Smt.P.Sreedevi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 27 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018

PRESENT: SMT. P.SREEDEVI

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. No. 27 OF 2017

Between:

1. Nishit Mehta, S/o L.Ramnaik Mohanlal Mehta, aged 43 years, Occ: Business

2. Dipti Mehta, W/o Nishit Mehta, aged 43 years, Occ: Household

Both are R/o Flat No. 616, Manasasarovar Heights H.No. 8-5-367/10/A, Sainagar Enclave,

Trimulgherry, Secunderabad ...Plaintiffs

AND

The Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad represented by its Dy. Commissioner, Circle 18, Secunderabad ….Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Imran Mahmood, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri Satish Chander, Advocate for Defendant, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for declaration and for permanent injunction.

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

The plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of house bearing

No. 2-4-189, block No. 268/L, adm. 44.77 sq.yds. situated at Ramgopalpet, nallagutta, secunderabad having purchased the same by virtue of a registered sale deed vide document No. 3259 of 2016 herein after called as suit schedule 2 property. The defendant corporation got issued a notice dt. 16.9.2016 addressed to one Jittu who is no where connected with the plaint schedule property. The said notice is issued on the behest of one Satish who is hand in glove with the officials of the defendant. The said notice was duly replied on 17-9-2016 contending that the allegations of the notice are absolutely false and that said Jittu is no way connected with the plaint schedule property. It was further mentioned that the impugned notice issued does not bear the names of the plaintiffs who are the absolute owners and possesors by virtue of a registered sale deed. The said structure was in existence and as such the question of any additional floors does not arise. The property has also been assessed to the property tax and as such the question of any illegal structure as alleged by the defendant does not arise. Despite the said reply acknowledged by the defendant on 17-9-2016 the defendant had yet again goet issued another notice u/s 452 (2) of HMC Act, threatening to demolish the structures existing on the schedule property. The threat and the alleged impugned notice are bad in law in view of the earlier reply given by the plaintiffs. On 4-1-2017 again another notice was addressed by the defendant to the fictitious person namely Jittu. The said person is neither the owner nor the vendor of these plaintiffs. The said notice is bad in law. The plaintiffs have duly replied to the 2nd notice vide their reply dt. 7.1.2017. It is apprehended that the defendant may trying to damage the existing structure on the plant schedle property forcefully and by use of power. These plaintiffs would be put to irreparable loss and injury if the defendant succeeds in its illegal attempts.

Hence, the present suit is filed and requesting the court to decree the suit.

3

3.The defendant corporation contended in the written statement that the plaintiffs have started the fresh construction work without obtaining building permission as required u/s 428 and 433 of the HMC Act, 1955. The averments of the pliaintiffs that they are attending to certain repairs are totally false since the palintiffs are not making reparis but constructing third and fourth floor. The plaintiffs have started the fresh construction work i.e. third and fourth floor on the existing building consisting of first and second floor in the dilabitated condition which has been admitted in thier notice. The defendant corporation has inherent statutory powers to exercise under the HMC Act and no construction will be removed unless the statutory notices are served as per law.

It has issued show cause notices u/s 452 (2) of HMC Act, 1955 on 4-1-2017 and that they have given reply to the siad notice. The plaintiffs are bound to serve statutory notice u/s 685 of HMC Act, to the defendant corporation before filing any suit agaisnt it. The plaintiffs without giving notice straight away filed the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. A similar suit has been filed

before this court vide O.S.No. 557 of 2013 and the same was disposed off and

they are filing the present suit on the same property. No cause of action arises to the plaintiffs to file this suit agaisnt the defendant corporation when they have illegally constructed ground, first, second, third and fourth floors without abotaining the building permission as reuqired u/s 428 and 433 of the HMC Act.

Hence, requesting the court to dismiss the suit with exemplory costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as the

orders u/s 452(2) of HMC Act, 1955 dt. 4.1.2017 null and viod as

prayed for?

4

2) Whether the plaintiffs are entlted for perpetual injuncion agaisnt the defendant as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5.The plaintiff no.1 got himself examined as PW1 and got marked notice dt.4.1.2017 as Ex.A1, office copy of reply notice, dt. 7.1.2017 as Ex.A2, office copy of reply notice, dt. 7.1.2017 as Ex.A3, notice, dt. 16.9.2016 as Ex.A3, reply notice, dt. 17.9.2016 as Ex.A4, original sale deed, dt. 8.8.2016 as Ex.A5, photographs (4) along with thd CD as Ex.A6 and application for regularisation to the Commissioner GHMC duly acknowledged as Ex.A7. During his cross examination the defendant corporation got marked the copy of news paper aritcles in Namaste Telangana as Ex. B1 and 4 copies of photographs as Ex. B2.

The defendant corporation did not adduce any evidence on its behalf.

6.ISSUE No.1:

The PW1 deposed in his cross examination that the sale deed under Ex.

A5 showing the suit schedule property consisting of ground 1st and 2nd floors adm, 403 sq. Feet. In the ground floor there are commercial portions but that was not mentioned in Ex. A5 and it is mentioned as residential. He admitted that the schedule property in Ex. A5 do not show that the 3rd and 4th floor were existence by the time of sale. His vendor nor himself abotianed permission from GHMC for construction. He did not recieve any notices from GHMC. He gave reply under Ex. A4. He gave reply the notice sent by GHMC referring to the suit schedule property. He has link documents pertaining to his vendor vide docuenmt no. 2108/2005. He does not know that he is not entitled for regularization of the bilding. The Ex. B1 is staing about the illegal construction 5 of the suit schedule property. The Ex. B2 showing the suit schedule proeprty. He got issued notice to the defendant corporation before filing the suit.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the notice issued by the defendant corporation under Ex. A1 given to a person by name Jitu, who is no way connected to the suit scheudle property. But the plaintiffs given suitable reply to the said notice by duly intimating that no such person related to the suit schedule property, inspite of receiving the reply again the defendant corporation issued second notice which is bad in law. For which also the plaintiffs given reply but the defendant corporation bent upon harassing the plaintiffs. On the directions of this court the plaintiffs had applied for building regularization by paying necessary fee and Ex.A7 sufficiently establishing the said fact. The Ex. A1 and A3 were issued to a fictitious person but not to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have furnished the sale deed of the schedule property to the defendant corporation. But also it has got issued notice to one person

Jittu who is no where related tot he property. The plaintiffs did not make any illegal constructions and they have purchased the constructed building. Though

Ex. B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the defendant corporation they do not disprove the allegation of the plaintiffs that the notices were not served to the plaintiffs and they are liable to be declared as null and void. The defendant corporation had not produced any evidence on its behalf to disprove the allegations made by the plaintiffs as such adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant. The reply notice under Ex. A2 can be treated as notice u/s 686 of HMC Act, to the defendant corporation as the reply of the plaintiffs specifically mentioned in it. Hence, the suit is maintainable and as the plaintiffs 6 produced oral and documentary evidence which is sufficiently establishing the case of the plaintiffs, requesting the court to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs by referring to the following citations:

1) AIR 1972 in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad appellant Vs.

T.V.Sarma, respondent wherein it was held that it has to be decided whether

before the suit is instituted against the corporation as provided for in sub-

section (1) it is necessary to satisfy the two conditions or the satisfaction of any one of the conditions prescribed in columns (a) and (b) of that sub-section would be sufficient. It has to be noted that columns (a) and (b) are separated by the use of the word “or”. The word “or” is generally used in a dis-junctive sense and giving the natural measning of the word “or” the sub-section, it is argued. On a review of the decisons cited, Section 685(1) of the Corporation

Act does nto apply to any mala fide act of the Corporation, Commissioner or any other Officer.

2) AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1441 in Vidhyadhar, appellant Vs.

Manikrao and another, respondents wherein it was held that where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states hiw own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a persumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. In the instant case defendant No.1 alleged that the sale deed executed by defendant

No.2. in favour of the plaintiff, was fictitious adn the whole transaction was a bogus transactions as only Rs. 500/- were paid as sale consideration to defendant No.2. But this plea waas not supported by defendant No.1 as he did not enter into the witness box. He did not state the facts pleaded in the written statement on oath in the trial court and avoided the witness box so that he may not be cross examined. This, by itself, is enough to reject the claim that the transaction of sale between defendant No.2 and the plaintiff was a bogus transaction.

8.The learned counsel for the defendant corporation argued that a false case was filed by the plaintiffs without cause of action. The plaintiffs 7 constructed illegally and unauthorisedly third and fourth floors without permission from the defendant corporation. The defendant corporation had rightly issued notice under Exs.A1 and A3 and proceeded as per provisions under HMC Act. During the cross examination of PW1 he has admitted that no permission was obtained either by himself or by his vendors for construction of the suit building and Ex.B1 news article was published showing the illegal construciton in the suit schedule property. The Ex.B2 photographs showing the third and fourth floors over the dilapidated building which is dangerous to the livelyhood. Hence the defendant corporation rightly issued the notices and proceeded against the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs did not got issue the notice under section 685 of HMC Act to the defendant corporation which is mandatory before filing the suit. Hence the suit is not maintainable and requeting the court to dismiss the suit.

9.On the apprecation of both oral and documentary evidence and on hearing to the counsel for both parties and on careful scruitiny of entire material available on record, it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiffs alleged that the notices under Exs.A1 and A3 were issued on the name of one Jittu who is no way concerned to the suit scehdule property. The plaintiffs got marked

Ex.A1 proceedings under section 452(2) of HMC Act and notice u/s 452(1) and 451(1) of HMC Act as Ex.A3 which show that they have addressed to one Jittu property No. 2-4-189 Chuttalabathi, Nallagutta, Hyderabad. Ex.A3 is the notice

dt. 16.9.2016 issued to the said Jittu making the mention of unauthorised

construction and laid the slab for third floor over the existing ground plus two upper floors without any permission duly violating the provisions of HMC Act 8 1955 and called for the reply within seven days. The plaintiffs herein have given reply on 17.9.2016 under Ex.A4 stating that the plaintiffs are not carrying out any construction but only necessary repairs to the existing structures were being done and the notice was not served to the owner or occupier of the suit schedule building as such it is bad in law. Again the defendant corporation issued the order under Ex.A1 dt. 4.1.2017 to the said person by name Jittu stating that he has made the illegal construction by constructing third and partly fourth floor over and above existing ground and two upper floors.

10.Admittedly the Exs.A3 and A1 were addressed to one Jittu. If the sale deed under Ex.A5 is observed there is no such person’s name mentioned in

Ex.A5 and the vendors of the suit schedule property are differently named and the plaintiffs names also differently mentioned. Hence no explanation was given by the defendant corporation about said Jittu and how he is related to the suit schedule property. Unfortunately inspite of receiving of the reply notice from the plaintiffs under Ex.A4 again the defendant corporation got issued the orders under Ex.A1 by referring to the said person Jittu. The defendnat corporation failed to adduce any evidence to clarify how the Exs.A1 and A3 are valid in the eye of law when they are addressed to a different person other than the plaintiffs or their vendors. Hence the replies given by the plaintiffs under Exs.A3 and A4 eliciting that the notices served by the defendant corporation were not proper and they are not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence the orders under section 452(2) of HMC Act 1955, dt. 4.1.2017 are hereby declared as null and void. Accordingly this Issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

9

11.ISSUE No.2

The plaintiffs alleged that they are not making any new constructions and they are only conducting repairs over the existing building as the building was in dilapidated condition. The defendant corporation denied the said allegation and contended in the written statement that the plaintiffs are constructing third and fourth floors and there was no permission for such construction. Having stated so, the defendant corporation failed to produce any evidence on its behalf to disprove thea llegations of the plaintiff. Except getting Exs.B1 and B2 marked which are in xerox copies though admitted by the Pw1, they do not substantiated the pleadings of defendant corporation in written statement.

12.It is further to mention that the plaintiffs have got marked Ex.A7 which is the regularisation application along with the order copy of this court in IA No.

51 of 2017 in OS No. 27 of 2017 showing that this court has directed the plaintiff to submit application for regularisation before GHMC. The plaintiffs accordingly applied for regularisation and the said regularisation application was still pending. It is the apprehension of the plaintiffs that the defendant officials may demolish the structures over the suit schedule property without following due procedure and without disposing the application for regularisation. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs sufficeintly established that regularisation application is pending and to protect possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property until the defendant by following due process of law as contemplated under HMC Act, 1955 by issuing proper notices to the appropriate person a perpetual injunction shall be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence the perpeutal injunction is granted in 10 favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant corporaiton. Accordingly this

Issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

13.ISSUE NO.3

As discussed supra, the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs both oral and documentary sufficiently estbalished the case of the plaintiffs. Hence they are entitled for the reliefs of declartion and perpetual injunction. Accrdingly this

Issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

In the result, the suit is decreed with no costs in favour of the plaintiff declaring that orders under section 452(2) of HMC Act, 1955, dt. 4.1.2017 by the defendant corporation as null and void and perpetual injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant corporation from demolishing the suit schedule property premises bearing No. 2-4-189, block No. 268/L otherwise than due process of law.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27th day of September, 2018.

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiff:- PW1:- Nishit Mehta

For the defendant:- --None--

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1 – Notice, dt. 4.1.2017

Ex.A2 – Office copy of reply notice, dt. 7..2017 11

Ex.A3- Notice, dt. 16.9.2016

Ex.A4- Reply notice, dt. 17.9.2016

Ex.A5- Original sale deed, dt. 8.8.2016

Ex.A6- Photographs (4) along with the CD

Ex.A7- Application for regularisation to the commissioner GHMC duly acknowledged

For the defendant:-

Ex.B1- Copy of news paper articles in Namaste Telangana

Ex.B2 to B4 – Copies of photographs pertaining to suit schedule property.

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: SMT. P.SREEDEVI

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

DATED THIS THE 3 rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018

O.S. No.450 of 2017

Between:

C.Balakrishnan, S/o late Mr. G.Chakrapani, aged 66 years Occ: Retired from Pvt. Services temporarily residing at Flat No. 72, Krupadeep Apartments, Asha Officers Colony, R.K.Puram, Secunderabad at present R/o Flat No. 1403, Tower No.1 Spring Grove Building, Akurli Road, Kundivali East, Mumbai, Maharashtra. ...Plaintif

AND

Mr. Alvee Moneshwar, S/o Alvee Anandam aged 43 years Occ: Private Service, Permanent R/o Door No. 6-43, Kondamadugu village, Bibinagar mandal, Nalgondadistrict at present R/o Flat No. 404, Venkatadri Apartments, 10-3-73/10 & 11 East Maredpalli,

Secunderabad ...Respondent/Defendant

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J.Sudnyata Deepak, Advocate for Plaintiff, and Sri P.Nagesh, Advocate for Defendant, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for eviction, arrears of rents and mesne profits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

The plaintiff is the sole, absolute owner/landlord of all the 2 residential 3 BHK Flat No. 404, Fourth floor, H.No. 10-3-73/10 & 11,

Venkatadri Apartment, East Maredpally, Secunderabad admeasuring 1525 sq.feet including common area with an undivided share in the land of 60 sq.yards out of 1333.33 sq.yards and registered car parking which is the suit schedule property herein, by virtue of registered sale deed document No. 1223/2000, dt. 28.6.2000. The defendant approached him in October 2015 to take up the flat on rent for residential purpose. As per the terms and conditions of tenancy orally the plaintiff let out the schedule property to defendant initially from 8.10.2015 to 7.9.2016 on monthly rent of Rs. 18,000/- per month.

Plaintiff received an advance rent for three months i.e. Rs. 54,000/- which is refundable at the time of vacating the premises after deducting damages if any to the schedule property, arrears of electricity, maintenance etc. Thereafter the tenancy period was extended from September 2016 on the monthly rent of Rs. 19,000/- per month. The defendant agreed to pay rent every month on or

before 5th of calendar month. Defendant is irregular in payment of rent

and after several reminders plaintiff was able to realise the rent.

Defendant withheld Rs. 9,000/- from rent of April 2017 on the pretext of getting the outside power line wiring done and paid only

Rs. 10,000/- rent towards April 2017 and failed to deposit rent for May 2017 and June 2017 in plaintiff’s account. Defendant is deliberately and wantonly committed willful default in payment of rent and caused damage to the schedule property by using heavy electrical appliances resulting in overloading and damaging the electrical line external and internal leading to voltage fluctuation. The power points got burnt and two geysers of the plaintiff got damaged. Plaintiff had to incur nearly 3

Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- for doing internal wiring, for replacing switch boards and replacing two geysers. Whenever he tried to approach the defendant there was no response or he is aggressive towards plaintiff who is a senior citizen. Plaintiff has no more interest in continuing the tenancy of defendant for above said reasons and therefore he has issued one month advance notice for eviction through email and whatsapp to vacate the schedule property which has been duly received by him and acknowledged by him. He got issued legal notice to the defendant on 30.5.2017 for termination of tenancy u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act by giving 15 days period to vacate the schedule premises. Plaintiff failed to vacate and handover the schedule property after notice period which expired on 16.6.2017.

Hence the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit and requesting the court to decree the suit.

4.The defendant contended in the written statement that he never defaulted the rents or caused damage to the property of the suit schedule property. The defendant incurred Rs. 13,000/- replacing the electric wire which was burnt. Originally the defendant was inducted in the suit schedule property in the year 2015 and up to 2017 December there were no allegations against this defendant. Thereafter the plaintiff falsely filed the suit which is not maintainable and the plaintiff did not disclose about his advance amount of Rs. 55,000/-. The defendant denied the due of rent of Rs. 1,14,000/- and he has withheld

Rs. 9000/- for the month of April 2017 to September 2017. The defendant never damaged any wiring and electrical appliances and defendant is no way concern to the financial crunch of plaintiff and the 4 defendant is regular in payment of rent and maintenance. The defendant is not liable to answer to all vague notices which are not under ambit of law and those are beyond the law. The notice is not in accordance under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Hence requesting the court to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following Issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of possession

of the suit schedule property from the defendant as prayed

for?

2) Whether the plaintif is entitled for damages of Rs. 63,000/- from the defendant as prayed for?

3) Whether the plaintif is entitled for mesne profits of

Rs. 30,000/- per month from the defendant as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

6.Plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A5. This court has struck of the defence of defendant. Hence the defence evidence is closed.

7.ISSUE NO.1

The plaintiff No.1 got himself examined as PW1 and filed his chief affidavit. He got marked office copy of legal notice, dt. 30.5.2017 as

Ex.A1, courier receipt, dt. 30.5.2017 as Ex.A2, postal receipt,

dt. 30.5.2017 as Ex.A3, CC of summary of account as on 31.3.2018

pertaining to the account of the plaintiff as Ex.A4 and cash memo bearing No. 039, dt. 17.4.2017 as Ex.A5.

5

8. PW1 deposed in his cross examination that he worked in private sector and retired. There was no written agreement for lease between him and the defendant. The suit schedule property consisting of three bed rooms. The monthly rent at the beginning was Rs. 18,000/-.

Advance amount of Rs. 54,000/- which is refundable. The oral agreement for lease was for 11 months. He has not given any notice to the defendant after completion of first 11 months as the lease period was further extended for 11 more months. He denied that as the defendant was regularly paying the monthly rents he extended further lease period for 11 months. He explained that the defendant used to pay the rents with delay. He did not have habit to issue receipts for the rents paid by him. He explained that the defendant used to deposit the rents in his bank account. He denied that the defendant used to pay rents regularly and never committed any default and when he demanded to issue receipts for the rents, he started troubling him to get him vacate from the suit schedule property.

9.He further deposed that three bed rooms in the suit schedule property are in the occupation of the defendant. He denied that one bed room out of three bed rooms is in his lock and key and in his custody. He admitted that he has not mentioned that one bed room out of the three bed rooms were in his lock and key. He explained as no room is in his custody or lock and key. He has not mentioned in the notice or plaint or in his evidence. The defendant is liable to pay rents for 14 months. He has produced his bank account details before this court. He admitted on 13.4.2017 the defendant paid Rs. 10,000/- in his account. He denied that the defendant by withholding Rs. 9,000/- out 6 of Rs. 19,000/- paid Rs. 10,000/- as the defendant spent expenses for wiring in the suit schedule property. He explained that the defendant paid Rs. 9,000/- to his account in the month of September 2017. He has not mentioned the same in his chief affidavit. He denied that the defendant paid rents upto March 2018 by depositing the same in his account and he did not issue receipts for laying the new electrical wire in the suit schedule property. He denied that the defendant informed him that he is adjusting the amount of Rs. 73,000/- for the expenses incurred by him from the rental amounts. He denied that in order to extract more rents he demanded the defendant to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month and the defendant is unable to afford the and he filed the present suit to evict the defendant forcefully.

10.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant with an intention to defeat the valuable right of the plaintiff in not paying the rents and committed default from May 2017. Several oral requests were made to the defendant to pay the monthly rents as the plaintiff is depending on the rents of the suit schedule property for his livelihood. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked

Exs. A1 to A5, which are clearly eliciting that the defendant committed default in paying the rents. Hence requesting the court to allow the suit.

11.On the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, after hearing to the counsel for plaintiff and after careful scruitiny of the entire material available on record, it is pertinent to mention that the suit is filed for eviction and for damages by the plaintiff against the 7 defendant. The jural relationship between the plaintiff and defendant as landlord and tenant was admitted by both the parties. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant is not paying the rents from the month of

May, 2017 to till date and he is suffering with financial crisis and he is solely depended on the rents of the suit schedule property for his livelihood. The plaintiff is a senior citizen and filed the present suit for eviction of the respondent and for damages.

8.If an observation is made to the averments of the written statement, no where the defendant specifically mentioned or rather admitted the quantum of rents paid by him till filing of the suit by the petitioner. Except stating that he has given an advance of Rs. 54,000/- at the time of inducting into the suit schedule property there is no specific statement made by the respondent about the quantum of rents. In view of the absence of admitted rents from the side of the defendant in his written statement except relying on the version of the plaintiff and the documents produced by him at the time of his evidence there is no other source of documentary evidence for deciding the present suit. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff filed IA No. 537/2018, the said IA was allowed by this court and direct the defendant to deposit the arrears of rents of Rs. 2,12,000/- in the account of the petitioner within one month from the date of order and further directed to deposit the rents of Rs. 19,000/- per month in the account of the petitioner or or before 5th of every month, on his failure to deposit the arrears of rents or future rents, his defence will struck off, the defendants did not comply the said order nor challenged the said order, hence his defence was struck off.

8

9.It is the contention of the plaintiff that he has issued legal notice to the defendant for eviction of the defendant and for payment of arrears, but the defendant having received the legal notice, did not pay the rents nor vacate the suit schedule property. Exs.A1 is the notice issued by him is valid in law as per the Section 106 of Transfer of

Property Act. Exs.A2 and A3 are postal receipts established that the defendants received the notice, but did not comply the same. Ex.A4 statement of account clearly established that the defendants are due of payment of rents. Hence the plaintiffs are entitled for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property. Accordingly this Issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

10. ISSUE NO.2

The plaintiffs seeking damages of Rs.63,000/- as on the date of filing of the suit, but the plaintiff did not produce any evidence that he is entitled for claiming damages. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled for claiming damages. Accordingly this Issue is answered.

11. ISSUE NO.3

The plaintiffs claiming mesne profits calculated @ Rs.30,000/- per month from 16th June, 2017 to till the date of delivery of the possession. But neither the oral evidence nor documentary evidence substantiating how the plaintiff is entitled for the above mesne profits.

There is no evidence from the plaintiff to make them entitled for damages or mesne profits. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled for mesne profits. Accordingly the Issue is answered.

9 12.ISSUE NO.4

As discussed supra, the plaintiffs are entitled for eviction of the defendant and arrears of rents. As there is no evidence, they are not entitled for mesne profits.

13.In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant directing the defendant to handover the vacant possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months. The defendant further directed to pay arrears of rents of

Rs. 2,12,000/- within two months. The plaintiff is at liberty to file separate application for mesne profits and for damages.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 3rd day of October, 2018.

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiffs:­ For the defendant:­

PW1 – C.Balakrishna

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Plaintiffs:­  Ex.A1­ Office copy of legal notice, dt. 30.5.2017 Ex.A2­ Courier receipt, d.t 30.5.2017 Ex.A3­ Postal receipt, dt. 30.5.2017 Ex.A4­ CC of summary of account as on 31.3.2018 pertaining to the account of plaintiff in ICICI bank Ex.A5­ Cash memo bearing No. 039, dt. 17.4.2017 issued by Annu Electrical and Engineering company. 

For the defendant:­ ­­Nil­­

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD. 

IN THE COURT OF THE I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 20 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018

PRESENT: SMT. P.SREEDEVI

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. No. 31 OF 2018

Between:

1. Hindumal V. Jain, S/o late Vardi Chand Jain aged 54 years, Occ: Business

2. Smt. Leelabai Hindumal Jain W/o Hindumal V.Jain, aged 54 years, Occ: Housewife

3. Smt. Meenakshi, Jain, W/o Manish Jain aged 32 years, Occ: Housewife

4. Smt. Sonal Jain, W/o Pritin Jain aged 26 years, Occ: Housewife

All are R/o H.No. 2-4-320 & 321, 2-4-324 & 325, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad...Plaintif

AND

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad

represented by its Deputy Commissioner ...Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Guruva Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendant set exparte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction against the

GHMC.

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

The plaintiffs 1 to 4 have purchased the old existing house property bearing No. 2-4-320 & 321; 2-4-324 & 325, totally admeasuring 165.26 sq.metres situated at Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad (which is referred to as suit schedule property herein) from their vendors under a registered sale deed, vide document No. 1855/2016, dt.

2.11.2016 and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the same without any hindrance. Since the suit schedule property being a old one, The plaintiffs have approached the defendant corporation for permission to construct a new building as the suit schedule property was an old building. The defendant corporation after scrutinizing the documents and collected necessary charges granted permission. Then the plaintiffs commenced the construction and it is going to be completed. All of sudden on 23.1.2018 at 3 pm, the defendant corporation officials came to the suit schedule property without giving any notice and without following due procedure as contemplated under

HMC Act 1955 trying to demolish the suit schedule property. Hence the defendant corporation is liable to sued for its illegal acts and their acts are tainted with malafides and no notice was issued under section 685 of

HMC Act. The defendant corporation officials threatened to demolish the suit schedule property. Hence the plaintiffs were constrained to file the present suit and requesting the court to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant corporation and its officials either from demolishing or interfering with the possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property.

3.Notice given to the defendant corporation. Vakalat filed by Sri

Satish Chander, Advocate for defendant. But written statement not filed.

Hence his right to file written statement was forfeited. This court proceeded with the evidence of plaintiff.

4.Plaintiff No.1 himself got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

6. Now, the points for determination are:-

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed by them?

2) To what relief?

7.POINT No.1 :

Plaintiff No.1 to substantiate their case, got himself examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 certified copy of sale deed. The defendant corporation did not file written statement nor did not adduce any evidence. Heard the counsels for both sides.

8. POINT NO.I

PW1 deposed in his cross examination that they purchased the suit schedule property in the month of November 2016 and they obtained permission from GHMC in the year 2017 for the construction of stilt plus two floors. They immediately stated the construction after obtaining permission. They did not give work commencement notice to the GHMC in writing. He explained that they informed GHMC orally. He denied that they constructed the suit schedule property by deviating the sanction plan. He did not file any documentary proof to show that they constructed the building according to sanction plan. Witness adds that he is ready to file if it is necessary. He denied that they constructed the building against to the building by laws and zonal regulations and to protect the illegal construction they filed false suit. He did not lodge report with the police nor filed any complaint to the higher officials of

GHMC on the allegation that the GHMC officials ilegally tried to demolish the suit schedule property. He denied that he did not got issue any notice to the GHMC u/s 685 of HMC Act to the GHMC before filing the present suit.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and after obtaining permission they started construction and when the construction was going to be completed, the officials of GHMC all of sudden came to the suit schedule property without issuing any notice and tried to demolish the structures. Hence the plaintiffs filed the present suit and they adduced sufficient oral and documentary evidence which is establishing that the defendant corporation officials without following due process of law trying to demolish the structures of the suit schedule property.

Hence requesting the court to decree the suit in favour of plaintiffs by granting perpetual injunction against the defendant corporation.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for defendant corporation argued that the plaintiffs have filed false suit to protect their illegal construction. The suit is not maintainable as it is filed without issuing mandatory notice under section 685 of HMC Act. Further he argued that the plaintiffs by deviating from the sanction plan constructed extra floors and without leaving the front set back and by encroaching the road widening effected portion raised the construction. Hence requesting the court to dismiss the suit.

11.On the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence of

PW1, on hearing to both sides and after careful scrutiny of the entire material available on record, it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiffs alleged that they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed establishing the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. It is further elicited from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit schedule property since the date of its purchase. PW1 further deposed that sanction was granted by the defendant corporation for construction over the suit schedule property.

12.It is the contention of the plaintiffs that when the construction was going to be completed, the officials of defendant corporation trying to demolish the structures without issuing any notice and without following due process of law. The defendant corporation failed to take any steps either to produce any oral evidence or any documentary evidence to disprove the allegations made by the plaintiff. The defendant corporation even failed to file written statement.

13.The arguments of the learned counsel for defendant corporation that the plaintiffs by deviating from sanction plan raised extra floors and not maintained front set back and encroached the road widening effected portion. In these circumstances, this court has to presume that the plaintiffs are proceeded with the construction but the defendant corporation without issuing any notice went to the suit schedule property. If at all the plaintiffs deviated from the sanction plan and raised illegal construction, the defendant corporation is at liberty to initiate action as per the provisions contemplated under HMC Act, but without following due process of law the defendant corporation proceeded to the suit schedule property warranting this court to grant perpetual injunction against the defendant corporation restraining them from interfering with the possession or from demolishing the structures of suit schedule property otherwise than due process of law. Hence the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant corporation. Accordingly this Issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

14. ISSUE NO.II

As discussed supra, the plaintiffs by producing cogent and reliable evidence established that the defendant corporation officials went to the suit schedule property for demolishing the structures without following due process of law. Hence the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants. Accordingly this issue is answered.

15.In the result, the suit is decreed with no costs in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant corporation and its officials from demolishing or interfering with the suit schedule property, otherwise than due process of law.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 20th day of September,

2018.

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the plaintifs : PW1: Hindumal V Jain

For the desfendant : --None--

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the plaintif:

Ex.A1 – CC of sale deed vide document No. 1855/2016, dt. 2.11.2016

For the defendant: --Nil--

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 PRESENT: SRI T.NARSI REDDY

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. NO. 443 OF 2016

Between:

M/s. Prakriti (Exclusive dress materials) represented by its Proprietrix Mrs. Shobha Ladha W/o Shri Devender Gopal Ladha carrying on business at # Shop No. 19, Lower Ground floor, M Ishaque Estate Near General Bazar, Next to Bon Optics

M.G. Road, Secunderabad....Plaintiff

AND Mrs. R.V.Lakshmi Proprietary M/s. Chaitu's Life style # 8-22-82, 114, New Street,

Tirupathi...Defendant

CLAIM:­ This suit is filed by the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 46,765/­ in all with further interest on Rs. 39,755/­ at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation. 

VALUATION : The total suit is valued at Rs.46,765/­, on which a court fee of Rs.2,326/­ is paid under Sec.20 of the AP Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Devender Kumar Jain, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant set ex parte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

Plaint filed on : 2.8.2016 Plaint registered on: 2.8.2016

1. That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.39,755/- together with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree, and @ 6% p.a from the date of suit till the realization.

2. That the defendant also do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.3,722/­ towards cost of the suit. 

 I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT: 

SECUNCERABAD.

MEMO OF COSTS

For Plaintif For Defendants 01Stamp on Plaint Rs. 2,326-00Exp 02Stamp on Power Rs. 2-00 03Advocate Fees Rs.1,344-00 04Stamp on process Rs. 50-00

Total: Rs. 3,722-00 --

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT:

SECUNDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 1 st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018

PRESENT: SMT. P.SREEDEVI

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. No. 206 OF 2017

Between:

State Bank of India Retail Assets Central Processing Centre 4th floor, R.P.Road, Secunderabad represented by its Chief Manager

Mr. T.Veerabadhra Rao ...Plaintiff

AND

1. Mr. Varimalla Tirupathi Reddy S/o not known aged 28 years, Occ: Student D.No. 5-237, Aprupa Colony SR Nayak Nagar, Jeedimetla Hyderabad

2. Smt. Varimala Vijaya Lakshmi W/o V.Ranga Reddy aged major, Occ: Housewife SR Nayak Nagar, Jeedimetla Hyderabad

3. Sri Y.Anand Reddy, S/o Sudharshan Reddy aged 41 years, Occ: Employee D.No. 34-19, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar,

Shapurnagar, Hyderabad ...Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt K.S.Lakshmi, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendants set exparte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.2,17,348/- together with interest against the defendants.

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

The defendants 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff bank IDPL Colony,

Kukatpally branch seeking financial assistance for availing educational loan. Considering the request of defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff bank had sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,70,500/- to the defendants 1 and 2.

The defendant No.3 stood as guarantor for the loan amount. The defendants 1 and 2 executed necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to pay the loan amount together with interest at the rate of 13.90% p.a. in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs. 3,000/- each per month. After availing the loan amount, the defendants made some part payment thereafter became irregular in repayment of monthly installments and failed to pay the loan amount. The account of defendant has been classified as NPA. The plaintiff had made number of requests and demands to the defendants to repay the loan amount, but they failed to discharge the liability and not paid the loan amount.

Hence the defendants are liable to pay Rs.2,17,348/- together with interest. The plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the above amounts.

3.Summons were served to the defendants, but they failed to appear

before the court as such they were set exparte. This court proceeded

with exparte evidence. PW1 is the Chief Manager and authorised person to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff bank, filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and got marked Exs.A1 to A11.

4.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

5. Now, the points for determination are:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of

amount of Rs. 2,17,348/- together with interest ?

2. To what relief?

6.POINT No.1 :

PW1 deposed that the defendants after availing the loan of

Rs. 1,70,500/-, failed to repay the monthly installments as agreed by them in terms and conditions of the loan transaction after executing documents. Inspite of several requests from the plaintiff bank, the defendants failed to regularise the account and not paid the installments. Hence in total the defendants are due a sum of

Rs. 2,17,348/- and they are liable to discharge the above amount. In support of oral evidence, they got marked arrangement letter for education loan scheme, dt. 25.2.2009 as Ex.A1, agreement for term loan for education scheme, dt. 25.2.2009 as Ex.A2, borrowers consent for disclosure, dt. 14.2.2009 as Ex.A3, declaration, dt. 14.2.2009 as Ex.A4, guarantee agreement, dt. 25.2.2009 as Ex.A5, guarantors consent for disclosure dt. 14.2.2009 as Ex.A6, legal notice, dt. 24.1.2017 as Ex.A7, return postal cover as Ex.A8, legal notice, dt. 24.1.2017 as Ex.A9, returned postal cover as Ex.A10 and attested copy of statement of account, dt. 19.9.2018 for the period from 25.2.2009 to 30.3.2017 as

Ex.A11.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that defendants are liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff as they obtained loan and executed loan documents and agreed to pay the loan installments and failed to discharge the liability. The oral evidence of PW1 supported by the documentary evidence established that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount. Hence requesting the court to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

9.On the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and after hearing to counsel for plaintiff and on careful scrutiny of the entire material on record, it is pertinent to mention that PW1 categorically deposed that the plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan to the defendants, after availing of loan amount, the defendants committed default in paying the monthly installments. In support of his contention he filed

Ex.A1 which established the fact of sanctioning of loan to the defendant.

Ex.A2 to A6 established that the defendants executed necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank. Exs.A7 to A10 established that plaintiff bank sent legal notices on two times to the defendants for repayment of loan amount, but they did not repay the loan amount.

Ex.A11 is the attested copy of statement of account clearly showing the indebtness of the defendant to the plaintiff bank. The oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff was remained unchallenged as the defendants were set exparte. Hence, the plaintiff established its case and it is entitled for recovery of money together with interest. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. POINT No. 2:-

As discussed supra, the plaintiff by producing cogent and reliable evidence, proved that the defendants are liable to repay the balance due amount to the tune of Rs.2,17,348/- together with interest. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the above amount. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 for recovery of an amount of

Rs. 2,17,348/- together with interest @ 13.90% p.a. from the date of suit to till the date of decree and together with future interest @ 6% p.a.

from the date of decree to till the date of realisation.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 1st day of October, 2018.)

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the plaintiff : PW1: Ch.Dharmendar

For the defendants : None - –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the plaintiff:

Ex.A1 - Arrangement letter for education loan scheme, dt. 25.2.2009

Ex.A2- Agreement for term loan for education scheme, dt. 25.2.2009

Ex.A3- Borrowers consent for disclosure, dt. 14.2.2009

Ex.A4- Declaration, dt. 14.2.2009

Ex.A5- Guarantee agreement, dt. 25.2.2009

Ex.A6- Guarantors consent for disclosure dt. 14.2.2009

Ex.A7- Legal notice, dt. 24.1.2017

Ex.A8 -Return postal cover

Ex.A9- Legal notice, dt. 24.1.2017

Ex.A10- Returned postal cover

Ex.A11- Attested copy of statement of account, dt. 19.9.2018 for the period from 25.2.2009 to 30.3.2017

For the defendants: --Nil--

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 PRESENT: SRI T.NARSI REDDY

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. NO. 443 OF 2016

Between:

M/s. Prakriti (Exclusive dress materials) represented by its Proprietrix Mrs. Shobha Ladha W/o Shri Devender Gopal Ladha carrying on business at # Shop No. 19, Lower Ground floor, M Ishaque Estate Near General Bazar, Next to Bon Optics

M.G. Road, Secunderabad....Plaintiff

AND Mrs. R.V.Lakshmi Proprietary M/s. Chaitu's Life style # 8-22-82, 114, New Street,

Tirupathi...Defendant

CLAIM:- This suit is filed by the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 46,765/- in all with further interest on Rs. 39,755/- at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation.

VALUATION : The total suit is valued at Rs.46,765/-, on which a court fee of Rs.2,326/- is paid under Sec.20 of the AP Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Devender Kumar Jain, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant set ex parte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

Plaint filed on : 2.8.2016 Plaint registered on: 2.8.2016

1. That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby the suit is

decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff directing the

defendant to pay a sum of Rs.39,755/- together with

interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of

decree, and @ 6% p.a from the date of suit till the

realization.

2. That the defendant also do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.3,722/- towards cost of the suit.

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT: SECUNCERABAD.

MEMO OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendants 01Stamp on Plaint Rs. 2,326-00Exp 02Stamp on Power Rs. 2-00 03Advocate Fees Rs.1,344-00 04Stamp on process Rs. 50-00

Total: Rs. 3,722-00 --

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT: SECUNDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 1 st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018

PRESENT: SMT. P.SREEDEVI

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. No. 272 OF 2017

Between:

Syndicate bank Office situate at Manipal in Udupi District of Karnataka State One of its branches at Krishnanagar Picket, Secunderabad represented by its Senior Branch Manager Sri K.Laxmi Venkata Ratna, S/o K.L.Narsimha Rao ...Plaintif

AND

P.Chander, S/o P.Balaiah Occ: Auto Driver, R/o H.No. 10-4-D/260/1 Addagutta, East Maredpally,

Secunderabad ...Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Narendar Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendants set exparte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.1,07,956/- together with interest against the defendant.

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

The defendant is an auto driver approached the plaintiff bank for credit facilities under Micro and Small Enterprises Scheme for purchase of auto rickshaw. Considering the request of defendant, the plaintiff bank had sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- to the defendant.

The defendant executed necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to pay the loan amount together with interest. After availing the loan amount, the defendant made some part payment for a sum of

Rs. 90,601/- thereafter committed default in repayment of monthly installments and failed to pay the loan amount. The plaintiff had made number of requests and demands to the defendant to repay the loan amount, but he failed to discharge the liability and not paid the loan amount. Hence the defendant is liable to pay Rs.1,07,956/- together with interest. The plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the above amount.

3.Summons served to the defendant, but he failed to appear before the court as such he was set exparte. This court proceeded with exparte evidence. PW1 is the Senior Branch Manager and authorised person to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff bank, filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and got marked Exs.A1 to A8.

4.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

5. Now, the points for determination are:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs. 1,07956.28 ps together with interest ?

2. To what relief?

6.POINT No.1 :

PW1 deposed that the defendant after availing the loan of

Rs. 1,40,000/-, failed to repay the monthly installments as agreed by him in terms and conditions of the loan transaction after executing documents. Inspite of several requests from the plaintiff bank, the defendant failed to regularise the account and not paid the installments.

Hence in total the defendant is due a sum of Rs. 1,07,956.28 ps and he is liable to discharge the above amount. In support of oral evidence, they got marked loan application, dt. 20.6.2012 as Ex.A1, loan sanction letter, dt. 23.6.2012 as Ex.A2, hypothecation agreement, dt. 10.7.2012 as Ex.A3, demand promissory note, dt. 10.7.2012 as Ex.A4, legal notice,

dt. 10.12.2016 as Ex.A5, returned postal cover as Ex.A6, attested copy

of statement of account from the period 1.1.2012 to 6.5.2017 as Ex.A7 and power of attorney executed in favour of PW1 as Ex.A8.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that defendant is liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff as he obtained loan and executed loan documents and agreed to pay the loan installments and failed to discharge the liability. The oral evidence of PW1 supported by the documentary evidence established that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount. Hence requesting the court to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

9.On the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and after hearing to counsel for plaintiff and on careful scrutiny of the entire material on record, it is pertinent to mention that plaintiff bank gave power of attorney to PW1 to depose in favour of plaintiff bank vide

Ex.A8, who categorically deposed that the plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan to the defendant, after availing of loan amount, the defendant committed default in paying the monthly installments. In support of his contention he filed Exs.A1 and A2 which established the fact of sanctioning of loan to the defendant. Exs.A3 and A4 established that the defendant executed hypothecation agreement and demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff bank. Ex.A5 and A6 established that plaintiff bank sent legal notices to the defendant for repayment of loan amount, but he did not repay the loan amount. Ex.A7 is the attested copy of statement of account clearly showing the indebtness of the defendant to the plaintiff bank. The oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff was remained unchallenged as the defendant was set exparte.

Hence, the plaintiff established its case and it is entitled for recovery of money together with interest. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. POINT No. 2:-

As discussed supra, the plaintiff by producing cogent and reliable evidence, proved that the defendant is liable to repay the balance due amount to the tune of Rs.1,07,956.28 ps together with interest. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the above amount.

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of

Rs. 1,09,956.28 ps together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of suit to till the date of decree and together with future interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decree to till the date of realisation.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 1st day of October, 2018.)

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the plaintif : PW1: K.Laxmi Venkata Ratna

For the defendants : None - –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the plaintif:

Ex.A1 – Loan application, dt. 20.6.2012

Ex.A2- Loan sanction letter, dt. 23.6.2012

Ex.A3- Hypothecation agreement, dt. 10.7.2012

Ex.A4- Demand promissory note, dt. 10.7.2012

Ex.A5- Legal notice, dt. 10.12.2016

Ex.A6- Return postal cover

Ex.A7- Attested copy of statement of account for the period from 1.1.2012 to 6.5.2017

Ex.A8 -Power of attorney executed in favour of PW1

For the defendant: --Nil--

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 PRESENT: SRI T.NARSI REDDY

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. NO. 443 OF 2016

Between:

M/s. Prakriti (Exclusive dress materials) represented by its Proprietrix Mrs. Shobha Ladha W/o Shri Devender Gopal Ladha carrying on business at # Shop No. 19, Lower Ground floor, M Ishaque Estate Near General Bazar, Next to Bon Optics

M.G. Road, Secunderabad....Plaintiff

AND Mrs. R.V.Lakshmi Proprietary M/s. Chaitu's Life style # 8-22-82, 114, New Street,

Tirupathi...Defendant

CLAIM:­ This suit is filed by the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 46,765/­ in all with further interest on Rs. 39,755/­ at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation. 

VALUATION : The total suit is valued at Rs.46,765/­, on which a court fee of Rs.2,326/­ is paid under Sec.20 of the AP Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Devender Kumar Jain, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant set ex parte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

Plaint filed on : 2.8.2016 Plaint registered on: 2.8.2016

1. That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby the suit is

decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff directing the

defendant to pay a sum of Rs.39,755/- together with

interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of

decree, and @ 6% p.a from the date of suit till the

realization.

2. That the defendant also do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.3,722/­ towards cost of the suit. 

 I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT: SECUNCERABAD.

MEMO OF COSTS

For Plaintif For Defendants 01Stamp on Plaint Rs. 2,326-00Exp 02Stamp on Power Rs. 2-00 03Advocate Fees Rs.1,344-00 04Stamp on process Rs. 50-00

Total: Rs. 3,722-00 --

I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT: SECUNDERABAD.