Sri R.sivakumar

FAIR -1- Crl. Appeal 61/2018

Date of Judgment : 16-11-2018 X ADSJ/AKP

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT ANAKAPALLE.

Present : Sri. RAYASAM SIVAKUMAR, B.Com., B.L., IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Gajuwaka. (FAC) X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Anakapalle.

Friday, this the 16 th day of November, 2018.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.61/2018

From which Court the : VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, appeal is preferred Bheemunipatnam.

No. of the case in that Court: C.C.134 /2016

No. of the Appeal: Crl. Appeal No.61/2018

Name & Description of the Appellant/Accused :

Yedurupakala Yellaji, S/o. Apparao, Hindu, aged about 32 years, resident of D.No.1-7, Kapulauppada village, Bheemili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. (Accused)

Name & Description of the Respondent/Complainant :

The State rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

Sentence and law under: U/Secs.354, 427, 341 & 448 IPC. which it was imposed in theAccused is found guilty for the offences punishable Lower CourtU/Sec.354 of I.P.C. and he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprison -ment for a period of two years and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. Accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.427 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Sec.341 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Sec.448 IPC, in default of payment of dines, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) days for the offence under Sec.341 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offences under Secs.427, 448 and 354 IPC separately.

Whether confirmed, modified: REVERSED or reversed.

If modified, :--- the modification

Date of presentation: 20-06-2018

Date of filing: 20.06.2018

FAIR -2- Crl. Appeal 61/2018

Date of Judgment : 16-11-2018 X ADSJ/AKP

Notice issued by Court to : 25.06.2018 appear

Bail bonds if they have been: in Jail let out on bail

Appellant ordered to appear: 10.07.2018

Hearing: 09.11.2018

Order: 16.11.2018

This Criminal Appeal is coming on 09.11.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D. Hari Sastry, Advocate for the Appellant/Accused and of Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State and after stood over for

consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a Criminal Appeal preferred by the Accused against the calendar and judgment, dated 21.05.2018 in C.C.134/2016 passed by the learned VII Addl.

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam finding the Accused guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.354 of I.P.C. and he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. Accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.427 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Sec.341 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under

Sec.448 IPC, in default of payment of fines, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) days for the offence under Sec.341 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offences under

Secs.427, 448 and 354 IPC separately.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by me herein after as they were arrayed in the charge-sheet.

3.The material allegations stemming from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the record available are :

FAIR -3- Crl. Appeal 61/2018

Date of Judgment : 16-11-2018 X ADSJ/AKP

(a)On 16-02-2016 at 10-00 AM while the P.W.1 present in the house, by that time, the accused trespassed into the house, put his hand on her chest and abused her and caused outraged and insulted her modesty and damaged the window glasses, then

P.W.1 tried to went out from her house, by that time, the accused wrongfully restrained P.W.1 and in the mean time P.W.4 and L.W.3 Uppili Suresh came there and rescued P.W.1 from the hands of the accused and then the accused fled away from the spot. Basing on the report of P.W.1, L.W.7/S. Appalaraju, Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.46/2016 for the offences under Sections 448, 354-D, 427, 509, 341 IPC.

(b)During the course of investigation, L.W.7/S. Appalaraju, Inspector of Police,

P.M. Police Station endorsed the same to P.W.5/N. Sanyasi Rao, Head Constable for investigation and he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, he served 41(a) Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and on completion of investigation, after verification of investigation done by P.W.5, L.W.7 S.

Appalaraju, Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.The case was taken on file by the trial court for the offences punishable under sections 448, 354(D), 427,509, 341 of Indian Penal Code against the accused. Copies of the documents were supplied to the accused U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and the accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. by the trial court. But, the accused pleaded not guilty for the charged offences under sections 448, 354(D), 427,509, 341 of Indian

Penal Code, when the charges were framed and read over and explained to the accused in Telugu.

5.In the trial afforded to the prosecution and the Accused, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1 were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution

before the Trial Court.

FAIR -4- Crl. Appeal 61/2018

Date of Judgment : 16-11-2018 X ADSJ/AKP

6.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by the trial court by putting the incriminating evidence and the

Accused denied the same as being true and reported no defence evidence. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defence.

7.At the time of pronouncing Judgment, the trial judge noticed that the offence under Sec.354-D of IPC does not attract to the present case and the offence under

Sec.354 IPC attract. According the charge is altered from Sec.354-D to Sec.354 IPC as contemplated under Sec.216 Cr.P.C. and the accused was called for cross examining the prosecution witnesses. The accused filed a memo stating that he is not intending to cross examine any of the prosecution witnesses.

8.After considering the above noted oral and documentary evidence of prosecution, learned Trial Judge acquitted the Accused under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 509 IPC, butfinding the Accused guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.354 of I.P.C. and he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. Accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.427 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Sec.341 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under

Sec.448 IPC, in default of payment of fines, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) days for the offence under Sec.341 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offences under

Secs.427, 448 and 354 IPC separately.

9.Aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial court, the Accused filed this Criminal

Appeal before this Court urging in the Grounds of Appeal that the Judgment is erroneous and contrary to law and weight of evidence and that learned Magistrate did

FAIR -5- Crl. Appeal 61/2018

Date of Judgment : 16-11-2018 X ADSJ/AKP

not correctly appreciate the evidence of P.W.1 to PW.5 both in question of facts and on

Law and that learned Magistrate ought to have observed the discrepancies and the contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and ought to have appreciated the same and that Learned Magistrate failed to observe that the delay in not reporting the matter to the Police is not as discussed in the Judgment and that learned Magistrate ought to have observed the difference in the evidence of P.W.1 and the investigating officer as P.W.1 says that she handed over M.O.1 to the investigating Officer but whereas the investigating officer had deposed otherwise.

10.I heard learned counsel of Accused and also learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

11.As can be seen from the contentions of the prosecution and the accused, the points for determination are :-

1. Whether the prosecution has established the case against Accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.448, 354-D, 427, 509, 341 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt ?

2. Whether the judgment of the trial court is sustainable in law and on facts ?

3. To what result ?

12.POINT Nos.1 & 2 :-

In Para 9 of its Judgment, the Trial Court held that Section 354-D IPC is not attracting against the Accused and therefore, the charge of Sec.354-D IPC has been altered to Sec.354 IPC as per Section 216 Cr.P.C.

13.But, In para 10 of its judgment, the Trial Court made the point for determination to the effect whether the prosecution has made out the case

against the accused for the offences under Sections 448, 354-D, 427, 509,

341 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

FAIR -6- Crl. Appeal 61/2018

Date of Judgment : 16-11-2018 X ADSJ/AKP

14.Thus, the mistake was rolled that went un-noticingly by the Trial Court. Let it be as it may. The Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Sec.509 of IPC.

But convicted the accused for the offences under sections 354, 448, 427 and 341 of

IPC. There is no appeal against the said acquittal. So, this Court is concerned with the offences for which the accused was convicted by the Trial Court.

15.The prosecution sought to prove the guilt of the accused for the said offences also by the evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4. But, fortunately or unfortunately the eye witnesses P.Ws. 2 & 3 did not support the case of the prosecution. So, the evidence of the victim-cum-defacto complainant (P.W.1) and eye witness P.W.4 is to be appreciated by this Court. The Trial Court noted in its judgment that the accused filed a memo stating that he is not intending to cross examine any prosecution witnesses. But, there is cross examination of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the Trial Court.

16.In brief, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 16-02-2016 at about 10-00 AM to 10-30 AM she was in her home at Marikavalasa, at that time the accused trespassed into her house in drunken state and abused her and damaged the window glass of her rented house and the accused put his hand on her chest and wrongfully restrained her.

17.P.W.4 is the younger sister of P.W.1. It is in her evidence that on 16-02-2016 at about 10-30 AM, she, her husband and their daughter went to the house of P.W.1 and at that time the accused was quarreled with P.W.1 and he damaged the glass articles in the house and he pushed P.W.1 by placing his hand on her chest.

18.In her cross examination, P.W.1 categorically admits that she gave Ex.P.1

Report after 3 days of the incident as she was not well and that she cannot furnish any prescription or medical certificate show that she took treatment for she was not well

FAIR -7- Crl. Appeal 61/2018

Date of Judgment : 16-11-2018 X ADSJ/AKP

and that she did not mention about the MO.1 broken glass pieces in Ex.P.1 report. In her cross examination, P.W.4 categorically admits that P.W.1 and accused used to attend coolie work at one and the same place and that she does not know whether her father attend the panchayat at Kapulauppada and that there were disputes between

P.W.1 and her husband during the year 2016 and that there are several houses around the house of P.W.1 and that she omitted to state before the Police that she went to the house of P.W.1 on 16-02-2016 and that she was not present at the time of lodging

Ex.P.1 report.

19.Even in her chief examination, P.W.4 categorically stated that accused was quarreling with P.W.1 by the time of her going to the house of P.W.1. As is known to all every assault against a woman does not come within the purview of Sec.354 of IPC unless a person assaults or uses criminal force against any woman intending to outrage her modesty. Thus, the necessary ingredients of Sec.354 IPC are lacking in the evidence of prosecution. The said admission of P.W.4 that she found the accused and P.W1 quarreling proves that the accused and P.W.1 were quarreling on some issue between them, but, it was not the intention of the accused to outrage the modesty of

P.W.1. If really, the accused damaged the window glasses of the house of P.W.1,

P.W.1 would have stated the same in her Ex.P.1 report. But, P.W.1 admits as above noted that she did not mention about M.O.1 glass pieces in her Ex.P.1 report. The independent eye witnesses P.W.2 & P.W.3 are not supporting the case of the prosecution. Why the husband and the daughter of P.W.4 were not examined by the investigating officer is not known. It is improbable to believe that the accused could assault P.W.1 in the presence of P.W.4 and husband and daughter of P.W.4. The evidence of P.W.1 has no credibility. The prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the case. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not safe to convict the accused for the above noted offences basing on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4.

FAIR -8- Crl. Appeal 61/2018

Date of Judgment : 16-11-2018 X ADSJ/AKP

20.By virtue of my discussion supra, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offences under sections 354, 448, 427 & 341 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. So, the point Nos.1 & 2 are held in favour of Accused and against the prosecution.

21.POINT No.3 : In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment Dated 21.05.2018 in C.C.134 of 2016 passed by the learned VII Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam is set aside and Accused is found not guilty for the

offences punishable Under Sections 354, 448, 427 & 341 of I.P.C. and therefore, the

Accused is acquitted Under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable

Under Sections 354, 448, 427 & 341 of I.P.C.. The bail bonds of accused is set aside and his sureties are discharged. MO.1 window glass pieces are destroyed after appeal time is over.

The Superintendent of Central Prison, Visakhapatnam is directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other cases.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 16 th day of November, 2018.

Sd/- R. Siva Kumar

IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, GAJUWAKA.

FAC- X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Appellant : For Respondent :

No additional oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side.

Sd/- R. Siva Kumar

IV AMSJ/GWK FAC- X ADSJ/AKP

Copy to : The VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT ANAKAPALLE.

Present:- Sri.R.Siva Kumar XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

GAJUWAKA.

FAC. X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

ANAKAPALLE.

Monday, this the 12th day of November, 2018.

O.S.182/2008.

Between:

1) Grandhi Subhram, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 66 yrs, R/o Sri Raghava Rama D.No.10-14-19, Station Road, Anakapalle, Visakhkapatnam District.

2) Grandhi Nageswara Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 63 yrs, Business, R/o Sampat, D.No.11-4-27, Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

3) Grandhi Dandayudhapani, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 61 yrs, R/o Sri Nidhi 23, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

4) Grandhi Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 59 yrs, R/o First floor, Flat No.4, Revathi Apartments, D.No.2/1-1/3. Opposite to SBI P.S.Nagaram Branch, Mogalrajapuram Branch, Vijayawada.

5) Grandhi Hanumantha Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 53 yrs, R/o D.No.4-5-9/3, 4th lane, Kotha Agraharam, Vizianagaram.

6) Grandhi Seshu Kumar, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 49 yrs, R/o Upstairs, Prasanthi Nilayam, Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. … Plaintiffs.

And:

1) Kolluru Narasinga Rao, S/o late Bheemalingam, Hindu, age 66 yrs, R/o D.No.11-1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

2) Grandhi Krishna Murthy, S/o Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, age 80 yrs, R/o Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.

3) Grandhi Manga Tayaru, W/o Gowri Sankara Rao, Hindu, age 72 yrs, R/o Changalaraopeta, Visakhapatnam-531 001.

4) Kolluru Pramod Kumar, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, age 41 yrs, R/o D.No.11- 1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

5) Kolluru Naveen Kumar, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, age 35 yrs, R/o D.No.11- 1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

6) Kotni Venkayyamma, W/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, age 72 yrs, House hold duties, R/o Kotni Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

7) Kotni Adinarayana, S/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, age 51 yrs, Business, R/o Kotni Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. … Defendants.

The suit coming before me in the presence of Sri.K.P.V.Ramanayya, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri.P.A.Narasimham, Advocate for D1, Smt.J.Vijaya, Advocate for D2, Sri.S.P.Naidu, Advocate for D6 and D7 and D3 to D5 remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants praying i) for a declaration that the plaintiff are the exclusive owners of the plaint schedule property who are enjoying the same for long over the statutory period; ii) for a consequential relief permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants from interfering with the possession and of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint schedule property in any manner what so ever; iii) for a declaration that the proceedings of the Spl. Officer, Andhra Tenancy Act at

Anakapalle in ATC.3/1998 as well as consequentially execution proceedings in

E.P.7/1999 in ATC.3/1998 on the file of Spl. Officer, A.T. Act, Anakapalle are

collusive, void and without jurisdiction and unenforceable as far as plaintiffs are concerned; iv) for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with in any court in any manner using the orders made in ATC.3/1998 under the Tenancy Act as well as in E.P.7/1999 in

ATC.3/1998 on the file of the Spl. Officer, A.T.Act, at Anakapalle; v) to declare that all the documents executed or to be executed by the defendants during pendency of all the proceedings are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.

The Plaintiffs counsel filed memo stating that the suit is settled out side the court and suit may be dismissed.

In view of the memo filed by the plaintiffs counsel. Hence the suit is dismissed without costs.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of November, 2018.

Sd/- R.Siva Kumar

XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

GAJUWAKA.

FAC. X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

ANAKAPALLE.

Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- R.Siva Kumar

XIII ADJ/GWK FAC. XADJ/AKP.

Date of presentation : 31-05-2008; 03-06-2008. Date of filing : 06-06-2008

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT ANAKAPALLE.

Present:- Sri.R.Siva Kumar XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

GAJUWAKA.

FAC. X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

ANAKAPALLE.

Monday, this the 12th day of November, 2018.

O.S.182/2008.

Between:

1) Grandhi Subhram, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 66 yrs, R/o Sri Raghava Rama D.No.10-14-19, Station Road, Anakapalle, Visakhkapatnam District.

2) Grandhi Nageswara Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 63 yrs, Business, R/o Sampat, D.No.11-4-27, Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

3) Grandhi Dandayudhapani, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 61 yrs, R/o Sri Nidhi 23, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

4) Grandhi Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 59 yrs, R/o First floor, Flat No.4, Revathi Apartments, D.No.2/1-1/3. Opposite to SBI P.S.Nagaram Branch, Mogalrajapuram Branch, Vijayawada.

5) Grandhi Hanumantha Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 53 yrs, R/o D.No.4-5-9/3, 4th lane, Kotha Agraharam, Vizianagaram.

6) Grandhi Seshu Kumar, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 49 yrs, R/o Upstairs, Prasanthi Nilayam, Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. … Plaintiffs.

And:

1) Kolluru Narasinga Rao, S/o late Bheemalingam, Hindu, age 66 yrs, R/o D.No.11-1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

2) Grandhi Krishna Murthy, S/o Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, age 80 yrs, R/o Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.

3) Grandhi Manga Tayaru, W/o Gowri Sankara Rao, Hindu, age 72 yrs, R/o Changalaraopeta, Visakhapatnam-531 001.

4) Kolluru Pramod Kumar, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, age 41 yrs, R/o D.No.11- 1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

5) Kolluru Naveen Kumar, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, age 35 yrs, R/o D.No.11- 1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

6) Kotni Venkayyamma, W/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, age 72 yrs, House hold duties, R/o Kotni Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

7) Kotni Adinarayana, S/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, age 51 yrs, Business, R/o Kotni Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. … Defendants.

The Plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants praying i) for a declaration that the plaintiff are the exclusive owners of the plaint schedule property who are enjoying the same for long over the statutory period; ii) for a consequential relief permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants from interfering with the possession and of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint schedule property in any manner what so ever; iii) for a declaration that the proceedings of the Spl. Officer, Andhra Tenancy Act at Anakapalle in ATC.3/1998 as well as consequentially execution proceedings in

E.P.7/1999 in ATC.3/1998 on the file of Spl. Officer, A.T. Act, Anakapalle are

collusive, void and without jurisdiction and unenforceable as far as plaintiffs are concerned; iv) for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with in any court in any manner using the orders made in ATC.3/1998 under the Tenancy Act as well as in E.P.7/1999 in ATC.3/1998 on the file of the Spl. Officer, A.T.Act, at Anakapalle; v) to declare that all the documents executed or to be executed by the defendants during pendency of all the proceedings are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is Rs.35,82,600-00 and a Court Fee of Rs.38,437-00 (Rs.38,326-00 + Rs.111-00) is paid thereon Under Section 24 (b) and Sec.24(d) of Sch.I Art.I (b) & (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

The suit coming before me in the presence of Sri.K.P.V.Ramanayya, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri.P.A.Narasimham, Advocate for D1, Smt.J.Vijaya, Advocate for D2, Sri.S.P.Naidu, Advocate for D6 and D7 and D3 to D5 remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth the following:

D E C R E E

1 that the suit was settled outside of the court and the same is

hereby dismissed.

2 that there be no order as to costs.

(Plaint schedule is hereby attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 12th day of November, 2018.

Sd/- R.Siva Kumar

XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

GAJUWAKA.

FAC. X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

ANAKAPALLE.

Memorandum of Costs

No costs memo filed on either side.

Sd/- R.Siva Kumar

XIII ADJ/GWK FAC. XADJ/AKP.

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT ANAKAPALLE.

Present:- Sri.R.Siva Kumar XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

GAJUWAKA.

FAC. X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

ANAKAPALLE.

Monday, this the 12th day of November, 2018.

O.S.182/2008.

Between:

1) Grandhi Subhram, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 66 yrs, R/o Sri Raghava Rama D.No.10-14-19, Station Road, Anakapalle, Visakhkapatnam District.

2) Grandhi Nageswara Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 63 yrs, Business, R/o Sampat, D.No.11-4-27, Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

3) Grandhi Dandayudhapani, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 61 yrs, R/o Sri Nidhi 23, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

4) Grandhi Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 59 yrs, R/o First floor, Flat No.4, Revathi Apartments, D.No.2/1-1/3. Opposite to SBI P.S.Nagaram Branch, Mogalrajapuram Branch, Vijayawada.

5) Grandhi Hanumantha Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 53 yrs, R/o D.No.4-5-9/3, 4th lane, Kotha Agraharam, Vizianagaram.

6) Grandhi Seshu Kumar, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 49 yrs, R/o Upstairs, Prasanthi Nilayam, Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. … Plaintiffs.

And:

1) Kolluru Narasinga Rao, S/o late Bheemalingam, Hindu, age 66 yrs, R/o D.No.11-1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

2) Grandhi Krishna Murthy, S/o Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, age 80 yrs, R/o Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.

3) Grandhi Manga Tayaru, W/o Gowri Sankara Rao, Hindu, age 72 yrs, R/o Changalaraopeta, Visakhapatnam-531 001.

4) Kolluru Pramod Kumar, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, age 41 yrs, R/o D.No.11- 1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

5) Kolluru Naveen Kumar, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, age 35 yrs, R/o D.No.11- 1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

6) Kotni Venkayyamma, W/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, age 72 yrs, House hold duties, R/o Kotni Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

7) Kotni Adinarayana, S/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, age 51 yrs, Business, R/o Kotni Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. … Defendants.

The suit coming before me in the presence of Sri.K.P.V.Ramanayya, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri.P.A.Narasimham, Advocate for D1, Smt.J.Vijaya, Advocate for D2, Sri.S.P.Naidu, Advocate for D6 and D7 and D3 to D5 remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants praying i) for a declaration that the plaintiff are the exclusive owners of the plaint schedule property who are enjoying the same for long over the statutory period; ii) for a consequential relief permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants from interfering with the possession and of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint schedule property in any manner what so ever; iii) for a declaration that the proceedings of the Spl. Officer, Andhra Tenancy Act at

Anakapalle in ATC.3/1998 as well as consequentially execution proceedings in

E.P.7/1999 in ATC.3/1998 on the file of Spl. Officer, A.T. Act, Anakapalle are

collusive, void and without jurisdiction and unenforceable as far as plaintiffs are concerned; iv) for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with in any court in any manner using the orders made in ATC.3/1998 under the Tenancy Act as well as in E.P.7/1999 in

ATC.3/1998 on the file of the Spl. Officer, A.T.Act, at Anakapalle; v) to declare that all the documents executed or to be executed by the defendants during pendency of all the proceedings are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.

The Plaintiffs counsel filed memo stating that the suit is settled out side the court and suit may be dismissed.

In view of the memo filed by the plaintiffs counsel. Hence the suit is dismissed without costs.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of November, 2018.

Sd/- R.Siva Kumar

XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

GAJUWAKA.

FAC. X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

ANAKAPALLE.

Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- R.Siva Kumar

XIII ADJ/GWK FAC. XADJ/AKP.

Date of presentation : 31-05-2008; 03-06-2008. Date of filing : 06-06-2008

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT ANAKAPALLE.

Present:- Sri.R.Siva Kumar XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

GAJUWAKA.

FAC. X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

ANAKAPALLE.

Monday, this the 12th day of November, 2018.

O.S.182/2008.

Between:

1) Grandhi Subhram, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 66 yrs, R/o Sri Raghava Rama D.No.10-14-19, Station Road, Anakapalle, Visakhkapatnam District.

2) Grandhi Nageswara Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 63 yrs, Business, R/o Sampat, D.No.11-4-27, Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

3) Grandhi Dandayudhapani, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 61 yrs, R/o Sri Nidhi 23, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

4) Grandhi Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 59 yrs, R/o First floor, Flat No.4, Revathi Apartments, D.No.2/1-1/3. Opposite to SBI P.S.Nagaram Branch, Mogalrajapuram Branch, Vijayawada.

5) Grandhi Hanumantha Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 53 yrs, R/o D.No.4-5-9/3, 4th lane, Kotha Agraharam, Vizianagaram.

6) Grandhi Seshu Kumar, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 49 yrs, R/o Upstairs, Prasanthi Nilayam, Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. … Plaintiffs.

And:

1) Kolluru Narasinga Rao, S/o late Bheemalingam, Hindu, age 66 yrs, R/o D.No.11-1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

2) Grandhi Krishna Murthy, S/o Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, age 80 yrs, R/o Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.

3) Grandhi Manga Tayaru, W/o Gowri Sankara Rao, Hindu, age 72 yrs, R/o Changalaraopeta, Visakhapatnam-531 001.

4) Kolluru Pramod Kumar, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, age 41 yrs, R/o D.No.11- 1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

5) Kolluru Naveen Kumar, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, age 35 yrs, R/o D.No.11- 1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

6) Kotni Venkayyamma, W/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, age 72 yrs, House hold duties, R/o Kotni Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

7) Kotni Adinarayana, S/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, age 51 yrs, Business, R/o Kotni Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. … Defendants.

The Plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants praying i) for a declaration that the plaintiff are the exclusive owners of the plaint schedule property who are enjoying the same for long over the statutory period; ii) for a consequential relief permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants from interfering with the possession and of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint schedule property in any manner what so ever; iii) for a declaration that the proceedings of the Spl. Officer, Andhra Tenancy Act at Anakapalle in ATC.3/1998 as well as consequentially execution proceedings in

E.P.7/1999 in ATC.3/1998 on the file of Spl. Officer, A.T. Act, Anakapalle are

collusive, void and without jurisdiction and unenforceable as far as plaintiffs are concerned; iv) for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with in any court in any manner using the orders made in ATC.3/1998 under the Tenancy Act as well as in E.P.7/1999 in ATC.3/1998 on the file of the Spl. Officer, A.T.Act, at Anakapalle; v) to declare that all the documents executed or to be executed by the defendants during pendency of all the proceedings are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is Rs.35,82,600-00 and a Court Fee of Rs.38,437-00 (Rs.38,326-00 + Rs.111-00) is paid thereon Under Section 24 (b) and Sec.24(d) of Sch.I Art.I (b) & (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

The suit coming before me in the presence of Sri.K.P.V.Ramanayya, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri.P.A.Narasimham, Advocate for D1, Smt.J.Vijaya, Advocate for D2, Sri.S.P.Naidu, Advocate for D6 and D7 and D3 to D5 remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth the following:

D E C R E E

1 that the suit was settled outside of the court and the same is

hereby dismissed.

2 that there be no order as to costs.

(Plaint schedule is hereby attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 12th day of November, 2018.

Sd/- R.Siva Kumar

XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

GAJUWAKA.

FAC. X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

ANAKAPALLE.

Memorandum of Costs

No costs memo filed on either side.

Sd/- R.Siva Kumar

XIII ADJ/GWK FAC. XADJ/AKP.

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT ANAKAPALLE.

Present:- Sri.R.Siva Kumar XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

GAJUWAKA.

FAC. X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

ANAKAPALLE.

Monday, this the 12th day of November, 2018.

O.S.182/2008.

Between:

1) Grandhi Subhram, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 66 yrs, R/o Sri Raghava Rama D.No.10-14-19, Station Road, Anakapalle, Visakhkapatnam District.

2) Grandhi Nageswara Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 63 yrs, Business, R/o Sampat, D.No.11-4-27, Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

3) Grandhi Dandayudhapani, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 61 yrs, R/o Sri Nidhi 23, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

4) Grandhi Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 59 yrs, R/o First floor, Flat No.4, Revathi Apartments, D.No.2/1-1/3. Opposite to SBI P.S.Nagaram Branch, Mogalrajapuram Branch, Vijayawada.

5) Grandhi Hanumantha Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 53 yrs, R/o D.No.4-5-9/3, 4th lane, Kotha Agraharam, Vizianagaram.

6) Grandhi Seshu Kumar, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 49 yrs, R/o Upstairs, Prasanthi Nilayam, Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. … Plaintiffs.

And:

1) Kolluru Narasinga Rao, S/o late Bheemalingam, Hindu, age 66 yrs, R/o D.No.11-1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

2) Grandhi Krishna Murthy, S/o Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, age 80 yrs, R/o Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.

3) Grandhi Manga Tayaru, W/o Gowri Sankara Rao, Hindu, age 72 yrs, R/o Changalaraopeta, Visakhapatnam-531 001.

4) Kolluru Pramod Kumar, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, age 41 yrs, R/o D.No.11- 1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

5) Kolluru Naveen Kumar, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, age 35 yrs, R/o D.No.11- 1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

6) Kotni Venkayyamma, W/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, age 72 yrs, House hold duties, R/o Kotni Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

7) Kotni Adinarayana, S/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, age 51 yrs, Business, R/o Kotni Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. … Defendants.

The suit coming before me in the presence of Sri.K.P.V.Ramanayya, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri.P.A.Narasimham, Advocate for D1, Smt.J.Vijaya, Advocate for D2, Sri.S.P.Naidu, Advocate for D6 and D7 and D3 to D5 remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants praying i) for a declaration that the plaintiff are the exclusive owners of the plaint schedule property who are enjoying the same for long over the statutory period; ii) for a consequential relief permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants from interfering with the possession and of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint schedule property in any manner what so ever; iii) for a declaration that the proceedings of the Spl. Officer, Andhra Tenancy Act at

Anakapalle in ATC.3/1998 as well as consequentially execution proceedings in

E.P.7/1999 in ATC.3/1998 on the file of Spl. Officer, A.T. Act, Anakapalle are

collusive, void and without jurisdiction and unenforceable as far as plaintiffs are concerned; iv) for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with in any court in any manner using the orders made in ATC.3/1998 under the Tenancy Act as well as in E.P.7/1999 in

ATC.3/1998 on the file of the Spl. Officer, A.T.Act, at Anakapalle; v) to declare that all the documents executed or to be executed by the defendants during pendency of all the proceedings are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.

The Plaintiffs counsel filed memo stating that the suit is settled out side the court and suit may be dismissed.

In view of the memo filed by the plaintiffs counsel. Hence the suit is dismissed without costs.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of November, 2018.

Sd/- R.Siva Kumar

XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

GAJUWAKA.

FAC. X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

ANAKAPALLE.

Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- R.Siva Kumar

XIII ADJ/GWK FAC. XADJ/AKP.

Date of presentation : 31-05-2008; 03-06-2008. Date of filing : 06-06-2008

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT ANAKAPALLE.

Present:- Sri.R.Siva Kumar XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

GAJUWAKA.

FAC. X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

ANAKAPALLE.

Monday, this the 12th day of November, 2018.

O.S.182/2008.

Between:

1) Grandhi Subhram, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 66 yrs, R/o Sri Raghava Rama D.No.10-14-19, Station Road, Anakapalle, Visakhkapatnam District.

2) Grandhi Nageswara Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 63 yrs, Business, R/o Sampat, D.No.11-4-27, Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

3) Grandhi Dandayudhapani, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 61 yrs, R/o Sri Nidhi 23, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

4) Grandhi Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 59 yrs, R/o First floor, Flat No.4, Revathi Apartments, D.No.2/1-1/3. Opposite to SBI P.S.Nagaram Branch, Mogalrajapuram Branch, Vijayawada.

5) Grandhi Hanumantha Rao, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 53 yrs, R/o D.No.4-5-9/3, 4th lane, Kotha Agraharam, Vizianagaram.

6) Grandhi Seshu Kumar, S/o Ramamurthy Setty, Hindu, age 49 yrs, R/o Upstairs, Prasanthi Nilayam, Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. … Plaintiffs.

And:

1) Kolluru Narasinga Rao, S/o late Bheemalingam, Hindu, age 66 yrs, R/o D.No.11-1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

2) Grandhi Krishna Murthy, S/o Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, age 80 yrs, R/o Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.

3) Grandhi Manga Tayaru, W/o Gowri Sankara Rao, Hindu, age 72 yrs, R/o Changalaraopeta, Visakhapatnam-531 001.

4) Kolluru Pramod Kumar, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, age 41 yrs, R/o D.No.11- 1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

5) Kolluru Naveen Kumar, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, age 35 yrs, R/o D.No.11- 1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

6) Kotni Venkayyamma, W/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, age 72 yrs, House hold duties, R/o Kotni Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

7) Kotni Adinarayana, S/o Late Ramaswamy, Hindu, age 51 yrs, Business, R/o Kotni Veedhi, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. … Defendants.

The Plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants praying i) for a declaration that the plaintiff are the exclusive owners of the plaint schedule property who are enjoying the same for long over the statutory period; ii) for a consequential relief permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants from interfering with the possession and of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint schedule property in any manner what so ever; iii) for a declaration that the proceedings of the Spl. Officer, Andhra Tenancy Act at Anakapalle in ATC.3/1998 as well as consequentially execution proceedings in

E.P.7/1999 in ATC.3/1998 on the file of Spl. Officer, A.T. Act, Anakapalle are

collusive, void and without jurisdiction and unenforceable as far as plaintiffs are concerned; iv) for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with in any court in any manner using the orders made in ATC.3/1998 under the Tenancy Act as well as in E.P.7/1999 in ATC.3/1998 on the file of the Spl. Officer, A.T.Act, at Anakapalle; v) to declare that all the documents executed or to be executed by the defendants during pendency of all the proceedings are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is Rs.35,82,600-00 and a Court Fee of Rs.38,437-00 (Rs.38,326-00 + Rs.111-00) is paid thereon Under Section 24 (b) and Sec.24(d) of Sch.I Art.I (b) & (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

The suit coming before me in the presence of Sri.K.P.V.Ramanayya, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri.P.A.Narasimham, Advocate for D1, Smt.J.Vijaya, Advocate for D2, Sri.S.P.Naidu, Advocate for D6 and D7 and D3 to D5 remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth the following:

D E C R E E

1 that the suit was settled outside of the court and the same is

hereby dismissed.

2 that there be no order as to costs.

(Plaint schedule is hereby attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 12th day of November, 2018.

Sd/- R.Siva Kumar

XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

GAJUWAKA.

FAC. X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

ANAKAPALLE.

Memorandum of Costs

No costs memo filed on either side.

Sd/- R.Siva Kumar

XIII ADJ/GWK FAC. XADJ/AKP.

DoD 04-01-2019 1 OS No.33/2018 X ADJ/AKP/VSP

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE

PRESENT : SRI. Rayasam Siva Kumar, B.Com, B.L., XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka FAC- X Additional District Judge, Anakapalle.

FRIDAY, this the 4 th day of January 2019

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.33/2018

BETWEEN:

Allu Udaya Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Appalaswamy, Hindu, aged 59 years, employee in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, residing at Qr.No.344-A, Sector-6, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam-530032 (Aadhar Card No.948405267638) ….Plaintiff

A N D :

Yadla Krishna Sekhar, S/o. Sanyasirao, Hindu, aged about 32 years, Busienss, residing at C/o. Surapareddi Ravi Kumar, D.No.14-4-7/1, Bhanoji Thota, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.

….. Defendant

This suit is coming on before me for hearing on 28-12-2018 in the presence of Sri R. Atchutaramayya, Advocate for Plaintiff and defendant called absent, set exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.24,58,000/- (Rupees Twenty four

Lakhs, Fifty eight thousand only) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum due under suit promissory note dt.25-12-2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

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

On 25.12.2015 the defendant borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of business investment and executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, but the defendant failed to discharge his debt in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

3)The sole Defendant called absent though publication is filed. Hence, defendant has been set exparte on 07-12-2018.

DoD 04-01-2019 2 OS No.33/2018 X ADJ/AKP/VSP

4) During course of trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and got Ex.A.1 on his behalf. There is no oral or documentary evidence on behalf of defendant.

5)I heard the plaintiff.

6) Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for?

7)Point : The plaintiff filed Ex.A1 suit promissory note to prove his claim against the defendant. Ex.A.1 suit promissory note categorically recites that on 25.12.2015, the defendant borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to pay the interest at 24% per annum. The plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination in support of his case. The said oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff is proving the claim of the plaintiff. There is no evidence for the defendant rebutting the oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff. The plaintiff discharged his legal burden in proving his claim against the defendant. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with above noted documentary evidence of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note is proving the case of the plaintiff. The evidence of PW1 remains un-controverted. There is no reason to shelve the evidence of P.W.1. The suit claim is proved. There is nothing on record contrary to the documentary evidence of plaintiff. So, I hold the point in favour of plaintiff against the defendant.

8) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay

Rs.24,58,000/- (Rupees Twenty four Lakhs, Fifty eight thousand only) to the plaintiff together with interest @24% p.a from the date of suit to the date of decree and 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization therefrom on the principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/-.

Dictated to Stenographer and transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, this the 4 th day of January 2019.

Sd/- R. Siva Kumar

XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GAJUWAKA,

FAC- X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ANAKAPALLE.

DoD 04-01-2019 3 OS No.33/2018 X ADJ/AKP/VSP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No.of Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW-1 : Allu Udaya Bhaskararao (Plaintiff)– NONE –

No. of Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/25-12-2015 : Suit Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff (Original)

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/- R. Siva Kumar

XIII ADJ/GWK, FAC- X ADJ/AKP.

DoD 04-01-2019 4 OS No.33/2018 X ADJ/AKP/VSP