Smt P.Srisatyadevi

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 442/2012

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt.P.SRI SATYA DEVI,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Friday, the 21th day of March, 2014.

O.S.442/2011

Between:

Mohammed Ghouse, s/o late Md.Kasim, Muslim, aged 40 years; foor wear business, presently residing at D.No.28-9-14/5, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam.

...Plaintiff

And:

1. Koduru Appala Raju, S/o late Tatayyalu, Hindu aged 42 years, presently residing at Door No.31-23-66/1, Allipuram, Simhala Devudu, Visakhapatnam.

2. Smt.Koduru Uma Devi, W/o K.Appala Raju, Hindu aged 32 years, presently residing at Door No.31-23-66/1, Allipuram, Simhala Devudu, Visakhapatnam.

3. Koduru Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Tatayyalu, Hindu aged 42 years, presently residing at Door No.31-23-66/1, Allipuram, Simhala Devudu, Visakhapatnam.

...Defendants

This suit is coming on 11-03-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Md.Soheb, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri.R.Rajeswara Rao

Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for suit costs.

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

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 442/2012

- 2 -

Plaintiff erected a small baddi in the suit schedule property long back and started to doing foot wear business in the same by paying necessary licence fee to the Municipal Corporation. There are nearly 20 baddies, apart from the baddi in the suit schedule property which are situated opposite to the Mahila Police Sation, Police Barracks, Main Road, Visakhapatnam. Thus plaintiff have been running his business within the knowledge of near by baddi holders. The defendants who are family members having no right and title over the suit schedule property and being a residents of a far place from schedule site tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the schedule property for which plaintiff complained to the elders of that locality. With the intervention of the village elders the defendant stopped their attempts. But all of sudden on 03-05-12 the defendants once again made attempt to disturb the business of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property with a view to grab the said site. On that plaintiff complained the matter to the police on 7-5-2012 and police warned the defendants not to make any illegal attempts towards the plaintiff's business. Having kept quite for a while the defendants along with their man again made an attempt to interfere with the plaintiffs possession over the schedule property on6-6-2012. Hence plaintiff was constrained to file this suit for the relief of permanent injunction having no other go to restrain the illegal ailivities of the defendants. Hence this suit.

3.On receipt of suit summons, the defendants made their appearance and first defendant filed his written statement where as the defendants 2 and 3 adopted the same. All the defendants denied the plaint averments in the written statement and further contented that the plaintiff is tenant under

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 442/2012

- 3 - first defendant as he was inducted into the schedule property in the year 2011 by the first defendant for a period of 11 months. In fact the plaintiff has no title or right over the schedule property to claim it since the said baddi was erected by the defendants way back in the year 1995. After completion of the leased period the plaintiff failed to vacate the schedule property but requested the defendants to allow him to continue in the same for further period for which defendant argued, but the plaintiff was irregular in payment of rents and became wilful defaulter since June, 2011. In fact he was not doing any business in the schedule property from November, 2011.

It is further averred that the defendant came to know in the month of

February, 2012 as the plaintiff leased out the schedule baddi to some 3rd party on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- and also received Rs.10,000/- towards advance rent. Immediately the defendants questioned the illegal act of the plaintiff and demanded him to vacate the schedule property since they required the same for their personal bonafide use and occupation. On that plaintiff threatened them with dire consequences. Hence the defendants were forced to give complaint before S.H.O. of II Town P.S on 17-2-2012, but Police did not take any action. Taking advantage of the same the plaintiff gave false complaint before the II Town P.S. on 7-5-2012 against the defendants with all false allegations. During the police enquiry plaintiff admitted his guilty on 21-5-2012 and also agreed to vacate the schedule premises, but he did not keep up his undertaking and got filed this suit with false allegations. The license fee receipts submitted by the plaintiff along with plaint are not belongs to the schedule premises and electricity service connection using by the plaintiff in the schedule premises was also not

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 442/2012

- 4 - issued for that property, thus the documents filed by the plaintiff are created and fabricated documents and no way connected to the suit schedule premises. They further averred that there is no cause of action to file this suit as they never made any high handed attempts to disposes the plaintiff from the schedule property. Therefore they prayed the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues framed by the court for trial:

1.Whether plaintiff is entitled to get the decree of permanent

injunction passed against the defendants as prayed for or not ?

2. To what relief ?

5. During the course of trial plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to Ex.A6, and Ex.A7 was marked through D.W.1 during his cross examination. Apart from plaintiff one independent witness was examined as P.W.2. On the other hand the first defendant him self got examined as D.W.1 and exhibited Ex.B1 to Ex,B6. The defendant also examined one independent witness as D.W.2. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties will be discussed in detail while answering the issue No.1 with a view to avoid the repetition.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by the both counsels.

7.ISSUE No.1 :PW.1 being a plaintiff reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination affidavit as he erected the baddi in the suit schedule site long back, ever since he has been doing foot wear business in the schedule property by paying the necessary licence fee to the Municipal

Corporation and also by paying electricity consumption charges to the

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 442/2012

- 5 - department concern. In support of his oral evidence bunch of licence fee receipts 5 in number got marked under Ex.A1 pertaining to years 2007 to 2012 and also the original electricity bill dated 10-5-2012 for the service connection No.1111205043666 exhibited under Ex.A5. To show the nature of business running by the plaintiff, the original purchase bills five in number exhibited under Ex.A2. P.W.1 further deposed that on 3-5-2012, the defendants tried to remove the baddi in the suit schedule site by way of interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same.

Hence he complained the matter to the S.H.O. of II town P.S. on 7-5-2012.

To substantiate this oral evidence, copy of the complaint dated 7-5-2012 and original postal acknowledgement from the SHO of II Town P.S dated 9-5- 2012 exhibited under Ex.A3 and 4. P.W.1 further deposed that the defendant again tried to interfere with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by making illegal attempts in the month of June, though he complained to the police, they did not take any action properly, on that he got issued telegram notice to the Commissioner of Police and also to the SHO of II Town P.S through his advocate. The copy of telegram notice

dated 6-6-2012 exhibited under Ex.A6. The oral evidence of P.W.2 in his

chief examination affidavit completely stood on same lines with that of the evidence of P.W.1 regarding plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Though the learned counsel for defendants cross examined P.W.1 and P.W.2, no worthful admissions made out from them to the extent of the defence taken by the defendants, as the plaintiff was tenant under the first defendant for a period of 11 months commencing from 1-11-2011 to 1-11-2012 for a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-.

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 442/2012

- 6 -

8.Coming to the oral and documentary evidence adduced by defendants,

D.W.1 who is the first defendant reiterated their written statement contentions in his chief examination affidavit as he erected the baddi in the suit schedule site way back in the year 1995. In support of his oral evidence the license fee receipts for the period 1997 to 2004 exhibited under Ex.B1. He further deposed that when the plaintiff failed to vacate the schedule property after completion of lease period ie., subsequent to 1-11- 2011, He demanded him to vacate the same for which plaintiff requested some more time. Considering the request of plaintiff he waited for some time but in the mean while he came to know in the month of February, 2012 as plaintiff leased out the schedule property to some 3rd party by receiving the advance rent . On that he demanded the plaintiff to vacate the schedule property and handed over its possession to him, since he required the same for his personal bonafide use and occupation to them plaintiff threatened them dire with consequences, on that he reported the matter to SHO of II town P.S on 17-2-2012. To prove the said report, the original receipt issued by S.H.O of II Town P.S. dated 17-2-2012 exhibited under

Ex.B2. He further deposed that, police enquired matter and plaintiff admitted his guilt before the police and agreed a vacate the premises on or

before 6-6-2012 by paying the arrears of rent. But he did not comply the

same, inturn he got filed this suit with false allegations. To prove the alleged lease between himself and plaintiff, an unregistered lease agreement exhibited under Ex.B6. Apart from the D.W.1 one independent witness said to be president of 'Sri.Saibaba Chillara Baddila Varthkula Sankshema

Sangam' was examined as D.W.2. He deposed in his chief examination as

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 442/2012

- 7 - the first defendant erected the baddi in the suit schedule site within their knowledge and the same was leased out to the plaintiff by first defendant and plaintiff failed to vacate the same after completion of the leased period, even after their attempts to settle the matter being an elders of the business people community. Ex.B5 is the original letter issued by him on 6-3-2013.

9.The further evidence of DW.1 is, on 3-5-2013 or any other date they did not make any attempt to disposess the plaintiff forcibly from the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for defendants submitted in his arguments as the defendants involved to perform a function by that time which can be noticed from Ex.B4 which is original invitation card of first defendant's daughter's function.

The learned counsel for plaintiff cross examined the D.W.1 and D.W.2 to prove the plaintiffs case through their admissions. D.W.2 clearly admitted in his cross examination as Ex.A7 photograph shows that plaintiff was doing business of foot wear in the suit schedule shop. He further admitted that plaintiff has been paying the license fee to the corporation since he has been running the business in the suit schedule property. By virtue of this admission of D.W.2 the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit can be accepted by considering the exhibits under Exs.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A5.

10. The learned counsel for defendants submitted in his arguments as the plaintiff has not been doing the business in the schedule property from long back, infact the schedule property kept under lock and the plaintiff is doing his business in the shop of his brother in law, hence the possession of the

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 442/2012

- 8 - plaintiff over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit can not be accepted as true. This argument shall not be considered, for the reason the defendants did not take any such plea in the written statement or even no admissions made out from P.W.1 and P.W.2 to that extent. Even other wise also this argument cannot be accepted for the reason, the baddi in suit suit schedule premises if at all kept under lock and key by the plaintiff, still it can be considered as it is in his possession.

11.Coming to the legal validity of Ex.B6. Admittedly, the suit schedule site is vested with the Municipal Corporation. As such neither the plaintiff nor the defendants can claim absolute title over the said site. The plaintiff or defendants are mere licencees of the property of the Municipal corporation, who ever erected the baddi in that site. As such the defendants cannot lease out the suit schedule site to the plaintiff under Ex.B6 and this document is nonest in the eye of law. The defendants might have run the mechanic shed in the same site from 1997 to 2004 by paying the license fee to the Municipal Corporation, but as and when they vacate the same and allowed the plaintiff to run his business in the schedule property they cannot claim any exclusive right over the said site.

12. Since it is a suit for simplicitor permanent injunction the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit must be a primary consideration to decree the suit. D.W.1 during his cross examination, admitted Ex.A7 photograph which shows the running of foot wear business by the plaintiff. D.W.1 further deposed in the cross examination as, “though the receipts exhibited under Ex.A1 shows that the

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 442/2012

- 9 - said nominal amount collected from the plaintiff for running business in the schedule property, it was happened since the plaintiff gave wrong information to the corporation to issue said receipts on his name as if the said baddi was alloted to him”. This explanation given by the D.W.1 is not at all convincing for the reason, D.W.2 clearly admitted in his cross examination as the Municipal Corporation issue the receipts for licence fee on the name of persons who actually doing business in the baddi as on that date. As such it can be understood that the licence fee receipts will be issued by corporation for running the business in the site vested with the corporation but not for site like assessment of tax. Since the plaintiff could establish his possession as on the date of filing of suit over the suit schedule property by way of producing licence fee receipts, electricity bill and also by eliciting admissions from D.W.2, such possession can be protected by way of granting relief of permanent injunction in his favour restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

13.For the reasons stated supra this court is of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled to get the decree of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for since he could establish his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and also the existing dispute with the defendants regarding suit schedule site. If the possession of the plaintiff is not protected by way of granting equitable relief of permanent injunction, there is every likely hood of infringement of his possessory rights over the schedule property. Accordingly this issue answered infavour of the plaintiff.

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 442/2012

- 10 -

12. ISSUE NO.2:- To What relief ?

In the result, suit decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on the 21st day of March, 2014.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW.1:Md.Ghouse D.W.1: K.Appalaraju

P.W.2:Abdul AzazD.W.2: K.Venkata Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/ : Bunch of tax receipts (five in number) pertaining to the years from 2007 to 2012 (laminated copies filed )

Ex.A2/ : Bunch of original purchase bills (five in number) dt.17-4- 2012, 21-12-2012, 18-2-2012, 2-6-2012 and 4-6-2012. issued by to the SHO II Town P.S.

Ex.A3/7-5-2012: personal copy of the complaint given by plaintiff to the SHO of II Town P.S.

Ex.A4/9-5-2012: Original postal acknowledgment from SHO, II Town P.S.

Ex.A5/10-5-2012: Original electricity bill for the service connection number 1111205043666 issued on the name of B.Ramu.

Ex.A6/6-6-2012: Original Telegram receipt.

DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1 : Original license fee receipts (4 in number) from the period 1997-2002, 2003 and 2004.

Ex.B2/17-2-2012: Original receipt issued by the SHO, of II Town P.S. Visakhapatnam on receipt of complainant from

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 442/2012

- 11 -

K.Uma Devi.

Ex.B3/19-6-2012 : Original receipt issued by the central complaint cell of Commissionerate Visakhapatnam on receipt of complaint from his wife.

Ex.B4/: Original invitation card of his daughter's puberty function.

Ex.B5/6-3-2013: Original letter issued by the resident Sri. Sai baba Hawkers welfare society.

Ex.B5/: Unregistered lease agreement executed between K.Srinivasa Rao and plaintiff.

Ex.B6/: Unregistered lease agreement executed between

K.Srinivasa Rao and the plaintiff.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 692/2012

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt.P.SRI SATYA DEVI,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Monday, the 24th day of March, 2014.

O.S.692/2012

Between:

Smt. Mungara Chinnammalu, W/o late Rambabu, Hindu, aged 62 years, House wife, residing at D.No.22-59-01, Near Seetharama Temple, Mattavenkatappa Street, Visakhapatnam.

...Plaintiff

And:

1. Smt. Vankayala Seshayamma, W/o V.V.Surya Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 60 years, residing at D.No.22-61-08, Near Seetharama Temple, Mattavenktappa Street, Visakhapatnam.

2. Munapaka Ravi, S/o varahalu, Hindu aged 40 years, residing at D.No.25-08-85, Main Road, Kurpamarket, Visakhapatnam.

3. Kosuri Sannibabu, S/o Not known to plaintiff, Hindu, aged 45 years, residing at D.No.23-01-37, Old Municipal office, Visakhapatnam.

...Defendants

This suit is coming on 18-03-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.S.Joga Rao Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri.G.T.V.Malleswara

Rao Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs.

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

It is averred that Plaintiff is absolute owner of the pliant schedule property since it was purchased by her maternal aunt under registered sale

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 692/2012

- 2 - deed on 11-1-1946 and she bequeathed the same in her favour under a will

dated 20-9-1994. Thus the plaintiff and her family members have been in

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the inception. Except her self, no one having any right over the same. On 25-08-2012 at about 3.00 P.M. the defendants along with their henchmen tried to trespass into the suit schedule property high handedly, but the plaintiff could resist their highhanded action with the assistance of the people of that locality. On that the defendants left the suit schedule property by openly proclaiming that they will come again with more force to grab the suit schedule property. Having no other go plaintiff was constrained to file this suit for protection of her lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence the suit.

3.On receipt of suit summons, the defendants 1 and 2 made their appearance and got filed their written statement by negating the plaint averments. The sum and substance of their written statement is as follows:

They never tried to tress pass into the plaintiff's property which is situated on the eastern side of first defendant's property. In fact there is a lane on the southern side of first defendant's house property into which, one door way and two window ways of her house opened. The plaintiff who is the eastern side neighbor of the 1st defendant have been causing obstruction to use that southern side lane. When the 1st defendant questioned the highhandedness of the plaintiff, she got filed this suit with all false and frivolous allegations. The particulars mentioned in the plaint schedule are also incorrect, and there is no cause of action to file this suit.

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 692/2012

- 3 -

Hence they prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues framed by the court for trial:

1.Whether plaint schedule is correct or not ?

2.Whether plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit

schedule property or not ?

3.Whether defendants tried to trespass into the suit schedule

property on 25-8-2012 and later on or not ?

4.To what relief ?

5. During the course of trial plaintiff herself got examined as PW.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to Ex.A5. She also examined one independent witness as

P.W.2. On the other hand the 2nd defendant was examined as D.W.1 and examined one independent witness as D.W.2, apart from exhibiting two documents under Ex.B1 and Ex.B2.

6.Heard the arguments of both counsels.

7.ISSUE No.1 : Whether plaint schedule is correct or not ?

It is the evidence of P.W.1 that house property is an extent of 90 square yards of site purchased by her maternal aunt under a registered sale deed dated 11-01-1946 which was shown as plaint schedule property herein.

In support of her oral evidence, the certified copy of the registered sale deed executed infavour of Mungala Gunnamma was exhibited under Ex.A1. P.W.1 further deposed that by virtue of the will executed by M.Gunnamma who is her maternal aunt, she came into possession of suit schedule property from 20-09-1994. But this oral evidence of P.W.1 not substantiated with any

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 692/2012

- 4 - documentary proof. However the possession of the plaintiff over the property situated on the eastern side of the first defendant's property which is now shown as plaint schedule property is not in dispute. Since this is a suit for simplicitor permanent injunction, the possession of the party to the suit who approached the court for the said relief must be a primary consideration. The possession of the plaintiff over the said 90 square yards of site consisting a house therein was admitted by D.W.1 during his cross examination, hence non exhibiting said will need not be come into the way.

8.The defendants disputed the particulars given in the plaint schedule by the plaintiff. Hence this issue was framed. As seem from the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1, this court did not find any discrepancy in her evidence regarding the boundary particulars given in the plaint schedule.

P.W.1 clearly deposed in her cross examination as the house property of first defendant is situated on the western side of her house and the boundary wall of Vankayala Venkata Rao and Tangati Rammurthy house is her southern boundary. She further deposed that the western boundary to her property is house wall of T.Gurumurthy. Though she could not depose the name of her northern side neighbor, she deposed as her northern boundary is boundary wall of house of some others. In the above discussed evidence of P.W.1, except the first defendant's property on the western side of her property, the remaining boundary particulars deposed by her completely tallied with schedule in Ex.A1. As seen from the Ex.B1 i.e, sale deed of first defendant vendor, this court noticed that it is the document of the year 1958. As per recitals of that document, the vendor of the first defendant acquired the said property in the year 1949 i.e. subsequent to the

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 692/2012

- 5 - registration of Ex.A1. As such T.Gurumurthy whose name was mentioned as western boundary holder in Ex.A1 might be the predecessor in title of first defendant. Hence this court has no reason to suspect the boundary particulars mentioned in plaint schedule. D.W.1 also categorically admitted that an extent of 90 square yards of site consisting a house therein bearing door No.22-59-1 belongs to plaintiff. As such there is no further proof is required to accept that plaint schedule is true and correct. Accordingly this issue answered.

9. ISSUE NO.2:- Whether plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property or not ?

By virtue of the above extracted admission of D.W.1, it can be accepted that plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property, which is treated in 90 square yards of site consisting the building therein. Hence basing on the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 which are property tax, water tax, electricity bill receipts and tax pass book issued in her infavour, it can be held that plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

10. ISSUE NO.3:- Whether defendants tried to trespass into the suit schedule property on 25-8-2012 and later on or not ?

P.W.1 deposed in his chief examination as the defendants who are no way concern with the suit schedule property tried to tress pass into the same on 25-8-2012 at about 3.00 P.M, but she could resist their highhanded attempt with the aid of local people. She further deposed that since the defendants are having much influence, she was constrained to file this suit for the relief of permanent injunction against them with an apprehension

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 692/2012

- 6 - that they will come again to grab her property. In support of her oral evidence, P.W.2 also deposed the same in his chief examination. But during the cross examination P.W.2 deposed that there is a road on the southern side of plaintiff's property which is contradicting the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the recitals in Ex.A1. In addition to that P.W.2 pleaded ignorance about the location of first defendant house. In view of the same, this court is of the opinion that much credibility can not be given to his oral testimony.

If really he was attending the minor repair works in the house of plaintiff on 28-2-2012, he would have knowledge about the house of the first defendant which is situated on the western side of plaintiff's property. Hence basing on his testimony, the attempt of trespass by the defendant said to be taken place on 25-8-2012 cannot be believed.

11. The evidence of D.W.1, during the cross examination goes to show that they never restrict the plaintiff to use the souther side lane. It was suggested to D.W.1 that the door way arranged by D1 into the southern side lane, which is exclusively belongs to the plaintiff and they tried to occupy the same, hence the plaintiff got filed this suit. It was further suggested to DW1 that they caused obstruction to the plaintiff for her passage and she gave complaint to the SHO of I Town Police against him, but these suggestions categorically denied by DW1. As seen from this suggestions, this court is of the opinion that the same cannot be allowed and considered for the reason, there is no such pleading or evidence by the plaintiff to that extent. The lane which is situated on the southern side of the first defendantsproperty is her way to reach the western side main road was neither pleaded nor deposed by the plaintiff. No amount of evidence shall be allowed to let in without

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 692/2012

- 7 - pleading to that extent.

D.W.2 who is a independent witness also deposed in her cross examination as plaintiff has to cross the lane situated on the southern side of first defendant's property to reach her house. However D.W.1 clearly deposed in his cross examination as they never caused any obstruction to the plaintiff for usage of said lane. As such the plaintiff cannot agitate for her right over the said lane situated on the southern side of first defendant property without pleading any thing on these lines.

12.The initial burden is always cart upon the party who approached the court for the equitable relief of permanent injunction, to prove the factual assertions made by them. Plaintiff failed to prove the alleged interference of the defendant with her enjoyment over the house property situated in 90 square yards of site, thus she failed to prove the alleged cause of action said to be arose on 25-8-2012 to file this suit. In these circumstances the suggestion given to the P.W.1 that she got filed this suit by receiving the summons in O.S.340/2012 can be accepted. The learned counsel for plaintiff argued that defendant failed to file any peace of document regarding the suit in O.S.340/2012, hence the above said suggestion can not be considered. This court did not find any force in that contention, for the reason, P.W.1 clearly admitted that process server of the court tried to serve the suit summons in O.S.340/2012 to her.

13.In the light of above discussion this court is of the opinion that plaintiff failed to prove the cause of action said to be arose on 25-8-2012 thereby she failed to prove that her legal rights are going to be infringed by the acts of the defendants. Hence she is not entitled for equitable relief of

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 692/2012

- 8 - permanent injunction. Accordingly this issue answered against the plaintiff.

14. ISSUE NO.4: To What relief ?

In the result, suit dismissed without costs

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on the 24th day of March, 2014.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW.1: Mungara ChinnammaluD.W.1: Mandapaka Ravi P.W.2: Kuna.Chiranjeevi D.W.2: Surini Srinivasa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/11-01-1946 : Certified copy of the registered sale deed executed in favour of Mungala Gunnamma by Nakka amma.

Ex.A2/21-08-2012: Original Municipal tax receipt for Rs.346/-

Ex.A3/21-08-2012: Original E-Seva receipt for the water tax of Rs.360/-

Ex.A4/08-09-2012: Original electricity bill for the service connection bearing No.112117 D 800006947

Ex.A5/: Verified copy of the tax pass book bearing No.152270 issued in my favour for the house bearing D.No.22-59-1

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1/17-12-1958: Original registered sale deed executed in favour of M.Jayamma i.e, vendor of 1st defendant.

Ex.B2: : Rough plan which was filed by us along with our counter in I.A.312/2012

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 845/2012

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt.P.SRI SATYA DEVI, M.A., L.L.M.,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Tuesday, the 18th day of March, 2013

O.S.845/2012

Between:

Naramsetty Lakshmana Rao, S/o Anjaneyulu, Hindu, aged 42 years, residing at D.No.31-8-85/1, Bangaramma Metta, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam.

...Plaintiff

And :

Kamadana Ganapathi Rao S/o Krishna Murthy, (Late) Hindu aged 43 years, residing at D.No.31-8-82, Bangaramma Metta, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam-4/ (Amended as per orders in I.A.123/2013 dated 8-4-2013)

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 14-03-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.K.V.Naidu, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri.B.Tulasi Das

Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit filed by the plaint for recovery of an amount of Rs.94,380/- with subsequent interest basing on the promissory note transaction and for costs.

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.55,000/- from the plaintiff on 14-10-09 for the purpose of his family expenses and clearing sundry debts, by executing a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the debt amount with interest @ 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In spite of plaintiff's several repeated demands and requests, defendant did not repay the principal debt amount or interest thereon. Hence plaintiff got issued legal notice Dt.05-8-2011 to the defendant but the same was returned unserved as defendant not claimed it.

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 845/2012

Hence the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit to recover the amount covered under promissory note Dt. 14-10-2009 along with agreed interest and so also subsequent interest on principal amount along with costs.

3.On receipt of suit summons the defendant made his appearance and filed his written statement by negating plaint averments. The nutshell of his written statement is as follows:

4.He never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff since he never borrowed any amount from him. The suit promissory note is a fabricated document brought into existence by the plaintiff for a wrong full gain from him. The particulars of the borrower's surname, father's name, and the Door Number of the residential address mentioned in the said fabricated document is no way related to the defendant. As such the plaintiff is not entitled for any decree against defendant. Therefore he prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed by the court for trial:

1.Whether suit promissory note dt.14-10-2009 is true, valid and

supported by consideration or not ?

2.Whether plaintiff is entitled to get the decree passed for the suit

amount as prayed for or not ?

3.To what relief ?

6. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to Ex.A3. Apart from him, he also examined one of the attestors of suit promissory note as P.W.2. On the other hand the defendant himself got examined as D.W.1 and also examined one independent witness as D.W.2 but not adduced any documentary evidence. The oral evidence of

P.W.1 and D.W1 in their chief examination affidavits are nothing but replica

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 845/2012

of their respective pleadings. Hence those need not be reproduced herein.

The oral evidence of P.W.2 in his chief examination stood on same lines with that of the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of the suit transaction in between the plaintiff and defendant. In support of the oral evidence of P.W.1 and 2, the suit promissory note dated 14-10-2009 was exhibited under Ex.A1 and the office copy of legal notice exhibited under Ex.A2, whereas Ex.A3 is the unserved registered notice returned from the defendant address. D.W.2 who is independent witness deposed in his chief examination about the residence of the defendant at the relevant disputed period. The oral evidence of the above discussed witnesses in their cross examination will be discussed while answering the issues with a view to avoid the repetition.

7. Heard the arguments of the plaintiff's counsel. On behalf of the defendant written arguments submitted.

8. ISSUE No.1: Whether suit promissory note dt.14-10-2009 is true, valid and supported by consideration or not ?

On close evaluation of the oral evidence adduced by both parties, this court noticed that defendant strongly disputed the suit transaction covered under Ex.A1, including its execution by him. Hence the initial burden is upon the plaintiff to establish the lending of Rs.55,000/- to the defendant under Ex.A1. To support his oral evidence coupled with Ex.A1, the plaintiff got examined the attestor of suit promissory note as P.W.2. The evidence of

P.W1 and P.W.2 completely corroborated with Ex.A1 regarding the lending of

Rs.55,000/- to the defendant by the plaintiff at the house of plaintiff on 14- 10-2009. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cross examined nothing was elicited to suspect or discard their oral testimonies. The contention of the defendant is sur name, fathers name and house bearing number mentioned in Ex.A1 are no way related to him. To prove the said contention the cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 carefully scrutinized. On evaluation of their

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 845/2012

evidence in cross examination, this court is did not find any tenable reason to accept the contention of the defendant.

9.To accept the defendant's contention the oral and documentary evidence placed by him have to be scrutinized. The evidence of D.W.1 in his chief examination affidavit is nothing but replica of the written statement filed by him. To support his oral evidence regarding his sur name and his father's name, defendant exhibited his 10th class Mark List and house hold supply card issued in his favour as Ex.B1 and B2. On seeing the same this court observed that the defendant's father's name is 'Krishna Murthy' and his sur name is 'Kamadana'. As seen from Ex.A1, the sur name of the executant of said promissory note mentioned as 'K' whereas the father's name mentioned as 'Satyanarayana'. The learned counsel for defendant submitted in his written arguments as the oral evidence of P.W.2 is suffice to hold that defendant did not give information to the scribe or plaintiff to fill up in the Ex.A1 promissory note. On seeing the oral evidence of P.W.2, this court observed that P.W.2 deposed as defendant did not inform his sur name and father's name to the scribe to mention in Ex.A1, but this admission shall not be a ground to suspect the transaction covered under Ex.A1 for the reason, P.W.2 is a mere attestor and his evidence has to be weighed regarding the signature of the defendant on Ex.A1. He attested the signature of executant of Ex.A1 as sole attestor. The scribe of Ex.A1 is the right person to say, that on whose information he mentioned the particulars in Ex.A1. As per the oral evidence of P.W.1 scribe was brought by the defendant himself. The defendant counsel did not make any attempt to deny the said evidence of P.W.1 by way of giving suggestion to the P.W.1. As such the above discussed statements of P.W.2 can be treated as stray sentence.

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 845/2012

10.The further contention of the defendant regarding the House Bearing

Door No.31-8-82 mentioned in Ex.A1. His evidence is he never resided in that house and he used to reside in the house bearing door No.31-8-40. To prove the said contention, he examined one independent witness as D.W.2.

D.W.2 evidence in chief examination shows that he is owner of House bearing Door No.31-1-40 and defendant resided in his house from 2003 to 2011. The evidence of D.W2 in his chief examination can be completely ignored and can not be relied for the reason, he is 23 years old by the date of giving evidence before this court, it means by the year 2003 he was only 12 years old hence his ownership over the said house by the year 2003 can't be accepted. He failed to file any documents to show that he is owner of house bearing Door No.31-8-40. Moreover he clearly deposed in his cross examination as he does not no whether any written lease agreement entered by the defendant with his father to reside in their house as tenant from 2003 to 2011. By virtue of all these admissions it is clearly he is not owner of the

House bearing D.No.31-8-40. No reason or explanation given by the defendant for not examining the father of D.W.2 who might be the owner of

House bearing D.No.31-8-40. As such basing on the oral testimony of

D.W.2 it can not be held that by the date of Ex.A1 ie.,14-10-2009, defendant was residing in house D.No.31-8-40 but not in house bearing D.No.31-8-82.

11.The main contention of defendant is Ex.A1 promissory note collusively brought into existence by the plaintiff for an lawful gain from him with a view to harass him. To accept this contention the defendant should establish the reasons developed by the plaintiff against him for harassing. It is not the case of the defendant that there was a rivalry or animosity between them. In such a case it is quite improbable to hold that plaintiff all together filed a suit against the stranger for extracting the money. There is no

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 845/2012

acceptable reason found by this court to further hold P.W.2 who is a milk vendor helped the plaintiff to file a false suit against the defendant.

Moreover defendant did not make any attempt to send the Ex.A1 promissory note for expert opinion to prove that the signature on Ex.A1 not belongs him. If really he is no way concern with the signature on Ex.A1, certainly he would have made an attempt to prove the said factum of fabrication of Ex.A1 by forging his signature. Since he failed to adduce any other probable and cogent evidence, this court has no hesitation to hold that the transaction covered under Ex.A1 is true and correct.

12.P.W.1 and P.W.2 categorically deposed in their cross examination about the passing of Rs.55,000/- ie., cash consideration to the defendant under

Ex.A1. Their evidence did not shake on this aspect. As such this court is of the opinion that Ex.A1 promissory note is fully supported by consideration and defendant executed the same on receipt of cash consideration of

Rs.55,000/- from the plaintiff.

13.In the light of above discussion it can be held that the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by the consideration. Accordingly this issue answered.

14. Issue No.2:- Whether plaintiff is entitled to get the decree passed for the suit amount as prayed for or not ?

In view of the conclusion arrived by this court while answering the

Issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree passed in his favour for the suit claimed amount along with subsequent interest on principal debt of

Rs.55,000/- and also for suit costs.

15.Issue No.3:- To what relief ?

In the result, suit decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.94,380/- with subsequent interest on principle sum of

Rs.55,000/- @ 6% p.a from the date of suit to till the date of realization.

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 845/2012

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this 18th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- (P.Sri Satya Devi)

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW.1: Naramsetti Laxman RaoD.W.1: K.Ganapathi Rao

P.W.2: Adari Govida @ Govinda RaoD.W.2: K.Harish

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/10-03-2010: Original promissory note executed in favour of plaintiff Rs.55,000/-

Ex.A2/5-08-2011: Office copy of the legal notice got issued by plaintiff

Ex.A3/13-08-2011: Unserved registered notice along with returned cover.

DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1/--: Original Secondary School Certificate. Ex.B2/--: Original household supplies card.

Sd/- (P.Sri Satya Devi)

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 742/2012

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt.P.SRI SATYA DEVI,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Friday, the 21st day of March, 2014.

O.S.742/2012

Between:

Ippili Kanaka Raju, S/o Appala Ramulu, Hindu, aged 32 years, Proprietor of Sri.Gayathri Acid Ship, situated a3 t D.No.47-11-20/2. 1st lane, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam R/of D.no.50- 64-4/2, Kanakamma Vari Veedhi, Seethamapeta, Visakhapatnam.

...Plaintiff

And: Nammi Ayodhya Ram, S/o Appala Swamy, Hindu, aged 69 years, GPA Holder for Chandaka Eswara Rao, S/o Sanyasi, Residing in USA, Residing at Flat No.102, Narasimha Vihar Apartments, Sivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 4-03-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.SK.Shareef Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri.M.Ravi and Smt. Ch.Madhavi Lata Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men not to destroyed the electricity connection, and articles in the schedule property by interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property including a forcible eviction except under due process of law.

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

The Plaintiff is doing a business of Gayathri Acid & Gold Making shop , in that course, he approached the defendant who is a GPA holder of

Ch.Eswara Rao to let out the schedule property to him for running his

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 742/2012

- 2 - business, for which defendant accepted and they both entered into lease agreement dated 08-10-2004 for a period of 11 months agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-. Ever since the plaintiff has been doing his business in the schedule property, even after subsequent to the completion of the lease period he continued in the schedule property on oral and mutual understanding with the defendant. He also paid Rs.30,000/- cash security deposit to the defendant and defendant agreed to return the same at the time of vacating the schedule premises. Present agreed rent is Rs.6,500/- per month. While things stood thus the defendant all of a sudden tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property with his henchman by force, as he wanted to let out the schedule property to the 3rd parties for higher rents. Inspite of plaintiff's request the defendant not cared him.

Since the plaintiff is having more reputation of his business in and around the area of suit schedule property and running the business with number of workers, if he vacate the schedule property, he will put to loss, not only to himself but also to the workers, who are working under him. Hence, plaintiff was constrained to file this suit for the relief permanent injunction against the defendant and his men.

3.On receipt of suit summons, the defendant made his appearance and filed his written statement by negating the plaint averments. The sum and substance of his written statement is as follows:

He admitted about the lease of the schedule property to the plaintiff in the year, 2004 for a period of 11 months, but he denied the quantum of rent agreed to pay for the schedule premises. It is further contended that he being a GPA holder of the original owner of the schedule property leased out

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 742/2012

- 3 - the same for a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- and the lease was subsequently extended from year to year on the oral requests of the plaintiff and the agreed rent payable for schedule property as of now is Rs.18,000/- but not

Rs.6,500/-. He gaveoral notice to the plaintiff in the month of April, 2012 to vacate the schedule property and hand over the same for his own occupation. Moreover plaintiff became defaulter of rents since June, 2011.

But without vacating the schedule property by clearing the arrears of rent plaintiff got filed this suit with false and incorrect particulars. As such he is not entitled for the equatable relief of permanent injunction against him and the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the original owner of the suit schedule property is certainly a necessary party to the suit. There is no cause of action to file this suit and it was created by plaintiff for the purpose of filing this false suit, hence he prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues framed by the court for trial:

1.Whether plaintiff is lawful tenant of plaint schedule property as on

the date of filing of the suit or not ?

2.Whether plaintiff is entitled to get passed the decree or permanent

injunction prayed for or not ?

3.To what relief ?

5. During the course of trial plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and exhibited under Exs.A1 to Ex.A4, and also examined 2 witness as P.W.2 and

P.W.3. On the other hand no oral and documentary evidence adduced by the defendant except cross examining the P.W1.

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 742/2012

- 4 -

6.No arguments submitted by both counsels.

7.ISSUE No.1 :PW.1 being a plaintiff reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination affidavit as he is a lawful tenant of suit schedule property as on the date of fling of the suit, since it was let out to him by the defendant under lease agreement date.08-10-2004. Except the oral evidence of P.W.1 there is no document filed by him to say the alleged lease agreement. However defendant admitted that he being a GPA holder of the

Chandaka Eswara Rao, who is original owner of schedule property leased out it to plaintiff commencing from 8-10-2004, but this plea of the defendant can not be considered as lawful admission of the plaintiff case for the reason, he also did not file any document to show that he acted as GPA holder of the original owner of suit schedule property. In the absence of that crucial document ie., original General Power of Attorney said to be executed by the Chandaka Eswara Rao, the lease agreement if any between the plaintiff and defendant can not be accepted and shall not be termed as a legal and valid lease agreement. As such basing on the defence of the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree as he is lawful tenant of suit schedule property. The electricity receipts exhibited by the plaintiff under Ex.A1 clearly shows that Chandaka Eswara Rao is the owner of suit suit schedule property. Hence he is certainly necessary party to the suit and no decree can be passed infavour of the plaintiff in his absence.

8.Basing on the telephone bills, photographs which were exhibited under

Ex.A2 and A3, the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property can not be treated as lawful. Ex.A4 i.e, served copy of the caveat petition filed by the defendant also no way helpful to the plaintiff to consider him as

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 742/2012

- 5 - lawful tenant of suit schedule property as on the date filing of the suit.

9.P.W.2 and 3 who are independent witnesses deposed about the plaintiff business in the suit schedule property. There is no dispute by the defendant about the possession of schedule property by plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit but defendant strongly disputed the quantum of rent agreed to pay for the schedule property and also further contended that plaintiff fell in arrears of rent. To prove his contentions, he did not adduce any acceptable evidence and also failed to cross examine P.W.2 and 3. As such the oral evidence of P.W.2 and 3 can be considered to hold that plaintiff paid the rent regularly to the defendant agreed to pay for the schedule property. Payment of rent by the plaintiff does not entitle him to get a relief of permanent injunction on the ground of lawful tenancy. Moreover plaintiff did not adduce any evidence to show that the alleged attempt of the defendant and his men to evict him forcefully from the schedule property.

10.In the light of above discussion this court is of the opinion that plaintiff failed to prove that he is lawful tenant of the suit schedule property, since no credibility and authenticity can be given to lease agreement with the GPA holder of the original owner of the schedule property in the absence of exhibiting the original general power of attorney executed by the Ch.Eswara

Rao. Accordingly this issue answered against him.

11. ISSUE NO.2:- In view of the conclusion arrived by this court with above discussed reasons while answering the Issue No.1, the plaintiff is not entitled for decree of permanent injunction against the defendant and his men as he failed to prove his own pleadings with the support of acceptable

I AJCJ/VSP

OS 742/2012

- 6 - documentary proof. Moreover the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the plaintiff failed to show the original owner of the suit schedule property as party to the suit. As such he is not entitled for any decree as prayed for. Accordingly this issue answered.

12. ISSUE NO.3: To What relief ?

13. In the result suit dismissed with costs to the defendant .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on the 21st day of March, 2014.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW.1: Ippili. Kanakaraju P.W.2: Dasari Narayana Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/ : Three electricity bills for the service connection bearing No.54382, 23548 issued for the property bearing D.No.47-11-20/2 on the name of Ch.Eswara Rao.

Ex.A2/06-6-2012: Original BSNL telephone bill for the phone No.2763775.

Ex.A3/: 5 Positive photographs along with CD

Ex.A4/: Served copy of the caveat petition filed by defendant

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

BEFORE THE LOK ADAALAT AT VISAKHAPANAM

(Constituted by District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam Under Section 19 of Legal Services Authorities Act,1987)

SATURDAY, THE 5th DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

L.S.A.No.1549/2012 IN

OS.NO.346/2012

(In the Hon’ble Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam)

PRESENT:- 1) Smt.M.Meena Devi, V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Presiding Judge, Lok Adalat Bench, Visakhapatnam.

2) Smt. B.Padmaja, Advocate-Member, 3)Smt.P.Leelavathi, Advocate-Member, BETWEEN:

Chinthapalli Venkata Ramana Murthy, AS/o. Late Ch.Appanna, Hindu, aged 50 years, working as Mechanic, Port Workshop, C.M.E.Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, & R/o.58-28-29/1, Gandhinagar, NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam.

… Plaintiff… And:

Vegesna Madhusudhana Raju, S/o. Late V.L.N.Raju, Hindu, aged 43 years, working as Mechanist, Grade-II, Emp.No.170768, Port Work shop, CME., Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam R/o.54/10, Chinamushidiwada, Visakhapatnam.

… Defendant…

Brief facts of the case:

The Plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendant for for recover a sum of Rs.89,320/- being the balance of principal and interest due on promissory note executed by the defendant on 28-2-2011 for Rs.70,000/- in favour of Plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

Plaint Presented on 23-4-2012.

Value for the purpose of the Court fee jurisdiction is Rs.89,320/- and a Court fee of Rs.3186/- is paid U/Sec.20. Sch.I Art.I (b)&(c) of APCF and S.V.Act.

This suit was referred to Lok Adalat at the request of both parties, by the principal Junior

Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

This suit is coming on 05-5-2012 for final settlement in the presence of the Plaintiff and defendant, Smt. N.Bhagyalaxmi, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri D.N.Murthy, Advocate for defendant. After due mediation and conciliation between the parties, both parties to the suit have agreed for amicable settlement and filed terms of compromise with free will and volition. Hence, the following award is passed as per the settlement arrived by the parties.

// 2 //

AWARD U/S.21 OF LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT,1987 & AMENDMENT ACT,1994:

The Plaintiff and Defendant along with their respective Counsel present, After due mediation and conciliation, the matter is settled before Lok –Adalat with the following:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1) It is submitted that Plaintiff and defendant agreed to compromise for an amont of

Rs.81,000/-(Rupees eighty one thousand only) towards full and final satisfaction of the suit pronote amount.

2) The defendant agreed to recover the above compromise amount of Rs.81,000/- from his monthly salary.

3) The Plaintiff agreed to recover the above compromise amount by attaching the monthly salary of the defendant under the mode of under Order 21 R.48 of CPC.

4) Both parties agreed not to plunge into further litigation in future.

5) Both parties agreed for the above said conditions and filed this compromise memo

before this Court. Hence, the compromise is recorded. Award passed accordingly..

Both parties have affixed their signatures in evidence of their consent for the terms of Award.

Signature of the Plaintiff. Signatures of the defendant.

Advocate for the Plaintiff.Advocate for the defendant.

Given under our hands and the seal of Lok Adalat on this the 5th day of May, 2012 at

District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam.

MEMBERS OF THE BENCH.PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE BENCH.