Sri R. Sree Lekha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT HUZURABAD.

PRESENT: SMT. R. SREE LEKHA.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

 HUZURABAD.

Monday, the 23rd day of April, 2018.

O.S.No. 211 OF 2017.

Between:­

Panthati Raghupathi, S/o Mallaiah, Age: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2­10­45 Market road, Jammikunta village and mandal of Karimnagar District.

…Plaintiff. AND

Erabati Rajeshwar Rao, S/o Mogili, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Saidabad village of Jammikunta village and mandal of Karimnagar District.

…Defendant.

This suit is coming for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and defendant is set ex-parte and having been heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:- : : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of promissory note against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.17,893/- with interest @ 12% per annum.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that the plaintiff is running

Adthi Commission at Jammikunta grain market, that the defendant is known to the plaintiff, as such there is an acquaintance between them, that the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to advance an amount of Rs.20,000/- for his family legal necessities, that on his repeated requests, plaintiff lent the available amount with him at that time 2

Rs.16,000/- on interest @ 1% per annum on 28.08.2016. The plaintiff further submits that the defendant executed a promissory note along with receipt in the presence of witness K.Srinivas Reddy and the said promissory note, receipt was scribed by one Mohd.Khaleel. The plaintiff further submits that in the month of first week of June, 2017 the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the amount, on which the defendant issued a cheque on 5.6.2017 bearing No. 874571 on his account in Andhra Bank,

Jammikunta Branch for Rs.16,000/- in favour of plaintiff for realization of the said amount. The plaintiff further submits that he presented the said cheque for collection of the amount, but the said cheque was returned on 07.06.2017 as unpaid for the reason funds insufficient in the defendant account, that the bank authorities returned the bounced cheque along with the reasons memo, that the defendant inspite of there are no funds in his account, had issued the said cheuqe in favour of the plaintiff, that as a final and last chance, the plaintiff got issued legal notice demanding the defendant to repay the said amount with agreed interest through registered post, that the defendant managed the postal man and got endorsement that they were absent for 7 days, hence returned to the sender, that there is no other alternative to the plaintiff except to file the suit for recovery of suit amount against the defendant, Hence the suit.

3.The defendant is set exparte.

4.During the course of exparte evidence, the plaintiff got himself examined as Pw1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.6.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

6.Perused the record.

3

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.17,893/- from the defendant as prayed for ?

Point:-

8.The plaintiff filed chief evidence affidavit in lieu of chief examination to prove the plaint pleadings. The plaintiff has filed Ex.A1 promissory note, which shows that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.16,000/- from the plaintiff on 28.08.2016. Ex.A.2 is the cheque, dated 5.6.2017,

Ex.A.3 is the Pay in slip, Ex.A.4 is the Memo issued by Andhra Bank,

Ex.A.5 is the office copy of legal notice, Ex.A.6 is the Returned postal cover.

9.As could be seen from the evidence of Pw1, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.16,000/- from the plaintiff on 28.08.2016 towards hand loan and the defendant executed promissory note Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount as and when demanded by the plaintiff, but the defendants failed to repay the said loan amount inspite of repeated requests of the plaintiff. Further the defendant issued the cheque for Rs.16,000/-, which was presented in the bank, but was returned on 07.06.2017 for the reason '' Funds insufficient '', that the plaintiff got issued legal notice which was returned. The documents filed by the plaintiff amply prove the suit claim. As the defendants remained exparte, the claim of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Accordingly, the point is answered.

4

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.17,893/- together with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree on Rs.16,000/- and thereafter @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree till realization.

Typed to dictation by stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW­1. Panthati Raghupathi ­­None­­

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 Promissory Note. Ex.A.2 Cheque, dated 5.6.2017 Ex.A.3 Pay in slip Ex.A.4 Memo issued by Andhra Bank. Ex.A.5 Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A.6 Returned postal cover.

FOR THE DEFENDANT: ­­Nil­­

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

5

 IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:AT:HUZURABAD

PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

HUZURABAD.

Thursday, the 14th day of December, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 242 of 2012. Between:­

Mokirala Rajeshwar Rao, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kothagattu village of Shankarapatham mandal revenue of Karimnagar District. … Plaintiff.

AND

1. Mokirala Chander Rao, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Mokirala China Kishan Rao, S/o Late Mangaiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Mokirala Rajeshwar Rao, S/o Late Gopaiah, Age: 50 years Occ: Agriculture,

4. Mokirala Kishan Rao, S/o Late Veeraiah, Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture,

5. Mokirala Madhava Rao, S/o Veeraiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

6. Mokirala Laxman Rao, S/o Veeraiah, Age:50 years, Occ: Agriculture, 6

7. Mokirala Rajeshwar Rao, S/o Veeraiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Hotel Business,

8. Sri Ram Srinivas, S/o Narayana, Age: 40 years, C/o Sri Ram Shekar Hotel, Molangoor cross road stage,

9. Alli Ravi, S/o Ailaiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: Hotel Business,

Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 are R/o Kothagattu village of Shankarapatnam mandal reveue of Karimnagar District.

10. Gundeti Srinivas, S/o Mogili, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agricluture,

11. Radarapu Srinivas, S/o Pochaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,

12. Theegala Raghupathi, S/o Mysaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Toddy tapper,

13. Theegala Srinivas, S/o Mysaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Toddy taper,

Defendant Nos. 9 to 12 are R/o Eklaspur village of Saidapur mandal of Karimnagar District. 

….Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Amarender Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri G.Laxmana Murhty, Advocate for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying the Court to pass a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share to the plaintiff along with defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of

Sy.No.477/A, Ac.0­05 guntas, Sy.No. 477/B, Ac.0­26 guntas, and

Sy.No.486/A, Ac.0­05 guntas, total Ac.0­36 guntas in suit schedule properties, compact land situated at Dandepalli village of

Elkathurthy mandal of Karimnagar District of the suit schedule 7 property. 

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that the plaintiffs No.

1 and 2 are own brothers, and the defendant No.1 is the grand father of plaintiffs ( i.e., father's father), the defendant No.2 is younger father of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.3 is the paternal aunt of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further submit that the father of the plaintiff namely Udutha Ramesh died on 30.12.2007.

The plaintiffs submit that the suit schedule properties are the undivided joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 and 2, and the said properties are purchased with the joint family earnings of the father of the plaintiffs and the schedule properties were purchased on the name of the defendant

No.1 as he is the elder of the family and the said properties are jointly purchased by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and father of the plaintiffs late Ramesh during his life time ( who is the son of the defendant No.1), and the said properties are undivided joint family properties, hence the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 and 2 are in joint possession over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs further submit that after demise of the father of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 and 2 colluded themselves and trying to sell the suit schedule properties by depriving the right of the plaintiffs on the suit schedule properties, on knowing the said information in the month of August, 2013 the plaintiffs went to the defendant

No.1 and demanded to make partition but the defendant No.1 postponed the matter either on one pretext or the other. The 8 plaintiffs further submit that the defendant No.1 at the instance of the defendants No.2 and 3 is trying to make negotiation with the defendant No.4, on knowing the same on 17.11.2013 the plaintiff along with village elders went to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and demanded to make partition, but the defendants No.1 and 2 declined the share to the plaintiffs and refused to make partition, that the plaintiffs along with defendants No.1 and 2 are having joint possession over the suit land and no partition was occurred.

The plaintiffs further submit that the defendants themselves colluded and trying to sell the schedule properties to third parties by depriving the right and share of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant No.1 filed the written statement and the same is adopted by defendant No.2. The averments in brief are that of denial. The defendant No.1 denies that after the demise of the father of the plaintiff, the defendants No.1 and 2 colluded among themselves and trying to sell the suit schedule properties by depriving the right of the plaintiffs on the suit schedule properties.

The defendant No.1 further submits that he has given an amount of Rs.25,000/­ for the business purpose to the plaintiff's father in the year 1992 and the land in Sy.No.22 to an extent of 0­02 guntas to the plaintiffs father ( Udutha Ramesh) on 28.8.2004 and the same was sold to one Eda Sammaiah vide registered sale deed document No.306 of 2004 dated 28.8.2004. The defendant No.1 submits that the father i.e., Udutha Ramesh death expenditures was given by the defendant No.1, and the defendant No.1 is in 9 peaceful possession and enjoyment of respective extent as absolute owners thereof. The defendant No.1 further submits that during the life time of plainiff's father he enjoyed and sold his share to other persons and wrongly claiming the present suit schedule land.

The defendant No.1 submits that the property is self acquired property and the defendant has purchased the land from one

Devabatla Venkataiah who executed a registered sale document in

Sy.No. 477/A vide registered sale deed document No. 2801/1988

dated 26.8.1988 in favour of the defendant No.1 and another

registered sale deed document No. 2247 of 1988 dated 24.7.1988 from Macharla Venkataramulu who executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 in Sy.No. 477/B and 486/A and prays to dismiss the suit. 

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

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties as prayed for ?

2. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. The evidence of P.W.2 is eschewed. The defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B7. The defendants got examined D.Ws.2 to 4 in support of their case.

6.Heard the counsel for the defendant. The plaintiffs side arguments are treated as heard. Perused the record.

ISSUE NO.1 :­

7.To prove his case, the plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as 10

Pw1 and re­iterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Exs.A1 to A3 are the pahanies for various years obtained through meeseva.

In his cross examination, he denied that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the defendant No.1. He deposed that it is the joint family property. He denied that the defendant No.1 partitioned the properties after his father and

Radhakishan became majors and that his father and defendant

No.2 got 0­02 guntas of land each and Rs.25000/­ cash each in the year 1992. He denied that his father sold his share of 0­02 guntas of land to one Eada Sammaiah vide document No.2893 of 2004. He further denied that the land was still in the name of the defendant

No.1, the defendant No.1 registered the land in the name of Eada

Sammaiah. He denied that his grandfather incurred Rs.17000/­ as expenditure when his father died. He denied that the suit schedule property was kept for maintenance of defendant No.1. He further denied that even though the defendant No.1 has already partitioned the properties, he filed a false suit against him. 

8.The defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW1 and reiterated the contents of the written statement in his chief examination affidavit. He got marked Exs.B1 to B7 in support of his case. Exs.B1 and Ex.B.2 are certified copies of sale deeds.

Exs.B.3 to B.7 are the land receipts. 

In his cross examination he denied that he did not give 0­02 guntas of land in Sy.No.22 to the father of the plaintiffs, that he 11 sold the land to one Eda Sammaiah. He deposed that he signed on the document as he was the pattedar. He deposed that Ramesh sold the said land. He denied that the suit land is the joint family property. He further denied that the suit land was purchased by him through registered sale deed document No. 2801 of 1988 and 2247 of 1988 from out of the joint family property. He further denied that the suit lands are not partitioned and the same is joint family property. He denied that he did not give Rs. 25000/­ to the father of the plaintiffs. He further denied that the plaintiffs are having 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. 

10.As the plaintiffs failed to cross examine D.Ws. 2 to D.W.4, the cross examination of D.Ws. 2 to D.W.4 is treated as nil.

11.Thus, according to the plaintiff the suit schedule properties are purchased with the joint family earnings of the father of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who are the joint family members and the properties were purchased in the name of defendant No.1 as he is the elder of the family. To prove his case the plaintiff No.1 got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 which are the pahanies for Fasli 1422, in respect of the suit schedule properties. A perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.2 shows that the suit schedule property is in the name of the defendant No.1 as pattedar and possessor for the land in Sy.No.477/B and 486/A. Whereas in Ex.A.3 the name of the defendant No.1 is recorded only in possessory column in respect of

Sy.No. 477/A. The plaintiffs have not stated as to how the father of 12 the plaintiffs got the earnings for purchasing the suit schedule property.

12.On the other hand, it is the specific case of the defendant

No.1 that he has given an amount of Rs.25,000/­ to the father of the plaintiff and land to an extent of 0­02 guntas in Sy.No.22 on 28.8.2004, that the death expenditure of the father of plaintiff was given by defendant No.1, that the father of the plaintiff during his life time enjoyed his share of the land and sold the same to others and now wrongly claiming the suit schedule land. According to the defendant No.1 the suit schedule property is his self acquired property. In support of the same, the defendant No.1 got marked

Exs.B.1 and B.2 which are the certified copies of sale deeds through which the defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property.

13.The plaintiffs failed to rebut the Exs.B.1 and B.2. The plaintiff's failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are purchased from out of the joint family earnings of the father of the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and 2. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff's are not entitled for partition and for a share in the suit schedule properties. The issue is answered accordingly.

14.ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, the suit is dismissed. Having regard to the relationship between the parties to the suit, there is no order as to 13 costs. 

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30th day of August,

2017. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: 

PW.1­ Udutha Rajendra Prasad. PW.2­ Manda Rajanna.

 FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

DW.1­ Udutha Rajaveeru DW.2­ Udutha Radha Kishan DW.3­ Bathini Prabhakar DW.4­ Ponnala Rajaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

Ex A1 ­Pahani obtained through meeseva for the fasli 1422. Ex.A2­ Pahani obtained through meeseva for the fasli 1422. Ex.A3 ­Pahani obtained through meeseva for the fasli 1422.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Ex.B.1­Certified copy of sale deed Ex.B.2­Certified copy of sale deed. Ex.B.3­Land tax receipt. Ex.B.4­Land tax receipt. Ex.B.5­Land tax receipt. Ex.B.6­Land tax receipt. Ex.B.7­Land tax receipt.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

14

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD.

PRESENT:- Smt. R. SREELEKHA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD

This the 22nd day of April, 2018

EP.No. 65 OF 2017

Between:- KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD, Rep by its Legal Officer N.Ramesh Address - Jammikunta …Plaintiff/D.Hr.

And

1) Beenaveni Ravinder Address - Madipally Jammikunta

2) Maddela Rajam Mulkala Mancherial

3) Koppula Sudhakar Jyothi Nagar, Angadi Bazar Mandamarri

4) Munjala Bikshapathi Near Old Police Station Yapal Mandamarri Mancheraial …J.Drs/Defendants

Petition filed Under Order 21 Rule 11 of CPC -o0o-

This petition is coming before me in the presence of Plaintiff/D.Hr and J.DRs/Defendants before the Court; having heard, the Court made the following:-

-:: O R D E R ::-

Both parties present. and requested to refer the matter to Lok Adalat as the matter is compromised. In view the same the matter is referred to Lok Adalat. Both parties and their counsel present filed terms and compromise are read over explained to them and admitted by both the parties. The terms of compromise is recored. Accordingly award is passed in terms of compromise.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2018.

.

sd/-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD.

PRESENT:­ Smt. R. SREELEKHA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

HUZURABAD

This the 19th day of April, 2018

E.P.No. 45 OF 2017

Between:­

KAPIL CHIT( KAKATIYA )PVT LTD, JAMMIKUNTA BRANCH REP BY ZONAL

LEGAL OFFICER, M.SHIVA PRASAD

Address ­ JAMMIKUNTA ….Decree holder

And

1) Madhire Rajamouli Address ­ Medariwada ,jammaikunta

2) Alupula swarupa Rani Near Nethaji High school,jammaikunta

3) Madhira Sambaiah Medariwada,Jammikunta

4) Gotte Sunil kumar Jammikunta

5) Telikunta Kumaraswamy Kothapally,Jammikunta …Judgment Debtors

Petition filed Under Order 21 Rule 11 of CPC ­o0o­

This petition is coming before me in the presence of Decree Holder and Judgment debtors are having heard, the Court made the following:­

­:: O R D E R ::­

In the present petition, the certificate is issued by the Deputy Reguistrar of Chits and not by the Registrar of chits. Hence the E.P. is returned with a liberty to the decree holder to get the application forwarded through the Registrar along with the certificate issued by the Registrar.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of April, 2018.

Sd/­

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD.

PRESENT:- Smt. R. SREELEKHA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD

This the 24th day of April, 2018

OS.No.80 OF 2012

Between:-

Samella Devasahayam Address - Veenavanka village and mandal ….Plaintif

And

Karengula Amruthamma Address - Kisan nagar, near Hanuman mandir …Defendants

Petition filed Under Order 26 of CPC -o0o-

This petition is coming before me in the presence of Plaintif and Defendant are having heard, the Court made the following:-

-:: O R D E R ::-

PW1 called absent. No representation. Pw.1 called absent on last adjournments also. SIt5 deems that the plaintif is not interesting prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of April, 2018. .

sd/-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD.

PRESENT:- Smt. R. SREELEKHA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD

This the 27th day of April, 2018

OS.No. 13 OF 2014

Between:-

Md.Sabeeya

Address - Molangur village of Shankarapatnam mandal

….Plaintif

And

Pilli Rajakomuraiah

Address - Kothagattu village of Shankarapatnam mandal

…Defendant

Petition filed Under Order 26 of CPC -o0o-

This petition is coming before me in the presence of Plaintif and Defendant are having heard, the Court made the following:-

-:: O R D E R ::-

Both parties and counsels present and filed their compromise are read over, explained and admitted by the both parties. The terms of compromise is recorded award is passed in terms of compromise.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of April, 2018.

.

sd/-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.