s.c.kamala

I Additional Junior Civil Judge

II Addl District Court Madanapalle · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

s.c.kamala, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, is posted at II Addl District Court Madanapalle, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,157 court orders on record since 2008. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, CC cases.

1,157

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/94/2019

GUDREDDYGARI LAKSHMI REDDY vs S.V.LAKSHMI

24 Jun 2020

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.1O.S. No. 94 / 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: MADANAPALLE ::

PRESENT: Smt. S.C. KAMALA, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Wednesday, the 24th day of June, 2020

O.S.No. 94 of 2019

Between:

Gudreddygari Lakshmi Reddy, S/o Sami Reddy, Hindu, aged about 59 years, Cultivation, resident of Ravipadu Village, Narasaraopet Mandal and JCJC, Guntur District.

…... Plaintiff

And: S. V. Lakshmi, W/o J. Sudhakar, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Employee as conductor, Madanapalle I Depot, residing at Door No.III208A, Gollapalli, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Defendant

This suit is coming on 15.06.2020for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri D. Venkatramana Reddy and M. Prathap Reddy, Advocates for plaintiff and N. Reddi

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

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of suit promissory note debt of

Rs.6,01,767/ being the principal of Rs.3,50,000/ with interest due under suit promissory note dated 26012016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for subsequent interest and costs.

02. The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:

On 26012016 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/ from the plaintiff for her family expenses and justifiable causes agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either on demand or to his order and got executed suit promissory note. In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has been postponing for the same on some pretext or the other. In view of the same, the plaintiff has no time to issue notice to the defendant. The defendant is not an

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.2O.S. No. 94 / 2019 agriculturist, Thus the Debt Relief Act including Act IV of 1938 will not applicable to the defendant and also the suit and requested to pass judgment and decree in his favour.

03.On the other hand the defendant after receipt of suit summons, entered into appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint and further submitted that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated and she never visited the village of the plaintiff and she has no any acquaintance with anybody of Narasaraopet or at Guntur District as such the question of borrowing of huge amount of Rs.3,50,000/ does not arise and the suit promissory note was created with active collusion of her enemies and requested to dismiss the suit.

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

1)Whether the promissory note dated 26.01.2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for ?

3)To what result?

05.The plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and supporting witness as

PW2 and got marked Ex. A1 on his behalf. Defendant himself examined as DW1 and no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defendant.

06. Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

07. ISSUE No. 1 :

1) Whether the promissory note dated 15.12.2015 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

The Plaintiff who examined as PW1 reiterated the contents of plaint in his Chief

Affidavit. Exhibit A1 is marked.

08.Exhibit A1 was marked on behalf of plaintiff. Exhibit A1 is original suit promissory note dated 26.01.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

09. It is the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with Exhibit A1 clearly proves that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/ from the plaintiff and executed Exhibit A1 in his favour and she failed to discharge the same and hence requested to pass judgment and decree in the favour of plaintiff.

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.3O.S. No. 94 / 2019

10. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,50,000/ from him on 26.01.2016 for her legal family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% p.a. and in spite of repeated oral demands as the defendant failed to discharge any amount under the suit promissory note debt.

11. PW2 is the scribe of Ex.A1 supported about passing of consideration and execution of Exd.A1 by the defendant.

12. According the plaintiff the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/ on 26.01.2016 agreeing to repay the same with 24% p.a. to his demand or to his order and in evidence thereof she got executed Ex.A1 in his favour but as the defendant failed to repay any amount either principal or interest he got filed the suit.

13. PW2 is the scribe supported the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and passing of consideration over Ex.A1 in his presence.

14. It is the contention of the counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff got created Ex.A1 at the instance of one Lacha Reddy enemy of the defendant and she never executed Ex.A1 nor borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and requested to dismiss the suit.

15. The defendant for the first time in her evidence has took plea that the plaintiff got filed the suit at the instance of one Lacha Reddy with whom she got enemity and she also admitted that she did not pleaded the same in the written statement. DW2 in his cross examination has stated that one Lacha Reddy was a previous APSRTC Union

Leader. Further the defendant not even made a suggestion either to the plaintiff or PW2 to that effect at the instance of Lacha Reddy she got filed the suit against her. As such the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff got filed the suit at the instance of one Lacha

Reddy is not tenable. Further nothing was elicited during the cross of PW1 as to why the plaintiff got created Ex.A1.

16. The defendant further took the plea that she never went to the village of plaintiff and has no acquittance with anybody of Narasaropet or at Guntur District. As such borrowing of Rs.3,50,000/ from the plaintiff does not arise. PW1 in his cross

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.4O.S. No. 94 / 2019 examination has stated that Ex.A1 was scribed at his relative house at Madanapalle and she has not even questioned PW2 where Ex.A1 was scribed.

17. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 with regard to execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant discharges the burden laid on the plaintiff. Once execution of promissory is proved the presumption under section 118 (A) of Negotiable Instrument Act would arise that it is supported by consideration and such presumption of rebuttable and defendant can disprove the execution by raising probable defence about non existence of any consideration on the suit promissory note. If the defendant proved to have discharge the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was in probable or doubtful the same was illegal, the onus shifts to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitled his to the grant of relief on the basis of Negotiable Instrument. In order to discharge the burden upon the defendant by proving non existence of consideration, which can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.In the result, the suit is decreed with costsin favour of plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.6,01,767/ (Rupees six lakhs one thousand seven hundred sixty seven only) to the plaintiff with interest on the principal amount of

Rs.3,50,000/ (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization.

18. The counsel for the defendant relied on the principal laid by the Hon’ble court of A.P. in 2005 (6) ALT 789 to that effect that “the words until the contrary is proved in Section 118 do not mean that the defendant must necessarily show that the document is not supported by any form of consideration but the defendant has the option to ask the court to consider the nonexistence of consideration so probable man a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the case, to act upon the supposition that consideration did not exist. Though the evidential burden is initially placed on the defendant by virtue of Section 118 it can be rebutted by the defendant by showing a preponderance of probabilities that such consideration as stated in the pronote or in the

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.5O.S. No. 94 / 2019 suit notice or in the plaint does not exist and once the presumption is so rebutted, the said presumption ‘disappears’. For the purpose of rebutting the initial evidential burden, the defendant can rely on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or on presumption of law or fact. Once such convincing rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the

Court, having regard of probabilities the evidential burden shifts back to the plaintiff who has also the legal burden. Thereafter, the presumption u/s 118 does not again come to the plaintiffs rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance.

19. In the above decision there is a material to create a doubt in passing of consideration but in the present case in does not create a doubt with regard to non existence of consideration. As such the defendant herein to rebut preponderance of probabilities. As such the principle of regards does applicable to this case. Further D1 also admitted about filing of E.P. No.28/2015 against her and her salary has been attached as per the orders of the Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Madanapalle in OEP No.28/2015 and also as per the orders of Hon’ble Principal Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Madanapalle in OEP No.64/2015 and it also shows that she

borrowed amount previously from others as such the contention of the defendant that he has no need to borrow the amount is not believable.

20. On considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendants. Accordingly issue No. 1 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

21.ISSUE NO. 2:

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount along with interest as prayed for?

In view of findings given under Issue No.1, this Issue No. 2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest as prayed for. Accordinly this issue No.2 is answered.

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.6O.S. No. 94 / 2019 22. ISSUE NO. 3:

3 . To what result?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costsin favour of plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.6,01,767/ (Rupees six lakhs one thousand seven hundred sixty seven only) to the plaintiff with interest on the principal amount of

Typed to my dictation by the StenographerIII, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of June, 2020.

IAddl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW1: G. Lakshmi Reddy DW1: S.V. Lakshmi

PW2 : S. Md Bavajan

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Plaintiff :

Exhibit A1 : Suit promissory note dated 26.01.2016 for Rs.3,50,000/.

Defendant: Nil

IAddl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Draft/Fair Judgment in

O.S. No. 136 of 2019,

Dt. 02.07.2019.

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.7O.S. No. 94 / 2019

THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: MADANAPALLE ::

PRESENT: Smt. S.C. KAMALA, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Wednesday, the 24th day of June, 2020

O.S.No. 94 of 2019

Between:

Gudreddygari Lakshmi Reddy, S/o Sami Reddy, Hindu, aged about 59 years, Cultivation, resident of Ravipadu Village, Narasaraopet Mandal and JCJC, Guntur District.

…... Plaintiff

And: S. V. Lakshmi, W/o J. Sudhakar, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Employee as conductor, Madanapalle I Depot, residing at Door No.III208A, Gollapalli, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of suit promissory note debt of

Plaint presented on: 31012019

L.R.P on: 13022019

Plaint filed on: 22022019

Suit is valued at Rs. 6,01,767/ and a Court fee of Rs.3,50,000/ is paid under Section 20 of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

Cause of action arose on 21012016 when the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.3,50,000/ from the plaintiff and when defendant failed to repay the debt at

Madanapalle Mandal, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Contd….

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.8O.S. No. 94 / 2019 2

This suit is coming on 15.06.2020for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.

Venkatramana Reddy and M. Prathap Reddy, Advocates for plaintiff and N. Reddi Nagulu,

Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,01,767/ (Rupees six lakhs one thousand seven hundred sixty seven only) with interest on the principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/ (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization; and

2. That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.28,531,/ towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 24th June, 2020

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

MADANAPALLE.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Particulars Rs. Rs. Stamp for Plaint8,52600 Stamp for power200 Pleader’s fee19,75300 Junior Advocate fee Costs memo not filed. Publication chargesHence not certified Service of Process15000 Typing/writing 10000 Total 28,53100

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

MADANAPALLE.

DECREE

O.S.No.94/2019

Date 24062020

PART1

OS/18/2020

P.Chinnamalli reddy vs Vempalli Bavajan

18 Mar 2020

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.1O.S. No. 18 / 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: MADANAPALLE ::

PRESENT: Smt. S.C. KAMALA,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Wednesday, the 18th day of March, 2020.

O.S.No. 18 of 2020

Between:

P. Chinnamalli Reddy, aged about 62 years, S/o P. Krishna Reddy, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Pemannagaripalle, residing at Pemmannagaripalle, H/o Bayappagaripalle, B.Kothakota

…... Plaintiff

And:

1. Vempalle Bavajan, aged about 43 years, S/o Vempalle Faqruddin, Muslim, residing at D.No.1659, Badikayalapalle Village, B.Kothakota Mandal.

2. Vempalli Haseena Bee, aged about 44 years, W/o Vempalle Abdul, Muslim, residing at Badikayalapalle Village and Post, B.Kothakota Mandal

... Defendants

This suit is coming on 18.03.2020for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri B. Amaranatha Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of suit amount of Rs.7,30,871/ on the principal of Rs.4,00,000/ due under registered simple mortgage deed dated 23062016 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiffs agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p. a. and for costs.

02. The gist of the case of the Plaintiff in the Plaint is that:

On 23.06.2016 the 1st defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/ from the plaintiff for his legal necessities and the agreed to repay the same together with interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a. and a security for the said loan the 1st defendant has mortgaged the property owned by the 1st defendant and the plant schedule property by executing a registered simple mortgage deed dated 23.06.2016 in favour of the plaintiff and the simple mortgage deed is attested by the two witnesses as required under

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.2O.S. No. 18 / 2020 law and registered with accordance with the registration Act. The plaintiff demanded the 1st defendant on number of occassions to discharge the amount borrowed under the mortgage deed but the 1st defendant has been postponing the payment on some pretext or the other.

The plaintiff further submitted that on 04.10.2017 the 1st defendant to defruad the plaintiff had executed nominal sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant Vempalli

Haseena Bee who is her close relative and under the said registered sale deed no consideration was passed and it is sham and nominal documents and it will not bind the plaintiff and the plaintiff can ignore the same and even if any property is sold the property is subjected to encumbrances and in spite of obtaining of registered sale deed by the 2nd defendant from the 1st defendant establish the nominal nature of the document. Hence the suit.

03.The defendants were set exparte on 11022020 04.The plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to

Ex.A3 on behalf of the plaintiff.

05.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

06. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the debt due under registered simple mortgage deed dated 23062016 as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

07. POINT No. 1:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the debt due under registered simple mortgage deed

dated 23062016 as prayed for?

PW1 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated the averments of the plaint.

8.Exhibits A1 is the original registered sale deed executed by K. Krishna

Reddy and Shiva Reddy in favour of Vempalle Abdul, Ex.A2 is the Original registered sale deed dated 30.03.2011 executed by the Vempalle Abdul in favour of the 1st defendant, Ex.A3 is the Original registered simple mortgage deed dated 23.06.2016 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.3O.S. No. 18 / 2020

b) As the defendant remained exparte there is no evidence on his behalf.

09.According to the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exhibit A1, the 1st defendant on 23062016 borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/ from plaintiff and executed simple mortgage deed and but the defendant wantonly and intentionally evading to discharge the simple mortgage deed dated 10.04.2017.

[b]The plaintiff by examining himself as PW1 coupled with Exhibits A1 to

Ex.A3 is able to prove his contention. Further the defendants did not choose to contest the same and remained exparte uncontesting the suit, as such, there is no denial to the claim of the plaintiff. Hence the Plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is remained unchallenged and proved. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

10. POINT No. 2:

2.To what relief?

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed in favour of plaintiff with costs directing the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.7,30,871/ (Rupees seven lakhs thirty thousand eight hundred seventy one only) to the plaintiff with interest on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/ (Rupees four lakhs only) at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization within 3 months failing which the plaintiff is entitled for final decree for realisation of decretal amount by way of sale of mortgage property.

Typed to my dictation by the StenographerIII, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of March, 2020.

IAddl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.4O.S. No. 18 / 2020

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW1: P. Chinnamalli Reddy Exparte

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Original registered sale deed executed by K. Krishna Reddy and Shiva Reddy in favour of Vempalle Abdul

Ex.A2 : Original registered sale deed dated 30.03.2011 executed by the Vempalle Abdul in favour of the 1st defendant

Ex.A3 : Original registered simple mortgage deed dated 23.06.2016 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Defendant: Nil

IAddl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Draft/Fair Judgment in

O.S. No. 18 of 2020,

Dt. 18.03.2020.

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.5O.S. No.118 / 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: MADANAPALLE ::

PRESENT: Smt. S.C. KAMALA, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Wednesday, the 6th day of November, 2019.

O.S.No. 118 of 2018

Between:

Smt Kosuri Sujatha W/o Siddappa, aged about 30 years, residing at D.No.344/8, Thota Veedhi, Kurabalakota Village and Mandal, Chittoor District.

…... Plaintiff

And: S. Chotima, W/o S. Syed Sahib @ Valli Sahib, aged about 66 years, residing in Door No.IX64, Thota Veedhi, 3rd Cross, Kurabalakota Village and Post, Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of suit amount of Rs.2,18,360/ on the principal of Rs.60,000/ due under registered simple mortgage deed dated 10042007 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiffs agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p. a. and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 09042018

L.R.P on:

Plaint filed on: 13042018

Suit is valued at Rs. 2,18,360/ and a Court fee of Rs.4,626/ is paid under Section 20 of

A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

Cause of action arose on 10042007 when the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.60,000/ from the plaintiff and when defendant failed to repay the debt at

Madanapalle Mandal, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit is coming on 04.11.2019for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri V. Sathya Babu, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.6O.S. No.118 / 2018

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated upto the day of decree i.e., 06112019 is the sum of

Rs.2,18,360/ towards the suit amount; a sum of Rs. 11,260/ towards interest at the rate of 12% on the said principal amount of Rs.60,000/ from the date of suit till the date of decree and a sum of Rs. 8,933/ for the costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff making in all the sum of Rs. 2,38,553/.

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

(i) That the defendant do pay into court on or before the 6 th February, 2020 (i.e., the date of redemption) or any later date up to which time for payment may be extended by the court, the said sum of Rs.2,38,553/ together with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.200,000/ from the date of decree 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 amount as the court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order 34 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 defendant, or to such person as he appoints, and the plaintiff shall, if so required, reconvey and retransfer the said property 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 claimed and shall, if so required, deliver upto 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 final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and on such application being made, the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof shall be directed to be sold and for the purpose of such sale, the plaintiff shall produce before the court of 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 my further orders that may be passed in the suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of other 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 34 of the first schedule to the code of Civil Procedure,1908,and that the

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.7O.S. No.118 / 2018 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 (whereas 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 defendant 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, this court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 06th November, 2019.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

MADANAPALLE.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Particulars Rs. Rs. Stamp for Plaint462600 Stamp for power200 Pleader’s fee412500 Junior Advocate fee Exparte Service of Process8000 Typing/writing 10000 Publication charges Total 8,93300

SCHEDULE

Chittoor District Madanapalli SubDistrict, Madanapalli Municipal area Kota Veedhi Sandu, House bearing D.No.XI64 Bounded by: East: Place of Krishnamurthy, West: Sandhu Veedhi, North: Place of Daniya, South: Place of Yakub Sab an Khader Hussain, within these boundaries East to West on Northern side 40 feet or 12.04 meters, East to West on Southern side 46 Feet or 14.26 meters, North to South on Eastern side 15 ½ feet or 4.80 meters, North to South on Western side 15 feet or 4.65 meters, within the above boundaries 72.86 Square Yards site, with in that site constructed Ground floor 655.75 Square feet, and first floor with Theerlu Ladu Midhe, for this constructions fitted doors, door frames, electrical instruments.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

MADANAPALLE.

DECREE

O.S.No.118/2018

Date 06112019

PART1

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.8O.S. No.118 / 2018

O.S. No. 434/2016

08012018: Judgment Pronounced in the open court. Vide Separate Judgment In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,97,000/ to the plaintiff with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 40,000/ at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization. Time for Redemption is 3 months.

IAJCJ, Mpl

OS/72/2019

D.HARSHAVARDHAN REDDY vs RACHAPALLE PEDDA REDDEPPA

18 Mar 2020

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADANAPALLE.

PRESENT: Smt. S.C. KAMALA, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle,

Wednesday, the 18th day of March, 2020

O.S. No. 72 OF 2019

Between:

Sri D. Harashavardhan Reddy, S/o Yella Reddy, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at D.No.II296E, Colony Road, Madanapalle Town, Chittoor District. …Plaintiff

And

1. Sri Rachapalle Pedda Reddeppa, S/o R. Gangappa, aged about 55 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.3250481223, Gowthami Nagar, Cheekalagutta, B.K. Palle Village, Madanapalle Post, Chittoor District

2. Sri Rachapalle Chinnappa, S/o R. Gangappa, aged about 52 years, Hindu, residing at Vanamareddigaripalle, Matlivaripalle Post, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District.

3. Sri Rachapalle Reddeppa, S/o R. Gangappa, aged about 44 years, Vanamareddigaripalle, Matlivaripalle Post, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District.

4. Sri Rachapalle Venkatramana, S/o R. Gangappa, aged about 42 years, Hindu, residing at Javukupalle, Vempalle Post & Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District. …Defendants

This Suit coming on 18032020 before me in the presence of Sri M.R. Sekhar

Naidu, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Defendants remained exparte, and upon hearing the Counsel for Plaintiff; and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff filed this suit for specific performance directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property within the time specified by this court and for costs.

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

The plaint schedule property and other property covered under S.No.521/1 fo

B.K.Palle village originally belongs to one Late Rachapalle Thirumalagadu who is no other than the paternal grandfather of the defendants 1 to 4 who purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 02.09.1943 for valuable consideration and was in actual physical possession of the same during his life time and he died in the year 1988.

After the death of the said Rachapalle Thirumalagadu, the defendant’s father succeeded and continued his physical possession over the said property and after his death, being his legal heirs the defendants 1 to 4 succeeded the said property and are in possession of the same.

The plaintiff further submitted that on 19.04.2012 all the defendants entered into an agreement to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.12,00,000/ and all the defendants also received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ towards part of sale consideration as advance on the same day from the plaintiff and all the defendants executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on the same day i.e., on 19.04.2012 giving liberty to the plaintiff to take regular registered sale deed without treating the time as essence of the contract in his favour or in the name of any person and in evidence thereof all the defendants executed the said agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of the witnesses.

The plaintiff further submitted that on 20.08.2015 all the defendants came to the plaintiff and requested to pay part payment out of the balance of sale consideration and as such the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/ to all the defendants and after receipt of the same all the defendants endorsed the same on the reverse of the suit agreement of sale. Subsequently, the plaintiff secured the balance sale consideration amount of

Rs.1,00,000/ and started demanding all the defendants for execution of the registered sale deed by tendering the same by showing his readiness and willingness to take registered sale deed after paying the entire balance of sale consideration but all the defendants postponed to receive the balance of sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff .

The plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice on 08.02.2016 calling upon all the defendants to come and execute registered sale deed on 22.02.2016 at SubRegistrar’s office, Madanapalle and the plaintiff demanded all the defendants to come to the SubRegistrar’s office, Madanapalle on 08.02.2016 and will pay the entire balance of sale consideration and will take regular registered sale deed and the said legal notice was received by all the defendants and sent a reply with all false and frivolous allegations by denying the transaction under the suit agreement of sale. The plaintiff waited at SubRegistrar’s office at Madanapalle on 22.02.2016 for the defendants with a fond hope that the defendant will come for execution of regular registered sale deed by receiving the balance of sale consideration. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract i.e., to take regular registered sale deed by paying the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/ to all the defendants. .

Hence the suit.

3.After receipt of suit summons, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 remained exparte on 19032019.

4. Now the points for consideration are…..

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for specific performance directing the defendant to execute regular registered sale deed infavour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5.The Plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A5 on behalf of Plaintiff.

6.Heard the counsel for Plaintiff.

7. POINT No. 1:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for specific performance directing the defendants to execute regular registered sale deed infavour of plaintiff in respect of schedule property as prayed for?

The plaintiff who examined as PW1, reiterated the contents of plaint in her chief affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A5.

8.PW2 one of the attestor’s of Exhibit A1 filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination by supporting the evidence of PW1.

[b]Exhibit A1 is the original agreement of sale deed dated 19.04.2012 executed by the Defendants in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the endorsement of part payment by the plaintiff to the defendants on the reverse of Ex.A1 i.e., 1st page, Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice dated 08.02.2016 issued to all the defendants on behalf of the plaintiff, Ex.A4 is the reply notice sent by the defendants for Doc. No.3, Ex.A5 is the served copy of the plaint in OS No.368/2013 on the file of Hon’ble Additional Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Madanpalle.

9.Exhibit A1 agreement of sale dated 19.04.2012 shows that the defendants executed agreement of sale infavour of defendant herein in respect of suit schedule property to a sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/ and received Rs.2,00,000/ towards part of sale consideration on the same day and on 20.08.2015 the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.9,00,000/ and after receipt of the same all the defendants endorsed the same on the reverse of the suit agreement of sale and the defendant agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

10. Further Exhibit A1 also shows that the defendant will execute the regular sale deed in favour of plaintiff as and when demanded by the him. Further Exhibit A2 shows that the endorsement of part payment by the plaintiff to the defendant on the reverse side of Ex.A1, Ex.A3 shows the plaintiff through his counsel issued legal notice dated 08.022016 to defendant demanding them to attend before SRO, Madanapalle on 22.02.2016 during the office hours to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Exhibit A4 shows N.J stamps dated

11. According to the evidence of PW1 and with Exhibit A1, defendant executed agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff by receiving

Rs.2,00,000/ towards part of sale consideration amount and defendant agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant went on postponing the same. Hence, the plaintiff by examining himself as PW1 coupled with Exhibits A1 to A5 is able to prove his contention The defendant remained exparte uncontesting the suit and the plaintiff’s claim as against the defendants is remained unchallenged and proved and plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendants as prayed for. Accordingly point no. 1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and as against the defendants.

12. POINT No. 2 :

2. To what relief?

In the result suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to execute regular

Registered Sale Deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff with the expenses of the plaintiff after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/ within three months from the date of this judgment, failing which the Plaintiff is at liberty to execute the decree through process of law.

Dictated to the StenographerIII, transcribed by him, verified and Pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 18th day of March, 2020.

IAddl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Plaintiff: Defendant : PW1: D. Harshvardhan Reddy Exparte PW2: K.R. Vidhyadhar Reddy

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Original agreement of sale deed dated 19.04.2012 executed by the Defendants in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A2 : Endorsement of part payment by the plaintiff to the defendants on the reverse of Ex.A1 i.e., 1st page Ex.A3 : Office copy of legal notice dated 08.02.2016 issued to all the defendants on behalf of the plaintiff Ex.A4 : Reply notice sent by the defendants for Doc. No.3 Ex.A5 : Served copy of the plaint in OS No.368/2013 on the file of Hon’ble Additional

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Madanpalle.

Defendants: Nil – I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADANAPALLE.

PRESENT: Smt. S.C. KAMALA, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle,

Wednesday, the 18th day of March, 2020

O.S. No. 72 OF 2019

Between:

Sri D. Harashavardhan Reddy, S/o Yella Reddy, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at D.No.II296E, Colony Road, Madanapalle Town, Chittoor District. …Plaintiff

And

1. Sri Rachapalle Pedda Reddeppa, S/o R. Gangappa, aged about 55 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.3250481223, Gowthami Nagar, Cheekalagutta, B.K. Palle Village, Madanapalle Post, Chittoor District

2. Sri Rachapalle Chinnappa, S/o R. Gangappa, aged about 52 years, Hindu, residing at Vanamareddigaripalle, Matlivaripalle Post, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District.

3. Sri Rachapalle Reddeppa, S/o R. Gangappa, aged about 44 years, Vanamareddigaripalle, Matlivaripalle Post, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District.

4. Sri Rachapalle Venkatramana, S/o R. Gangappa, aged about 42 years, Hindu, residing at Javukupalle, Vempalle Post & Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District. …Defendants

Plaint presented on: 07022019

L.R.P. on:

Filed on: 08022019

Particulars of Valuation:

Consideration as per agreement of sale dated 19042012 is Rs.1,00,000/

The value of suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.12,00,000/ and a Court fee of Rs.14,426/ is paid under Section 39 of A.P. Court Fee Act.

Cause of action arose on 19042012 at Bandameeda Kamma Palle Village,

Madanapalle Mandal within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This Suit coming on 18032020 before me in the presence of Sri M.R. Sekhar

Naidu, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Defendants remained exparte, and upon hearing the Counsel for Plaintiff; and having stood over for consideration and decree as follows:

1) That the plaintiff’s suit be and the same is hereby decreed.

2) That the defendants are hereby directed to execute regular Registered Sale Deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff with the expenses of the plaintiff after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/ within three months from the date of this judgment, failing which the Plaintiff is at liberty to execute the decree through process of law.

3) That the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.17,028/ to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 16th day of March, 2020.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

SCHEDULE

Chittoor District – Madanapalle Mandal – Madanapalle Municipal Area – Bandameedakamapalle Village

Sircar Dry S.No.521/1 extent Ac.5.56 cents paiki Ac.1.85 cents with joint right.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For Defendants Particulars For Plaintiff (Rs.) Rs. Stamp for Plaint1442600 Stamp for Power200 Pleader’s fee235000Exparte Service of Process15000 Typing charges10000 Total17,02800

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

OS/470/2019

P. Ramanjulu vs B.Janardhana reddy

26 Jun 2020

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.1O.S. No.470 / 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: MADANAPALLE ::

PRESENT: Smt. S.C. KAMALA, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Friday , the 26th day of June, 2020

O.S.No.470 of 2019

Between:

P. Ramanjulu, S/o P. Venkatramana, aged about 43 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.III36A, Ramalayam Street, Neerugattuvaripalli, B.K.Palle, Madanapalle Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.

…... Plaintiff

And: B. Janardhana Reddy, S/o B. Ramachandra Reddy, aged about 44 years, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No.2250702D, Chinnappaiah Nagar, Neerugattuvaripalle, Madanapalle Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Defendant

This suit is coming on 26.06.2020for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.

Reddinagulu, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of A marked suit promissory note debt of Rs.3,08,533/ being the principal of Rs.2,00,000/ with interest due under suit promissory note dated 15042017 and B marked suit promissory note debt of

Rs.7,50,000/ being the principal of Rs.5,00,000/ with interest due under suit promissory note dated 20062017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for subsequent interest and costs.

02. The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:

On 15.04.2017 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ from the plaintiff for his family expenses and legal necessities and justifiable causes from the plaintiff by

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.2O.S. No.470 / 2019 executing a suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% P.A.

Again On 20.06.2017 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ from the plaintiff for his legal necessities and justifiable causes from the plaintiff by executing a suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% P.A. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to discharge the debt due under suit promissory notes, the defendant postponed the same on some pretext or the other. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 27.06.2019 to the defendant to his present address calling upon him to discharge the debt due to him under the two promissory notes. The defendant got managed with the postal authorities and returned the notice by knowing the contents of the notice by virtually admitting the contents of the Legal Notice

dated 27.06.2019 and again the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 11.07.2019 to the

defendant to his native address calling upon him to discharge the debt due to him under the two promissory notes. The defendant again got managed with the postal authorities and returned the notice with false endorsement by knowing the contents of the notice by virtually admitting the contents of the legal notice dated 11.07.2019. Hence the suit.

03.The defendant did not appear even though summons served by way of paper publication in Prajasakthi daily news paper local edition. As such and as there was no representation on behalf of the defendant this court was constrained to set him exparte.

4. The plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A6 on behalf of the plaintiff.

05.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

06. Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether the suit A marked promissory note dated 06.03.2016 is true valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the suit A marked promissory note dated 10.04.2016 is true valid and binding on the defendant

3. To what relief?

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.3O.S. No.470 / 2019

07. ISSUE No. 1 & 2:

1. Whether the suit A marked promissory note dated 15.04.2017 is true valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the suit A marked promissory note dated 20.06.2017 is true valid and binding on the defendant The Plaintiff who examined as PW1 filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination reiterating the contents of plaint in his Chief affidavit. Exhibits A1 to A6 are marked.

[b]Exhibits A1 to Ex.A6 are marked. Ex.A1 is Original promissory note dated 15.04.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the original promissory note dated 20.06.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff,

Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice dated 27.06.2019 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, Ex.A4 is the Returned Postal Cover, Ex.A5 is the Office copy of legal notice

dated 11.07.2019 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant and Ex.A6 is the returned

postal cover.

08.It is the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exhibits A1 and A2 clearly proves that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ from the plaintiff and executed Exhibit A1 in his favour and again borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ from the plaintiff and executed Exhibit A2 in his favour and failed to discharge the same and hence requested to pass judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff.

09.According to the plaintiff, on 15042017 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ and again on 20.06.2017 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ for his legal, business necessities and justifiable causes from him agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed Exhibit A1 and

Ex.A2 in favour of plaintiff and inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to the discharge the pronote debt, the defendant failed to pay the same. Hence, he filed the above suit against the defendant for recovery of amount.

b) As the defendant remained exparte there is no evidence on his behalf.

10.According to the evidence of PW1 and Exhibit A1 to Ex.A6 the defendant on 15.04.2017 and on 20.06.2017 with interest at 24 % per annum and executed Exhibit

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.4O.S. No.470 / 2019

A1 and Ex.A2 in favour of PW1. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to discharge the debt due under Exhibit A1 and Ex.A2, the defendant went on postponing the same on some pretext or the other. Hence the plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of suit debt with interest.

11.The plaintiff by examining himself as PW1 coupled with Exhibits A1 and

Ex.A2 are able to prove his contention. Further the defendant did not choose to contest the same and remained exparte uncontesting the suit, as such, there is no denial to the claim of the plaintiff. Hence the Plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is remained unchallenged and proved. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff

12.ISSUE NO. 3:

3 . To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant directing the defendant to pay a sum of (3,08,533/ and Rs. 7,50,000/) = Rs.10,58,533/ (Rupees ten lakhs fifty eight thousand five hundred thirty three only) to the plaintiff with interest on the principal amount (Rs.2,00,000/ + Rs.6,00,000/) = of Rs.7,00,000/ (Rupees seven lakhs only) at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and further interest at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the StenographerIII, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 26th day of June, 2020.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW1: P. Ramanjulu

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note dated 15.04.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A2 : Original promissory note dated 20.06.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A3 : Office copy of legal notice dated 27.06.2019 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.5O.S. No.470 / 2019

Ex.A4 : Returned Postal Cover Ex.A5 : Office copy of legal notice dated 11.07.2019 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant Ex.A6 : Returned postal cover.

Defendant: Nil

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Draft/Fair Judgment in

O.S. No. 470 of 2019,

Dt. 26.06.2019.

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.6O.S. No.470 / 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: MADANAPALLE ::

PRESENT: Smt. S.C. KAMALA, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Tuesday , the 17th day of September, 2019

O.S.No. 114 of 2019

Between:

J. Chandra Babu, aged about 39 years, S/o J. Krishnappa, Hindu, Cultivation, and Business, residing at T. Reddivaripalle, H/o Tarigonda, Guramkonda Mandal.

…... Plaintiff

And: K. Raghunatha Reddy, aged about 34 years, S/o K. Raja Reddy, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No.310, Masjid Street, Nimmanapalle Road, Basinikonda, Madanapalli

... Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of A marked suit promissory note debt of Rs.1,70,933/ being the principal of Rs.1,00,000/ with interest due under suit promissory note dated 06032016 and B marked suit promissory note debt of

Rs.1,68,666/ being the principal of Rs.1,00,000/ with interest due under suit promissory note dated 10042016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for subsequent interest and costs

Plaint presented on: 22022019

L.R.P on: 28022019

Plaint filed on: 28022019

Suit is valued at Rs.3,39,599/ and a Court fee of Rs.8,352/ is paid under Section 20 of

A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

Cause of action arose on 06032016 when the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/ from the plaintiff and when defendant failed to repay the debt at

Madanapalle Mandal, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Contd….

IAJCJ, Madanapalle.7O.S. No.470 / 2019 2

This suit is coming on 11.09.2019for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri B. Amarnath, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,39,599/ (Rupees three lakhs thirty nine thousand five hundred ninety nine only) with interest on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees two lakhs only) at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization; and

2. That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.14,468/ towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 17th September, 2019.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

MADANAPALLE.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Particulars Rs. Rs. Stamp for Plaint835200 Stamp for power200 Pleader’s fee594400 Junior Advocate fee Exparte Publication charges Service of Process7000 Typing/writing 10000 Total 14,46800

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

MADANAPALLE.

OS/412/2019

Kudum Reddeppa vs Rudra Ramana

17 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: MADANAPALLE ::

PRESENT: Smt. S.C. KAMALA, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Tuesday, the 17th day of March, 2020

O.S.No. 412 of 2019

Between:

Kudum Reddeppa, S/o K. Venkatramana, Hindu, aged about 40 years, living by running auto rickshaw, residing at D.No.III149892G, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

…... Plaintiff

And: Rudra Ramana, S/o R. Ramanaiah, Hindu, aged about 42 years, living by cultivation and milk business Settivaripalle Village and Post, Gurram Konda Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of suit promissory note debt of Rs.2,54,300/ being the principal of Rs.1,50,000/ with interest due under suit promissory note dated 01082016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for subsequent interest and costs.

Plaint presented on: 24062019

L.R.P on:

Plaint filed on: 25062019

Suit is valued at Rs.2,54,300/ and a Court fee of Rs.5,026/ is paid under Section 20 of

A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

Cause of action arose on 01082016 when the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/ from the plaintiff and when defendant failed to repay the debt at

Madanapalle Mandal, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Contd….

This suit is coming on 17.03.2020for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

D. Murali Krishna, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,54,300/ ( Rupees two lakhs fifty four thousand and three hundred only) with interest on the

principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/ (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) at

12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization; and

2. That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.9,831/ towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 17th March, 2020.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

MADANAPALLE.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Particulars Rs. Rs. Stamp for Plaint5,02600 Stamp for power200 Pleader’s fee4,66500 Junior Advocate fee Exparte Publication charges Service of Process4000 Typing/writing 10000 Total 9,83100

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

MADANAPALLE.

Order Record 1,134 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/470/2019	P. Ramanjulu vs B.Janardhana reddy	26 Jun 2020	Judgement	—
OS/94/2019	GUDREDDYGARI LAKSHMI REDDY vs S.V.LAKSHMI	24 Jun 2020	Judgement	—
OS/18/2020	P.Chinnamalli reddy vs Vempalli Bavajan	18 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/72/2019	D.HARSHAVARDHAN REDDY vs RACHAPALLE PEDDA REDDEPPA	18 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/412/2019	Kudum Reddeppa vs Rudra Ramana	17 Mar 2020	Decree	—
OS/412/2019	Kudum Reddeppa vs Rudra Ramana	17 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/682/2019	Derangula Ramu vs Settivari Kesava	16 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
DVC/36/2016	M.SASIKALA vs M.ANJANEYA REDDY	16 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/154/2020	Kugarthi Venkateswara Prasad vs Yammala kondaiah	12 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/636/2019	Thepala Bhagyamma vs Tumba Kiran Kumar	12 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/128/2020	Dakshinapu Seetharamayya vs Pervali Dharmendra Chowdary	11 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/242/2019	S.VIJAYA KUMAR vs KOTAKINDA JANARDHANA	11 Mar 2020	Decree	—
OS/242/2019	S.VIJAYA KUMAR vs KOTAKINDA JANARDHANA	11 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/516/2018	P.SIVAIAH vs T.ADI NARAYANA	11 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/516/2018	P.SIVAIAH vs T.ADI NARAYANA	11 Mar 2020	Decree	—
OS/272/2019	DADAM VENKATRAMANA REDDY vs K.KHADAR VALLI	10 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/66/2017	GANGAM SIVA KUMAR vs A.APPA RAO	06 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/316/2015	G.SIDDA REDDY vs S.C.THOMAS	06 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/518/2019	P.Sueela vs S.Sayyed Saheb	03 Mar 2020	Decree	—
OS/518/2019	P.Sueela vs S.Sayyed Saheb	03 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
OS/46/2020	G.Viswanatha vs R. Babu reddy	28 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/46/2020	G.Viswanatha vs R. Babu reddy	28 Feb 2020	Decree	—
OS/134/2018	M.VENKATANARASU vs G.GANGI REDDY	28 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/150/2019	VADDU DAMODAR REDDY vs SREE RAMA RAMA KRISHNA	28 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/702/2011	B Sarada Bai vs S Venu	26 Feb 2020	Decree	—
OS/702/2011	B Sarada Bai vs S Venu	26 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/30/2019	ANGADI SANKARA NARAYANA vs V.HARINATH	25 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/216/2019	POOLA VENKATARAMANA REDDY vs BANGARU CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY	25 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/216/2019	POOLA VENKATARAMANA REDDY vs BANGARU CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY	25 Feb 2020	Decree	—
OS/486/2019	K.Venugopal Krishna murthy vs S.Venkataram Reddy	25 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/482/2019	Mayana Abdul Rawoof Khan vs Bommisetty Lakshmipathy	24 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/482/2019	Mayana Abdul Rawoof Khan vs Bommisetty Lakshmipathy	24 Feb 2020	Decree	—
EP/100031/2019	Vanimireddi Bhaskara reddy vs Bommala Venkataramana	20 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/2/2020	Yerraguntla Prasad Reddy vs Yerraguntla Rama chandra	20 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/286/2014	S Chand Basha vs Agri Market Committe Madanapalli	20 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/474/2018	V.GOPAL REDDY vs B.RAMA CHANDRA REDDY	19 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/474/2018	V.GOPAL REDDY vs B.RAMA CHANDRA REDDY	19 Feb 2020	Decree	—
OS/768/2019	L.G. Venkatesh vs A.Khadar Basha	19 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
EP/100024/2019	P.Sreenivasulu vs C.M. Sujatha	17 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/70/2019	G.THIMMA NAIDU vs P.SURYA PRAKASH	17 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/622/2019	B.Jayaram Naik vs A.Ram murthy	17 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/732/2019	M/s. Yoganarasimha General stores rep by Prop M.Venkatachalapathy vs M/s. Sri Balaji Argo Industries plot no. KIADB Growth center, Hyderabad road, Yermaras, Raichur	17 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/808/2019	J.Anjaneyulu vs P.Nagendra Prasad	17 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/808/2019	J.Anjaneyulu vs P.Nagendra Prasad	17 Feb 2020	Decree	—
OS/776/2011	P Reddeppa vs S Waheeda	14 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/776/2011	P Reddeppa vs S Waheeda	14 Feb 2020	Decree	—
OS/242/2015	Vetti Rajamma vs V.Chelapathy	12 Feb 2020	Decree	—
OS/242/2015	Vetti Rajamma vs V.Chelapathy	12 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
DVC/7/2017	S.MAMATHA vs S.NAGABUSHANA REDDY	12 Feb 2020	Order	—
DVC/2/2019	R.HIMA BINDU vs P.RAJESH KRISHNA	11 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/100006/2018	M.RAMESH BABU vs P.JYOTHI	10 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/346/2018	THE BRANCH MANAGER vs V.PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY	10 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/460/2018	K.ANJANEYA KUMAR vs S.MAHAMMAD GHOUSE	10 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
EP/100032/2019	P.Ramaiah Chetty vs V.Venakata sivaiah	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/352/2018	V.PANDURANGA RAO vs KAMAKOTI SREENIVASA MURTHY RAO	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/416/2019	Onteri Sreedevi vs K.Sujatha	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/430/2018	R.PRASANNA KUMAR vs R.NAGENDRA BABU	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/488/2018	BESTHAPALLE HASSAN SHAREEF vs T.CHANDRA	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/488/2019	Setti Tulasi vs Setti Sudhakar	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
DVC/6/2014	P Manjula vs P Reddi Raghava	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
DVC/34/2016	GALIVEETI LAKSHMI DEVI vs GALIVEETI BALA SUBRAMANYAM	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/344/2012	J Venkata Ramana vs Y Venakatramana	07 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/474/2019	Ande Venkatanageswar vs Sangadala Susmitha	07 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/432/2019	P.Sudhakar vs E.Ramana	05 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/774/2019	Kangeti Nanda vs Khamarunnisa	04 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
EP/100037/2018	M.REDDY SEKHAR REDDY vs K.SUDHAKARA	28 Jan 2020	Order	—
EP/100026/2018	B.RAMAPPA vs SRIRANGI MALLIKARJUNA	25 Jan 2020	Order	—
OS/240/2019	N.RAJESH REDDY vs B.VENKATARAMANA REDDY	24 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/240/2019	N.RAJESH REDDY vs B.VENKATARAMANA REDDY	24 Jan 2020	Decree	—
OS/280/2019	C.BHASKAR vs N.GIRI PRASAD	24 Jan 2020	Decree	—
OS/280/2019	C.BHASKAR vs N.GIRI PRASAD	24 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/16/2018	ANDE VENKATA NAGESWAR vs GUTTA SANKARA NAIDU	21 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/518/2018	BRANCH MANAGER vs M.THARAKANATHA REDDY	21 Jan 2020	Decree	—
OS/518/2018	BRANCH MANAGER vs M.THARAKANATHA REDDY	21 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/410/2018	G.RAMANJULU vs P.VIJAYA BHASKAR	20 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/666/2019	Pasupuleti Yellaiah vs Shaik Jameer @ S.Jameer Basha	20 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/124/2018	G.SREENIVASULU vs PAPANNAGARI AKKULAPPA	10 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/124/2018	G.SREENIVASULU vs PAPANNAGARI AKKULAPPA	10 Jan 2020	Decree	—
OS/150/2018	DADAM KRISHNA REDDY vs JINKALA NARASIMHAM	10 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/150/2018	DADAM KRISHNA REDDY vs JINKALA NARASIMHAM	10 Jan 2020	Decree	—
OS/312/2019	M.SURENDRA REDDY vs K.MANJUNATH	10 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/248/2019	K.GOUTHAM BABU vs SHAIK BABA FAKRUDDIN	07 Jan 2020	Decree	—
OS/248/2019	K.GOUTHAM BABU vs SHAIK BABA FAKRUDDIN	07 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/292/2019	J.RAMA KRISHNA vs V.MANJUNATH	07 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/758/2019	A.Kanthamma vs Narvamakula Viswanatha reddy	07 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/440/2017	C.KRISHNA NANDAIAH vs SETTYPALLI SAHADEVA REDDY	06 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/466/2019	Muthakana Chandra Sekhar reddy vs Ratakonda Vamsidhar Naidu	06 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/414/2019	M.Venkataramana vs Gaddam Aruna	03 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/596/2019	B.Mahadeva Reddy vs D.Reddeppa	03 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/288/2019	G.VENKATRAMANA REDDY vs B.MADHUKAR REDDY	02 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/68/2014	B.Vishnu kumar vs B.Bavulappa	31 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OS/110/2014	C Adenna vs C Chinna Ramana	31 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OS/154/2011	G.Narendra Mehar Prasad vs Tupalli Sreekanthaiah	30 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OS/252/2018	K.GANGA BHAVANI vs P.SREENIVASULU	30 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OS/518/2011	Narra Jayalakshmi alias Jayalakshmamma vs J.Ramesh babu	30 Dec 2019	Decree	—
OS/518/2011	Narra Jayalakshmi alias Jayalakshmamma vs J.Ramesh babu	30 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OS/60/2012	P Venkatraman Reddy vs N Lalithamma	27 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OS/168/2013	V Nagaraja vs The Dist.Collector,Chittoor	27 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
DVC/1/2019	T.ANUSHA vs T.MEHESH	27 Dec 2019	Order	—
CC/216/2013	SI of Police, MPL II Town PS vs S Venkatachalapathi	26 Dec 2019	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 1,134 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2020		2
Mar 2020		18
Feb 2020		45
Jan 2020		25
Dec 2019		31
Nov 2019		18
Oct 2019		13
Sep 2019		31
Aug 2019		66
Jul 2019		74
Jun 2019		35
May 2019		27

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has s.c.kamala handled?

s.c.kamala has handled 1157 court orders since 2008 at II Addl District Court Madanapalle. The average disposal rate is 8 orders per month.

What types of cases does s.c.kamala hear?

Based on available records, s.c.kamala primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) at II Addl District Court Madanapalle.

Where is s.c.kamala currently posted?

s.c.kamala is posted as I Additional Junior Civil Judge at II Addl District Court Madanapalle, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by s.c.kamala available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by s.c.kamala are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does s.c.kamala dispose cases?

s.c.kamala disposes approximately 8 cases per month, based on 1157 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl District Court Madanapalle.

Since when is s.c.kamala serving?

s.c.kamala has been serving at II Addl District Court Madanapalle since 2008.

Case Types

OS 76%

EP 11%

CC 8%

DVC 6%

Posting History

May 2017 — Jul 2020

I Additional Junior Civil Judge · 1,157 orders
Jun 2011 — Apr 2012

JFCM, SPL. MOBILE COURT
Nov 2008 — Mar 2011

JFCM, SPL. MOBILE COURT

Other Judges at this Court

SMT K Jayalakshmi

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle

396 orders

N. Sirish

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle

799 orders

P.V.S. Surya Narayana Murthy

II Additional District Judge

755 orders

Smt R Srilatha

VII Additional District Judge

223 orders

Sri Bande Subhan

Principal Junior Civil Judge

272 orders

Smt J Keerthana

II Additional Junior Civil Judge

388 orders

← View all judges at II Addl District Court Madanapalle

s.c.kamala

J U D G M E N T

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

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: MADANAPALLE ::

MADANAPALLE.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

MADANAPALLE.

DECREE

J U D G M E N T

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

MADANAPALLE.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

SCHEDULE

MADANAPALLE.

DECREE

1

J U D G M E N T

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

SCHEDULE

STATEMENT OF COSTS

J U D G M E N T

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

MADANAPALLE.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

MADANAPALLE.

MADANAPALLE.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

MADANAPALLE.

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