Smt S.Jayalakshmi

1

O.S.No.376 of 2018, dt.20-04-2023

A.S.C.J., Court, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ONGOLE IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ONGOLE

Present: Smt. S. JAYALAKSHMI,Present: Smt. S. JAYALAKSHMI, A Addl. ddl. S Senior enior C Civil ivil J Judge, udge, O Ongole.ngole.

Thursday, this the 20 th th (Twentieth) Thursday, this the 20 (Twentieth) day of April, day of April, 2023 2023

(Two Thousand Twenty Three) (Two Thousand Twenty Three)

Original Suit (O.S) No.376 of 2018 Original Suit (O.S) No.376 of 2018

Between: Between:

Pedanaboina Venkata Subbaiah, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 39 years, Hindu, privatePedanaboina Venkata Subbaiah, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 39 years, Hindu, private employee, Madduluru Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.employee, Madduluru Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. … … Plaintiff. Plaintiff.

And: And:

Palagani Venka Reddy, S/o.Jayarami Reddy, aged about 55 years, Hindu, business,Palagani Venka Reddy, S/o.Jayarami Reddy, aged about 55 years, Hindu, business, C/o.Sri Lakshmi Fertilizers, Madduluru Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal,C/o.Sri Lakshmi Fertilizers, Madduluru Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. Prakasam District.

... Defendant. ... Defendant.

This suit is presented before me for Judgment today i.e., on 20-04-2023 in the presence ofThis suit is presented before me for Judgment today i.e., on 20-04-2023 in the presence of the learned counsel for the plaintiff Sri.Y.Ramesh the learned counsel for the plaintiff Sri.Y.Ramesh and the learned counsel for the defendantand the learned counsel for the defendant

Sri.B.Bhaskara Rao, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this Court deliversSri.B.Bhaskara Rao, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this Court delivers the following:the following:

J U D G M E N T J U D G M E N T

1. Nature of the suit:- Recovery of m1. Nature of the suit:- Recovery of money basing on promissory note dated 20.04.2017/oney basing on promissory note dated 20.04.2017/ (Ex.A1) (Ex.A1)..

2. Reliefs claimed:- (1) Recovery of suit amount of 2. Reliefs claimed:- (1) Recovery of suit amount of Rs.9,36,572/- Rs.9,36,572/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Thirty Six (Rupees Nine Lakh Thirty Six

Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Two only) withThousand Five Hundred and Seventy Two only) withSubsequent interest; Subsequent interest; (2) (2) For costs andFor costs and (3) Further reliefs in the interest of justice.(3) Further reliefs in the interest of justice.

3. Pleadings of the plaintiff succinctly, he and the defendant are known to each other since ten3. Pleadings of the plaintiff succinctly, he and the defendant are known to each other since ten years. Due to their acquaintance, defendant approached him for money for his business and thus,years. Due to their acquaintance, defendant approached him for money for his business and thus, had borrowed an amount of Rs.7,55,300/- on 20.04.2017. Evidencing, the said liability, defendanthad borrowed an amount of Rs.7,55,300/- on 20.04.2017. Evidencing, the said liability, defendant executed the suit promissory note / Ex.A1 on the same day in his favour at Madduluru Village inexecuted the suit promissory note / Ex.A1 on the same day in his favour at Madduluru Village in the presence of attestors. Despite several demands made by him and through mediators,the presence of attestors. Despite several demands made by him and through mediators, defendant did not choose to discharge the suit pro-note amount. Hence, he got issued legaldefendant did not choose to discharge the suit pro-note amount. Hence, he got issued legal notice on 20.07.2018 / Ex.A2 to the defendant and it was returned with false endorsement. Asnotice on 20.07.2018 / Ex.A2 to the defendant and it was returned with false endorsement. As defendant failed to repay the suit pro-note amount, he is constrained to file the suit.defendant failed to repay the suit pro-note amount, he is constrained to file the suit.

4. Summons was served on 4. Summons was served on the defendant. He entered appearance and resisted the suit claim.the defendant. He entered appearance and resisted the suit claim.

5. Pleadings of the defendant in precise, he admitted about borrowing of Rs.7,55,300/- from the5. Pleadings of the defendant in precise, he admitted about borrowing of Rs.7,55,300/- from the plaintiff on 20.04.2017 for his business necessities, but, he pleads that, he discharged the saidplaintiff on 20.04.2017 for his business necessities, but, he pleads that, he discharged the said amount. He states that, 0n 29.05.2017 he paid an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- to the plaintiffamount. He states that, 0n 29.05.2017 he paid an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- to the plaintiff wherein hand letter / Ex.B1 was issued to him by the plaintiff. Later, he paid Rs.5,50,000/-wherein hand letter / Ex.B1 was issued to him by the plaintiff. Later, he paid Rs.5,50,000/- through RTGS dated 10.07.2017 / Ex.B2 to the plaintiff through Syndicate Bank,through RTGS dated 10.07.2017 / Ex.B2 to the plaintiff through Syndicate Bank, 2

O.S.No.376 of 2018, dt.20-04-2023

A.S.C.J., Court, Ongole.

Santhanuthalapadu branch. Thus, he states that, in total he paid an amount of Rs.7,70,000/- toSanthanuthalapadu branch. Thus, he states that, in total he paid an amount of Rs.7,70,000/- to the plaintiff including interest. After discharge of the said pro-note amount, he asked the plaintiffthe plaintiff including interest. After discharge of the said pro-note amount, he asked the plaintiff to return the pro-note, but plaintiff informed him that the pronote was misplaced. He states that,to return the pro-note, but plaintiff informed him that the pronote was misplaced. He states that, though he demanded the plaintiff several times to return the pro-note, but in vain. At last, plaintiffthough he demanded the plaintiff several times to return the pro-note, but in vain. At last, plaintiff informed him that, the pronote was lost. Therefore, he demanded the plaintiff to issue receipt forinformed him that, the pronote was lost. Therefore, he demanded the plaintiff to issue receipt for

Rs.7,70,000/-, but the plaintiff did not issue any receipt. He further states that, he is not liable toRs.7,70,000/-, but the plaintiff did not issue any receipt. He further states that, he is not liable to pay any amount under the suit pro-note. As plaintiff had approached this court with unclean handspay any amount under the suit pro-note. As plaintiff had approached this court with unclean hands to have wrongful gain, he sought to dismiss the suit with costs. to have wrongful gain, he sought to dismiss the suit with costs.

6. Basing on the rival contentions of the parties, the following issues are settled for trial. 6. Basing on the rival contentions of the parties, the following issues are settled for trial.

ISSUES: ISSUES:

1. Whether the defendant paid an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- on 29.05.2017 under receipt1. Whether the defendant paid an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- on 29.05.2017 under receipt issued by the plaintiff and the defendant paid Rs.5,50,000/- on 10.07.2017 throughissued by the plaintiff and the defendant paid Rs.5,50,000/- on 10.07.2017 through Account transfer thereby the defendant discharged the debt due under suit promissoryAccount transfer thereby the defendant discharged the debt due under suit promissory note?note?

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

3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

Evidence : : Evidence

7. a) Plaintiff to substantiate his case got examined himself as PW1 7. a) Plaintiff to substantiate his case got examined himself as PW1 apart from exhibiting Ex.’s A1 apart from exhibiting Ex.’s A1 to A4 namely Promissory note dated 20.04.2017 for Rs.7,55,300/- executed by the defendant into A4 namely Promissory note dated 20.04.2017 for Rs.7,55,300/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, Office copy of legal notice dated 20.07.2017, Returned postal cover andfavour of the plaintiff, Office copy of legal notice dated 20.07.2017, Returned postal cover and

Promissory note dated 27.08.2014 executed by the defendant / T.Venka Reddy in favour of thePromissory note dated 27.08.2014 executed by the defendant / T.Venka Reddy in favour of the plaintiff. plaintiff.

b) Per contra, defendant to substantiate his pleadings got examined himself as DW1 and got b) Per contra, defendant to substantiate his pleadings got examined himself as DW1 and got exhibited Ex.’s B1 and B2 namely Hand letter dated 29.05.2017 executed by the plaintiff in favourexhibited Ex.’s B1 and B2 namely Hand letter dated 29.05.2017 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant for Rs.2,20,000/- and Statement of Syndicate Bank, S.N. Padu issued onof the defendant for Rs.2,20,000/- and Statement of Syndicate Bank, S.N. Padu issued on 25.07.2019. 25.07.2019.

8. 8. Heard. Perused the material on record. Heard. Perused the material on record.

9. Now, the points for determination are:9. Now, the points for determination are:

ISSUE No.1

10. The burden of this issue is on the defendant to prove that he discharged the suit pro-note10. The burden of this issue is on the defendant to prove that he discharged the suit pro-note amount to the plaintiff. To prove the same, defendant got examined himself as DW1 and filed hisamount to the plaintiff. To prove the same, defendant got examined himself as DW1 and filed his chief-examination affidavit. In the chief-examination affidavit, defendant has reiterated the factchief-examination affidavit. In the chief-examination affidavit, defendant has reiterated the fact that, he paid an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- to the plaintiff on 29.05.2017 and obtained hand letterthat, he paid an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- to the plaintiff on 29.05.2017 and obtained hand letter and Rs.5,50,000/- on 10.07.2017 through RTGS, Syndicate Bank, S.N Padu branch. Thus, heand Rs.5,50,000/- on 10.07.2017 through RTGS, Syndicate Bank, S.N Padu branch. Thus, he states that, he paid Rs.7,70,000/- including interest to the plaintiff. Thus, DW1 Strengthened hisstates that, he paid Rs.7,70,000/- including interest to the plaintiff. Thus, DW1 Strengthened his plea of discharge in his chief-examination.plea of discharge in his chief-examination.

3

O.S.No.376 of 2018, dt.20-04-2023

A.S.C.J., Court, Ongole.

11. Apart from the oral testimony of DW1, he got exhibited Ex.’s B1 and B2 namely Hand letter11. Apart from the oral testimony of DW1, he got exhibited Ex.’s B1 and B2 namely Hand letter

dated 29.05.2017 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant for Rs.2,20,000/- anddated 29.05.2017 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant for Rs.2,20,000/- and

Statement of Syndicate Bank, S.N. Padu branch issued on 25.07.2019. A perusal of Ex.B1 handStatement of Syndicate Bank, S.N. Padu branch issued on 25.07.2019. A perusal of Ex.B1 hand letter disclose that, the defendant had paid / lent Rs.2,20,000/- on 29.05.2017 to the plaintiff.letter disclose that, the defendant had paid / lent Rs.2,20,000/- on 29.05.2017 to the plaintiff.

Thus, Ex.B1 reinforces the plea of the defendant that he paid / lent Rs.2,20,000/- to the plaintiff onThus, Ex.B1 reinforces the plea of the defendant that he paid / lent Rs.2,20,000/- to the plaintiff on 29.05.2017. Ex.B2 statement disclose that, an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was transferred to the29.05.2017. Ex.B2 statement disclose that, an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was transferred to the account of the plaintiff on 10.07.2017. account of the plaintiff on 10.07.2017.

12. Though DW1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, nothing substantial12. Though DW1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, nothing substantial was elicited to disprove Ex.’s B1 and B2, except mere suggestions that Ex.B1 is created, which iswas elicited to disprove Ex.’s B1 and B2, except mere suggestions that Ex.B1 is created, which is denied by DW1. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further tried to elicit that an amount ofdenied by DW1. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further tried to elicit that an amount of

Rs.5,50,000/- was transferred under Ex.B2 by the plaintiff is not relating to this suit and the sameRs.5,50,000/- was transferred under Ex.B2 by the plaintiff is not relating to this suit and the same is relating to discharge of Ex.A4 promissory note, but in vain as DW1 denied the same. Thus, theis relating to discharge of Ex.A4 promissory note, but in vain as DW1 denied the same. Thus, the credible testimony of DW1 coupled with Ex.’s B1 and B2 clinchingly disclose that, the defendantcredible testimony of DW1 coupled with Ex.’s B1 and B2 clinchingly disclose that, the defendant paid / lent Rs.2,20,000/- to the plaintiff on 29.05.2017 and Rs.5,50,000/- to the plaintiff onpaid / lent Rs.2,20,000/- to the plaintiff on 29.05.2017 and Rs.5,50,000/- to the plaintiff on 10.07.2017 through account transfer towards the discharge of suit pro-note debt including interest.10.07.2017 through account transfer towards the discharge of suit pro-note debt including interest.

13. Now, the onus shifts to the plaintiff to disprove Ex.’s B1 and B2 and the plea of discharge13. Now, the onus shifts to the plaintiff to disprove Ex.’s B1 and B2 and the plea of discharge pleaded by the defendant. Except the self-serving testimony of the plaintiff as PW1, there is nopleaded by the defendant. Except the self-serving testimony of the plaintiff as PW1, there is no cogent and convincing evidence on recordcogent and convincing evidence on record to dis-prove Ex.’s B1 and B2. However, during the to dis-prove Ex.’s B1 and B2. However, during the cross-examination of DW1, it is suggested by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that the saidcross-examination of DW1, it is suggested by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that the said transfer amount of Rs.5,50,000/- is relating to Ex.A4 pro-note, but in vain. Further, the said plea oftransfer amount of Rs.5,50,000/- is relating to Ex.A4 pro-note, but in vain. Further, the said plea of the plaintiff cannot be considered as there is no pleading to that effect in the plaint and it isthe plaintiff cannot be considered as there is no pleading to that effect in the plaint and it is admitted by PW1 in his cross-examination. Even if Ex.A4 pro-note is true as it is admitted byadmitted by PW1 in his cross-examination. Even if Ex.A4 pro-note is true as it is admitted by

DW1 in his cross-examination, Ex.B2 statement disclose the said amount under Ex.A4 was alsoDW1 in his cross-examination, Ex.B2 statement disclose the said amount under Ex.A4 was also discharged by the defendant on 10.04.2017 and 11.04.2017 by way of transfer through RTGS todischarged by the defendant on 10.04.2017 and 11.04.2017 by way of transfer through RTGS to an extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, the denial of suggestion by PW1 put to him by the learnedan extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, the denial of suggestion by PW1 put to him by the learned advocate for the defendant that, defendant paid Rs.3,00,000/- on 10-04-2017 and Rs.2,00,000/-advocate for the defendant that, defendant paid Rs.3,00,000/- on 10-04-2017 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 11-04-2017 to his bank account, receives no consideration and thus, the contention of theon 11-04-2017 to his bank account, receives no consideration and thus, the contention of the learned advocate for the plaintiff that Ex.’s B1 and B2 amounts are relating to Ex.A4 pro-note, islearned advocate for the plaintiff that Ex.’s B1 and B2 amounts are relating to Ex.A4 pro-note, is hereby discarded. hereby discarded.

14. For the above said reasons, this Court holds that, the defendant had proved his plea of14. For the above said reasons, this Court holds that, the defendant had proved his plea of discharge of the suit pro-note amount.discharge of the suit pro-note amount.

Accordingly, issue No.1 is determined infavourof the defendant and against the Accordingly, issue No.1 is determined infavourof the defendant and against the plaintiff. plaintiff.

4

O.S.No.376 of 2018, dt.20-04-2023

A.S.C.J., Court, Ongole.

ISSUE No.2

15. In view of the findings in issue No.1, this Court holds that, the plaintiff is not entitled for the recovery of the suit amount as prayed for.

Accordingly, issue No.2 is determined infavourof the defendant and against the

plaintiff.

ISSUE No. 3 3 ISSUE No. 16 . .In view of the findings in Issues No.1 and 2 this Court holds that, 16In view of the findings in Issues No.1 and 2 this Court holds that, tthe suit is liable to behe suit is liable to be dismissed without costs. dismissed without costs.

Accordingly, issue No.3 is determined infavourof the defendant and against the plaintiff. Accordingly, issue No.3 is determined infavourof the defendant and against the plaintiff.

RESULT RESULT

17 . . In the result 17 In the result, , the suit is dismissed without costs, in the interest of justice. the suit is dismissed without costs, in the interest of justice.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, the operative portion of the Judgment inTyped to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, the operative portion of the Judgment in open Court, on this the 20open Court, on this the 20 th th day of April, 2023. day of April, 2023. Sd./- S.Jayalakshmi, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. Ongole.

Appendix of E Appendix of E vidence vidence

Witnesses ex Witnesses ex amined amined

For Plaintiff:- For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:- For Defendant:-

PW1- Pedanaboina Venkata Subbaiah.PW1- Pedanaboina Venkata Subbaiah.DW1 – Palagani Venka Reddy.DW1 – Palagani Venka Reddy.

Documents marked Documents marked

For Plaintiff: For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1Ex.A1:: Promissory note dated 20.04.2017 for Rs.7,55,300/- executed by the defendant inPromissory note dated 20.04.2017 for Rs.7,55,300/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A2Ex.A2:: Office copy of legal notice dated 20.07.2017Office copy of legal notice dated 20.07.2017

Ex.A3Ex.A3:: Returned postal cover Returned postal cover

Ex.A4Ex.A4:: Promissory note dated 27.08.2014 executed by the defendant / T.Venka Reddy inPromissory note dated 27.08.2014 executed by the defendant / T.Venka Reddy in favour of the plaintiff.favour of the plaintiff.

For Defendant For Defendant : :

Ex.B1Ex.B1:: Hand letter dated 29.05.2017 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendantHand letter dated 29.05.2017 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant for Rs.2,20,000/- for Rs.2,20,000/-

Ex.B2Ex.B2:: Statement of Syndicate Bank, S.N. Padu issued on 25.07.2019.Statement of Syndicate Bank, S.N. Padu issued on 25.07.2019.

Sd./- S.Jayalakshmi, A.S.C.J., Ongole. A.S.C.J., Ongole.

1

O.S.No. 66 of 2018 dt. 20.04.2023

A.S.C.J. Court, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

Present: Smt. S. JAYALAKSHMI, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 20 th (Twentieth) day of April, 2023

Two Thousand Twenty Three

O.S. No. 66 of 2018

Between:

M/s. Andhra Bank, S.B.M.C. branch, Ongole, rep. by its Manager.

… Plaintiff.

And:

1. M/s. Poorna Sai General Stores, represented by its Proprietor / deceased Iskala Venugopala Rao, Shop No.250, Sri Bapuji Market Complex, Ongole.

2. Iskala Sunitha, W/o.Late Venugopala Rao, aged about 39 years, Hindu, house wife, r/o.Door No.22-031-973, East Kammapalem, Ongole, Prakasam District.

3. Iskala Sai Bhargav, S/o.Late Venugopala Rao, aged 20 years, Hindu, Student, r/o.Door No.22-031-973, East Kammapalem, Ongole, Prakasam District.

... Defendants.

This suit is presented before me for judgment today, i.e., on 20.04.2023 in the presence of the learned advocate for the plaintiff Sri.M.Raghava Rao and D2 and D3 remained exparte and D1 died, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this court delivers the following,

J U D G M E N T

1. Nature of the suit: Recovery of loan amount.

2. Reliefs Claimed: (a) Recovery of suit amount of Rs.10,45,241-50 Ps (Rupees

Ten Lakh Forty Five Thousand Two Hundred Forty One and Fifty Paise

only) against the estate of proprietor of D1's firm together with subsequent interest; (b) Costs and (c) further reliefs.

3. Pleadings of the plaintiff-bank in nutshell, the proprietor of D1 firm by name

Iskala Venugopala Rao approached the plaintiff bank and the bank has sanctioned loan of Rs.10,00,000/- on 30.12.2016. The said Iskala Venugopala Rao executed necessary documents in favour of the bank after sanction of the said loan.

2

O.S.No. 66 of 2018 dt. 20.04.2023

A.S.C.J. Court, Ongole.

Subsequently, the said Iskala Venugopala Rao, proprietor of D1 firm died intestate on 13.10.2017 leaving his estate in the hands of his wife and sons/ D2 and D3.

Plaintiff bank requested D2 and D3 to discharge the loan amount, but they postponed the same on some pretext or other. Hence, plaintiff bank has issued legal notice to D2 and D3 on 01.02.2018. D2 and D3 received the said notice and failed to repay the loan amount. Hence, the suit.

4. Summons were served on D2 and D3. They entered appearance and opposed4. Summons were served on D2 and D3. They entered appearance and opposed the suit claim. D2 filed the written statement and the same is adopted by D3 bythe suit claim. D2 filed the written statement and the same is adopted by D3 by filing adoption memo.filing adoption memo.

5. Pleadings of D2 and D3 in brief, apart from specifically denying the5. Pleadings of D2 and D3 in brief, apart from specifically denying the averments in the plaint except admitting the relationship with the proprietor of D1'saverments in the plaint except admitting the relationship with the proprietor of D1's firm deceased Iskala Venugopala Rao, they plead that, they have no knowledgefirm deceased Iskala Venugopala Rao, they plead that, they have no knowledge about the loan transaction. They never executed any documents in favour of theabout the loan transaction. They never executed any documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. They are not concerned with D1 firm and they are not partners of D1plaintiff bank. They are not concerned with D1 firm and they are not partners of D1 firm. Thus, they sought to dismiss the suit with costs.firm. Thus, they sought to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. Basing on the rival contentions of the parties, the following issues are 5. Basing on the rival contentions of the parties, the following issues are settled for trial. settled for trial.

ISSUES: ISSUES:

1. Whether deceased D1 / I.Venugopala Rao, the proprietor of Poorna Sai1. Whether deceased D1 / I.Venugopala Rao, the proprietor of Poorna Sai

General Stores borrowed loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from plaintiff’s bank onGeneral Stores borrowed loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from plaintiff’s bank on 30.12.2016?30.12.2016?

2. Whether the loan taken by deceased D1 in the capacity of proprietor of2. Whether the loan taken by deceased D1 in the capacity of proprietor of

D1’s firm is binding on his legal heirs D2 and D3?D1’s firm is binding on his legal heirs D2 and D3?

3. Whether the estate of deceased D1 devolved on his legal heirs D2 and3. Whether the estate of deceased D1 devolved on his legal heirs D2 and

D3?D3?

4. Whether the plaintiff’s bank is entitled to the suit relief? And4. Whether the plaintiff’s bank is entitled to the suit relief? And

5. To what relief?5. To what relief?

Evidence : : Evidence

6. a) Plaintiff bank to prove its case, got examined the Chief Manager of the6. a) Plaintiff bank to prove its case, got examined the Chief Manager of the plaintiff bank as PW1 besides exhibiting Ex.’s A1 to A9 namely, Sanction letterplaintiff bank as PW1 besides exhibiting Ex.’s A1 to A9 namely, Sanction letter

dated 30.12.2016 (renewal -cum- enhancement) issued by plaintiff infavourof D1,dated 30.12.2016 (renewal -cum- enhancement) issued by plaintiff infavourof D1,

Composite agreement dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 infavourof plaintiff,Composite agreement dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 infavourof plaintiff,

Demand draft note dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff,Demand draft note dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff, 3

O.S.No. 66 of 2018 dt. 20.04.2023

A.S.C.J. Court, Ongole.

Undertaking dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 infavourof plaintiff, Supplement toUndertaking dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 infavourof plaintiff, Supplement to composite agreement dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff,composite agreement dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff,

Office copy of legal notice dated 01.02.2018 issued by plaintiff to D2 and D3,Office copy of legal notice dated 01.02.2018 issued by plaintiff to D2 and D3,

Postal acknowledgment of D2 and D3 dated 05.02.2018, Account copy datedPostal acknowledgment of D2 and D3 dated 05.02.2018, Account copy dated 31.01.2018 and Statement of account copy dated 14.02.2018 from 11.01.2016 to31.01.2018 and Statement of account copy dated 14.02.2018 from 11.01.2016 to 14.02.2018. Despite granting sufficient opportunities, D2 and D3 did not turn up to14.02.2018. Despite granting sufficient opportunities, D2 and D3 did not turn up to cross-examine PW1. Hence, cross-examination of PW1 is recorded as NIL oncross-examine PW1. Hence, cross-examination of PW1 is recorded as NIL on 29.03.2023.29.03.2023.

b) b) Defendants failed to produce their evidence despite granting sufficientDefendants failed to produce their evidence despite granting sufficient opportunities. Hence, evidence of D2 and D3 is closed on 17.04.2023. opportunities. Hence, evidence of D2 and D3 is closed on 17.04.2023.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff bank. Perused the material on record.7. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff bank. Perused the material on record.

8 8 . . Now, the points for determination are:Now, the points for determination are:

ISSUE No.1

9. The burden of this issue is on the plaintiff bank to prove that the deceased9. The burden of this issue is on the plaintiff bank to prove that the deceased

Iskala Venugopala Rao availed loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank beingIskala Venugopala Rao availed loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank being proprietor of M/s.Poorna Sai General Stores, as the plaintiff bank has asserted theproprietor of M/s.Poorna Sai General Stores, as the plaintiff bank has asserted the said fact. Even as per said fact. Even as per Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of the burden of proving a fact lies on a person who asserts a fact i.e., “He who assets”, mustproving a fact lies on a person who asserts a fact i.e., “He who assets”, must prove. It reads that,prove. It reads that,

Section 101 - Burden of proof : Whoever desires any Court to giveSection 101 - Burden of proof : Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts whichjudgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove thehe asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

13. Plaintiff bank to prove its case got examined its Chief Manager as PW1 and13. Plaintiff bank to prove its case got examined its Chief Manager as PW1 and reiterated the plaint pleadings stating about availing of loan of Rs.10,00,000/- byreiterated the plaint pleadings stating about availing of loan of Rs.10,00,000/- by

D1 firm by the proprietor of D1's firm, Iskala Venugopala Rao and execution ofD1 firm by the proprietor of D1's firm, Iskala Venugopala Rao and execution of

Ex.’s A2 to A5 documents in favour of the plaintiff bank by the said IskalaEx.’s A2 to A5 documents in favour of the plaintiff bank by the said Iskala

Venugopala Rao. Thus, Pw1 supported the case of the plaintiff-bank. As theVenugopala Rao. Thus, Pw1 supported the case of the plaintiff-bank. As the evidence of PW1 is not subjected to cross-examination by the defendantsevidence of PW1 is not subjected to cross-examination by the defendants advocate, the said testimony of PW1 remains unquestioned testimony and theadvocate, the said testimony of PW1 remains unquestioned testimony and the same has to be relied on. Thus, by considering the irrefutable testimony of PW1same has to be relied on. Thus, by considering the irrefutable testimony of PW1 coupled with Ex.'s.A1 to A5/ Sanction letter dated 30.12.2016 (renewal -cum-coupled with Ex.'s.A1 to A5/ Sanction letter dated 30.12.2016 (renewal -cum- enhancement) issued by plaintiff infavourof D1 , enhancement) issued by plaintiff infavourof D1, Composite agreement datedComposite agreement dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 infavourof plaintiff, Demand draft note dated30.12.2016 executed by D1 infavourof plaintiff, Demand draft note dated 4

O.S.No. 66 of 2018 dt. 20.04.2023

A.S.C.J. Court, Ongole.

30.12.2016 executed by D1 in favourof plaintiff, Undertaking dated 30.12.201630.12.2016 executed by D1 in favourof plaintiff, Undertaking dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 infavourof plaintiff and Supplement to composite agreement datedexecuted by D1 infavourof plaintiff and Supplement to composite agreement dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 infavourof plaintiff, this Court holds that, the deceased30.12.2016 executed by D1 infavourof plaintiff, this Court holds that, the deceased

Iskala Venugopala Rao borrowed loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff bankIskala Venugopala Rao borrowed loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank being proprietor of D1's firm M/s.Poorna Sai General Stores.being proprietor of D1's firm M/s.Poorna Sai General Stores.

Accordingly, Issue No.1 is determined infavourof the plaintiff- bank Accordingly, Issue No.1 is determined infavourof the plaintiff- bank and against the defendants. and against the defendants.

ISSUES No.2 and 3

14.Generally, the loan taken by the proprietor of firm, is not binding on the legal14.Generally, the loan taken by the proprietor of firm, is not binding on the legal representatives of the proprietor, but, in the present case, it is the contention of therepresentatives of the proprietor, but, in the present case, it is the contention of the plaintiff bank that, the assets and liabilities of D1's firm was devolved upon D2 andplaintiff bank that, the assets and liabilities of D1's firm was devolved upon D2 and

D3 being wife and son of the proprietor of D1's firm/ deceased Iskala VenugopalaD3 being wife and son of the proprietor of D1's firm/ deceased Iskala Venugopala

Rao and they are enjoying the assets of D1's firm. To prove the same, PlaintiffRao and they are enjoying the assets of D1's firm. To prove the same, Plaintiff bank got examined its chief manager as Pw1. He filed his chief-examinationbank got examined its chief manager as Pw1. He filed his chief-examination affidavit reiterating the fact that Iskala Venugopala Rao, proprietor of D1 firm diedaffidavit reiterating the fact that Iskala Venugopala Rao, proprietor of D1 firm died intestate on 13.10.2017 leaving his estate in the hands of his wife and sons/ D2intestate on 13.10.2017 leaving his estate in the hands of his wife and sons/ D2 and D3 and they are enjoying the assets of D1's firm. This evidence of PW1 is notand D3 and they are enjoying the assets of D1's firm. This evidence of PW1 is not rebutted, as defendants failed to cross-examine PW1. rebutted, as defendants failed to cross-examine PW1.

15. Hence, by considering the unquestioned testimony of PW1, it can be said that,15. Hence, by considering the unquestioned testimony of PW1, it can be said that, the loan taken by the deceased Iskala Venugopala Rao, Proprietor of D1's firm, isthe loan taken by the deceased Iskala Venugopala Rao, Proprietor of D1's firm, is binding on the estate of Isakala Venugopal rao lying in the hands of his legal heirsbinding on the estate of Isakala Venugopal rao lying in the hands of his legal heirs

D2 and D3 if any.D2 and D3 if any.

Accordingly, Issues No.2 and 3 are determined infavourof the Accordingly, Issues No.2 and 3 are determined infavourof the plaintiff bank and against the defendants. plaintiff bank and against the defendants.

ISSUE No.4

16.In view of the findings in issues No.1 to 3, this Court holds that, the plaintiff16.In view of the findings in issues No.1 to 3, this Court holds that, the plaintiff bank is entitled to the suit relief as prayed for.bank is entitled to the suit relief as prayed for.

Accordingly, Issue No.4 is determined infavourof the plaintiff bank Accordingly, Issue No.4 is determined infavourof the plaintiff bank and against the defendants. and against the defendants.

5

O.S.No. 66 of 2018 dt. 20.04.2023

A.S.C.J. Court, Ongole.

ISSUE NO.5 ISSUE NO.5

17. In view of the findings in issues No.1 to 3, this Court holds that, the plaintiff17. In view of the findings in issues No.1 to 3, this Court holds that, the plaintiff bank is entitled to a decree with costs, against the estate of deceased Iskalabank is entitled to a decree with costs, against the estate of deceased Iskala

Venugopala Rao, Proprietor of D1’s firm, if any lying in the hands of D2 and D3.Venugopala Rao, Proprietor of D1’s firm, if any lying in the hands of D2 and D3.

Accordingly, Issue No.5 is determined infavourof the plaintiff bank and Accordingly, Issue No.5 is determined infavourof the plaintiff bank and against the defendants. against the defendants.

RESULT

18. In the result, 18. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the estate of Late the suit is decreed with costs against the estate of Late

Iskala Venugopala Rao, Proprietor of D1’s firm for a sum of Rs.10,45,241- Iskala Venugopala Rao, Proprietor of D1’s firm for a sum of Rs.10,45,241- 50 Ps (Rupees Ten Lakh Forty Five Thousand Two Hundred Forty One 50 Ps (Rupees Ten Lakh Forty Five Thousand Two Hundred Forty One and Fifty Paise only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and Fifty Paise only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of the decree and thereafter from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of the decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization. at 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization.

19. Plaintiff bank19. Plaintiff bank has to recover the above said decreetal amount against the estate of Late Iskala Venugopala Rao, Proprietor of D1’s firm,Late Iskala Venugopala Rao, Proprietor of D1’s firm, if any lying in the hands of D2 and D3.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, the operative portion of the Judgment in open Court on this the 20 th day of April, 2023.

Sd./- S.Jayalakshmi, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :-

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:- NIL P.W.1: Pankaj Singh, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, S.B.M.C. Branch, Ongole.

6

O.S.No. 66 of 2018 dt. 20.04.2023

A.S.C.J. Court, Ongole.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :- For Plaintiff:- : Ex.A1Sanction letter dated 30.12.2016 (renewal -cum-Sanction letter dated 30.12.2016 (renewal -cum- enhancement) issued by plaintiff in favour of D1.enhancement) issued by plaintiff in favour of D1.

: Ex.A2Composite agreement dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 inComposite agreement dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff.favour of plaintiff.

: Ex.A3Demand draft note dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 inDemand draft note dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff.favour of plaintiff.

: Ex.A4Undertaking dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 in favour ofUndertaking dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff.plaintiff.

: Ex.A5Supplement to composite agreement dated 30.12.2016Supplement to composite agreement dated 30.12.2016 executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff.executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff.

: Ex.A6Office copy of legal notice dated 01.02.2018 issued byOffice copy of legal notice dated 01.02.2018 issued by plaintiff to D2 and D3.plaintiff to D2 and D3.

: Ex.A7Postal acknowledgment of D2 and D3 dated 05.02.2018.Postal acknowledgment of D2 and D3 dated 05.02.2018.

: Ex.A8Account copy dated 31.01.2018. Account copy dated 31.01.2018.

: Ex.A9Statement of account copy dated 14.02.2018 fromStatement of account copy dated 14.02.2018 from 11.01.2016 to 14.02.2018.11.01.2016 to 14.02.2018.

For Defendants:- - NIL-

Sd./- S.Jayalakshmi, A.S.C.J., Ongole.

1 E.P.No.87 of 2019 in O.P.No.18 of 2005,

Dt. 20.04.2023, A.S.C.J., Court, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

Present: Smt. S. JAYALAKSHMI, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Thursday this the 20 th (Twentieth) day of April, 2023

Two Thousand Twenty Three

E .P.No.87 of 2019 in O.P.No.18 of 2005

Between:

Konka Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, aged 46 years, Hindu, r/o.Chilakapadu Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

…Petitioner/D.Hr.

And:

Konka Sridevi, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged 38 years, Hindu, r/o.Door No.3-32, Kunamnenivaripalem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal Prakasam District.

...Respondent/J.Dr.

This petition is presented before me today i.e., on 20-04-2023 for orders in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner/D.Hr Sri.N.Srinivasa Prasad and the learned counsel for the Respondent/J.Dr Sri.N.Srinivasa Rao, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this court delivers the following:

:: O R D E R::

Nature of the petition

1. This Execution Petition is filed by the petitioner/D.Hr under Order XXI Rule 34 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (in brief CPC), praying the court to direct the respondent/J.Dr to obtain registered settlement deed for Ac.1-00 Cents of land i.e. the E.P schedule property as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature, Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in CMA

No.621/2006 in common order dated 18.11.2016, to meet the ends of justice.

Case of the D.Hr in concise

2. He states that, he filed O.P No.60/2002 for dissolution of marriage with J.Dr on the file of this court. It was dismissed on 31.08.2014. He preferred CMA, it is numbered as CMA

No.4441/2004 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. He states that, J.Dr also filed O.P No.18/2005 for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of this court. It is allowed. He preferred CMA, it is numbered as CMA No.621/2006 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. Both the said CMAs were disposed off by common order dated 18.11.2016. As per the said common order, the divorce O.P filed by him is allowed and the marriage between him and J.Dr is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The O.P No.18/2005 filed by J.Dr is dismissed by allowing CMA 2 E.P.No.87 of 2019 in O.P.No.18 of 2005,

Dt. 20.04.2023, A.S.C.J., Court, Ongole.

No.621/2006. While disposing off the said CMAs, the Hon’ble Lordships made an observation for payment of permanent alimony and directed him to pay an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- to J.Dr and to convey Ac.1-00 of land in Sy. No.174/1A of Chilakapadu

Village, S.N. Padu Mandal to J.Dr within three months from 18.11.2016. He states that, there occurred delay in obtaining copy of order. After receipt of the order, he got issued legal notice to J.Dr on 31.12.2016 by enclosing demand draft for Rs.2,00,000/- and another demand draft for Rs.9,000/- towards maintenance of J.Dr. J.Dr received the said notice and did not send acknowledgment. Therefore, he gave complaint to the

Superintendent of Post Offices, Ongole on 25.01.2017 and they investigated the matter and reported him that notice dated 31.12.2016 was served on J.Dr on 05.01.2017. But,

J.Dr did not give any reply and postponed the matter. He states that, when he prepared to file petition before the Hon’ble High Court for adequate relief as per orders of the

Hon’ble High Court, at that stage, his advocate received reply notice returning demand

draft for Rs.2,00,000/- while withholding the demand draft for Rs.9,000/-. In the reply notice, J.Dr has mentioned that review petition is filed in the Hon’ble High Court. He made enquiry with his advocate Sarvabowma Rao who informed that no service of petition was made to him. Thus, he states that, as the last date for complying the order of the Hon’ble High Court is 18.02.2017, he is constrained to file the E.P.

3. Notice is served on the J.Dr. She entered appearance and resisted the E.P.

Pleadings of J.Dr in brevity

4. She pleads that, fixation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and registration of land in her favour is only on the instructions obtained from the advocate for D.Hr without considering her view. She states that, she is not interested to receive any landed property from D.Hr as her intention is only to join with D.Hr to lead marital life. She pleads that, she is ready and willing to join him. She states that, she returned demand draft to the advocate for D.Hr as she preferred review by praying the Hon’ble High Court to suspend the order passed in CMA No.621/2006 dated 18.11.2016 pending disposal of the review petition. The review petition is dismissed for default due to non-appearance of her advocate. She filed restoration petition to set aside the dismissal order of the review petition and the same is pending. There are no valid grounds in the E.P and sought to dismiss the E.P with costs.

EVIDENCE

5. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

3 E.P.No.87 of 2019 in O.P.No.18 of 2005,

Dt. 20.04.2023, A.S.C.J., Court, Ongole.

6. ADMITTED FACTS:

a. Filing of O.P No.60/2002 by D.Hr for dissolution of marriage with J.Dr on the file of this court.

b. Dismissal of O.P No.60/2002 by this Court on 31.08.2014 c. Filing of O.P No.18/2005 by J.Dr against D.Hr for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of this court.

d. D.Hr preferred CMA No.4441/2004 and CMA No.621/2006 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad against the orders in O.P. No.60/2002 and 18/2005.

e. Disposal of both the said CMA.'s by common order dated 18.11.2016.

f. As per the said common order, the divorce O.P filed by him is allowed and the marriage between him and J.Dr is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The O.P No.18/2005 filed by J.Dr is dismissed by allowing CMA No.621/2006.

g. While disposing off the said CMAs, the Hon’ble Lordships made an observation for payment of permanent alimony and directed D.Hr to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to J.Dr and to convey Ac.1-00 of land in Sy. No.174/1A of Chilakapadu Village, S.N. Padu Mandal to J.Dr within three months from 18.11.2016.

h. Refusal of J.Dr to receive permanent alimony amount and land.

7. Heard the learned advocate for D.Hr and the learned advocate for J.Dr. Perused the material on record.

8. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether this E.P is to be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case?

9. To determine this E.P, it is necessary to mention Order XX1 Rule 34 CPC. It reads as follows:

“ Decree for execution of document, or endorsement of negotiable instrument.- (1) Where a decree is for the execution of a document or for the endorsement for a negotiable instrument and the judgment-debtor neglects or refuses to obey the decree, the decree-holder may prepare a draft of the document or endorsement in accordance with the terms of the decree and deliver the same to the Court.

(2)The Court shall thereupon cause the draft to be served on the judgment-debtor together with a notice requiring his objections (if any) to be made within such time as the

Court fixes in this behalf.

(3) Where the judgment-debtor object to the draft, his objections shall be stated in writing within such time, and the court shall make such order approving or altering the draft, as it thinks fit.

(4)The decree-holder shall deliver to the Court a copy of the draft with such alterations (if any) as the Court may have directed upon the proper stamp-paper if a stamp is required by the law for the time being in force; and the Judge or such officer as may be appointed in this behalf shall execute the document so delivered.

4 E.P.No.87 of 2019 in O.P.No.18 of 2005,

Dt. 20.04.2023, A.S.C.J., Court, Ongole.

(5)The execution of a document or the endorsement of a negotiable instrument under this rule may be in the following form, namely-“C.D., Judge of the Court of(or as the case may be),for A.B. in suit by E.F. against A.B.”and shall have the same effect as the execution of the document or the endorsement of the negotiable instrument by the party ordered to execute or endorse the same.

(a) Where the registration of the document is required under any law for the time being in force, the Court, or such officer of the court as may be authorised in this behalf by the

Court, shall cause the document to be registered in accordance with such law.

( b) Where the registration of the document is not so required, but the decree-holder desires it to be registered, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit

(c) Where the Court makes any order for the registration of any document, it may make such order as it thinks fit as to the expenses of registration.”

10. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that, while disposing off the CMA

No.4441/2004 and CMA No.621/2006 , the Hon’ble Lordships of Hon'ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Andhrapradesh and Telengana by common order dated 18.11.2016 made an observation for payment of permanent alimony and directed Decree-holder/husband to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and to convey

Ac.1-00 of land in Sy. No.174/1A of Chilakapadu Village, S.N. Padu Mandal to J.Dr/Wife, within three months from 18.11.2016. It is further an admitted fact that D.Hr after obtaining copy of order issued legal notice to J.Dr on 31.12.2016 by enclosing demand draft for Rs.2,00,000/- and another demand draft for Rs.9,000/- towards maintenance of

J.Dr. J.Dr issued reply notice through her advocate returning demand draft for

Rs.2,00,000/- while withholding the demand draft for Rs.9,000/- stating that review petition is pending. As the last date for compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Andhrapradesh and Telengana is 18.02.2017, he is constrained to file the E.P. Thus, it is vivid that the decree is for the execution of a document by the decree-holder infavourof the judgment-debtor.

11. The learned advocate for the D.Hr submits to the Court that, D.Hr is ready to obey the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CMA No.621/2006 and issued notice to

J.Dr also, but J.Dr refused to obey the decree and hence, the D.Hr approached this

Court for necessary orders.

12. The judgment-debtor after receipt of notice in the E.P stated that, she preferred review by praying the Hon’ble High Court to suspend the order passed in CMA

No.621/2006 dated 18.11.2016 pending disposal of the review petition. The review petition is dismissed for default due to non-appearance of her advocate. She filed restoration petition to set aside the dismissal order of the review petition and the same is 5 E.P.No.87 of 2019 in O.P.No.18 of 2005,

Dt. 20.04.2023, A.S.C.J., Court, Ongole.

pending. Thus, it is clear that, J.Dr refused to obey the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Andhrapradesh and Telengana

13. The learned advocate for the J.Dr also submits to the Court that, the J.Dr is not willing to receive Rs.2,00,000/- and landed property, but she is willing to lead marital life with the D.Hr and prayed the Court to dismiss the E.P.

14. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is obvious that, J.Dr refused to obey the decree. Though, J.Dr states that restoration petition of review application filed by her is pending, but she failed to state whether any stay order is granted in her favour or the order passed in CMA 621/2016 is suspended. Hence, in the absence of the stay of order passed in CMA 621/2016, mere plea by J.Dr that, she preferred review to suspend the order passed in CMA No.621/2006 dated 18.11.2016 and she filed restoration petition to set aside the dismissal order of the review petition and the same is pending, will not preclude D.Hr to obey the order.

15. D.Hr states that he is ready to honour the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Andhrapradesh and Telengana in CMA 621/2006 and also submitted draft copy of the settlement deed as required under

Sec.34(1) of CPC conveying Ac.1.00 of land infavourof J.Dr.

16. Notice along with draft copy of settlement deed as required U/order 34 Rule 2 CPC is also served on the J.Dr. But, J.Dr did not submit her objections on draft settlement deed, except filing counter stating that, she preferred review to suspend the order passed in CMA No.621/2006 dated 18.11.2016 and she filed restoration petition to set aside the dismissal order of the review petition which are pending. Hence, it is deemed that, J.Dr has no objections on draft settlement deed.

17. For the above said reasons, this Court holds that, this E.P., is to be allowed in the interests of justice.

Accordingly, the Point is determined.

RESULT

18. In the result, this Execution petition is allowed without costs, directing D.Hr to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- in the Court CCD with in 15 days of this order i.e., on or before 05-05-2023 and to execute Registered settlement deed infavourof the J.Dr. J.Dr is directed to honour the order of the Hon'ble High Court of of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Andhrapradesh and Telengana passed in CMA No.621/2016 6 E.P.No.87 of 2019 in O.P.No.18 of 2005,

Dt. 20.04.2023, A.S.C.J., Court, Ongole.

dt.18-11-2016 by receiving the amount deposited by D.Hr and also to appear before concerned Registrar to obtain Registered settlement deed on or before 20-06-2023, failing which it is deemed that, J.Dr has disobeyed the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Andhrapradesh and Telengana passed in

CMANo.621/2006 and is deemed that, she has relinquished her right of permanent

alimony.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, the operative portion of the Order in open Court, on this the 20 th day of April, 2023.

Sd./- S.Jayalakshmi,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Ongole.

Appendix of E vidence

NIL on either side.

Sd./- S.Jayalakshmi, A.S.C.J., Ongole.

7 E.P.No.87 of 2019 in O.S.No.18 of 2005,

Dt. 20.04.2023, A.S.C.J., Court, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

Present: Smt. S. JAYALAKSHMI, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Thursday this the 20 th (Twentieth) day of April, 2023

Two Thousand Twenty Three

E .P.No.87 of 2019 in O.S.No.18 of 2005

Between:

Konka Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, aged 46 years, Hindu, r/o.Chilakapadu Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

…Petitioner/D.Hr.

And:

Konka Sridevi, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged 38 years, Hindu, r/o.Door No.3-32, Kunamnenivaripalem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal Prakasam District.

...Respondent/J.Dr.

This Execution Petition is filed by the petitioner/D.Hr under Order XXI Rule 34 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (in brief CPC), praying the court to direct the respondent/J.Dr to obtain registered settlement deed for Ac.1-00 Cents of land i.e. the E.P schedule property as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in CMA No.621/2006 in common order dated 18.11.2016, to meet the ends of justice. A fixed court fee of Rs.2/- is paid. Petition presented on : 30.05.2019 and filed on : 30.05.2019 This petition is presented before me today i.e., on 20-04-2023 for orders in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner/D.Hr Sri.N.Srinivasa Prasad and the learned counsel for the Respondent/J.Dr Sri.N.Srinivasa Rao, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this Court doth order and decree :

(1) that the Execution petition be and the same is hereby allowed; (2) that the D.Hr be and is hereby directed to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- in the Court CCD with in 15 days of this order i.e., on or before 05-05-2023 and to execute Registered settlement deed infavourof the J.Dr; (3) that the J.Dr be and is hereby directed to honour the order of the Hon'ble High Court of of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Andhrapradesh and Telengana passed in

CMA No.621/2016 dt.18-11-2016 by receiving the amount deposited by D.Hr and also to

appear before concerned Registrar to obtain Registered settlement deed on or before 20-06-2023, failing which it is deemed that, J.Dr has disobeyed the orders of the Hon'ble

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Andhrapradesh and Telengana passed in CMANo.621/2006 and is deemed that, J.Dr has relinquished her right of permanent alimony; and (4) that each party do bear their own costs;

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 20 th day of April, 2023.

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

8 E.P.No.87 of 2019 in O.S.No.18 of 2005,

Dt. 20.04.2023, A.S.C.J., Court, Ongole.

Ongole.

1 H.M.O.P .NO.161 of 2022 Dt.20.04.2023

A.S.C.J. Court, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ONGOLE IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ONGOLE

Present: Smt. S. JAYALAKSHMI, Present: Smt. S. JAYALAKSHMI,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Thursday, this the 20 th Thursday, this the 20 th (Twentieth) day of April, 2023 (Twentieth) day of April, 2023

Two Thousand Twenty Three Two Thousand Twenty Three

H.M.O.P. No.161 of 2022 H.M.O.P. No.161 of 2022

Between: Between: Pinnika Kavitha, D/o.Pinnika Srinivasa Rao, W/o.Maddirala Bhaskara Rao, agedPinnika Kavitha, D/o.Pinnika Srinivasa Rao, W/o.Maddirala Bhaskara Rao, aged about 24 years, Hindu, house wife, native of Chimakurthy Village and Mandal,about 24 years, Hindu, house wife, native of Chimakurthy Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, presently residing at M.Nidamanuru Village, Tanguturu Mandal,Prakasam District, presently residing at M.Nidamanuru Village, Tanguturu Mandal, Prakasam District.Prakasam District.… … Petitioner. Petitioner.

And: And: Maddirala Vijaya Bhaskara Rao, S/o.Subbarao, aged about 33 years, Hindu,Maddirala Vijaya Bhaskara Rao, S/o.Subbarao, aged about 33 years, Hindu, unemployee, r/o.Atmakuru Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.unemployee, r/o.Atmakuru Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

... Respondent. ... Respondent.

This petition is presented before me today i.e., on 20.04.2023, for orders in theThis petition is presented before me today i.e., on 20.04.2023, for orders in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.Venkateswarluaand thepresence of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.Venkateswarlund the respondent being exparte, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and afterrespondent being exparte, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the material on record, this court delivers the following:perusing the material on record, this court delivers the following:

O R D E R O R D E R

1) Nature of the petition:- This is a petition filed by the petitioner/wife under Section1) Nature of the petition:- This is a petition filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short H.M.Act, 1955), seeking the relief13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short H.M.Act, 1955), seeking the relief of dissolution of marriage dated 23.05.2019of dissolution of marriage dated 23.05.2019 between her and the respondent/husband between her and the respondent/husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2) Case of the petitioner in brief, she got married to the respondent on 23.05.20192) Case of the petitioner in brief, she got married to the respondent on 23.05.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs at respondent’s house at Atmakuru Village, Ulavapaduas per Hindu rites and customs at respondent’s house at Atmakuru Village, Ulavapadu

Mandal. The marriage was consummated. They lived happily for a period of sixMandal. The marriage was consummated. They lived happily for a period of six months. Later, respondent developed aversion towards her by hearing the words of hismonths. Later, respondent developed aversion towards her by hearing the words of his parents. She states that, respondent used to suspect her character, abused her inparents. She states that, respondent used to suspect her character, abused her in filthy language and harassed her physically and mentally by beating her every day infilthy language and harassed her physically and mentally by beating her every day in black and blue without her fault and behaved like a sadist. She states that, onblack and blue without her fault and behaved like a sadist. She states that, on information by the neighbourers her parents reached her house and questioned theinformation by the neighbourers her parents reached her house and questioned the respondent about his ill-treatment and harassment towards her, then the respondentrespondent about his ill-treatment and harassment towards her, then the respondent demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. While so, on 20.12.2019 respondentdemanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. While so, on 20.12.2019 respondent suspected her character, beat her without her fault and had driven her out of the maritalsuspected her character, beat her without her fault and had driven her out of the marital home. Having no other go, she reached her parents house. Later, they sent eldershome. Having no other go, she reached her parents house. Later, they sent elders namely Piduguralla Suresh Babu and Jajjara Ratna Kumar to the respondent’s housenamely Piduguralla Suresh Babu and Jajjara Ratna Kumar to the respondent’s house to settle the issue, but the respondent and his family members bluntly refused to taketo settle the issue, but the respondent and his family members bluntly refused to take her back due to failure of providing additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- by her parents.her back due to failure of providing additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- by her parents.

Thus, she states that, respondent willfully and intentionally deserted her without herThus, she states that, respondent willfully and intentionally deserted her without her fault. In the year 2021, her parents sent mediators to the respondent’s house forfault. In the year 2021, her parents sent mediators to the respondent’s house for restitution of her marital life, but the respondent bluntly refused to take her back to therestitution of her marital life, but the respondent bluntly refused to take her back to the

2 H.M.O.P .NO.161 of 2022 Dt.20.04.2023

A.S.C.J. Court, Ongole.

marital home and informed to the elders that he has no interest to lead marital life withmarital home and informed to the elders that he has no interest to lead marital life with her. As she lost hope of reunion with the respondent due to his attitude, she isher. As she lost hope of reunion with the respondent due to his attitude, she is constrained to file this petition for divorce. constrained to file this petition for divorce.

3) Notice is served on the respondent personally by court on 07.02.2023 and by post onNotice is served on the respondent personally by court on 07.02.2023 and by post on 08.02.2023. But, he failed to appear before this court and hence, he was set exparte08.02.2023. But, he failed to appear before this court and hence, he was set exparte on 28.02.2023.on 28.02.2023.

4) To prove the case of the petitioner, she got examined herself as PW1 apart from exhibiting Ex.’s A1 and A2 viz., Wedding card and Marriage photograph (1) with CD.

5) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material on record.

6)Now, the point for determination is:

Whether this petition is to be allowed by dissolving the marriage solemnized

between the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband dated 23.05.2019 by

granting the decree of divorce, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion ?

7) Before appreciating the facts and evidence on record, this Court intends to mention the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the aspects of “cruelty” and “desertion” in, -- K.Srinivisa Rao V. D.A.Deepa – AIR 2013 SC 2176 – The Hon’ble Lordship outlined the Scope of term Cruelty. Cruelty is evident when one Spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to cause in her or his mind reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse. Cruelty may be physical or mental.

- Lachman Utamchand Kiriplani Vs. Meena Alias Mota - AIR 1964 SC 40 , - Lachman Utamchand Kiriplani Vs. Meena Alias Mota - AIR 1964 SC 40 ,

Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court held that, heavy burden lies upon a petitioner whoWherein the Hon’ble Supreme court held that, heavy burden lies upon a petitioner who seeks divorce on the ground of desertion to prove four essential conditions, namely. (1)seeks divorce on the ground of desertion to prove four essential conditions, namely. (1) the factum of separation; (2) animus deserendi; (3) absence of his or her consent; andthe factum of separation; (2) animus deserendi; (3) absence of his or her consent; and (4) absence of his or her conduct 'giving reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to(4) absence of his or her conduct 'giving reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home. The offence of desertion must be proved beyond anyleave the matrimonial home. The offence of desertion must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt and as a rule prudence the evidence of the petitioner shall bereasonable doubt and as a rule prudence the evidence of the petitioner shall be corroborated. In short this Court equated the proof required in a matrimonial case tocorroborated. In short this Court equated the proof required in a matrimonial case to that in a criminal case.that in a criminal case.

8) Keeping in view of purport of the above decisions, 8) Keeping in view of purport of the above decisions, it is to be determined whether theit is to be determined whether the facts and evidence on record disclose the cruelty suffered by the petitioner at the handsfacts and evidence on record disclose the cruelty suffered by the petitioner at the hands of the respondent and voluntary desertion made by the respondent.of the respondent and voluntary desertion made by the respondent.

9) To substantiate the case of the petitioner, she got examined herself as PW.1 and filed her chief-affidavit in-lieu of her chief-examination by reiterating the Petition contents about marriage between her and the respondent on 23.05.2019 as per Hinduabout marriage between her and the respondent on 23.05.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs, leading marital life for a period of six months, physical and mentalrites and customs, leading marital life for a period of six months, physical and mental cruelty meeted out by her at the hands of the respondent due to beatings and abusescruelty meeted out by her at the hands of the respondent due to beatings and abuses

3 H.M.O.P .NO.161 of 2022 Dt.20.04.2023

A.S.C.J. Court, Ongole.

every day, demand of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- by the respondent, driving herevery day, demand of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- by the respondent, driving her out of the marital home by the respondent on 20.12.2019, failure of mediation due toout of the marital home by the respondent on 20.12.2019, failure of mediation due to non-arrangement of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- by her parents, voluntarynon-arrangement of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- by her parents, voluntary desertion made by the respondent, failure of mediation held in the year 2021 due todesertion made by the respondent, failure of mediation held in the year 2021 due to refusal of the respondent to take her back to the martial home, leading to filing of thisrefusal of the respondent to take her back to the martial home, leading to filing of this petition. Thus, PW1 strengthened her case in her chief-examination. This evidence ofpetition.

PW1 becomes irrefutable evidence, as there is no other evidence on record to rebut the same. Hence, the unconfuted testimony of PW1 is to be relied on.

10) The said unquestioned testimony of PW1 disclose that the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty by demanding additional dowry and by beating her and abusing her and lastly by driving her out of the marital home. The evidence of PW1 also disclose that, the respondent voluntarily deserted her for a period of more than two years without her fault.

11) Apart from the limpid testimony of PW1, Ex.A1/ Wedding card and Ex.A2 /11) Apart from the limpid testimony of PW1, Ex.A1/ Wedding card and Ex.A2 /

Marriage photograph with CD exhibits the marriage between the petitioner and theMarriage photograph with CD exhibits the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. By considering the unquestioned testimony of PW1 coupled with Ex.’s A1respondent. By considering the unquestioned testimony of PW1 coupled with Ex.’s A1 and A2, this Court holds that, the petitioner is entitled to the dissolution of marriage onand A2, this Court holds that, the petitioner is entitled to the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Accordingly, the point is determined. Accordingly, the point is determined.

RESULT

12) In the result, this petition is allowed without costs, by dissolving the

marriage solemnized between the petitioner/wife and the respondent/

husband, dated 23.05.2019, by granting the decree of divorce.

13) Office is directed to furnish free copy of Order to both the parties as per SectionOffice is directed to furnish free copy of Order to both the parties as per Section 23(4) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.23(4) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, the operative portion of the order in Open Court, on this the 20 th day of April, 2023. Sd./- S.Jayalakshmi, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW-1: Pinnika Kavitha NONE

Documents Marked

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

Ex.A1: Wedding card NIL

Ex.A2 : Marriage photograph (1) with CD Sd./- S.Jayalakshmi, A.S.C.J., Ongole.

ituted by M by ManOK APALATATADDANKI Under Sect tion 19 of gal Services Committee, Addanki)

Present- Smt S. JAYA LAKSHMI

On this the 19th Bal Services Authorities Act, 1987) of June, 2021 FAC. Members :-1) Sri residinKSHMI., Addl.Senior Civil Judge,Ongole Panchagula Ramesh ng udge-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Addanki.

2) Smt M. Gruh: Ramesh, Advocate, Addanki.

LOK ADALAT CASE NUMD

Lakshmi, Advocate, Addanki.

IO.S.NO. 14 /2020 ON THE FILE OF Sp

ASE NUMBER:62 /2021. Bet we en:- IN

SENIOR CIVILJUDGE'S COURT::ADDANKII

Chadalawada Fanindra Babu,

S/o. Mohana Rao, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Medical Practitioner, R/o. Kranthi Nursing Home, Bhavani Centre, Addanki Town of Addanki Mandal, Prakasam Distriet.

. Plaintiff Bandi Nageswara Rao AND S/o. Sriramulu, aged about 53 years, Hindu., Flot No.203, R/o. Siva Sai Residency Apartments,

Nagulapadu Road, Addanki Town,

Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District.

.. Defendant.

Particulars regarding Suit_:- The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.46,57,500-00 being the principa and interest due on two pronotes dated 06-05-2018 of Rs.15,00,000-00 and 20-04-2019 or Rs.20,00,000-00 executed by the defendant repayable with interest 18% per annum and 1or costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on:- 26-09-2020.

Value for the purpose of the Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 46,57,500-00_and a Court fee of Rs.51,552-00 is paid under section 20 and A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act (The C.F. paid in SBI,

Addanki dated 24-09-2020 in A/c.No.11389152143).

This suit was referred to Lok Adalat at the request of both parties/ on the Memo filed by the Advocate on 19-06-2021 by the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Addanki.

This Suit is coming on for final settlement in the presence of the Plaintiff and defendant and Kum K.L. Nageswaramma, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri M. Chandrasekhar,

Advocate for the Defendant. Both parties to the suit have agreed for amicable settlement and filed terms of compromise with free will and volition. Hence, the following Award is passed as per the settlement arrived by the parties.

P.T.O.

A WARD

The Plaintiff and Defendant a are present before Lok Adalat through video

before Lok Adalat through video

conference.

Both parties are agreed to Compromise for an amount for Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) towards full and final Settled of the suit or amount.

1. The Plaintiff agreed to rece

amount of Rs.40,00,000-00 (Rupees Forty

Lakhs only) towards full satisfaction of the suit claim from the defendant.

2. The Defendant agreed to pay the agreed amount of Rs.40,00,000-00 on or

before 30-07-2021 under the Receipt

3. The defendant failed to pay the agreed amount of Rs.40,00,000-00 within the stipulated date ie., on or before 30-07-2021 the Plaintiff is entitled and liberty to recover the entire suit amount of Rs.46,57,500-00 (Rupees Forty six lakhs

Fifty Seven thousand and five hundred only) and subsequent interest at 6% six lakhs per annuam on the principal amount of Rs.35,000-00 from 31-07-2021 on wards.

4. Both the Plaintiff and defendant agreed to bear their own costs, Hence this case is settled before the Lok Adalat Bench and Award is passed as per terms of compromise *** The Court fee paid by the Plaintiff shall be returned to the Plaintiff by the Court before which the proceedings have been pending under seclion 21 ()w. section 25 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and it shall not form part of tdie costs payable by the defendant(s).

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

Signature of the Plaintifl(s) Signature ofthe Defendant(s)

Advocate for the Plaintiff. Advocate for the Defendant.

* Given under our hands and the scal of the I.ok Adalat Bench on this the 19" June, 2021.

1.

2. M akd PRESIDING JUDGE/ASJ, ONGOLE

LOK ADALAT BENCH

MEMBERS. ADDANKI