Sri. P. Raja Ram, B.A., B.L.,

OS.No.104/11 1 24-04-2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT : SRI P.RAJA RAM, B.A., B.L.,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.104/11

Between :

Jagarlamudi Basava Malleswara Rao, S/o.Basavaiah, Hindu, Aged 68 years, R/o.Abbineniguntapalem Village,

Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District. .. Plaintiff

Vrs.,

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its District Collector, Guntur, Having office at Collectorate, Guntur.

2. The Sub Collector, Guntur, Having his Office at Collectorate Compound, Guntur.

3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedanandipadu, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

4. Kota Sambrajyam, W/o.Lakshmi Narayana, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Housewife, R/o.C/o.Gaddam Kodanandaramaiah, Abbineniguntapalem Village, Pedanandiadu Mandal, Guntur District.

5. Maddula Mohana Rao, S/o.Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Cultivation, R/o. Abbineniguntapalem Village,

Pedanandiadu Mandal, Guntur District... Defendants

This suit is coming on 13-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Narasimha Rao and B.Kamal Kumar, Advocates for the plaintiff, and of Sri P.Raghu Ram and M.Symala Devi, Advocate for the defendants 4 and 5, and the defendants 1 to 3 were set exparte, and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff; and for costs.

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

The plaintiff submitted that he purchased the plaint schedule property for Rs.1,500/- from his vendors namely M.Venkata Subbaiah and others under registered sale deed, dated 4-10-1969. Since the date of purchase he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. On 20-03-2011 when he is getting the plaint schedule land leveled, the defendants 4 and 5 herein accompanied by their men entered into the plaint schedule land on the ground that they have been alloted the said land by the defendants 1 to 3. He could resisted the same but the defendants 3 to 5 were threatening to dispossess him from the plaint schedule property. Thus, he got issued legal notice to all the defendants U/Sec.80 C.P.C requesting and demanding the defendants 1 to 3 for cancellation of pattas if any granted by the Government. He has been residing in another village, taking advantage of the same the defendants 3 to 5 have recently trespassed into the plaint schedule site illegally and threatening him with dire consequences. The defendants 1 to 3 have not informed him till today about the allotment of plaint schedule property to the defendants 4 and 5 and there was no notification and publication and issuing of statutory notices with respect to the plaint schedule property by the Government prescribed and laid down under Land Acquisition

OS.No.104/11 2 24-04-2017

Act. No compensation is also given to him if really the Government has acquired the plaint schedule property and issued pattas to the defendants 4 and 5. He came to know that the defendants 4 and 5 have colluded with the defendants 1 to 3 and all of them have been threatening him. The defendants after receiving the said legal notice have not given anyreply and the defendants 4 and 5 have not vacated the plaint schedule property. The defendants 1 to 3 have also not taken any steps against the defendants 4 and 5 and also not evicted them from the plaint schedule property. The defendants 1 to 3 have also colluded with the defendants 4 and 5, they are also impleaded and added as necessary parties to the suit. The defendants 4 and 5 are refusing to deliver the possession of the paint schedule property and as they have also disputing the title of plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendants 1 to 3 were set exparte.

4. The 4th defendant filed written statement by denying the material averments of plaint and 5th defendant filed memo adopting the written statement of D4 and contended that they are the landless poor persons. The Government recognized them as land less poor and alloted house sites to them after following due process of law. They were granted pattas in S.No.342/2 in an extent of 96 Sq.yards in Plot Nos.29 and 30 respectively on 30-6-2007. Since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the same according to law without any interference. The Government/D1 strictly followed the procedure prior to granting pattas and granted pattas to the defendants 4 and 5. The plaintiff has kept quiet since all these years and suddenly woke up and roaring over his rights. In fact the plot of the 5th defendant is in the name of of his wife namely Maddula Dhanalakshmi. The plaintiff has to add Maddula Dhanalakshmi as a party to the proceedings instead of Maddula Mohana Rao (D5 herein). The plaintiff is never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at any point of time. The schedule shown in the plaint is different from the schedules mentioned in pattas of defendants 4 and 5. The defendants never trespassed into the suit schedule property. They are lawfully entered into their land and they are in possession and enjoyment legally by virtue of Government sanction. The defendants are alloted pattas along with 77 other beneficiaries. None giving reply notice to the registered legal notice does not constitute any right to the party. Hence, the defendants 4 and 5 are prays the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. Basing on the above pleadings of the parties the following issues are being settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree declaring the plaintiff is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession of the same to the plaintiff or not?

2. To what relief?

6.On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W1 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of defendants 4 and 5, the 5th defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and their witnesses was examined as D.Ws.2 and 3 respectively and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked through D.W.1.

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from his vendors under registered sale deed, dated 4-10-1969. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. On 20-3-2011 the plaintiff getting leveled the plaint schedule site, the defendants 4 and 5 caused obstruction by stating that the Government granted pattas to them and alloted the suit schedule property to them. The plaintiff is in legal possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 42 years. The plaintiff got issued legal notices to the

OS.No.104/11 3 24-04-2017

defendants Under Section 80 CPC. The defendants 1 to 3 having received the legal notice kept quiet. Recently, the defendants 3 to 5 taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff trespassed into the plaint schedule property and threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences. No notice is served to the plaintiff by the defendants 1 to 3 while allotting the suit schedule property to the defendants 4 and 5. Since the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendants 4 and 5 are unauthorizedly trespassed into the suit schedule property, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit seeking relief for declaration and recovery of possession of suit schedule property. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 by marking Exs.A1 to A11 are clinchingly proves his case, hence it is prayed to decree the suit.

9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendants 4 and 5 submitted that D4 and 5 are landless poor persons. The Government recognized them as land less poor and alloted house sites to them after following due process of law. The defendants were granted pattas in S.No.342/2 in an extent of 96 Sq.yards in Plot Nos.29 and 30 respectively on 30-6-2007. The Government/D1 strictly followed the procedure prior to granting pattas and granted pattas to the defendants 4 and 5. The plaintiff has kept quiet since all these years and suddenly woke up and roaring over his rights. The defendants 4 and 5 are in possession and enjoyment of their plots from the date of granting pattas. The plaintiff is never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at any point of time. The schedule shown in the plaint is different from the schedules mentioned in pattas of defendants 4 and 5. The defendants never trespassed into the suit schedule property. They are lawfully entered into their land and they are in possession and enjoyment legally by virtue of Government sanction. The defendants are alloted pattas along with 77 other beneficiaries. None giving reply notice to the registered legal notice does not constitute any right to the party. The evidence of D5 as D.W.1 and the witnesses of defendants 4 and 5 as D.Ws.2 and 3 and the documents marked as Exs.B1 to B4 are clinchingly proves the case of the defendants 4 and 5, and it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

10.ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession of the same to the plaintiff or not?

The suits like this nature the burden heavily lies on the plaintiff to prove his case. The plaintiff must stand on his own legs but not depend upon the weaknesses of the case of the defendants.

The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from his vendors under registered sale deed, dated 4-10-1969. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. On 20-3-2011 the plaintiff getting leveled the plaint schedule site, the defendants 4 and 5 caused obstruction by stating that the Government granted pattas to them and alloted the suit schedule property to them. The plaintiff is in legal possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 42 years. The plaintiff got issued legal notices to the defendants Under Section 80 CPC. The defendants 1 to 3 having received the legal notice kept quiet. Recently, the defendants 3 to 5 taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff trespassed into the plaint schedule property and threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences. No notice is served to the plaintiff by the defendants 1 to 3 while allotting the suit schedule property to the defendants 4 and 5. Since the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendants 4 and 5 are unauthorizedly trespassed into the suit schedule property.

Ex.A1 is the CC of registered sale deed, dated 4-10-1969 in favour of plaintiff/P.W.1 by his vendors. The recitals of Ex.A1 goes to show that the plaintiff got purchased an extent of six cents of house site from his vendors, dated 4-10-1969 comprising in D.No.342 within the following boundaries.

East: The property of plaintiff’s vendor

OS.No.104/11 4 24-04-2017

South: Land of the Vendor of the plaintiff. West: Old Madras Road North: Land of Makineni Peda Veeraiah.

Ex.A1 speaks that the plaintiff got purchased an extent of Ac.0-06 cents vacant site from his vendors under a registered sale deed on 4-10-1969 within the specified boundaries.

11. The plaintiff is contending that for the past 42 years he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He has been residing in another Village, taking advantage, the defendants 4 and 5 trespassed into the suit property illegally and threatening him with dire consequences. The defendants 1 to 3 have not informed to him about the allotment of plaint schedule property to the defendants 4 and

5. No notification and publication was issued by the Government prescribed and laid down under Land Acquisition Act. No compensation is paid to him. The defendants 4 and 5 have no title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land and the present possession is an illegal and they are trespassers. At this stage it is better to go through the contents of the legal notice/Ex.A2 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants 1 to 5. It goes to show that “ it was issued on 3-3-2011. Since two years the plaintiff has been residing in another Village. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 illegally issued pattas in favour of defendants 4 and 5 without any valid notification and notice prescribed under Land Acquisition Act. Defendants 4 and 5 will not get any legal right under the said pattas. No compensation is paid to him by the Government/D1 to D3. Several notices issued to the defendants 1 to 3 seeking cancellation of the said pattas given in favour of defendants 4 and 5 but the defendants 1 to 3 did not take steps and postponing the same with some pretext or other. The defendants 1 to 3 are requested to direct the defendants 4 and 5 to vacate the notice schedule property and handover the same to him.

12. From the legal notice/Ex.A2 it is clear that the suit schedule property was converted into house sites and given to the defendants 4 and 5 by the defendants 1 t o 3 as pattas. From the date of pattas the defendants 4 and 5 have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

13. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1. In his chief examination affidavit, he reiterated the same facts, which were stated in the plaint. Whereas in his cross examination stated that the Government acquired private lands and given pattas to the landless persons including defendants 4 and 5. He admitted that one Maddula Dhanalakshmi is the wife of Mohana Rao. He further stated that he was absent in his village from 2005 to 2010. He came to know that D4 and wife of D5 they were granted pattas before issuing legal notice to them and to the Government. Except the sale deed/Ex.A1 no other document is with him to show that the plaint schedule property is in his possession. All the patta holders constructed houses respectively. He further admitted that he has not challenged the proceedings issued by the Government for acquiring the land. The defendants 4 and 5 are in occupation of four cents site and the remaining two cents of suit property is in his possession. He admitted that he has not filed any appeal or revision against the pattas granted to D4 and D5 for their cancellation before R.D.O or District Collector. He further stated that D4 and D5 are not in possession of site assigned to them. The said four cents site is in his possession as on today. It was suggested that the site given to the defendants 4 and 5 and other assignees are no way concerned to the suit property under Ex.A1 sale deed. He also denied the suggestion that he do not aware the property covered under Ex.A1 sale deed was located.

14. To substantiate the case of the 5th defendant, he himself was examined as D.W.1. Through him Exs.B1 to B4 are marked.

Whereas in his cross examination he stated that he does not know the survey

OS.No.104/11 5 24-04-2017

number of suit schedule property. He does not know whether the property of plaintiff is given for him by the Government under a patta or not. In the month of June, 2006 Government granted patta for 79 members to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents each in two different places. He has not constructed any building in his site. He does not know whether the plaintiff got six cents land or not. He denied the suggestion that he was alloted two cents site in S.No.342/2 and under the guise of two cents, he is wrongly claiming the suit schedule property.

15. The evidence of D.W.1 goes to show that a patta an extent of Ac.0-02 cents was granted to him by the Government in the month of June, 2006 along with 78 other members. He has not constructed any building in his site.

16. To substantiate the contention of the defendants 4 and 5, they examined one Gaddam Venkata Rao as D.W.2. It is his evidence that he got site an extent of Ac.0-02 cents from the Government as landless poor. His plot number is 28. The survey number of his plot is 342/2. Kota Sambrajyam and Maddula Dhanalakshmi, W/o.M.Mohana Rao (D5) have got Ac.0-02 cents of site each from the Government in the same survey number. From the date of assignment they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective sites. The plaintiff is nothing to do with the property given to the defendants 4 and 5 by the Government. Whereas in his cross examination he stated that he was given patta by the Government to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents site in S.No.342/2. He does not know the survey number of the suit property. The Government has constructed a building in his plot and that he is paying tax to his house. He denied the suggestion that at present the plot given to him is a vacant site.

17. The evidence of D.W.2 goes to show that the Government has given patta to him to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents. His plot number is 28 and Survey number is 342/2. The 4th defendant and the wife of 5th defendant were also granted pattas by the Government to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents each.

18. To substantiate the case of the defendants 4 and 5, they examined one Cherukuri Nageswara Rao as D.W.3. It is his evidence that he got site an extent of Ac.0-02 cents from the Government as landless poor. His plot number is 25. The survey number of his plot is 342/2. Kota Sambrajyam and Maddula Dhanalakshmi, W/o.M.Mohana Rao (D5) have got Ac.0-02 cents of site each from the Government in the same survey number. From the date of assignment they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective sites. The plaintiff is nothing to do with the property given to the defendants 4 and 5 by the Government.

Whereas in his cross examination he stated that he was given patta by the Government to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in S.No.342/2. He does not know whether the survey number for the plot given to the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property is 342 or not. The government constructed a building in his plot and he is paying taxes to the house. He denied the suggestion that at present his plot is a vacant site.

19. The evidence of D.W.3 goes to show that he was given patta an extent of Ac.0-02 cents along with 40 other persons in Abbineniguntapalem. His plot number is 25. The 4th defendant and the wife of the 5th defendant were also given pattas to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents respectively.

20. The evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 goes to show that 4th defendant and wife of 5th defendant were given pattas to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in S.No.342/2 in Plot Nos.29 and 30 respectively. Since then the defendants 4 and 5 are in possession and enjoyment of the said plots. The defendants 4 and 5 are claiming their rights over their property basing on their pattas.

21. They relied on Exs.B1 document i.e reply from the office of Tahsildar, Pedanandipadu, dated 6-7-2016 vide RC.No.366/2106-DT. The document reveals that atttested copies for the plots 29 and 30 (pattas) were given to D4 and wife of D5 and

OS.No.104/11 6 24-04-2017

also the copies of documents relating to granting pattas to 79 beneficiaries,dated 30-06- 2007 in S.No.342/2.

22. Ex.B2 is the attested copy of the patta given in favour of wife of D5. It goes to show that an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in S.No.342/2 vide Plot No.30 was given to wife of 5th defendant.

23. Ex.B3 is the patta granted in favour of 4th defendant. It goes to show that an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in S.No.342/2 vide Plot No.29 was given to 4th defendant.

24. In Exs.B2 and B3 specific boundaries were mentioned. Ex.B4 is the attested copy of the list of assignees. It reveals that in Page No.9 the name of 4th defendant and wife of 5th defendant at Serial Number 63 & 64 was shown that an extent of Ac.0-02 cents were given to them. All the names of assignees (79) were mentioned in Exs.B4. Exs.B4 coupled with Exs.B2 and B3 goes to show that an extent of Ac.0-02 cents site each were given by the Government to the 4th defendant and wife of 5th defendant were granted pattas in their favour on 30-06-2007 in S.No.342/2. The plaintiff is further contending that the defendants 1 to 3 have granted pattas in favour of defendants 4 and 5 from the suit schedule property. Whereas the defendants 4 and 5 are contending that the suit schedule property is no way concerned with the plots given to them by the Government. The contention of the plaintiff is that a pattas were granted to the defendants 4 and 5. But the contention of the 4th defendant is that plot No.29 was granted in favour of wife of 5th defendant. Ex.B2 patta goes to show that it was given in favour of M.Dhanalakshmi, wife of 5h defendant. The plaintiff even does not know in whose favour the patta was granted. It itself goes to show that he is not in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

25. When the plaintiff is claiming right over the suit schedule property the initial burden lies on him to prove that he was in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property till the Government granted pattas to the defendants 4 and 5. Here, the plaintiff except filing Ex.A1 certified copy of registered sale deed, dated4-10-1969, no other document is placed before this Court to establish that he was in possession till the government granted pattas to defendants 4 and 5. Mere saying that he is in continuous possession of 40 years over the suit schedule property is not sufficient to prove his case. If really, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property he ought to have file a relevant revenue record to show that his name is mutated in revenue records and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff failed to produce the relevant revenue record and also failed to take steps by examining the Revenue Officials on the said aspect. The plaintiff is claiming right over the suit schedule property. He admitted in his cross examination that the defendants 4 and 5 are not in possession of property assigned to them i.e each two cents of their site. The said four cents of site is in his possession as on today. He filed the present suit for the relief of injunction against the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. It goes to show that in one breath the plaintiff is contended that in his absence the defendants 1 to 3 granted pattas in favour of defendants 4 and 5 over the suit schedule property and another breath he is in possession and enjoyment of suit property.

26.At this stage it is relevant to re-produce para – 4 of legal notice that “as our client has been residing in other village since two years. Nos.1 to 3 of you (D1 to D3 herein) have illegally issued unauthorized and false pattas in favour of 4 and 5 of you (D4 and D5 herein) without any valid notification and issuing of notices, which are prescribed under Land Acquisition Act. “

27.From the contents of legal notice it is clear that the pattas were already given to defendants 4 and 5 over the suit schedule property. If it is so the plaintiff has to approach the proper forum to challenge the action of the defendants 1 to 3 over issuing pattas to D4 and D5 pertaining to the suit property. The contradictory evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that he is uncertain about the identification of the suit property. If really, the plaint schedule property was alloted to D4 and D5 by granting pattas he has to

OS.No.104/11 7 24-04-2017

approach the proper forum challenging the action of defendants 1 to 3. It is well established law that though the defendants have failed to prove their case, suit cannot be decreed. The cases like this nature the plaintiff shall prove his case but not depend upon the weaknesses of the case of the defendants. The evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.B1 to B4 goes to show that the defendants 1 to 3 granted pattas for 79 beneficiaries under Ex.B4 on 30-06-2007 to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents each in S.No.342/2 and since then all the beneficiaries including defendants 4 and 5 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their properties. The plaintiff is claiming right over the suit property by saying that illegal pattas were granted to the defendants 4 and 5 over the suit schedule property by defendants 1 to 3 during his absence. Except Ex.A1 sale deed and Ex.A2 Legal Notice there is no other revenue record is placed before this Court to show that he was in possession and enjoyment of suit property till pattas were granted to defendants 4 and 5. When the plaintiff himself admitted about granting pattas to the defendants 4 and 5 over the suit schedule property he has to approach the proper forum for proper relief. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with documents i.e Exs.A1 and A2 the plaintiff failed to prove his case. Hence, in the above said circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and also not entitled for recovery of possession over the schedule property. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of defendants 4 and 5 and against the plaintiff.

28.ISSUE NO.2: To what relief?

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

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 24 th day of April, 2017.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

BAPATLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1: Jagarlamudi Basava Malleswara Rao

For Defendants:

D.W.1: Maddula Mohana Rao

D.W.2: Gaddam Venkata Rao

D.W.3: Cherukuri Nageswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified Copy of the Registered Sale Deed executed in favour of P.W.1, dt.4-10-69

Ex.A2: Office Copy of the Legal Notice, dated 23-3-2011.

Ex.A3: Served Postal Acknowledgement from the Sub Collector, Guntur

Ex.A4: Served Postal Acknowledgement from M.R.O, Pedanandipadu Mandal

Ex.A5: Served Postal Acknowledgement from Maddula Mohana Rao/D5.

Ex.A6: Unserved Postal Cover from 4th defendant.

OS.No.104/11 8 24-04-2017

Ex.A7: Postal Receipt, dated 23-03-2011.

Ex.A8: Postal Receipt, dated 23-03-2011.

Ex.A9: Postal Receipt, dated 23-03-2011.

Ex.A10: Postal Receipt, dated 23-03-2011.

Ex.A11: Postal Receipt, dated 23-03-2011.

For Defendants:

Ex.B1: Endorsement given by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedanandipadu

dated 6-7-2016 under RTI Act for the application of 5th defendant/D.W.1

Ex.B2: Attested Copy of Patta by Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedanandipadu stands in the name of Maddula Dhanalakshmi, W/o.Mohan Rao, W/o.5th defendant/D.W.1,

dated 6-7-2016.

Ex.B3: Attested Copy of the Patta by Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedanandipadu stands in the name of Thota Sambrajyam (D4).

Ex.B4: List of Assignees (5 pages) in the year 2007 attested by Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedanandipadu, dated 6-7-2016.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

BAPATLA.

OS.No.104/11 9 24-04-2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT : SRI P.RAJA RAM, B.A., B.L.,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.104/11

Between :

Jagarlamudi Basava Malleswara Rao, S/o.Basavaiah, Hindu, Aged 68 years, R/o.Abbineniguntapalem Village,

Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District. .. Plaintiff

Vrs.,

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its District Collector, Guntur, Having office at Collectorate, Guntur.

2. The Sub Collector, Guntur, Having his Office at Collectorate Compound, Guntur.

3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedanandipadu, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

4. Kota Sambrajyam, W/o.Lakshmi Narayana, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Housewife, R/o.C/o.Gaddam Kodanandaramaiah, Abbineniguntapalem Village, Pedanandiadu Mandal, Guntur District.

5. Maddula Mohana Rao, S/o.Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Cultivation, R/o. Abbineniguntapalem Village,

Pedanandiadu Mandal, Guntur District... Defendants

This is a suit filed to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff; and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 27-04-2011 Plaint filed on: 27-04-2011

Cause of action for the suit arose long back when the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 1969 under a registered sale deed that he became the absolute owner of the same, that the defendants 4 and 5 have illegally occupied the plaint schedule property and not delivering the possession of the same to the plaintiff that the defendants 1 to 3 have also not taken any steps, that the defendants 4 and 5 are disputing the title of the plaintiff, that on 23rd March, 2011 the plaintiff got issued legal notice Under Section 80 of CPC to all the defendants, that the defendants received the said notice and kept quiet, that finally the suit schedule property is situated in Abbineniguntapalem Village of Pedanandipadu Mandal and both parties are also residing which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Valuation of the Suit:

This being a suit for declaration and for possession.

The value of the suit schedule property is at ...Rs.58,080/- 3/4th of the same is valued at ...Rs.43,560/-

On which a Court fee of Rs.2,206/- is paid U/Sec.24 (a) of APCF and SV Act.

The value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.43,560/-.

OS.No.104/11 10 24-04-2017

This suit is coming on 13-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Narasimha Rao and B.Kamal Kumar, Advocates for the plaintiff, and of Sri P.Raghu Ram and M.Symala Devi, Advocate for the defendants 4 and 5, and the defendants 1 to 3 were set exparte, and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-

I) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed.

II) that each party do bear their own costs.

(Plaintiff's costs at Rs.3,800/-) (Plaint Schedule is attached herewith)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 27th day of March, 2017.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA

TABLE OF COSTS

For For For PlaintiffDefendants Defendants Rs.1 to 3 4 and 5 Rs.

Stamp on Vakalat2-00ExparteCM and FC not filed Stamp on Plaint2,026-00---- Stamp on Process147-00---- Advocate Fee (claimed) 1,525-00 -- -- Writing & 100-00 ---- Type charges Total 3,800-00- N I L -– N I L –

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA.

20-04-20171OS.No.70/16

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT : SRI P.RAJA RAM, B.A., B.L.,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.70/16

Between:

Kota Maha Lakshmi, W/o.Late Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged 60 years, Retired Employee, R/o.Balakrishnapuram, Bapatla Town, Guntur Dt. …Plaintiff.

And

Maraka Usha, W/o.Sobhan, Hindu, Aged 30 years, Housewife, R/o.1st lane, Balakrishnapuram, 33rd ward, Bapatla, Guntur District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on 18-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Haranadha Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri

G.Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed basing on the promissory note for recovery of money of

Rs.50,920/-, with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit etc.

2.The material averments of the plaint are in brief as follows.

The defendant herein borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff on 21-04-2013 for her family expenses and defendant executed suit promissory note on the even date in favour of plaintiff at Bapatla, agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest @ 24% yearly compoundable either to plaintiff or her order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators the defendant failed to discharge the pronote debt and postponing the same on some pretext or other. Thus, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 16-02-2016 demanding the defendant to pay the amount due under the promissory note, and the said notice is returned unserved with an endorsement of refused. Though the agreed rate of interest is 24% yearly compoundable, the plaintiff is claiming only 24% simple interest in this suit. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the suit amount.

20-04-20172OS.No.70/16

3. Defendant filed written statement by denying the material averments of plaint and contended that she borrowed an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the plaintiff about five or six years back and the same was discharged @ 120% interest per annum and the plaintiff has been demanding her to pay the interest @ 180% per annum but she refused to pay the higher rate of interest @ 180% per annum. Plaintiff herein hatched up a plan to take revenge against her and got filed the present suit as well as OS.No.44/16 against her own brother-in-law after creating another promissory note against him. Such fact is not mentioned in anywhere in the present suit as they are close relatives and the present suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C and the suit has to be dismissed. Hence, the alleged suit promissory note, dated 21-4-2013 is a rank forgery. The attestors as well as scribe of the alleged suit promissory note in OS.NO.44/16 are one and the same.

Hence, such promissory note as well as the suit promissory note in the present suit are created, concocted and rank forged ones. She neither received the alleged legal notice nor refused the same. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of plaint and written statement the following issues have been framed for trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 21-04-2013 is a rank forgery as contended by the defendant?

2. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 21-04-2013 is true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for the suit amount as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1. Attestor of suit promissory note namely Shaik Rajiya Begum was examined as P.W.2.

Scribe of suit promissory note namely Inturu Venkata Srinivasa Rao was examined as P.W.3. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked through P.W.1. On behalf of defendant, the defendant herself was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

20-04-20173OS.No.70/16

7.Before going into the discussion, it is better to extract the definition of promissory note.

8.Section 4 of Negotiable Instruments Act defines “Promissory Note” as follows: - A 'promissory note' is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument.

9.From the reading of above section, the essential features of a promissory note can be summarized as follows:

1. Promissory note need not be in token of borrowing;

2. Promissory note should be in writing;

3. There must be an unconditional undertaking to pay;

4. The sum should be certain;

5. Payment should be in the form of money;

6. Clear identity regarding persons;

7. The maker should sign it;

8. Payable to order;

9. On demand;

10.The other general principles relating to promissory note:

1.There is no specific form for a promissory note.

2.The promissory note need not be written by the borrower itself. Anybody can scribe the promissory note. It is always preferable to get a promissory note scribed by a third party other than a lender or a borrower.

3.The amount should be mentioned in words.

4.The promissory note should be written uniformly with the same pen and ink from the beginning to the end.

5.To be more clear, if a promissory note is written by a scribe who is a third party, the scribe should write the entire promissory note at a time with one and the same ink and pen. The borrower can put his signature with his own pen or with pen used by the scribe. Witnesses can put their signature with their own pen or with the pen of the scribe or with the pen of the borrower.

6.Attestation by witnesses is not compulsory or mandatory for a pronote. Promissory note is perfectly valid without any witnesses.

7.The date and place of execution should be clearly mentioned.

8.The purpose for which the amount is borrowed is also should be mentioned.

20-04-20174OS.No.70/16

9.Pronote should be written at one and the same time.

10.After the body of the promissory note is written, Revenue stamp should be fixed and the borrower should sign on it. After the borrower putting his sign, the witnesses if any can put their sign.

11.After signs of the witnesses, the scribe should contribute his sign at the bottom of the promissory note.

12. Care should be taken to avoid any alterations or errors or overwriting in the promissory note. If at all there are any such errors or overwriting, they should be mentioned at the bottom of the note specifically.

13.The lender should pay the amount borrowed to the borrower at the time of execution of the promissory note, but earlier or later.

14.A minor should not execute a promissory note.

15.There should not be any blanks in the promissory note.

11.ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2:

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 21-04-2013 is a rank forgery as contended by the defendant?

2. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 21-04-2013 is true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

The cases like this nature the initial burden to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and passing the consideration is always on the plaintiff. The plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1. In her chief examination affidavit, she just reiterated the same facts, which were stated in the plaint. It is her evidence that the defendant/D.W.1 herein borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from her on 21-04-2013 for her family expenses and defendant/D.W.1 executed suit promissory note/Ex.A1 on the even date in her favour agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest @ 24% yearly compoundable on demand either to her or her order. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by her personally and through mediators the defendant/D.W.1 failed to pay the debt due under the promissory note and she is postponing the same on some pretext or other. Thus, she got issued legal notice to D.W.1 demanding her to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note, but the said notice was returned unserved with an endorsement is refused.

20-04-20175OS.No.70/16

Whereas in her cross-examination she stated that she know the defendant personally. Gaddam Venkata Rao is the brother-in-law to her. She got filed suit

OS.No.44/16 against the said Gaddam Venkata Rao on the file of Hon'ble Senior

Civil Judge's Court, Bapatla. The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/-

from her on 21-04-2013. The attestors and scribe in OS.No.44/16 on the file of

Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Bapatla and the attestors and scribe in Ex.A1

promissory note are one and the same. She denied the suggestion that since the defendant failed to pay the interest @ 180% on Rs.2,000/-, she bore grudge against the defendant, she forged the signature of the defendant on Ex.A1 promissory note and got filed the present suit to get wrongful gain. She denied the suggestion that she has no capacity to lend Rs.30,000/- to the defendant under the suit promissory note. She also denied the suggestion that the signatures on revenue stamp and beneath the revenue stamp are appears to be similar. She also denied the suggestion that there is no cause of action for the suit and no consideration was passed to the defendant. Counsel for the defendant though cross examined P.W.1 at length but except putting suggestions no useful information was elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, and did not shake her evidence.

12. The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that the defendant borrowed money of Rs.30,000/- from P.W.1 and she executed suit promissory note in favour of

P.W.1 in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The defendant received consideration under the suit promissory note in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3.

13. To corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 examined one Shaik Rajiya

Begum, who is the attestor of suit promissory note/Ex.A1 as P.W.2. It is her evidence that she acted as an attestor to the promissory note. One Inturu

Venkata Srinivasa Rao scribed the suit promissory note. The defendant received consideration and signed on the suit promissory note in her presence.

Whereas in her cross examination she stated that she know the plaintiff and defendant. Four years ago the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff/P.W.1 in her presence and the scribe.

20-04-20176OS.No.70/16

14. The evidence of P.W.2 goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from P.W.1 in her presence and in the presence of scribe/

P.W.3 of suit promissory note/Ex.A1. She attested the suit promissory note. In her presence and in the presence of scribe/P.W.3 of suit promissory note, the defendant/D.W.1 received consideration from the plaintiff/P.W.1 under the suit promissory note/Ex.A1.

15. To corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 examined one Inturu Venkata

Srinivasa Rao, who is the scribe of suit promissory note/Ex.A1 as P.W.3. It is his evidence that he scribed the suit promissory note. At the time of execution of

Ex.A1, himself, plaintiff, defendant and one Shaik Rajiya Begum were present.

The said Rajiya Begum acted as an attestor to the suit promissory note, dated 21-04-2013. The defendant received consideration from the plaintiff and put her signatures on the suit promissory note in his presence.

Whereas in his cross examination he stated that he is not a licenced document writer. He is the scribe of the suit promissory note. In his presence the plaintiff gave Rs.30,000/- to the defendant. On 21-04-2013 himself and defendant together went to the house of plaintiff. When he started to scribe

Ex.A1, P.W.2 came to the house of P.W.1. He scribed the suit promissory note and handed over to the defendant. Later, the defendant subscribed her signature on the revenue stamp and another signature beneath the revenue stamp. He denied the suggestion that he himself with the collusion of plaintiff and P.W.2 forged the signatures of the defendant on the suit promissory note and got filed the suit to get wrongful gain from the defendant. Counsel for the defendant though cross examined P.W.1 at length but except putting suggestions no useful information was elicited from the mouth of P.W.2, and did not shake his evidence.

16. The evidence of P.W.3 goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from P.W.1 in his presence and in the presence of attestor/

P.W.2 of suit promissory note/Ex.A1. He scribed the suit promissory note. In his presence and in the presence of attestor/P.W.2 of suit promissory note, the defendant/D.W.1 received consideration from the plaintiff/P.W.1 under the suit promissory note/Ex.A1.

20-04-20177OS.No.70/16

17. When the plaintiff discharges her burden relating to receipt of consideration and execution of promissory note/Ex.A1, the onus shifts on to the defendant to disprove the contention of the plaintiff. At this stage it is pertinent to know about the presumptions. Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act deals with presumptions.

a. Of consideration – that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorse, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiate or transferred for consideration.

b.As to date – that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date; c.As to time of acceptance – that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after it's date and before it's maturity; d.As to time of transfer – that every transfer of negotiable instrument was made before it's maturity; e.As to order of endorsements – that the endorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon; f.As to stamps – that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped; g.That holder is a holder in due course – that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course;

18. Now the onus is on the defendant/D.W.1 to disprove the case of the plaintiff/P.W.1. It is her evidence that she borrowed an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the plaintiff about five or six years back and the same was discharged @ 120% interest per annum and the plaintiff has been demanding her to pay the interest @ 180% per annum but she refused to pay the higher rate of interest @ 180% per annum. Plaintiff herein hatched up a plan to take revenge against her and got filed the present suit basing on the forged promissory note, which is not true, valid and binding on her.

Whereas in her cross-examination she stated that she borrowed Rs.2,000/- from the plaintiff five years ago. She has not executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff in respect of amount of Rs.2,000/-. She never borrowed

Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff. She repaid Rs.2,000- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff insisted her to pay interest on Rs.2,000/-. Since she failed to pay the interest to the plaintiff, she got filed the present suit. She denied the suggestion that 20-04-20178OS.No.70/16 though she borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff, she intentionally speaking falsehood stating that she never borrowed Rs.30,000/-. She also denied the suggestion that she refused to receive the legal notice issued by the plaintiff.

She also denied the suggestion that the signature on suit promissory note/Ex.A1 belongs to her.

19. The evidence of D.W.1 goes to show that she borrowed Rs.2,000/- from the plaintiff five years ago. She has not executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff in respect of amount of Rs.2,000/-. She never borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff. She repaid Rs.2,000- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff insisted her to pay interest on Rs.2,000/-. Since she failed to pay the interest to the plaintiff, she got filed the present suit.

20. D.W.1 denied the borrowing of money of Rs.30,000/- and execution of suit Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of P.W.1 on 21-04-13 and the suit Ex.A1 promissory note is a created, concocted and rank forged document. Her contention is that she borrowed Rs.2,000/- from the plaintiff and she discharged the same @ 120% interest per annum and the plaintiff has been demanding her to pay the interest @ 180% per annum but she refused to pay the higher rate of interest @ 180% per annum. Plaintiff herein hatched up a plan to take revenge against her and got filed the present suit basing on the forged promissory note, which is not true, valid and binding on her. The defendant further contention is that the suit promissory note is a created, concocted, fabricated and rank forged document. But to prove the same she/D.W.1 did not choose to send the suit

Ex.A1 promissory note to the hand writing expert, FSL, Hyderabad. If really D.W.1 did not borrow money of Rs.30,000/- from P.W.1 on 21-04-13 and executed suit

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of P.W.1 on the even date definitely D.W.1 would have send the suit Ex.A1 promissory note to the hand writing expert, FSL,

Hyderabad for comparison of disputed signatures with her admitted signatures. If really D.W.1 did not borrow money of Rs.30,000/- from P.W.1 on 21-4-2013 and executed suit Ex.A1 promissory note what is the necessity to P.Ws.2 and 3 to say lie against D.W.1. On a perusal the suit Ex.A1 promissory note clearly shows that

D.W.1 executed suit Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of P.W.1 on 21-4-2013 for

Rs.30,000/- in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3.

20-04-20179OS.No.70/16

21. On perusal, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is corroborated each other with the contents of suit Ex.A1 promissory note on the aspect that D.W.1 borrowed money of Rs.30,000/- from P.W.1 on 21-04-13 in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and D.W.1 executed suit Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of P.W.1 on the even date agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest @ 24% yearly compoundable on demand either to P.W.1 or her order. Hence, in view of the above discussion this court disbelieve the evidence of D.W.1 and believes the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on the aspect that D.W.1 executed suit Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of P.W.1 on 21-04-2013 by borrowing money of Rs.30,000/- from

P.W.1. Hence, the suit promissory note is not a forged document and the same is true, valid and binding on the defendant/D.W,1. Accordingly, Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

22.ISSUE NOS.3 AND 4:

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for the suit as prayed for?

4)To what relief?

In view of my findings on the above issues, the plaintiff is entitled to decree for the suit amount as prayed for. These two issues are answered accordingly.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.50,920/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realisation on the principal amount of Rs.30,000/-.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of April, 2017.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BAPATLA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:-

P.W.1: Kota Maha Lakshmi

P.W.2 : Shaik Rajiya Begum

P.W.3: Inturu Venkata Srinivasa Rao

For Defendant:-

D.W.1: Maraka Usha 20-04-201710OS.No.70/16

Documents marked For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1: Suit Promissory note executed by defendant in favour of Plaintiff/P.W.1 for a sum of Rs.30,000/-, dated 21-04-2013.

Ex.A2: Office Copy of the Legal Notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant

dated 16-2-2016.

Ex.A3: Postal Receipt, dated 16-2-2016.

Ex.A4: Unserved Postal Cover with an endorsement “refused”.

For Defendant :- Nil

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BAPATLA.

20-04-201711OS.No.70/16

The above Judgment/OS.No.70/16 in all pleadings is checked found correct, dt.20-4-17.

20-04-201712OS.No.70/16

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT : SRI P.RAJA RAM, B.A., B.L.,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.70/16

Between:

Kota Maha Lakshmi, W/o.Late Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged 60 years, Retired Employee, R/o.Balakrishnapuram, Bapatla Town, Guntur Dt. …Plaintiff.

And

Maraka Usha, W/o.Sobhan, Hindu, Aged 30 years, Housewife, R/o.1st lane, Balakrishnapuram, 33rd ward, Bapatla, Guntur District. … Defendant.

This suit is filed basing on the promissory note for recovery of money of Rs.50,920/-, with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit etc.

Plaint presented on: 18-03-2016 Plaint filed on: 02-04-2016

Cause of action for the suit arose on 21st April, 2013 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff and defendant executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the even date for the said amount, when inspite of repeated demands and registered legal notice got issued by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the pronote debt and at Bapatla Town where the suit transaction took place and both parties reside within the jurisdiction of this Court. Value of suit:

Principal amount due under the suit pronote dt.21-04-2013 …Rs.30,000/-

Interest thereon at 24% p.a simple from 21-4-13 to 17-3-16 …Rs. 20,920/- ---------------------- Total … Rs.50,920/- ------------------------

On which a court fee of Rs.2,466/- is paid U/Sec.20 of APCF and SV Act.

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.50,920/-

This suit is coming on 18-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Haranadha Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri G.Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the defendant, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

i)that the defendant do pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.50,920/- towards suit amount with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realisation on the principal amount of

Rs.30,000/-.

20-04-201713OS.No.70/16 ii) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,834/- towards costs of the suit and do bear her own costs of Rs.-NIL-(CM and FC not filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 20th day of April, 2017.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Table of Costs

For PlaintiffFor Defendant Rs.Rs.

Stamp on Vakalat2-00CM and FC not filed Stamp on Plaint2,466-00-- Stamp on Process38-00-- Advocate Fee 3,228-00 -- Writing & 100-00 -- Type charges Total 5,834-00- N I L -

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Decree in OS.No.70/16 is checked found correct after cost memo to be print and along with Fair Judgment. Dated 20-4-17,.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET

PRESENT: SRI P. Raja Ram 

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Chilakaluripet.

Thursday, this the 16th day of August, 2018

O.S. No. 169 / 2017

BETWEEN:

Shaik Mohammad Rafi ­­­Plaintiff

and

Yallamanda Venkata Sivaji ­­­Defendant

This suit was coming on 14­8­2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant was set ex parte, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,03,386/­ along with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:­ On 24.9.2011 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.60,000/­ from the plaintiff for his family expenses and on the same day itself, the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by agreeing to repay the said debt together with interest @ 24% p.a., at yearly rests either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the due under the said pronote, personally and through mediators, then the defendant made a part payment of Rs.1000/­ on 24.8.2014 to the plaintiff towards partial discharge of the said pronote debt and the said part payment was endorsed with his own hand writing on the reverse side of the suit pronote on the even date. But subsequently the defendant failed to discharge the said debt and inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators and the plaintiff finally issued a legal notice on 27.3.2017 through his counsel demanding him to discharge the pronote debt due with accrued interest and the defendant did not claim the same intentionally and the defendant failed to discharge the due amount. Hence the suit.

3)The suit summons was served to the defendant but he failed to present before this court. On 14.8.2018 the defendant was called absent, as such this court set the defendant ex parte on 14.8.2018 and proceeded with the case.

4) Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

5)The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note. Subsequently, when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the due under the said pronote, the defendant made a part payment of Rs.1000/­ on 24.8.2014 to the plaintiff towards partial discharge of the said pronote debt and the said part payment was endorsed with his own hand writing on the reverse side of the suit pronote on the even date. But the defendant failed to pay the remaining amount, hence on 27.3.2017 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the defendant, the defendant failed to discharge the same, as such the present suit was filed. He has further contended that the evidence of PW1 was remains un­challenged as the defendant was set exparte and prayed this court to decree the suit as sought for.

6)To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A5 and the plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination­ in­chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings. Hence, examination­in­chief of PW1 is nothing but replica of the plaint. Evidencing the transaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, PW1 got exhibited Ex.A1 pronote and deposed that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/­ and executed Ex.A1 pronote to that effect. On perusal of Exs.A1 to A5, it is clear that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/­ and executed Ex.A1 pronote in the presence of attestors, as such ocular evidence of PW1 is well corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A5 with regard to the very execution of the pronote by the defendant and the evidence with regard to demand is well corroborated by the documentary evidence, as such this court holds that the plaintiff has successfully established his case and is entitled to the suit claim.

7)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,03,386/­ along with interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.59,000/­ from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till realization.

Directly typed to my dictation to the personal assistant, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of August, 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Shaik Mohammad RafiNone.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the Promissory note dt: 24.09.2011 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff/P.W.1 for a sum of Rs.60,000/­. Ex.A2 is the Part payment endorsement dt: 24.08.2014. Ex.A3 is the O/c of Legal notice dt: 27.03.2017. Ex.A4 is the Postal receipt (2 in number). Ex.A5 is the Unserved returned postal covers (2 in number)

FOR DEFENDANT:

­­Nil­­

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET

PRESENT: SRI P. Raja Ram 

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Chilakaluripet.

Thursday, this the 16th day of August, 2018

O.S. No. 169 / 2017

BETWEEN:

Shaik Mohammad Rafi S/o Baji Fareed, Muslim, 49 yrs, Occupation: Cultivation, R/o Pasumarru village & Post, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Guntur District. ­­­Plaintiff

and

Yallamanda Venkata Sivaji S/o Seshagiri Rao, Hindu, 48 yrs, O/o Rajeev Vidhya Mission, OPP: AVM High School, Ongole Post & Mandal, Prakasam District. ­­­Defendant ******

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,03,386/­ along with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 5-06-2017 Plaint filed on : 7-06-2017

Cause of action for the suit arose on 24.9.2011 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 24.9.2011 for his family expenses and on the same day itself the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and by agreeing to repay the said debt together with interest at 24% p.a., at yearly rests either to the plaintiff or his order on demand and that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the due under the said promissory note, personally, through mediators and when the defendant made a part payment of Rs.1000/- dt: 24.8.2014 to the plaintiff for partial discharge of the said pronote debt on the said part payment endorsed with his own hand writing on the reverse side of the suit pronote on even date and when the defendant failed to discharge the said debt and when inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators and when the plaintiff finally issued legal notice on 27.3.2017 through his counsel demanding him to discharge the pronote debt due with accrued interest and the defendant did not claim the same intentionally and when the defendant failed to discharge the due amount and where the suit transaction took place and where the suit pronote was executed in favour of the plaintiff and where the both parties resides which are all within the jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION :

Principal amount borrowedRs.60,000-00

Add: Interest @ 24% p.a., from 24.9.11 to 23.9.12Rs.14,400-00 --------------------- Rs.74,400-00 from 24.9.12 to 23.9.13Rs.17,856-00 --------------------- Rs.92,256-00 from 24.9.13 to 23.9.14Rs.22,141-00 --------------------- Rs.1,14,397-00 from 24.9.14 to 23.9.15Rs.27,455-00 --------------------- Rs.1,41,852-00 from 24.9.15 to 23.9.16Rs. 34,044-00 --------------------- Rs.1,75,896-00 from 24.9.16 to 4.6.17Rs. 29,315-00 --------------------- Rs.2,05,211-00 Less: part payment dt: 24.8.2014 of Rs.1000/- Add: Interest from 24.8.14 to 23.8.15Rs. 240/- ------------ Rs.1240/- From 24.8.15 to 23.8.16Rs. 297/- ------------- Rs.1537/- From 23.8.16 to 4.6.17Rs. 288/- ------------- Rs.1825/-(-)Rs. 1,825-00 --------------------- Total amount dueRs.2,03,386-00 –-------------------

On which a Court Fee of Rs.4,526/- is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

Value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.2,03,386/-.

This suit was coming on 14­8­2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant was set ex parte, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1.That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed:

2.That the defendant do pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,03,386/­ along with interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.59,000/­ from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till realization;

3.That the defendant do also pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,617/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs. Nil. (Exparte).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 16th day of August, 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintif For Defendant Stamp on Vakalat Rs.2-00 Stamp on PlaintRs.4,526-00

Process Fees Rs.38-00 – Exparte --

Pleader's Fees Rs.3,901-00 Typing ChargesRs.100-00 Writing ChargesRs.50-00 TOTAL: Rs. 8,617-00

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET

PRESENT: SRI P. Raja Ram 

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Chilakaluripet.

Thursday, this the 9th day of August, 2018

O.S. No. 64 / 2018

BETWEEN:

Malempati Subbarao ­­­Plaintiff

and

Shaik Mukthum ­­­Defendant

This suit was coming on 9­8­2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant was set ex parte, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,03,500/­ along with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:­ On 10.5.2015, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ from the plaintiff for the purpose of family expenses and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 12% p.a. Subsequently after several demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant postpone the same on one pretext or the other. Hence, on 20.10.2017 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding him to discharge the pronote debt amount with interest as agreed, but the defendant having received the same kept quite. On 5.2.2018 the plaintiff got issued another legal notice to the defendant, but the defendant having refused the same. Hence the suit.

3)The suit summons was served to the defendant but he failed to present before this court. On 7.8.2018 the defendant was called absent, as such this court set the defendant ex parte on 7.8.2018 and proceeded with the case.

4) Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

5)The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note. Subsequently after several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay any amount, hence on 20.10.2017 and on 5.2.2018 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the defendant, the defendant failed to discharge the same, as such the present suit was filed. He has further contended that the evidence of PW1 was remains un­challenged as the defendant was set exparte and prayed this court to decree the suit as sought for.

6)To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A7 and the plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination­ in­chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings. Hence examination­in­chief of PW1 is nothing but replica of the plaint. Evidencing the transaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, PW1 got exhibited Ex.A1 pronote and deposed that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ and executed Ex.A1 pronote to that effect. On perusal of Exs.A1 to A7, it is clear that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ and executed Ex.A1 pronote in the presence of attestors, as such ocular evidence of PW1 is well corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A7 with regard to the very execution of the pronote by the defendant and the evidence with regard to demand is well corroborated by the documentary evidence, as such this court holds that the plaintiff has successfully established his case and is entitled to the suit claim.

7)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,03,500/­ along with interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till realization.

Directly typed to my dictation to the personal assistant, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 9th day of August, 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Malempati SubbaraoNone.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the Original Demand promissory note dt: 10.5.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff/P.W.1 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­.

Ex.A2 is the O/c of legal notice dt: 20.10.2017.

Ex.A3 is the Postal receipt dt: 20.10.2017.

Ex.A4 is the Served postal acknowledgment dt: 21.10.2017.

Ex.A5 is the O/c of legal notice dt: 5.2.2018.

Ex.A6 is the Postal receipt dt: 5.2.2018.

Ex.A7 is the Unserved postal cover with an endorsement “Refused” dt: 6.2.2018.

FOR DEFENDANT:

­­Nil­­

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET

PRESENT: SRI P. Raja Ram 

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Chilakaluripet.

Thursday, this the 9th day of August, 2018

O.S. No. 64 / 2018

BETWEEN:

Malempati Subbarao S/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, 65 yrs, Cultivation, R/o Kavuru village, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Guntur District. ­­­Plaintiff

and

Shaik Mukthum S/o Nane Bude, Muslim, 45 yrs, Mechanic, R/o Dr No.9­265, 3rd line, Jakeer Hussain Street, Chilakaluripet Town, Guntur District. ­­­Defendant ******

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,03,500/­ along with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 2-05-2018 Plaint filed on : 5-05-2018

Cause of action for the suit arose on 10.5.2015, when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff, he executed the suit promissory note and when the plaintiff made demand personally and through mediators and when the defendant postpone the same on one pretext of the other and on 20.10.2017 when the plaintiff got issued legal notice and the defendant received the same and on 5.2.2018 when finally the plaintiff got issued legal notice and when the defendant refused and at Kavuru village, Chilakaluripet Mandal where the suit transaction took place and at Chilakaluripet village when the defendant resides are all within the jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION :

Principal amount borrowedRs.1,50,000-00

Add: Interest @ 12% p.a. from 10.5.15 to 30.4.18Rs. 53,500-00 --------------------- Total suit amount:Rs.2,03,500-00 ---------------------

On which a Court Fee of Rs.4,526/- is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

Value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.2,03,500/-.

This suit was coming on 9­8­2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant was set ex parte, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1.That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed:

2.That the defendant do pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,03,500/­ along with interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till realization;

3.That the defendant do also pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,619/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs. Nil. (Exparte).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 9th day of August, 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintif For Defendant Stamp on Vakalat Rs.2-00 Stamp on PlaintRs.4,526-00 Process FeesRs.38-00– Exparte -- Pleader's FeesRs.3,903-00 Typing ChargesRs.100-00 Writing ChargesRs.50-00 TOTAL: Rs. 8,619-00

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET

PRESENT: SRI P. Raja Ram 

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Chilakaluripet.

Tuesday, this the 14th day of August, 2018

O.S. No. 72 / 2018

BETWEEN:

Allam Koteswara Rao ­­­Plaintiff

and

Panithi Yacobu ­­­Defendant

This suit was coming on 13­8­2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Bolla Suresh, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant was set ex parte, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,58,533/­ along with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:­ On 25.12.2015, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. Subsequently after several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay the amount due under the pronote. Hence, on 23.12.2017 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding him to discharge the pronote debt amount with interest as agreed, but the defendant having received the same kept quite. Hence the suit.

3)The suit summons was served to the defendant but he failed to present before this court. On 10.8.2018 the defendant was called absent, as such this court set the defendant ex parte on 10.8.2018 and proceeded with the case.

4) Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

5)The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note. Subsequently after several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay any amount, hence on 23.12.2017 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the defendant, the defendant failed to discharge the same, as such the present suit was filed. He has further contended that the evidence of PW1 was remains un­challenged as the defendant was set exparte and prayed this court to decree the suit as sought for.

6)To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A3 and the plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination­ in­chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings. Hence, examination­in­chief of PW1 is nothing but replica of the plaint. Evidencing the transaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, PW1 got exhibited Ex.A1 pronote and deposed that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ and executed Ex.A1 pronote to that effect. On perusal of

Exs.A1 to A3, it is clear that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ and executed Ex.A1 pronote in the presence of attestors, as such ocular evidence of PW1 is well corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A3 with regard to the very execution of the pronote by the defendant and the evidence with regard to demand is well corroborated by the documentary evidence, as such this court holds that the plaintiff has successfully established his case and is entitled to the suit claim.

7)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,58,533/­ along with interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till realization.

Directly typed to my dictation to the personal assistant, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14th day of August, 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Allam Koteswara RaoNone.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the Demand promissory note dt: 25.12.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff/P.W.1 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­.

Ex.A2 is the O/c of legal notice dt: 23.12.2017 with postal receipt.

Ex.A3 is the Served postal acknowledgment.

FOR DEFENDANT:

­­Nil­­

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET

PRESENT: SRI P. Raja Ram 

 Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Chilakaluripet.

Tuesday, this the 14th day of August, 2018

O.S. No. 72 / 2018

BETWEEN:

Allam Koteswara Rao S/o Krishna Murthy, Hindu, 43 yrs, Cultivation, Dr No.4­62, Main Road, Bukkapuram village, H/o Chandavaram, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District. ­­­Plaintiff

and

Panithi Yacobu S/o Ratnam, Hindu, 55 yrs, Milk Business, Dr No.3­67, Bukkapuram village, H/o Chandavaram, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District. ­­­Defendant ******

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,58,533/­ along with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 4-06-2018 Plaint filed on : 4-06-2018

Cause of action for the suit arose on 25.12.2015 when the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the consideration of Rs.1 lakh and agreed to discharge the debt together with interest @ 24% p.a., when the defendant failed to discharge the debt inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff personally and also through registered notice, dt: 23.12.2017 and at Bukkapuram village h/o Chandavaram, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District, Chilakaluripet JCJC where the suit promissory note was executed and where the defendant reside is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION :

Principal amount borrowedRs.1,00,000-00

Add: Interest @ 18% p.a. from 25.12.15 to 3.6.18Rs. 58,533-00 --------------------- Total suit amount:Rs.1,58,533-00 ---------------------

On which a Court Fee of Rs.4,026/- is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

Value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.1,58,533/-.

This suit was coming on 13­8­2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Bolla Suresh, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant was set ex parte, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1.That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed:

2.That the defendant do pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,58,533/­ along with interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till realization;

3.That the defendant do also pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,444/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs. Nil. (Exparte).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 14th day of August, 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintif For Defendant Stamp on Vakalat Rs.2-00 Stamp on PlaintRs.4,026-00 Process FeesRs.38-00– Exparte -- Pleader's FeesRs.3,228-00 Typing ChargesRs.100-00 Writing ChargesRs.50-00 TOTAL: Rs. 7,444-00

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet.