defendants are due an amount of Rs.2,910/- payable to the plaintiff chit fund.

3. The defendant No.1 in spite of receipt of summons, called absent and defendant no.1 set exparte. The defendants 2 to 7 in spite of paper publication, called absent and hence, defendants 2 to 7 set exparte.

4.On behalf of plaintiff Chit Fund its Legal Officer T.Ganga Prasad, is examined as Pw1 and reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Ex.A1 is certified copy of Incorporation certificate, Ex.A2 is authorization letter, Ex.A3 is Chit agreement of D-1, Ex.A4 is Agreement of Guarantee of Defendant Nos.2 to 7, Ex.A5 is demand promissory note of D-1 to D7, Ex.A6 is Cash payment voucher, Ex.A7 is office copy of legal notice, Ex.A8 is Postal receipt of

3 SCS.6-2012

defendant No.1, Ex.A9 is Postal receipt of defendant No.2, Ex.A10 is Postal receipt of defendant No.3, Ex.A11 is Postal receipt of Defendant No.4, Ex.A12 is

Postal receipt of defendant No.5, Ex.A13 is Postal receipt of Defendant No.6,

Ex.A14 is Postal receipt of Defendant No.7 and Ex.A-15 is Account Statement of defendant No.1.

5. Heard.

6.Point for consideration is:

1. whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for suit amount as prayed?

2.To what relief?

7.The Plaintiff in order to establish its case got examined one

T.Ganga Prasad S/o T.S.Swamy, who is working as legal officer in plaintiff company deposed to the effect that the defendant No.1 joined the chit fund scheme of the plaintiff company on 02.05.2007 and he was allotted ticket

No.VT03F-18 for the chit value of Rs.1,00,000/- to be subscribed at the rate of

Rs.2,000/- per month for 50 months executing chit agreement in favour of the plaintiff company and that the defendant No.1 participated in the auction conducted on 27.07.2008 and the defendant No.1 being the successful bidder having agreed to forego Rs.37,900/-. That the first defendant No.1 paid

Rs.30,000/- and in order to withdraw the chit amount defendant No.1 produced defendants No.2 to 7 who executed agreement of guarantee dated 17.10.2008 towards future liability of Rs.70,000/-, and the first defendant was paid prize amount of Rs.60,302/- through cheque No.79220, dt.17.10.2008, Rs.1,798/- through cheque No.79221, dt.17.10.2008 and total being amount of

Rs.62,100/-. That the first defendant committed default in payment from 49th installment i.e., from May, 2011. That the plaintiff company got issued the legal notice on 31.10.2012. That defendant Nos.1 to 7 received legal notice but failed to pay the amount and due to the plaintiff company.

8.The evidence of Pw1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A15 discloses that Defendant

No.1 availed the chit and entered into agreement with Plaintiff Chit Fund and

Defendant Nos.2 to 7 stood as guarantors for the repayment of Chit amount availed by Defendant No.1. That defendant No.1 failed to repay the chit amount

4 SCS.6-2012

as agreed and that the Defendant No.1 committed default in payment of due amount which is evident from Ex.A15 account statement of defendant No.1, and that as on the date of suit the defendants are liable to pay the outstanding chit amount of Rs.2910/-. Hence, the defendants are liable to pay Rs.2,910/- including with interest. Point answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff chit fund and against the defendants.

9.Point No.2:- To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.2,910/- (Rupees Two thousand

Nine Hundred Ten only) with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 7 jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount with interest on the principal amount only @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 14th day of March, 2014.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

::Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff: Defendants: Pw1:T.Ganga Prasad Nil

Exhibits Marked for

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Incorporation Certificate, -Nil- Ex.A2: Certified copy of Authorization letter. Ex.A3: Chit agreement of D1. Ex.A4: Agreement of Guarantee of Defendant Nos.2 to 7. Ex.A5: Demand promissory note of D1 to D7. Ex.A6: Cash payment voucher. Ex.A7: Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A8: Postal receipt of Defendant No.1 Ex.A9: Postal receipt of Defendant No.2 Ex.A10: Postal receipt of Defendant No.3. Ex.A11: Postal receipt of Defendant No.4 Ex.A12: Postal receipt of Defendant No.5 Ex.A13: Postal receipt of Defendant No.6 Ex.A14: Postal receipt of Defendant No.7 Ex.A15: Account Statement.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

1 O.S.No.259/13

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt.P.Lakshmi Kumari, B.A.LL.B., PGD in PM & IR

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2014

O.S.No. 259 of 2013

Between: Mohammed Anees, S/o Hasan Mohammed, aged (38) years, Occ:Business, R/o H.No. 1-10-29, Phulong, Nizamabad.

..Plaintiff

And

1. Smt. Muntaz Jahan, W/o Mohammed Ibrahim, aged about (57) years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No. 6-3-90, Pamula Basti, Nizamabad.

2. Mohammed Ibrahim, S/o M.A.Sattar, Aged (55) years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 6-3-90, Pamula Basti, Nizamabad.

..Defendants

This suit coming on before me on 05th day of March, 2014 for hearing in the presence of Sri Mohd. Sadullah, Advocate, for the plaintiff, and the defendants no.1 and 2 set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.That plaintiff filed this suit seeking decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining defendants from causing any kind of interference in to the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over suit schedule property1 and costs.

2.The case of the plaint in brief is as follows:

The plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of part of

Manglore tiles roofed residential house with open place bearing part of municipal H.No.1-7-43 (towards northern side) situated at Phulong

Nizamabad, admeasuring Mangalore tiles roofed house plinth area (378.00) 1 :Suit Schedule Property: The existing part of Manglore tiles roofed Residential House with open place bearing part of Municipal H.No. 1-7-43 (towards northern side) situated at Phulong Nizamabad, admeasuring Mangalore tiles roofed house plinth area (378.00) Sq.ft. And the total area (75.00) Sq.yards, as bounded by: North: 30'-0” wide road. East : Open place of Khaja Iqbaluddin bearing part of Municipal No.1-7-43. West: 30'-0” wide road South: House of Abdul Khadar.

2 O.S.No.259/13

Sq.ft. and the total area (75.00) Sq.yards, having purchased through registered sale deed document No.6247/2013 dated 28.03.2013 from defendant No.1, and since then plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property. That defendant no.2 who is husband of defendant no.1 has signed on the registered sale deed document as witness. That plaintiff got mutated the suit schedule property on his name in the records of Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad and got issued house tax of suit schedule property on his name. That defendant No.1 was owner of H.No. 1- 7-43 situated at Phulong, Nizamabad and she made two portions of said house property and one portion sold to plaintiff and another portion to one

Khaja Iqbaluddin by virtue of registered sale deeds and delivered possession to plaintiff and Khaja Iqbaluddin. That the rates of suit schedule property are increasing day by day. That defendants approach plaintiff, demanding plaintiff and another purchaser to resale the suit schedule property otherwise defendants will dispossess the plaintiff from suit schedule property. That on 27.10.2013 defendants along with their relatives and henchmen came to the suit schedule property and attempted to dispossess plaintiff from suit schedule property. That plaintiff restrained the acts of the defendants with the help of locality people and well wishers. That while leaving the spot defendants threatened plaintiff that they will come again with a great force and will dispossess plaintiff from suit schedule property, there is no way to go. Hence this suit.

3.After receipt of service of summons, defendants called absent and hence the defendants were set exparte.

4.In support of suit claim, the plaintiffs examined himself as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 is certified copy of registered sale deed document bearing No. 6247/13 dated 28.03.2013.

3 O.S.No.259/13

5. Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

Point:-

6.The plaintiff as Pw1 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, reiterated the contents of the plaint averments and deposed that he is absolute owner and possessor of existing part of Mangalore tiles roofed residential house with open place bearing part of Municipal H.No.1-7- 43 (towards northern side), admeasuring Mangalore tiles roofed house plinth area (378.00) Sqft., and the total area (75.00) Sq.yards, situated at Phulong

Nizamabad, having purchased through registered sale deed document bearing No. 6247/2013 dated 28.03.2013 from defendant No.1, since the date of purchase Pw.1 is in possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property. That defendant No.2 who is husband of defendant No.1 has signed on registered sale deed as witness. That Pw.1 has got mutated the suit schedule property on his name in the record of Municipal Corporation,

Nizamabad and got issued house tax on his name. That on 27.10.2013 defendants along with their relatives and henchmen came to the suit schedule property and attempted to dispossess the Pw.1 from suit schedule property. That Pw1 apprehends threat of dispossession in the hands of defendants.

7.That the defendants did not lead any rebuttal evidence to disprove the cause of action for filing the suit by the plaintiff. Moreover,

Pw.1 was not cross-examined by the defendants.

8.The evidence of Pw.1 coupled with documentary evidence under

Ex.A1 remained unchallenged and intact, clinchingly establishes that plaintiff 4 O.S.No.259/13 is possession and enjoyment over suit property as on the date of filing suit.

The evidence of Pw.1 also establish that on 27.10.2013 defendants along with henchmen came to the suit schedule property and attempted to dispossess plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e., part of Mangalore tiles roofed residential house with open place bearing part of Municipal

H.No.1-7-43 (towards northern side), admeasuring Mangalore tiles roofed house plinth area (378.00) Sqft., and the total area (75.00) Sq.yards, situated at Phulong Nizamabad. Thus, the point answered accordingly, in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

9.Point No.2:To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of March, 2014.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Appendix of evidence For Plaintiff of witnesses examined For defendants Pw1: Mohammed Anees, - None- : EXHIBITS MARKED :

Ex.A1: Certified copy of the registered sale Nil deed document bearing No.6247/13

dt: 28.03.2013

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

1 OS.17/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt. P.Lakshmi Kumari, B.A.LL.B., PGD in PM and IR

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2014

O.S.No. 17 of 2014

Between: Mohmmad Aijaz, S/o Md. Fathu, age: 31 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No. 1021, Mittapally village, Mandal: Dichpally, Dist: Nizamabad.

..Plaintiff

And

1. The Regional Pass Port Officer, O/o Regional Passport Office, Adjacent to Prashanth Theatre, Clock Tower, Secundrabad.

2. Pass Port Sevakendra Officer, O/o Pass Port Sevakendra office, J.B. Towers, Pragathi nagar, Nizamabad.

..Defendants

This suit coming on before me on 06.3.2014 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri G.Narayana Das, Advocate for the plaintiff and Defendant no.1 and 2 set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree declaring the name of plaintiff as Mohmmad Aijaz, S/o Md. Fathu instead of Azaas Khan, S/o Fathulla

Khan and date of birth as 12.08.1982 instead of date of birth as 27.09.1978.

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

That plaintiff is resident of Mittapalli village of Dichpaloli Mandal, District

Nizamabad. That plaintiff completed his graduation in Bachelor of Arts (General) from EIILM university Sikkim. That plaintiff born on 12.08.1982 and his name is Mohammed Aijaz, S/o M.D. Fathu. That farther of plaintiff being illiterate and lack of knowledge has wrongly mentioned dated of birth of plaintiff

as 27.09.1978 and name of plaintiff as Azaas Khan, S/o Fathulla Khan in the

application of plaintiff for obtaining pass port in year 2003, as such the plaintiff approached the authority of defendants at the time of renewal of passport and requested the defendants to make correction of name and date of birth in the original passport and the officials of defendants orally informed that the name and date of birth can not be corrected in the passport on the basis of affidavit and 2 OS.17/2014 instructed to get a declaratory order from Court. Hence plaintiff filed this suit.

3.After receipt of service of summons on defendant no.1 and 2, called absent and hence the defendants were set exparte.

4.In support of suit claim, the plaintiff examined himself as Pw1 and

Pw.2 and got marked Ex.A1 is original secondary school certificate memo of Mohmmad Aijaz, S/o Md. Fathu, Ex.A2 is original intermediate Bonafide certificate, Ex.A3 is original degree memo, Ex.A4 is original degree memo, Ex.A5 is original degree memo, Ex.A6 is original decree issued by passport office,

Secunderabad

5.Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6.The Plaintiff as Pw1 in his chief evidence affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, reiterated the contents of the plaint and deposed that his name as Mohmmad Aijaz, S/o Md. Fathu and he is born on 12.08.1982 and same recorded under Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. That father of PW1 obtained passport on the name of PW1 in the year 2003 vide passport No.E7161763 and his name is recorded as Azaas Khan, S/o Fathulla Khan and date of birth is recorded as 27.09.1978 which is wrongly mentioned in the passport without the knowledge of the PW1, as such PW1 approached defendants and requesting the defendants to make correction of name and date of birth in the original passport and officials of defendants orally informed that the name and date of birth can not be corrected in the passport on the basis of affidavit and instructed to get a declaratory order from Court.

7.Plaintiff examined another witness as PW2 who is father of PW1 and deposed the same lines of PW1 that he obtained pass port on the name of Pw.1 by wrongly mentioned the name and date of birth in the application of pass port, due to his illiterate and lack of knowledge.

3 OS.17/2014

8.That the defendant no.1 and 2 did not lead any rebuttal evidence to disprove the cause of action for filing the suit by the plaintiff.

Moreover, Pw1 and Pw2 were not cross-examined by the defendants.

9.The evidence of Pw1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A1 support the claim of plaintiff regarding his name as Mohmmad

Aijaz, S/o Md. Fathu and date of birth as 12.08.1982. Therefore, under such circumstances it is held the name of plaintiff as Mohmmad Aijaz, S/o Md. Fathu and date of birth as 12.08.1982 instead of Azaas Khan, S/o Fathulla Khan and 27.09.1978. Issue answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.

10.Issue No.2:-To what relief?

In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against defendants declaring the name of plaintiff as Mohmmad Aijaz, S/o

Md. Fathu and date of birth as 12.08.1982 instead of Azaas Khan, S/o Fathulla

Khan and 27.09.1978.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of March, 2014.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined Plaintiff: Defendants: Pw1: Mohmmad Aijaz, - None – Pw2: Md. Fathu, ::Exhibits Marked for Plaintiff::

Ex.A1: Original Secondary School Certificate memo of Mohmmad Aijaz, S/o Md. Fathu, Ex.A2: Original intermediate Bonafide certificate, Ex.A3: Original Degree memo, Ex.A4: Original Degree memo Ex.A5: Original Degree memo Ex.A6: Original decree issued by Passport Office, Secunderabad ::Exhibits Marked for Defendants:: -NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

1 OS.16/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt. P.Lakshmi Kumari, B.A.LL.B., PGD in PM and IR

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2014

O.S.No. 16 of 2014

Between: Lakka Vatri Srinivas, S/o Venkata Narsaiah, age: 33 years, Occ: Student, R/o H.NO. 4-70/1 Mittapally village, Mandal: Dichpally, Dist: Nizamabad.

..Plaintiff

And

1. The Regional Pass Port Officer, O/o Regional Passport Office, Adjacent to Prashanth Theatre, Clock Tower, Secundrabad.

2. Pass Port Sevakendra Officer, O/o Pass Port Sevakendra office, J.B. Towers, Pragathi nagar, Nizamabad.

..Defendants

This suit coming on before me on 06.3.2014 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Md. Khasim, Advocate for the plaintiff and Defendant no.1 and 2 set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree declaring the date of birth as 04.05.1980 (Forth day of May Nineteen Eighty) instead of 04.05.1974 in the pass port.

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

That plaintiff is resident of Mittapally village of Dichpally mandal

Dist. Nizamabad and completed his SSC in Zilla Parishad High School, Mittaplli village of Dichpall Mandal District Nizamabad and he is born on 04.05.1980.

That father of plaintiff being illiterate and lack of knowledge has wrongly mentioned the date of birth of plaintiff as 04.05.1974, as such the plaintiff approached the authority of defendants and requested the defendants to make correction of date of birth in the original passport and the officials of defendants orally informed that the date of birth can not be corrected in the passport on the basis of affidavit and instructed to get a declaratory order from

Court. Hence plaintiff filed this suit.

2 OS.16/2014

3.After receipt of service of summons on defendant no.1 and 2, called absent and hence the defendants were set exparte.

4.In support of suit claim, the plaintiff examined himself as Pw1 and

Pw.2 and got marked Ex.A1-Memo of Secondary School Certificate of Venkat

Narsaiah and Ex.A2 is Passport bearing No.K5536160.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6.The Plaintiff as Pw1 in his chief evidence affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, reiterated the contents of the plaint and deposed that he is born on 04.05.1980 and same is recorded in under Ex.A1. That father of PW1 obtained passport on the name of PW1 in the year 2012 vide passport No.

K5536160 and date of birth is recorded in passport as 04.05.1974 which is wrongly mentioned in the passport without the knowledge of the PW1, as such

PW1 approached defendants and requesting the defendants to make correction of date of birth in the original passport and officials of defendants orally informed that the date of birth can not be corrected in the passport on the basis of affidavit and instructed to get a declaratory order from Court.

7.Plaintiff examined his mother as PW2 who deposed the same lines of PW1 that father of PW1 obtained pass port on the name of

Pw.1 by wrongly mentioning the date of birth in the application of pass port, due to illiterate and lack of knowledge of her husband.

8.That the defendant no.1 and 2 did not lead any rebuttal evidence to disprove the cause of action for filing the suit by the plaintiff.

Moreover, Pw1 and Pw.2 were not cross-examined by the defendants.

3 OS.16/2014

9.The evidence of Pw1 and Pw.2 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A1 support the claim of plaintiff regarding his date of birth

as 04.05.1980. Therefore, under such circumstances it is held the date of birth

of plaintiff as 04.05.1980 instead of 04.05.1974. Issue answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.

10.Issue No.2:-To what relief?

In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against defendants declaring the date of birth of plaintiff as 04.05.1980 instead of 04.05.1974.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of March, 2014.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined Plaintiff: Defendants: Pw1: Lakkavatri Srinivas - None – Pw2: Lakkavatri Shantha Bai, ::Exhibits Marked for Plaintiff::

Ex.A1: Original Secondary School Certificate Memo of Lakkavatri Srinivas, Ex.A2: Original Passport issued by passport office, Secundrabad.

::Exhibits Marked for Defendants:: -NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

1 OS.16/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt. P.Lakshmi Kumari, B.A.LL.B., PGD in PM and IR

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2014

O.S.No. 16 of 2014

Between: Lakka Vatri Srinivas, S/o Venkata Narsaiah, age: 33 years, Occ: Student, R/o H.NO. 4-70/1 Mittapally village, Mandal: Dichpally, Dist: Nizamabad.

..Plaintiff

And

1. The Regional Pass Port Officer, O/o Regional Passport Office, Adjacent to Prashanth Theatre, Clock Tower, Secundrabad.

2. Pass Port Sevakendra Officer, O/o Pass Port Sevakendra office, J.B. Towers, Pragathi nagar, Nizamabad.

..Defendants

This suit coming on before me on 06.3.2014 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Md. Khasim, Advocate for the plaintiff and Defendant no.1 and 2 set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree declaring the date of birth as 04.05.1980 (Forth day of May Nineteen Eighty) instead of 04.05.1974 in the pass port.

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

That plaintiff is resident of Mittapally village of Dichpally mandal

Dist. Nizamabad and completed his SSC in Zilla Parishad High School, Mittaplli village of Dichpall Mandal District Nizamabad and he is born on 04.05.1980.

That father of plaintiff being illiterate and lack of knowledge has wrongly mentioned the date of birth of plaintiff as 04.05.1974, as such the plaintiff approached the authority of defendants and requested the defendants to make correction of date of birth in the original passport and the officials of defendants orally informed that the date of birth can not be corrected in the passport on the basis of affidavit and instructed to get a declaratory order from

Court. Hence plaintiff filed this suit.

2 OS.16/2014

3.After receipt of service of summons on defendant no.1 and 2, called absent and hence the defendants were set exparte.

4.In support of suit claim, the plaintiff examined himself as Pw1 and

Pw.2 and got marked Ex.A1-Memo of Secondary School Certificate of Venkat

Narsaiah and Ex.A2 is Passport bearing No.K5536160.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6.The Plaintiff as Pw1 in his chief evidence affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, reiterated the contents of the plaint and deposed that he is born on 04.05.1980 and same is recorded in under Ex.A1. That father of PW1 obtained passport on the name of PW1 in the year 2012 vide passport No.

K5536160 and date of birth is recorded in passport as 04.05.1974 which is wrongly mentioned in the passport without the knowledge of the PW1, as such

PW1 approached defendants and requesting the defendants to make correction of date of birth in the original passport and officials of defendants orally informed that the date of birth can not be corrected in the passport on the basis of affidavit and instructed to get a declaratory order from Court.

7.Plaintiff examined his mother as PW2 who deposed the same lines of PW1 that father of PW1 obtained pass port on the name of

Pw.1 by wrongly mentioning the date of birth in the application of pass port, due to illiterate and lack of knowledge of her husband.

8.That the defendant no.1 and 2 did not lead any rebuttal evidence to disprove the cause of action for filing the suit by the plaintiff.

Moreover, Pw1 and Pw.2 were not cross-examined by the defendants.

3 OS.16/2014

9.The evidence of Pw1 and Pw.2 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A1 support the claim of plaintiff regarding his date of birth

as 04.05.1980. Therefore, under such circumstances it is held the date of birth

of plaintiff as 04.05.1980 instead of 04.05.1974. Issue answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.

10.Issue No.2:-To what relief?

In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against defendants declaring the date of birth of plaintiff as 04.05.1980 instead of 04.05.1974.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of March, 2014.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined Plaintiff: Defendants: Pw1: Lakkavatri Srinivas - None – Pw2: Lakkavatri Shantha Bai, ::Exhibits Marked for Plaintiff::

Ex.A1: Original Secondary School Certificate Memo of Lakkavatri Srinivas, Ex.A2: Original Passport issued by passport office, Secundrabad.

::Exhibits Marked for Defendants:: -NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.