R.Siva Kumar

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar, B.Com., B.L., Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 16th of September 2015.

I.P.No.47 of 2011

K.Naga Raju, Son of K.Pakkiraiah. .. Petitioner.

Versus

1. E.Madhu Sudhan Goud, Son of Eeranna Goud.

2. E.Ramudu, Son of Torri Maddileti.

3. E.Prasad Goud, Son of E.Venkata Swamy.

4. K.Anand, Son of Chandra Sekhar.

5. E.Krishna Goud, Son of E.Venkat Swamy.

6. Jaya Rami Reddy, Son of bugga Reddy.

7. E.Mohan Goud, Son of Yellala Narayana.

8. Mallikarjuna Goud, Son of Saayanna Goud.

9. P.Lepakshi, Son of Pedda Yellappa.

10. M.Lakshminarayana, Son of Chandra Murthy.

11. Sekhar, Son of Annayya.

12. Siva Reddy, Son of Rama Krishna Reddy.

13. Anand Goud, Son of Venkataswamy Goud.

14. Obulesh, Son of Naganna.

15. Kumar, Son of Ramudu.

16. Srinivasulu, Son of Ramana.

17. Mallikarjuna Goud, Son ofAnjaneyulu Goud. … Respondents

This petition is coming on 08-09-2015 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri M.R.Krishna and Sri B.Nagaraju,

Advocates for the petitioner and none for R8, R9 and R11 and the remaining respondents called absent and set ex-parte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is an Insolvency Petition filed by petitioner under sections 6 and 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act praying to declare him an insolvent

2. In a nut shell, the facts of the petition can be noted as follows:-

The petitioner is an auto driver and by his earnings he purchased a plot bearing No.34 extent of 45 sq.yards in

Sy.No.7B/2A2B, Joharapuram village within the limits of Kurnool

Municipal Corporation, Kurnool under registered document bearing No.978/2008 dated 7.2.2008 from its rightful owner.

2

From the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the plot. Thereafter, the petitioner decided and started to construct a house therein. Accordingly, the petitioner started construction of his house after accumulation of money in the month of June, 2009. Meanwhile, the Kurnool town was affected by floods. The petitioner is also one of the victims of the said floods. For the purpose of construction of the house, the petitioner initially borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from respondents No.1 to No.4 shown in the petition. The petitioner agreed to pay the rate of interest at the rate of Rs.5/- per month on their demand. The petitioner spent the amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- including his earning of Rs.3,00,000/- for the said construction of the house. In spite of that the construction was not completed. So, the petitioner further raised the money for the purpose of completion of the house from private chits. The said private chits used to float by the respondents No.5 to 10 of this petition. On their demand, the petitioner executed the promissory notes for the double of amounts, on actual amounts.

For the sake of paying interest to the respondents No.1 to No.10, the petitioner further borrowed the amounts from respondent

No.11 to 17 and he executed the promissory notes in their favour, accordingly. While the construction of the house of the petitioner is in progress, the respondents No.1 to No.10 are pressurizing the petitioner to repay their debts with interest there on from June, 2010. The petitioner requested time for them. But the respondent No.1 to No.10 did not oblige the request of the petitioner. In the month of June, 2010, the first respondent forced the petitioner to executed a deed in his favour. The petitioner under forcible circumstances, without knowing of its contents, he executed the deed in favour of the first respondent. Further in the same month, some of the respondents obtained blank promissory notes and also bank cheques from the petitioner forcibly. Recently, on 3.7.2011 the first respondent occupied the petitioner’s house forcibly by dispossessing the petitioner and his family members from the petitioner’s house. Now some of the respondents who obtained the blank cheques from the petitioner are continuously creating apprehension in the mind of the petitioner by threatening that 3 they would file the criminal case against the petitioner, basing on the blank cheques. Already, the petitioner gave complaint to I town police station, Kurnool against the first respondent for his illegal act and his atrocity, which was committed by the first respondent. But the first respondent managed the police. Now the petitioner and his family members are now leading their life in very pathetic conditions. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed this petition to adjudicate him an insolvent. Hence, the petition.

3. A contrario sensu, respondent No.8 filed his counter denying the material averments of the petitioner and also putting the petitioner to the strict proof and interalia contending as follows:-

Except the debt of this respondent and respondent No.9 and 11 the other debts shown by the petitioner are bogus and the other respondents are his friends and associates. The petitioner suppressed the name of his true creditors to get wrongful gain and he filed the present petition. The petitioner is having flats, jewellary, moveable and immovable properties and also cash. Thus, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. The respondents No.9 and No.11 filed a memo adopting the counter of R8.

5. During course of enquiry, the petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got Ex.A1 marked on his behalf. On the other hand, the respondents did not adduce any evidence.

6. I heard the petitioner. The respondents 8, 9 and 11 did not submit their arguments inspite of several chances.

7. Now, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner can be declared an insolvent or not?

8. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that he is an auto driver and by his earnings he purchased a plot bearing No.34 extent of 45 sq.yards in Sy.No.7B/2A2B, Joharapuram village within the limits of Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool under registered document bearing No.978/2008 dated 7.2.2008 from 4 its rightful owner and that from the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the plot and the petitioner decided and started to construct a house therein and accordingly, he started construction of his house after accumulation of money in the month of June, 2009 and that meanwhile, the Kurnool town was affected by floods and that he is also one of the victims of the said floods and that for the purpose of construction of the house, he initially borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from respondents No.1 to No.4 shown in the petition and that he agreed to pay the rate of interest at the rate of Rs.5/- per month on their demand and that he spent the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- including his earning of Rs.3,00,000/- for the said construction of the house and that in spite of that the construction was not completed and so he further raised the money for the purpose of completion of the house from private chits and that the said private chits used to float by the respondents No.5 to 10 of this petition and that on their demand, he executed the promissory notes for the double of amounts, on actual amounts and that for the sake of paying interest to the respondents No.1 to No.10, he further borrowed the amounts from respondent No.11 to 17 and he executed the promissory notes in their favour, accordingly and that while the construction of his house is in progress, the respondents No.1 to No.10 are pressurizing him to repay their debts with interest there on from June, 2010 and that he requested time for them and that but the respondent No.1 to

No.10 did not oblige his request and that in the month of June, 2010, the first respondent forced him to execute a deed in his favour and that under forcible circumstances, without knowing of its contents, he executed the deed in favour of the first respondent and that further in the same month, some of the respondents obtained blank promissory notes and also bank cheques from him forcibly and that recently, on 3.7.2011 the first respondent occupied his house forcibly by dispossessing him and his family members from his house.

9. A contrario sensu, the respondents 8, 9 and 11 contend except their, the other debts shown by the petitioner are bogus and the other respondents are his friends and associates and 5 that the petitioner suppressed the name of his true creditors to get wrongful gain and he filed the present petition and that the petitioner is having flats, jewellary, moveable and immovable properties and also cash.

10. The petitioner deposed as P.W.1 reiterating his petition averments. Though his evidence, Ex.A.1 Registered sale deed dt.6.2.2008 certified copy was marked. P.W.2 also deposed that the petitioner suffered damage to his constructed walls of the building due to floods and petitioner expensed huge amounts for his house.

11. But, it is the legal burden of the petitioner to satisfy this court that there are prima facie grounds for believing his version. Any failure in that regard would entail in rejection of the application under section 25 (2) of Provisional Insolvency Act, 1920.

12. In the case of Dasari Srihari Rao –Vs- Talluri

Harinadha Babu reported in 2002 (3) ALD 456, Honourable

High Court Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telengana and the State of Andhra Pradesh held in this regard as follows;-

“The debtor, who files an application to

adjudge him as insolvent is under an obligation

to satisfy the Court, by furnishing necessary

information and any failure in that regard

would entail in rejection of the application

under Section 25 (2) of the Act.”

13. To boot, I may straight away say that Section 10 (1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 unequivocally enacts that A debtor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition, unless he is unable to pay his debts.

14.To boot, I must note that section 24 of the Provincial

Insolvency Act, 1920 deals with ‘procedure at hearing’. For the benefit of this order, the said provision is extracted as under.

6

Sec.24 (1):

“On the date fixed for hearing the petition the

court shall require proof of the following

matters:

(a) The creditor or debtor, as the case may

be, is entitled to present the petition.

Provided that, where the debtor is the

petitioner, he shall, for the purpose of

proving his inability to pay his debts, be

required to furnish only such proof as to

satisfy the Court that there are prima

facie grounds for believing the same.

Sec.24(2): The Court shall also examine

the debtor, if he is present, as to his

conduct, dealings and property in the

presence of such creditors as appear at

the hearing, and the creditors shall have

the right to question the debtor thereon.”

15.When the insolvency petition filed by debtor shall be dismissed is laid down U/Sec.25 (2) of P.I. Act, which reads as follows:

“The Court shall dismiss the petition if it is not sat-

isfied of his right to present the petition.”

16.From a conjoint perusal of above noted provisions of the Act and the above noted reported decision, it is evident that at the hearing of the application under section 24 of the Act, the court is under an obligation to consider the versions put forward by the debtor on the one hand and his creditors on the other and that the court has to verify as to whether there exists a prima fa- cie ground for believing the version of the debtor. Of course, a debtor is required only to make out his case as to the existence of prima facie grounds only.

17. If I appreciate the evidence of the petitioner (P.W.1) in the light of above noted provisions of law, it is very clear that the evidence of P.W.1 is only self-serving statement. Admittedly, the petitioner has not chosen to place any material before this court 7 in support of the petition allegations. It is true that the petitioner cannot be required to prove the contents of his petition beyond any reasonable doubt or to the extent of probablising his con- tention. But, even to satisfy this court as to the existence of prima facie case, something more than mere repetition of the contents of the petition is needed. There is vociferous resistance by the contesting respondents 8, 9 and 11. They categorically pleaded that the alleged debt towards other respondents is ficti- tious. But, no material has been placed by the petitioner in proof of his owing the debt to the other respondents except re- spondents 8, 9 and 11.

18.It is also noteworthy much that the dates of the debts under the alleged promissory notes shown in ‘A’ schedule against the names of the respondents are not mentioned, though the petitioner has mentioned several amounts against the against the names of respondents in the A schedule appended to the petition. The total amount of the debts shown in A schedule is Rs.13,00,000/-, but the amount shown against the names of the respondents 8, 9 and 11 is Rs.45,000/-,

Rs.1,50,000/-and Rs.80,000/- respectively. If the version of the petitioner regarding the borrowals of the amounts from other respondents is correct, he should have mentioned the date or year of alleged borrowings and efforts made by the other respondents to realize the amounts shown against their names.

To boot, it is noteworthy that the IP is of the year 2011 and now, we are in the year 2015 and that it is nobody’s case that the petitioner made part payments towards the pronote debts of other respondents and that admittedly, the other respondents did not file any suit against the petitioner basing on the alleged pronotes. There is no plausible explanation as to why the other respondents did not file any suit inspite of their having lent lakhs of rupees to the petitioner. It is needless to say that the alleged pronotes are barred by time. So, the case of the petitioner is not convincing this court even prima facie.

19. As we all know, a person who is guilty of suppression of facts is not entitled to get any relief. When there is an obligation to speak, a failure to speak will constitute the 8 suppression of a fact and it is expressed in the Latin Maxim “Suppressio veri expressio falsi” which means that suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood. The above noted principle is embedded into the Provincial Insolvency

Act, 1920 by directing the applicant to state the facts as mandated by section 13 of the Act and failure will visit the consequence of dismissal of the application under section 25 (2) of the Act. I may also state that mere mentioning of the persons and the amounts in the A schedule without the necessary particulars does not mean that the petitioner stated all necessary facts as per section 13 of the Act.

21. By virtue of my discussion supra, this court has no other option except to hold that the petitioner failed totally to satisfy this court that prima facie grounds exist in his favour for declaring him an insolvent. So, the necessary corollary is that the point is held in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner.

22. In the result, the insolvency petition is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to my Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 16th day of September, 2015

Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For Petitioner For Respondent.

P.W.1. K.Nagaraju.None. P.W.2. Abdul Kalam.

Exhibits marked for the Petitioner.

Ex.A1. Registered Sale Deed, dt.6.2.2008 Certified Copy.

Exhibits marked for the respondent.

Nil.

Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

9

In the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool

Present:- Sri R.Siva Kumar., B.Com., B.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 16th day of September, 2015.

I.P.No.47 of 2011.

--

K.Nagaraju, Son of K.Pakkiraiah, Hindu, 30 years, Auto Driver, D.No.1-9-614, R/o Joharapuram Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District. … Petitioner.

Versus

1. E.Madhu Sudhan Goud, Son of Eeeranna Goud, Hindu, 32 years, Finance Business, R/o D.No.69-55-B, Joharapuram Village, Kurnool.

2. E.Ramudu, Son of Torri Maddileti, Hindu, 35 years, Finance Business, R/o D.No.69-58-A, Joharapuram Village, Kurnool.

3. E.Prasad Goud, Son of E.Venkataswamy, Hindu, 35 years, Finance Business, R/o Sai Ram Auto Dealing, Shop No.15, Market Yard, New bus-stand, Indira Gandhi Complex, Kurnool.

4. K.Anand, Son of Chandra Sekhar, Hindu, 38 years, Finance Business, R/o D.No.76-97-243, Weaker Section Colony, N.T.R.Nagar, Kurnool.

5. E.Krishna Goud, Son of E.Venkata Swamy, Hindu, 38 years, R/ o D.No.69-58-A, Private Chit Business, R/o Joharapuram Village, Kurnool.

6. Jaya Rami Reddy, Son of Bugga Reddy, Privatge Chit Business, 42 years, C/o Shop No.13-252, SWiva General Stores, Mandi Bazar, Kurnool.

7. E.Mohan Goud, Son of Yellala Narayana, 28 years, Private Chit Business, R/o D.No.69-54-B, Joharapuram Village, Kurnool.

8. Mallikarjuna Goud, Son of Saayanna Goud, Hindu, 26 years, Private Chit Business, R/o D.No.69-589, Running Kiranam Shop, Joharapuram Villate, Kurnool.

9. P.Lapakshi, Son of Pedda Yellappa, Hindu, 30 years, R/o D.No.69-309-B, Private Chit Business, R/o Joharapuram Village, Kurnool.

10. M.Lakshminarayna, Son of Chandra Murthy, Hindu, 26 years, Private Chit Business, R/o D.No.5-519, Kiranam Shop, Besides to Bheemraj Hotel, Joharapuram Village, Kurnool.

11. Sekhar, Son of Annayya, Hindu, 25 years, Photographer, R/o D.No.69-309-B, Mala Geri, Joharapuram Village, Kurnool.

10

12. Siva Reddy, Son of Rama Krishna Reddy, Hindu, 42 years, Business, R/o Shop.No.77-1-2, Opp.C.P.M.Office, Near Annapurna Wines, Sri Sai Auto Consultancy Agency, Kurnool.

13. Anand Goud, Son of Venkata Swamy Goud, Hindu, 60 years, Hindu, Government Employee, Collector Complex, R/o D.No.69- 58-9, Besides Kallupenta, Joharapuram Village, Kurnool.

14. Obulesh, Son of Naganna, Hindu, 40 years, Head Master, R.R.School, R/o D.No.69-677, Joharapuram Village, Temple Road, Kurnool.

15. Kumar, Son of Ramudu, Hindu, 30 years, Hotel Business, R/o D.No.7-20, Bhudawara Peta, Kurnool.

16. Srinivasulu, Son of Ramana, Hindu, 39 years, Mechanic in T.V.S Show Room, R/o Shop No.76-110, T.V.S Servicing Show Room, Bellary Chowrastha, Kurnool.

17. Mallikarjuna Goud, Son of Anjaneyulu goud, Business, R/o Sai Ram Auto Dealing, Shop No.15, Market Yard, New Bus stand, Indira Gandhi Complex, Kurnool.

… Respondents

This is an Insolvency Petition filed by petitioner under sections 6 and 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act praying to declare him an insolvent.

Petition presented on 11.08.2011 and filed on 19.08.2011 and C.F of Rs.10/- is paid under Article 11 (E) of Schedule II of A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This petition is coming on 08-09-2015 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri M.R.Krishna and Sri B.Nagaraju,

Advocates for the petitioner and Sri V.Naga Laxmidevi, Advocate for R8, R9 and R11 and the remaining respondents called absent and set ex-parte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

1.that the insolvency petition be and the same is hereby dismissed.

2.that the petitioner do pay the R8, R9 and R11, the sum of Rs.2/- being the costs of the petition.

3.that the petitioner do bear his own costs of Rs.492/-

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 16th day of September, 2015.

Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

11

Memo of Costs.

For Petitioner For R8, R9 & R11

Stamp on Vakalath Rs. 2-00Rs. 2-00 Stamp on PetitionRs. 10-00Rs. Stamp on ProcessRs.130-00Rs. -- Publication Charges Rs.350-00Rs. -- Advocate’s fee Rs. NNCRs. NNC Typing chargesRs. ---Rs.

----------------------------

TotalRs.492-00Rs. 2-00

----------------------------

Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

C Schedule

The house bearing D.No.69/706-4-1, situated at

Joharapuram village within the limits of Kurnool Municipal

Corporation, Kurnool.

East: Rastha; West : Plot No.35; North : Plot of B.Sreenivasulu;

South :Site of Ranganayakulu.

Measurements of plot : North to South : 15 feet ; East to West :

27 feet;

Total Extent : 45 Sq.Yards.

Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

1

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:­ Sri R.Siva Kumar., B.Com.,B.L., 

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Thursday, the 20th day of August, 2015.

O.S.No.433 of 2012.

BETWEEN:

1. V.Venkata Ramana, Son of V.Narayana Setty.

2. N.Nemilaiah, Son of V.N.Ramakrishnaiah. ...Plaintiffs

A N D

N.Krishnudu, Son of N.Balaramudu. …Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 17.08.2015 in the presence of Sri P.Harinatha Chowdary and Sri S.M.Chand

Basha, Advocates for plaintiffs and Sri A.Venkata Reddy and Sri

S.Govardhan Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiffs filed the suit for passing of a preliminary decree for Rs.1,70,933/- (Rupees one lakh seventy thousand nine hundred and thirty three only) due on the suit registered simple mortgage deed executed by the defendant in their favour on 31.08.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and for costs.

2.In a nutshell, the facts of the plaint can be noted as follows:

On 31.08.2009, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from the plaintiffs under the suit registered simple mortgage deed agreeing to repay the same 2 with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiffs, the defendant failed to pay the suit amount. The plaintiffs got a legal notice issued on 3.4.2012 to the defendant for the payment of suit amount but in vain. Hence, the suit.

3.A contrario sensu, the defendant filed his written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and also putting the plaintiffs to the strict proof and inter alia contending as follows:-

The first plaintiff lent Rs.1,00,000/- to this defendant but the second plaintiff was included as party to the mortgage deed as he was close friend of first plaintiff and relative of the defendant and he was added as guarantor to the document. The plaintiff No.1 got

O.S.No.435 of 2012 on the file of this court and O.S.No.434 of 2012

on the file of Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court, Kurnool filed against this defendant stating that the defendant executed two promissory notes on the same day for Rs.1,00,000/- each. But the said promissory notes are not supported by consideration. But they were executed as collateral security for the mortgage debt. The interest is to be scaled down as the defendant is a small farmer. Thus, he prays to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree on simple mortgage deed dated 31.08.2009 with subsequent interest and costs as prayed for?

2. Whether the interest claimed is excessive and exorbitant?

3. To what relief?

3

5.During the course of trial, the first plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and got Ex.A-1 to Ex.A.4 marked on his behalf.

On the other hand, the defendant got himself examined as D.W.1 but he could not mark any document.

6.I heard both sides.

7.ISSUES NO.1 AND 2:- It the case of the plaintiffs that on 31.08.2009, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from them under the suit registered simple mortgage deed marked as Ex.A.1 agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and that in spite of their repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay the suit amount and that they got a legal notice issued on 3.4.2012 under Ex.A.2 to the defendant for the payment of suit amount but in vain.

8.The first plaintiff as P.W.1 deposed in support of his case.

Through his evidence, Ex.A1 Registered Simple Mortgage Deed,

Ex.A.2 O/c of legal notice, Ex.A.3 postal receipt and Ex.A.4 postal acknowledgements were marked.

But, it is the defence of the defendant that the first plaintiff 9.

lent Rs.1,00,000/- to him but the second plaintiff was included as party to the mortgage deed as he was close friend of first plaintiff and relative of this defendant and he was added as guarantor to the document and that the plaintiff No.1 got O.S.No.435 of 2012 on the file of this court and O.S.No.434 of 2012 on the file of Addl.Sr.Civil

Judge’s Court, Kurnool filed against him stating that he executed

two promissory notes on the same day for Rs.1,00,000/- each and that but the said promissory notes are not supported by consideration and that but they were executed as collateral security for the mortgage debt and that the interest is to be scaled down as he is a small farmer.

4

10. From the above, it is crystal clear that the defendant is not disputing the passing of consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- to him under the Ex.A.1-Registered simple mortgage deed and that he is not disputing his executing Ex.A.1 registered simple mortgage deed.

But his defence is not supported by the contents of Ex.A.1. In other words, Ex.A.1-mortgage deed does not receipt that the second plaintiff is a guarantor for the amount borrowed by the defendant under said document. So, the oral evidence of the defendant cannot be accepted against the written contents of Ex.A.1-mortgage deed. Ex.A.1 recites unequivocally that both the plaintiffs together lent one lakh to the defendant on the mortgage of schedule property.

11.Turning back to the interest, the contractual rate of interest is 24% p.a. But, the defendant contends that said interest rate is to be scaled down to 12.5% p.a since he is an agriculturist. But the plaintiffs object. The occupation of the defendant has been shown as business in the plaint. Admittedly, the defendant mortgaged his agricultural land of Ac.1.89 ½ cents to the plaintiff under the suit registered simple mortgage deed marked as Ex.A.1. The plaintiff suggested in the cross examination of the defendant that the defendant does cultivation as well as rice business. So, it can be taken that the plaintiff admits that the defendant is an agriculturist.

I may also say that the plaintiff has not proved that the defendant owns any other land than the mortgaged land. The plaintiff himself failed to depose in his evidence that the defendant does rice business. There is no basis in the plaint also for this. There is no evidence that the defendant is doing rice business. So, under the facts and circumstances, the contractual rate of interest of at 24% p.a is to be scaled down to 12.5% pa. Accordingly, the issues No.1 and No.2 are answered.

5

12. Issue No.3:- In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed in partwith proportionate costs for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one laksh only) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12.5% p.a from 31.08.2009 till the date of decree and at 6% p.a till the date of realization there from. The time for redemption is three months.

The suit for the rest of the claim stands dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 20 th day of August, 2015.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge

Kurnool

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1. V.Venkata Ramana. D.W.1. N.Krishnudu.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1. Original Registered Mortgage Deed dt.31.8.2009.

Ex.A.2. O/c of the Legal notice dt.3.4.2014.

Ex.A.3. Original Postal receipts dt.3.4.2012.

Ex.A4. Original served postal acknowledgement.

For Defendant :

None

PSCJ/KNL 6

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:­ Sri R.Siva Kumar., B.Com.,B.L., Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Thursday, the 20th day of August, 2015.

O.S.No.433 of 2012.

BETWEEN:

1. V.Venkata Ramnana, Son of V.Narayana Setty, 39 years, Agriculturist, H.No.87/174, Kamala Nagar, Kurnool Town and District.

2. N.Nemilaiah, Sonn of V.N.Rama Krishnaiah, Hindu, 38 years, Agrt., H.no.87/1112B,Revunur Colony, Kurnool Town and District.

...Plaintiff.

A N D

N.Krishnudu, Son of N.Balaramudu, 35 years, Hindu, Business, H.No.2/64, Nidjur Village, Kurnool Mandal and District. …Defendant.

The plaintiffs filed the suit for passing of a preliminary decree for Rs.1,70,933/- (Rupees one lakh seventy thousand nine hundred and thirty three only) due on the suit registered simple mortgage deed executed by the defendant in their favour on 31.08.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and for costs.

Plaint presented on 22.08.2012 and filed on 27.08.2012. J.V of Rs.1,70,933/- and C.F of Rs.4,226/- is paid under section 20 of

A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 17.08.2015 in the presence of Sri P.Harinatha Chowdary and Sri S.M.Chand

Basha, Advocates for plaintiffs and Sri A.Venkata Reddy and Sri 7

S.Govardhan Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and preliminary decree as follows:-

It is hereby declared the amount due to the plaintiff on the Registered

Simple Mortgage Deed mentioned in the plaint, the sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ towards principal (Suit decreed in part only), the sum of Rs.72,534/­ being the interest on Rs.1,00,000/­ at the rate of 12.5% p.a (interest scaled down from 31.08.2009 itself) from 31.8.09 to till the date of decree i.e., 20.08.2015, and the sum of Rs.2,496/­ being the proportionate costs of the suit, making in all, the sum of Rs.1,75,030/­. The suit for rest of the claim dismissed without costs

2.And it is hereby ordered and preliminarily decreed as follows:

(i)that the defendant do pay into court on or before 20.11.2015 or any later date up to which time for payment may be extended by the Court, the above said sum of Rs.1,75,030/­ together with interest at 6% p.a on Rs.1,00,000/­ from the next date of decree i.e., 21.08.2015 till the date of redemption of 3 months i.e., 20.11.2015, which comes to Rs.1,500/­ making afurther total of Rs.1,76,530/­ and also with subsequent interest at the same rate of 6% p.a there from on the said principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ till the date of realization.

(i)that, on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such amount as the court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, changes and ex­ penses as may be payable Under Rule 10, together with such subse­ quent interest as may be payable Under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power re­ lating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned, and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendants or to such person as he appoints and the plaintiff shall, if so required, recovery or retransfer of the said property free from the said mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall, if so required, deliver up to the defendant quiet and peaceful possession of the said property.

3. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, in default of payment as aforesaid, the plaintiff may apply to the court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and on such application being made, for mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof shall be directed to be 8 sold and for the purposes of such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

4. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable Under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable Under Rule 11, of Order XXXIV for the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same.

5. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid, the plaintiff shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendants for the amount of the balance and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the court from time to time as they may have occasion and on such application or otherwise the court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 20th day of August, 2015.

Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Memo of Costs. Description For plaintiff For defendant

In Rs. in Rs.

Stamp on Plaint.4,226-00--- Stamp on vakalath2-002-00 Stamp on proceess40-00--- Advocate’s Fee (Sr)NNC--- Advocate’s Fee (Jr)---3,000 AMC Typing Cahrges---50-00 P.W.charges------ Publication Charges------ Total 4,268-00 3,052-00 Proportionate Costs 2,496-00

Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

9

Schedule.

Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.340, 341 Payki an extent of Ac.1.89 ½ cents situated in Nidjur Gram Panchayat Limits, Kurnool sub Registration District Kurnool within the following boundaries.

Bounded by

East : Land belongs to N.Ganeswarudu. West : Land belongs to N.Parameswarudu North : K.C.Canal Banjar Land. South : Land belongs to Pinjari Minnalla.

Survey No.340, 341 Paiki Extent of Ac.1.89 ½ Cents land.

Approximate Value : Rs.1,50,000/-.

Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.q

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar., B.Com., B.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Wednesday, 19th day of August, 2015.

O.S.No.301 of 2015.

--

Jaini Sailesh. … Plaintiff.

Versus

Shaik Taj Babu … Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri M.D.Y.Rama Murthy and Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma,

Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration and this court delivered the following:-

.Judgment.

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,96,800/- due on registered simple mortgage deed dt.16.06.2012 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and for costs of the suit.

2. Defendant called absent and he is set ex-parte.

3. Chief affidavit of P.W.1 filed. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 are marked.

4. Heard. Perused the entire file and the suit claim is proved.

5. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs for Rs.4,96,800/- (Rupees four lakhs ninty six thousand and eight hundred only) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a from the date of the suit to the date of decree and at 6% p.a till the date of realization there from on the

principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Time for redemption is 3

months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 19th day of August, 2015

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff. For Defendant.

P.W.1. J.Sailesh. None.

Exhibits marked for the Plaintiff.

Ex.A1. Original Mortgage deed dt.16.6.2012. Ex.A2. Original Sale deed dt.26.04.2008. Ex.A3. O/c of the legal notice dt.25.02.2015. Ex.A4. Postal Receipt. Ex.A5. Postal Ack.

Exhibits marked for the Defendant.

Nil.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kurnool.

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar., B.Com., B.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Wednesday, 19th day of August, 2015.

O.S.No.301 of 2015.

--

Jaini Sailesh, Son of Jaini Seshaiah, Hindu, 47 years, Business, R/o H.No.8/92, Besides Ice Factory, Main Bazar, Veldurthy Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Plaintiff.

Versus

Shaik Taj Babu, Son of Shaik Fakruddin, 40 years, Muslim, Business, H.No.1-8-3, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple,Besides Chatakonda Ramesh House, Reddy Street, Veldurthy Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Defendant

This is a suit filed for passing of preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.4,96,800/­ due on a registered simple mortgage deed dt.16.06.201 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/­ and the defendant mortgaged the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and further agreed to pay every monthly installments In spite of repeated demands and requests and issuance of legal notice dt.25.02.2015. Hence, the suit and for costs.

Plaint presented on 23.03.2015 and filed on 24.04.2015. J.V. of Rs.4,96,800/­ and a Court Fee of Rs.7,426/­ is paid under section 31 (1) r/w section 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act and article 1 © of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri M.D.Y.Rama Murthy and Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant called absent and set ex- parte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and decree as follows:­

It is hereby declared the amount due to the plaintiff on the Registered Simple Mortgage Deed mentioned in the plaint, calculated up to the date of plaint ie.., 23.03.2015, the sum of Rs.3,00,000/­ towards balance of principal, the sum of Rs.1,96,800/­ towards interest on the said principal from 16.6.2012 to 10.03.2015, and the sum of Rs.29,200/­ being the interest on Rs.3,00,000/­ at the rate of 24% p.a from the next date of filing of the suit i.e., 24.03.2015 till the date of decree i.e., 19.08.2015, and the sum of Rs.15,910/­ being the costs of the suit, making in all, the sum of Rs.5,41,910/­.

2.And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:

(i)that the defendant do pay into court on or before 19.11.2015 or any later date up to which time for payment may be extended by the Court, the above said sum of Rs.5,41,910/­ together with interest at 6% p.a on Rs.3,00,000/­ from the date of decree i.e.,19.08.2015 till the date of redemption of 3 months i.e., 19.11.2015, which comes to Rs.4,500/­ making a further total of Rs.5,46,410/­ and also with subsequent interest at the same rate of 6% p.a there from on the said principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/­ till the date of realization.

(ii) that, on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such amount as the court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, changes and expenses as may be payable Under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable Under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned, and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendants or to such person as he appoints and the plaintiff shall, if so required, recovery or retransfer of the said property free from the said mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall, if so required, deliver up to the defendant quiet and peaceful possession of the said property.

3. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, in default of payment as aforesaid, the plaintiff may apply to the court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and on such application being made, for mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof shall be directed to be sold and for the purposes of such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

4. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable Under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable Under Rule 11, of Order XXXIV for the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same.

5. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid, the plaintiff shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendants for the amount of the balance and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the court from time to time as they may have occasion and on such application or otherwise the court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 19 th day of August, 2015.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

K U R N O O L.

Memo of Costs.

For Plaintiff For Defendant In Rs. In Rs. Stamp on Plaint7,426­00­ Stamp on Vakaat2­00­ Stamp on Process170­00­ P.W.Charges10­00 Advocate Fee8,302­00­ Publication charges­­­­ Typing Charges­­­­ Total: 15,910­00 ­

Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Schedule

Agricultural land an extent of Ac.3.05 Cents (Locally called as Vagu Chenu) situated in Sy.No.826 of Veldurthy Village Limits, Veldurty village limits, Veldurthy Mandal, Dhone S.D Kurnool R.D.

Bounded on

East : By the land of Golla Akkamma. West : By the land in Sy.No.827; North : By the land of Bala Veerappa; and South : By the land of Gajula Chinnaiah.

Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar, B.Com., B.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Friday, the 22 nd day of September, 2017.

O.S.No.33 of 2011.

-- BETWEEN:

Modepalli Subbarayudu, Son of M.Pedda Hanumanthu, Hindu, 40 yuears, Agriculture, H.No.2-196-B, Bommireddy Palle Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Plaintiff

And

1. K.Hanumantha Rao, Son of A.Seshaiah, 36 years, Hindu, Agrt., H.No.2-74, Akjarpet, Alampur Mandal, Mahaboob Nagar District.

2. Jampala Vijeyudu, Son of Jampala Narayana, 34 years, Hindu, H.No.46-262-A, Budhawarapeta, Kurnool.

3. Kundeti Kumari, Wife of Late Kundeti Ganga Raju, Hindu, House Wife, H.No.3-21, N.Venkatapuram Village, Veldurthy

Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 22.9.2017 in the presence of Sri G.Madhusudhana Reddy,

Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants called absent and set exparte, upon hearing the arguments of the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 4.12.2010 executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and also for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from ever interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.

2. The defendants 1 to 3 were called absent and set exparte.

3. The plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and got

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 marked on his behalf. There is no oral or documentary evidence for the defendants.

4. I heard the plaintiff.

5. Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for by him.

6. In order to prove his right, title and possession over the suit property, the plaintiff filed Ex.A.1 registered sale deed dt.30.11.2010, Ex.A.2 registered sale deed dt.5.6.1985, Ex.A.3 pattadar pass book in the name of Gangaraju, Ex.A.4 title deed in the name of Gangaraju, Ex.A.6 title deed issued by the

Tahsildar, Veldurthy dt.16.5.2011, Ex.A.7 Pattadar pass book issued by the Tahsildar dt.16.5.2011, Ex.A.8 online copy of 1B register issued by the Tahsildar and Ex.A9 online copy of adangal 4 in number.

7. But, the first defendant executed original of Ex.A.5 registered sale deed in favour of second defendant. The defendants have not filed any scrap of paper establishing the right, title and possession of first defendant over the suit property. There is no material that the vendor of the plaintiff purchased the suit property in his name with the nucleus of his joint family properties. Thus, the defence of the defendants 1 and 2 fails. So, there is no difficulty at all to hold the point in favour of plaintiff and against D1 and D2.

8. By virtue of my discussion supra, I hold the point in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring that the sale deed dated 4.10.2010 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit property is null and void and it is not binding on the plaintiff and also granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from ever interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the suit property. The office is directed to mark a copy of this judgment to Sub Registrar, Kurnool for making necessary entries.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 22nd day of September, 2017.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kurnool

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses Examined.

For Plaintiff For defendant.

P.W.1. M.Subbarayudu None.

Exhibits marked for the Plaintiff.

Ex.A.1 Registered sale deed dt.30.11.2010. Ex.A.2 Registered sale deed dt.5.6.1985. Ex.A.3 Pattadar pass book in the name of Gangaraju. Ex.A.4 Title deed in the name of Gangaraju. Ex.A.5 C.C.of registered sale deed dt.4.12.2010. Ex.A.6 Title deed issued by the Tahsildar, Veldurthy dt.16.5.2011. Ex.A.7 Pattadar pass book issued by the Tahsildar dt.16.5.2011, Ex.A.8 Online copy of 1B register issued by the Tahsildar and Ex.A.9 Online copy of adangal 4 in number.

Exhibits marked for the defendant.

Nil.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kurnool.

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar, B.Com., B.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Friday, the 22 nd day of September, 2017.

O.S.No.33 of 2011.

-- BETWEEN:

Modepalli Subbarayudu, Son of M.Pedda Hanumanthu, Hindu, 40 yuears, Agriculture, H.No.2-196-B, Bommireddy Palle Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Plaintiff

And

1. K.Hanumantha Rao, Son of A.Seshaiah, 36 years, Hindu, Agrt., H.No.2-74, Akjarpet, Alampur Mandal, Mahaboob Nagar District.

2. Jampala Vijeyudu, Son of Jampala Narayana, 34 years, Hindu, H.No.46-262-A, Budhawarapeta, Kurnool.

3. Kundeti Kumari, Wife of Late Kundeti Ganga Raju, Hindu, House Wife, H.No.3-21, N.Venkatapuram Village, Veldurthy

Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Defendants.

The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 4.12.2010 executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and also for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from ever interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.

Plaint presented on 20.1.2011 and filed on 24.1.2011. J.V of Rs.3,00,000/- and C.F of Rs.5,426/- is paid under section 24 of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 22.9.2017 in the presence of Sri G.Madhusudhana Reddy,

Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants called absent and set exparte, upon hearing the arguments of the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2.that the sale deed dated 4.10.2010 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit property is hereby declared as null and void and it is not binding on the plaintiff.

3.That the defendants 1 and 2 are hereby restrained by means of permanent injunction from ever interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the suit property.

4.That a copy of this Judgment is marked to Sub Registrar, Kurnool for making necessary entries.

5.That the defendants 1 and 2 do pay to the plaintiff, the sum of Rs.25,673-00 being the costs of the suit.

6.That the defendants do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 22nd day of September, 2017.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kurnool.

Memo of Costs.

Sl.No. Description For plaintiff For defendant In Rs. in Rs.

1. Stamp on Plaint. 5,426-00

2. Stamp on vakalath 2-00

3. Stamp on process 135-00

4. Advocate’s Fee (Sr) 15,000-00

5. Advocate’s Fee (Jr) 5,000-00

6. Typing Charges 100-00

7. P.W.charges 10-00

8. Publication Charges ---

Total 25,673-00

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kurnool.

Schedule

The agricultural land situated at Veldurthy village and Mandal in

Sy.No.185/2 to an extent of Ac.2.10 and 186/1 to an extent of Ac.3.90

Cents within the Dhone Sub Registration District and Kurnool District.

Registration with the following boundaries : East : Land of

P.hanumanthu; West Land of P.Pullaiah; North : Land of

P.Hanumanthu; and South Land of P.Venkata Subbaiah.

Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar., B.Com., B.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Monday, 18th day of September, 2017.

O.S.No.143 of 2017.

--

V.Sreedevi, @ Lavanya, Wife of Chandra Sekhar, D/o V.Thimmaiah, 38 years, Hindu, House Wife, R/o D.No.13/183- B-5-1, C/o Mahanand K.Vijaya Nagar Colony, Gunthakal, Anantapur District. … Plaintiff.

Versus

1. V.Thimmaiah, @ Thimmulu, Son of Naganna, 77 years, Hindu, Retired Railway Driver, R/o Vaddegeri, Nayakallu Village and Post, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District.

2. V.Sudha Mani, Wife Late V.Venkateswarlku, 40years, Hindu, House Wife, Door No.4/149/57, Teachers Colony, Dhone, Kurnool District.

3. V.Geetha, D/o Late V.Venkateswarlu, 22 years, Hindu, H.No.4/149/57, Teachers Colony, Dhone.

4. V.Jeevan, Wife of Late V.Venkateswarlu, 20 years, Hindu, Door No.4/149/57, Teachers Colony, Dhone, Kurnool District.

5. V.Venugopal, Son of V.Thimmaiah, 47 years, H.No.4/149/66, Teachers Colony, Dhone.

6. V.T.Ramesh, 39 years, Hindu, Business,

7. V.T.Ngaraju, 36 years, Hindu, Business.

8. V.T.Mallikarjun, 33 years, Hindu, Business, No.6, 7, 8 are sons of Late Alivelumangamma, doing real estate business and Kadapa Slab Sellers, R/o Near Cell Towwer, Sri Rama Nagar, Dhone.

9. V.T.Janardhan, Son of Late Alivelumangamma, 29 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No.4/149/67, Teachers Colony, Dhone. … Defendants

This suit is coming on be fore me for final hearing on this day i.e., 13.09.2017 in the presence of K.E.Kundalini Devi and

P.Pallavi, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant called absent and set ex-parte, upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

.Judgment.

This is a suit filed for passing decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for passing a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff by division of the plaint schedule properties into 5 equal parts and allotment of 1/5th share to the plaintiff by considering the metes and bounds and to pass final decree in terms of preliminary decree with costs.

2. Defendants called absent and they are set ex- parte.

3. Chief affidavit of P.W.1 filed. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 are marked.

4. Heard. Perused the entire file and the suit claim is proved.

5. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs for partition of the suit schedule properties into 5 equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 18th day of September, 2017.

Principal Senior Civil

Judge,

Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff. For Defendant.

P.W.1.V.Sreedevi None.

Exhibits marked for the Plaintiff.

Ex.A1. Legal notice dt.30.06.2015. Ex.A2. Reply notice dt.15.7.2015. Ex.A3. Reply notice dt.15.7.2015. Ex.A4. Served two postal acks.dt.3.9.2015. Ex.A5. Online copies of Adangals obtained through meesava. Ex.A6. True Copies of market Value certificates 3 in number issued by the Sub Registrar Office, Kallur.

Exhibits marked for the Defendant.

Nil.

Principal Senior Civil

Judge,

Kurnool.

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar., B.Com., B.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Monday, 18th day of September, 2017.

O.S.No.143 of 2017.

--

V.Sreedevi, @ Lavanya, Wife of Chandra Sekhar, D/o V.Thimmaiah, 38 years, Hindu, House Wife, R/o D.No.13/183- B-5-1, C/o Mahanand K.Vijaya Nagar Colony, Gunthakal, Anantapur District. … Plaintiff.

Versus

1. V.Thimmaiah, @ Thimmulu, Son of Naganna, 77 years, Hindu, Retired Railway Driver, R/o Vaddegeri, Nayakallu Village and Post, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District.

2. V.Sudha Mani, Wife Late V.Venkateswarlku, 40years, Hindu, House Wife, Door No.4/149/57, Teachers Colony, Dhone, Kurnool District.

3. V.Geetha, D/o Late V.Venkateswarlu, 22 years, Hindu, H.No.4/149/57, Teachers Colony, Dhone.

4. V.Jeevan, Wife of Late V.Venkateswarlu, 20 years, Hindu, Door No.4/149/57, Teachers Colony, Dhone, Kurnool District.

5. V.Venugopal, Son of V.Thimmaiah, 47 years, H.No.4/149/66, Teachers Colony, Dhone.

6. V.T.Ramesh, 39 years, Hindu, Business,

7. V.T.Nagaraju, 36 years, Hindu, Business.

8. V.T.Mallikarjun, 33 years, Hindu, Business, No.6, 7, 8 are sons of Late Alivelumangamma, doing real estate business and Kadapa Slab Sellers, R/o Near Cell Towwer, Sri Rama Nagar, Dhone.

9. V.T.Janardhan, Son of Late Alivelumangamma, 29 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No.4/149/67, Teachers Colony, Dhone. … Defendants

This is a suit filed for passing decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for passing a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff by division of the plaint schedule properties into 5 equal parts and allotment of 1/5th share to the plaintiff by considering the metes and bounds and to pass final decree in terms of preliminary decree with costs.

Plaint presented on 23.03.2017 and filed on 23.03.2017.

J.V of Rs.3,47,475/- (M.V of Rs.23,16,500/- x 3/4th x 1/5th share) and C.F of Rs.200 is paid under section 34 (2) of A.P.C.F ands.V.Act.

This suit is coming on be fore me for final hearing on this day i.e., 13.09.2017 in the presence of K.E.Kundalini Devi and

P.Pallavi, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant called absent and set ex-parte, upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby preliminarily decreed.

2.that the suit schedule properties be and are hereby directed to divide into 5 equal parts.

3.that the plaintiff is entitled for one such share by metes and bounds.

4.that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff, the sum of Rs.298-00 being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 18th day of September, 2017.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kurnool.

Memo of Costs.

Sl.No. Description For plaintiff For defendant

In Rs. in Rs.

1. Stamp on Plaint. 200-00 ---

2. Stamp on vakalath 2-00 ---

3. Stamp on process 96-00 ---

4. Advocate’s Fee (Sr) NNC ---

5. Advocate’s Fee (Jr) --- ---

6. Typing Cahrges --- ---

7. P.W.charges --- ---

8. Publication Charges --- ---

Total 298-00 ---

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kurnool

Schedule

Item No.1:- The Agriculture land situated in Sy.No.127-1 having an extent of Ac.0.58 Cents of Nayakallu Village, Kallur

Mandal, Kurnool SRD RD Kurnool and Kurnool District within the following boundaries

East : Chinna Moulali; West : Chinna Moulali., North : Sivanna;

South : Pinjari Biyamma.

Item No.2:- The agriculture land situated in Sy.No.136 2C having an extent of Ac.2.58 Cents of Nayakallu Village, Kallur

Mandal, Kallur SRD RD Kurnool and Kurnool District within the following boundaries :

East : Pinjari Moulali; West : Ayyanna; North : Pedda Ayyanna; and South : Chinna Ayyanna.

Item No.3: The Agriculture land situated in Sy.No.235-3 having an extent of Ac.0.43 Cents of Nayakallu Village, Kallur

Mandal, Kallur S.R.D R D Kurnool and Kurnool District within the following boundaries:

East : Telugu Rangamma; West : Venkatagiri Mallaiah; North :

Pedda Ayyanna; and South Chinna Ayyanna.

Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.